3 ms·

> If you are middle-class or lower-class, the options are pretty much binary already, today, in the real world. You eat, or you don't. You have a roof over you

> If you are middle-class or lower-class, the options are pretty much binary already, today, in the real world. You eat, or you don't. You have a roof over your head, or you don't. You get medical treatment, or you don't. This is a lie. Most 'poor' Americans have lots and lots of expensive things; they could choose to do with less. This is not to say all could, but the poverty level metric is so excessive, that many have lots of discretionary spending that many 'rich' households do not. This has to do with how we define 'poverty.' The poverty level as set means that many americans with lots of discretionary spending (for example, television) are classified as poor, despite having easily fixed overspending. For example, according to data from the department of energy (accessible here: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2005/hc/pdf/tablehc7.11.pdf https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2005/hc/pdf...), 26million / 39million households eligible for federal assistance (~64%) had cable television, meaning almost $70/month in unnecessary expenditure. For those below the poverty line, 10.6mil/16.6 mil had cable or satellite (again ~64%). This is data from 2005, but other years are similar.That is a bit ridiculous.

vore 7y ago
Are you choosing watching TV for $70/month as an example of an "expensive thing"? Living in poverty doesn't mean that you get should judged so harshly for mild discretionary spending to make your life less of a hellhole.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > mild discretionary spending If the claim is that those living below the poverty line are going hungry (i.e., "there's no way to penny pinch when you're at the bottom", then claiming $70 (which can buy a lot of groceries) is 'mild discretionary spending' is incredibly disingenuous.
  - vore 7y ago
    Most members of the middle class would classify it as mild spending, so I don't see anything disingenuous about my claim. Groceries are not fungible for entertainment, and if you choose to spend a reasonable by middle-class standards amount on it you shouldn't be punished with misery and people tut-tutting at you for it. Furthermore, I don't know what your point of revising the poverty line downwards is, apart from to tell people that they should be satisfied that their life isn't worse.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      > Furthermore, I don't know what your point of revising the poverty line downwards is, apart from to tell people that they should be satisfied that their life isn't worse. My point is that there should be various levels of poverty so comparisons can be made apples-to-apples. There is an income range where people cannot afford food, and there is an income range where people can afford food but cannot achieve a certain standard of living, etc. These need to be distinguished to make intelligent policy points. > Most members of the middle class would classify it as mild spending, so I don't see anything disingenuous about my claim. And many members of the upper class would say having a personal nanny is mild spending, but that seems ludicrous to literally everyone else. Luckily, my statement that 'If you cannot afford <insert basic need>, then <X> is a luxury' is a statement that could apply independent of the economic class of the speaker. > Groceries are not fungible for entertainment, Yes they are. I do not have cable so that I can purchase more food which I find more entertaining than vapid television shows. Also, consumeristic entertainment is not a human need. I will grant that humans need some level of entertainment. Luckily, libraries have free videos which are woefully underused. The radio is free, as is broadcast television. Also, humans have entertained themselves for literally as long as anyone can remember. Look, the guy I replied to made a point about 'middle-' and 'lower-class' people, by claiming there's no way to penny pinch when you're at the bottom. I pointed out that, by the federal standards, those at the bottom (i.e, in poverty) are spending about $800 a year on cable (based on cable rates in my area, which may not be representative, but whatever). Thus, it seems clear that there are ways to penny pinch at the bottom. I'm not sure what is controversial about this statement. There are clearly ways to entertain oneself reasonably without cable, as I and countless others demonstrate.

vore 7y ago

Are you choosing watching TV for $70/month as an example of an "expensive thing"? Living in poverty doesn't mean that you get should judged so harshly for mild discretionary spending to make your life less of a hellhole.

tathougies 7y ago
> mild discretionary spending If the claim is that those living below the poverty line are going hungry (i.e., "there's no way to penny pinch when you're at the bottom", then claiming $70 (which can buy a lot of groceries) is 'mild discretionary spending' is incredibly disingenuous.
- vore 7y ago
  Most members of the middle class would classify it as mild spending, so I don't see anything disingenuous about my claim. Groceries are not fungible for entertainment, and if you choose to spend a reasonable by middle-class standards amount on it you shouldn't be punished with misery and people tut-tutting at you for it. Furthermore, I don't know what your point of revising the poverty line downwards is, apart from to tell people that they should be satisfied that their life isn't worse.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > Furthermore, I don't know what your point of revising the poverty line downwards is, apart from to tell people that they should be satisfied that their life isn't worse. My point is that there should be various levels of poverty so comparisons can be made apples-to-apples. There is an income range where people cannot afford food, and there is an income range where people can afford food but cannot achieve a certain standard of living, etc. These need to be distinguished to make intelligent policy points. > Most members of the middle class would classify it as mild spending, so I don't see anything disingenuous about my claim. And many members of the upper class would say having a personal nanny is mild spending, but that seems ludicrous to literally everyone else. Luckily, my statement that 'If you cannot afford <insert basic need>, then <X> is a luxury' is a statement that could apply independent of the economic class of the speaker. > Groceries are not fungible for entertainment, Yes they are. I do not have cable so that I can purchase more food which I find more entertaining than vapid television shows. Also, consumeristic entertainment is not a human need. I will grant that humans need some level of entertainment. Luckily, libraries have free videos which are woefully underused. The radio is free, as is broadcast television. Also, humans have entertained themselves for literally as long as anyone can remember. Look, the guy I replied to made a point about 'middle-' and 'lower-class' people, by claiming there's no way to penny pinch when you're at the bottom. I pointed out that, by the federal standards, those at the bottom (i.e, in poverty) are spending about $800 a year on cable (based on cable rates in my area, which may not be representative, but whatever). Thus, it seems clear that there are ways to penny pinch at the bottom. I'm not sure what is controversial about this statement. There are clearly ways to entertain oneself reasonably without cable, as I and countless others demonstrate.