6 ms·

If "Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell ph

If "Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone" Is true does that mean those households do without those things? Or are they subsidized via other methods? Medicare/medicaid for health insurance for example. Such programs often have income maximums that households may be attempting to optimise for. We often hear about millions not making a living wage but the fact that we don't have millions of corpses makes that claim less effective as it exposes it as rhetoric. Or perhaps millions are dying from exposure and malnutrition as is claimed and I can't find that data.

pnutjam 7y ago
They end up shuffling between homelessness, homeless programs, and family / friends. A good portion of the children pass through the foster care system and the adults end up in jail or prison for various stretches. It's a very expensive system, and people's lives are wasted even if they are not out right killed.
- maxlybbert 7y ago
  I’m sure many people do shuffle through homelessness and homeless programs, but it’s certainly not half the country. Seriously, unless next week’s headline is “millions of Americans have been dying of starvation and nobody noticed,” the article has no connection to reality.
- skrebbel 7y ago
  > They end up shuffling between homelessness, homeless programs, and family / friends. 51 million people? A sixth of the US?
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    51 million households, assuming 4 per household roughly 200 million or 2/3rds. I'm not buying it.
    - scruple 7y ago
      The cohort being reported on here groups single individuals and multi-person familes alongside each other as a household, if I'm understanding correctly. > ALICE is a United Way acronym which stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. It represents the growing number of individuals and families who are working but are unable to afford the basic necessities of housing, food, child care, health care, and transportation. [0] [0]: https://www.oshkoshunitedway.org/ALICE https://www.oshkoshunitedway.org/ALICE
  - weberc2 7y ago
    51 million households, so almost half of the US. Even less believable. EDIT: Why is this downvoted? The article states "Nearly 51 million households..."
    - FabHK 7y ago
      There are 128m households in the USA, but yeah, it's about 40%.
  - Tsubasachan 7y ago
    Average income in the Netherlands is 40k USD. If being poor in the US is double that... Maybe the complete lack of healthcare and social housing makes up the difference?
    - FabHK 7y ago
      Per capita or per household?
perfmode 7y ago
debt. going hungry. going without shelter. going without health care. going without cell phone. going without transportation. it's not rocket science. it's just poverty.
oceanghost 7y ago
I live in a poor area of Southern California. I'd say the majority of the town receives state benefits. There are also stands that give away free cell phones and service (some state program). I have no idea how it works, but its there.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  I have similar programs near me for all the items mentioned. I wonder if this metric actually means anything, if you did a similar survey in Europe I suspect you'd find many that can't afford private health insurance but since healthcare is often provided by the state that is meaningless as a barometer of human suffering.
  - oceanghost 7y ago
    Anecdotally, I've seen very nice cars in areas with subsidized rent-- nicer than my working-class area. There's a saying in diplomacy that, "All aid is military." Meaning, feeding a dictator's citizens only enables him to buy weapons with money he would have otherwise spent on food. This just being an expression of the fungibility of money. However, in California, at least, the various medicals, unemployment, etc., monitor your income pretty closely. If people are subsidizing their income with these programs, it would seem to imply there's an untracked (cash) economy with which to do that. All of my income comes in as 1099* I can't hide a cent.
danesparza 7y ago
I would argue that there are worse things than the sweet release of death. Living without dignity might be one of them. That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about having "cell phone" in that list of things that are considered necessities.
- zeendo 7y ago
  Cellphones are cheap computers these days. It's very hard to participate in today's economy, much less its education system, without internet access.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    OTOH cable television is an unnecessary, overpriced drain when most people can receive OTA programming.
- chadlavi 7y ago
  Land line phones are more expensive, and require a stable address; public phones are scarce and getting scarcer. Mobile phones are a necessity.
  - ryanmercer 7y ago
    You don't need a phone 24/7/265. As far as cost, looks like land line service is 15-30$ a month with things like caller ID, call waiting and voicemail. That's generally much cheaper than any mobile phone with a data plan and doesn't require a phone that costs hundreds of dollars. Even MVNO solutions like Mint start at 45$ every three months before tax and sim shipping. You also don't need payphones to be abundant, From 1990 to 1999 (ages 5-14) I used a payphone maybe a dozen times and nearly all of those were to have discussions with friends that I didn't want my parents to hear so I rode my bike 2 blocks to Little Caesars and used the phone in their parking lot. And I don't think a single time after that yet I didn't have a cellphone until 2004. I still rarely talk on the phone, I will go months without using a single minute. I will listen to voicemails a few times a week but I will either go see the person or if it is a business I need to call back I'll do so at my convenience, not when they want to talk to me.
badpun 7y ago
I'm guessing there are welfare programs that make up the difference? Subsidised housing, food stamps etc.
helen___keller 7y ago
I strongly recommend viewing the actual source information instead of the cnn article https://www.unitedforalice.org/home https://www.unitedforalice.org/home The 51 million households aren't literally on the verge of starvation, they are "Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed" (ALICE) which is similar to being paycheck to paycheck in that they can survive but not thrive: >When funds run short, cash-strapped households are forced to make impossible choices, such as deciding between quality child care or paying the rent, filling a prescription or fixing the car. These short-term decisions have long-term consequences not only for ALICE families, but for all of us.
- pxue 7y ago
  one of the most important key stat is defining housing spend to be "no more than one-third of income" if you make >3x your rent i'd say you are cruising in life.
  - helen___keller 7y ago
    In big cities and successful metropolitan regions I'd agree. It's a consequence of how quickly housing costs have outgrown all other costs in cities that the "one-third rule" doesn't really apply anymore. On the other hand if you live in a small town, it's quite possible to make 3x your rent and still be struggling.
amelius 7y ago
Also, these people are more wealthy than people (in the same income percentile), say, 100 years ago. This makes me wonder if capitalism always progresses to such a point that a large portion of the population lives in misery.
- FabHK 7y ago
  Another article discussed here recently claimed that US median worker real wages have barely increased at all over the last 40 years. But, yes, you are right, there was plenty of progress and growth from the 1920s to the 1970s (when the spectre of communism was haunting the world, and the top marginal tax rate in the USA was between 70% and 90%).
nostrademons 7y ago
The methodology is described here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ne0s04q4wfhuih6/19UW_ALICE_Project_Methodology_04.01.19.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/ne0s04q4wfhuih6/19UW_ALICE_Project... The standards they use are not lavish (renting an efficiency apartment for a single person or 2BR for family of 3 or more, home daycares, "thrifty" meals), but there are some statistical quirks that make this headline a little misleading. They set the housing budget at "the 40th percentile rent", health care at "average health care expenses", and transportation at "average transportation expenses". This is like saying 40% of households are below the 40th percentile, which is kinda duh. In practice, families that don't make a lot of money (or that do make a lot of money but want to save up a shit-ton and retire) make do with a bunch of cheap alternative living arrangements. Instead of paying full rent, multiple families double-up or triple-up in a housing unit. Multiple generations live together. Grandma takes care of the kids instead of paying for childcare. They shop in budget produce markets. They just don't go to the doctor and hope it's not serious. They walk to work, and the kids take the bus to school.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  Most of your comment is spot on, I thought I'd just nit-pick a bit. In America, it's generally only the rich that have the luxury of walking to work; the rich can afford to live where it's convenient. The poor live where it's cheap, which is rarely close to where they work.
mbostleman 7y ago
At least with census data there has been a well known gap for some time between data on income vs. data on consumption, with the latter generally being higher. Census poverty data does not count a number of benefits including food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
isabella_r 7y ago
Spot on.

pnutjam 7y ago

They end up shuffling between homelessness, homeless programs, and family / friends. A good portion of the children pass through the foster care system and the adults end up in jail or prison for various stretches. It's a very expensive system, and people's lives are wasted even if they are not out right killed.

maxlybbert 7y ago
I’m sure many people do shuffle through homelessness and homeless programs, but it’s certainly not half the country. Seriously, unless next week’s headline is “millions of Americans have been dying of starvation and nobody noticed,” the article has no connection to reality.
skrebbel 7y ago
> They end up shuffling between homelessness, homeless programs, and family / friends. 51 million people? A sixth of the US?
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  51 million households, assuming 4 per household roughly 200 million or 2/3rds. I'm not buying it.
  - scruple 7y ago
    The cohort being reported on here groups single individuals and multi-person familes alongside each other as a household, if I'm understanding correctly. > ALICE is a United Way acronym which stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. It represents the growing number of individuals and families who are working but are unable to afford the basic necessities of housing, food, child care, health care, and transportation. [0] [0]: https://www.oshkoshunitedway.org/ALICE https://www.oshkoshunitedway.org/ALICE
- weberc2 7y ago
  51 million households, so almost half of the US. Even less believable. EDIT: Why is this downvoted? The article states "Nearly 51 million households..."
  - FabHK 7y ago
    There are 128m households in the USA, but yeah, it's about 40%.
- Tsubasachan 7y ago
  Average income in the Netherlands is 40k USD. If being poor in the US is double that... Maybe the complete lack of healthcare and social housing makes up the difference?
  - FabHK 7y ago
    Per capita or per household?

perfmode 7y ago

debt. going hungry. going without shelter. going without health care. going without cell phone. going without transportation. it's not rocket science. it's just poverty.

oceanghost 7y ago

I live in a poor area of Southern California. I'd say the majority of the town receives state benefits. There are also stands that give away free cell phones and service (some state program). I have no idea how it works, but its there.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
I have similar programs near me for all the items mentioned. I wonder if this metric actually means anything, if you did a similar survey in Europe I suspect you'd find many that can't afford private health insurance but since healthcare is often provided by the state that is meaningless as a barometer of human suffering.
- oceanghost 7y ago
  Anecdotally, I've seen very nice cars in areas with subsidized rent-- nicer than my working-class area. There's a saying in diplomacy that, "All aid is military." Meaning, feeding a dictator's citizens only enables him to buy weapons with money he would have otherwise spent on food. This just being an expression of the fungibility of money. However, in California, at least, the various medicals, unemployment, etc., monitor your income pretty closely. If people are subsidizing their income with these programs, it would seem to imply there's an untracked (cash) economy with which to do that. All of my income comes in as 1099* I can't hide a cent.

danesparza 7y ago

I would argue that there are worse things than the sweet release of death. Living without dignity might be one of them. That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about having "cell phone" in that list of things that are considered necessities.

zeendo 7y ago
Cellphones are cheap computers these days. It's very hard to participate in today's economy, much less its education system, without internet access.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  OTOH cable television is an unnecessary, overpriced drain when most people can receive OTA programming.
chadlavi 7y ago
Land line phones are more expensive, and require a stable address; public phones are scarce and getting scarcer. Mobile phones are a necessity.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  You don't need a phone 24/7/265. As far as cost, looks like land line service is 15-30$ a month with things like caller ID, call waiting and voicemail. That's generally much cheaper than any mobile phone with a data plan and doesn't require a phone that costs hundreds of dollars. Even MVNO solutions like Mint start at 45$ every three months before tax and sim shipping. You also don't need payphones to be abundant, From 1990 to 1999 (ages 5-14) I used a payphone maybe a dozen times and nearly all of those were to have discussions with friends that I didn't want my parents to hear so I rode my bike 2 blocks to Little Caesars and used the phone in their parking lot. And I don't think a single time after that yet I didn't have a cellphone until 2004. I still rarely talk on the phone, I will go months without using a single minute. I will listen to voicemails a few times a week but I will either go see the person or if it is a business I need to call back I'll do so at my convenience, not when they want to talk to me.

badpun 7y ago

I'm guessing there are welfare programs that make up the difference? Subsidised housing, food stamps etc.

helen___keller 7y ago

I strongly recommend viewing the actual source information instead of the cnn article https://www.unitedforalice.org/home https://www.unitedforalice.org/home The 51 million households aren't literally on the verge of starvation, they are "Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed" (ALICE) which is similar to being paycheck to paycheck in that they can survive but not thrive: >When funds run short, cash-strapped households are forced to make impossible choices, such as deciding between quality child care or paying the rent, filling a prescription or fixing the car. These short-term decisions have long-term consequences not only for ALICE families, but for all of us.

pxue 7y ago
one of the most important key stat is defining housing spend to be "no more than one-third of income" if you make >3x your rent i'd say you are cruising in life.
- helen___keller 7y ago
  In big cities and successful metropolitan regions I'd agree. It's a consequence of how quickly housing costs have outgrown all other costs in cities that the "one-third rule" doesn't really apply anymore. On the other hand if you live in a small town, it's quite possible to make 3x your rent and still be struggling.

amelius 7y ago

Also, these people are more wealthy than people (in the same income percentile), say, 100 years ago. This makes me wonder if capitalism always progresses to such a point that a large portion of the population lives in misery.

FabHK 7y ago
Another article discussed here recently claimed that US median worker real wages have barely increased at all over the last 40 years. But, yes, you are right, there was plenty of progress and growth from the 1920s to the 1970s (when the spectre of communism was haunting the world, and the top marginal tax rate in the USA was between 70% and 90%).

nostrademons 7y ago

The methodology is described here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ne0s04q4wfhuih6/19UW_ALICE_Project_Methodology_04.01.19.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/ne0s04q4wfhuih6/19UW_ALICE_Project... The standards they use are not lavish (renting an efficiency apartment for a single person or 2BR for family of 3 or more, home daycares, "thrifty" meals), but there are some statistical quirks that make this headline a little misleading. They set the housing budget at "the 40th percentile rent", health care at "average health care expenses", and transportation at "average transportation expenses". This is like saying 40% of households are below the 40th percentile, which is kinda duh. In practice, families that don't make a lot of money (or that do make a lot of money but want to save up a shit-ton and retire) make do with a bunch of cheap alternative living arrangements. Instead of paying full rent, multiple families double-up or triple-up in a housing unit. Multiple generations live together. Grandma takes care of the kids instead of paying for childcare. They shop in budget produce markets. They just don't go to the doctor and hope it's not serious. They walk to work, and the kids take the bus to school.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
Most of your comment is spot on, I thought I'd just nit-pick a bit. In America, it's generally only the rich that have the luxury of walking to work; the rich can afford to live where it's convenient. The poor live where it's cheap, which is rarely close to where they work.

mbostleman 7y ago

At least with census data there has been a well known gap for some time between data on income vs. data on consumption, with the latter generally being higher. Census poverty data does not count a number of benefits including food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

isabella_r 7y ago

Spot on.