3 ms·

$67600 is not even enough to qualify for a $1900/month 1 BR apartment in the East Bay. You have to keep in mind, we’re primarily talking about working adults he

$67600 is not even enough to qualify for a $1900/month 1 BR apartment in the East Bay. You have to keep in mind, we’re primarily talking about working adults here. Tech interns are not the ones who are going to be affected by this. Edit: also, keep in mind that if there’s a second working adult in the household, both are likely to be impacted.

gpm 7y ago
We aren't talking about living on this amount of money long term here, you don't need to be able to qualify for an apartment on it, you just need to be able to continue paying your rent for a few months. If you need to live on this amount of money long term, move. I was keeping in mind that both adults would be effected... that's why I was using the disability pay rates for both adults in the above.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Ok, so, you just want to punish people who, for whatever reason, haven't accumulated an emergency fund. I'm going to assume that you mean this in the most charitable sense of "their budgeting does not allow them to accumulate an emergency fund," because a bank balance is a point in time view and not always reflective of overall financial health. (Speaking of which, how would you determine that? Require 6 months of bank statements to apply for disability insurance? That seems awfully intrusive.) I'm sure you're familiar with the study that says 4 in 10 Americans can't cover a $400 unexpected expense? Well, it doesn't quite say that [0], but it does cite a study that says only 24% of households have $400 in liquid assets. And, it also says that 14% of households would not be able to pay some bills if such an expense arose, and 12% could not cover the expense at all (I'm unclear if the 12% overlaps with the 14% though). Are you saying you're okay with those people taking the first step into total financial ruin, just because of something they have little or no control over (becoming temporarily unable to work due to disability)? And, I'll ask again: why should one's bank balance affect one's ability to claim benefits when one paid into the system in order to fund those very benefits? --- [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-400-emergency-expense-story-is-wrong https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...
  - gpm 7y ago
    I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I have never said I wanted to punish anyone. I have never suggested looking at bank balances - in fact I explicitly argued against this the only time I mentioned it. You are arguing against a straw man. That said - I have no interest in replying to the content of the argument - I stay away from arguing about things on the internet where there is no right side. The general question of what to do is too political for me to approach here. All I am willing to do, and have done in my comments, is respond to clearly incorrect statements.
WWLink 7y ago
The idea that you need to make 3x the income of rent is kinda asinine and unreasonable in the first place.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  You think spending more 1/3 of your gross income on housing is sensible? Keep in mind that 1/3 of gross is probably more like 1/2 of take-home.
  - ac29 7y ago
    Spending over 50% of your take home income on housing is better than being homeless. Especially when that leaves $2000 or more a month for all other expenses.

gpm 7y ago

We aren't talking about living on this amount of money long term here, you don't need to be able to qualify for an apartment on it, you just need to be able to continue paying your rent for a few months. If you need to live on this amount of money long term, move. I was keeping in mind that both adults would be effected... that's why I was using the disability pay rates for both adults in the above.

pmiller2 7y ago
Ok, so, you just want to punish people who, for whatever reason, haven't accumulated an emergency fund. I'm going to assume that you mean this in the most charitable sense of "their budgeting does not allow them to accumulate an emergency fund," because a bank balance is a point in time view and not always reflective of overall financial health. (Speaking of which, how would you determine that? Require 6 months of bank statements to apply for disability insurance? That seems awfully intrusive.) I'm sure you're familiar with the study that says 4 in 10 Americans can't cover a $400 unexpected expense? Well, it doesn't quite say that [0], but it does cite a study that says only 24% of households have $400 in liquid assets. And, it also says that 14% of households would not be able to pay some bills if such an expense arose, and 12% could not cover the expense at all (I'm unclear if the 12% overlaps with the 14% though). Are you saying you're okay with those people taking the first step into total financial ruin, just because of something they have little or no control over (becoming temporarily unable to work due to disability)? And, I'll ask again: why should one's bank balance affect one's ability to claim benefits when one paid into the system in order to fund those very benefits? --- [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-400-emergency-expense-story-is-wrong https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...
- gpm 7y ago
  I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I have never said I wanted to punish anyone. I have never suggested looking at bank balances - in fact I explicitly argued against this the only time I mentioned it. You are arguing against a straw man. That said - I have no interest in replying to the content of the argument - I stay away from arguing about things on the internet where there is no right side. The general question of what to do is too political for me to approach here. All I am willing to do, and have done in my comments, is respond to clearly incorrect statements.

WWLink 7y ago

The idea that you need to make 3x the income of rent is kinda asinine and unreasonable in the first place.

pmiller2 7y ago
You think spending more 1/3 of your gross income on housing is sensible? Keep in mind that 1/3 of gross is probably more like 1/2 of take-home.
- ac29 7y ago
  Spending over 50% of your take home income on housing is better than being homeless. Especially when that leaves $2000 or more a month for all other expenses.