10 ms·

...forcing salaries down way below what is possible to live off. This is an exaggeration. It may be forcing salaries below the level necessary to support US mi

...forcing salaries down way below what is possible to live off. This is an exaggeration. It may be forcing salaries below the level necessary to support US middle class consumption levels, but there is a huge gap between that and "possible to live off". Where I live, even the middle class don't live in homes with 2 rooms/person or own a car (unlike poor people in the US). A full time minimum wage job pays $14,500/year. GDP/capita (adjusted for purchasing power) in Bulgaria is $14,100. In Brazil it's $11,700, here in India it's $3800, and in Haiti it's $1200. Yet people continue to live. (These numbers are adjusted for purchasing power, so don't argue that it's cheaper to live over here.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...

ThomPete 13y ago
Could you live on 14.500 a year? That 1400USD a month. If you have kids good luck with that. 50 years ago GM was the biggest job creator in the country. Average hourly wage was quite good to live off. Today Wallmart is the biggest and many workers need extra help from the goverment to even make it. The problem is very real.
- pietro 13y ago
  You can easily live off 1400 USD per month. In India, they manage to get by for about 3000 USD (PPP) per year. Americans could, too. They’d hate it, but they could.
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    I don't even know if I should take this comment serious. If you are a student, in your youth having no obligations sure you probably could. But these are people often with a family.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I do not like where 'yummyfajitas logic takes us and would thus like to find ways to disagree with him, but much of what he says checks out. "These are people with families", and also public K-12 schools within walking distance that spend more per-pupil than do many private schools, air conditioning, a car, health care (both directly subsidized by the government and indirectly subsidized by emergency rooms), cable television, and, depending on the city, houses with individual rooms for each family member. And, yes, 24/7 electricity, running water, and flush toilets. It's a little hard to argue that it's somehow easier to be a rural Indian subsistence farmer than it is to be a section 8 tenant. From the vantage point of the Indian farmer, the section 8 tenant is mind-bogglingly wealthy. And the rural poor in India outnumber all people in the US below the poverty line by six to one. Chris Stucchio is right. We need to devise a reasonable argument that one of the most important social issues of our time is making a ~40 million relatively wealthy people even wealthier. Personally, I'd prefer to keep a focus on education and equality of opportunity, and not spend so much time thinking about what 14k/yr buys you in New York City. But you'll no doubt want to tell me that it's easy for me to say that, and I agree.
      - ThomPete 13y ago
        you are also missing the point. If you considder a salary where the government have to subsidize to make it possible then by definition you cant live of your salary. It doesent matter what you can live off in other countries, as a society you have a problem. A problem caused primarily by technology.
        tptacek 13y ago
        One reason you may have been downvoted here is that you've replied to a misreading of my comment. Subsidized or not, the Asian rural poor have no access to healthcare --- or, often, consistent electricity and running water. The government does not have to subsidize anything: for every Medicaid patient in the US, there are 6-8 people in India without access to medical care of any sort.
        ThomPete 13y ago
    - pietro 13y ago
      Indians have families, too.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  I live on well under $1400/month now. For a while I was living in a 400rs/night hostel and spending about 600-700rs/day. Billions of my fellow human beings live on considerably less than that. If you want to argue that wages are not high enough to sustain the moving goalposts of US middle class life, do it. But do it honestly and acknowledge that the main problem is that the definition of "middle class" (or whatever term you want to use) has risen more rapidly than low skill wages. Using phrases like "possible to live off" is simply a lie. If it were true then I should be surrounded by over a billion dying people and I should be dead myself. Check your privilege, dude.
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    Oh please. Billions of your fellow human beings do not live in New York or SF or in the US for that matter. Comparing with other countries is so misinformed it's not even worth taking serious. If you want to play with rethorics be my guest. You very well know what I mean and is just trying to dodge the real issue here. Most people once they move out of their early twenties have obligations bigger than themselves. Sure some people can choose to live for 1400/month but most people can't and therefore the government is stepping in to help. Maybe you don't have a problem with that. I do.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      Billions of your fellow human beings do not live in New York or SF or in the US for that matter If only I were smart enough to have thought of that. Then I might have cited PPP-adjusted numbers rather than nominal ones. I'd have said this: "GDP/capita (adjusted for purchasing power) in Bulgaria is $14,100...here in India it's $3800" If I were really smart, I might also have anticipated your dishonest response and said this: "These numbers are adjusted for purchasing power, so don't argue that it's cheaper to live over here." [edit: It's amusing that in your response you bring up food. Fun fact: poor people over here aren't fat. You really need to leave the US at some point in your life. Canada and the UK don't count.]
      - ThomPete 13y ago
- Avshalom 13y ago
  Side note: 40 hr/wk at minimum wage is actually ~1000 month after taxes. 1400 would require ~10.50 an hour.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Could you live on 14.500 a year? That 1400USD a month. 1208/mo, actually.

ThomPete 13y ago

Could you live on 14.500 a year? That 1400USD a month. If you have kids good luck with that. 50 years ago GM was the biggest job creator in the country. Average hourly wage was quite good to live off. Today Wallmart is the biggest and many workers need extra help from the goverment to even make it. The problem is very real.

pietro 13y ago
You can easily live off 1400 USD per month. In India, they manage to get by for about 3000 USD (PPP) per year. Americans could, too. They’d hate it, but they could.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  I don't even know if I should take this comment serious. If you are a student, in your youth having no obligations sure you probably could. But these are people often with a family.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I do not like where 'yummyfajitas logic takes us and would thus like to find ways to disagree with him, but much of what he says checks out. "These are people with families", and also public K-12 schools within walking distance that spend more per-pupil than do many private schools, air conditioning, a car, health care (both directly subsidized by the government and indirectly subsidized by emergency rooms), cable television, and, depending on the city, houses with individual rooms for each family member. And, yes, 24/7 electricity, running water, and flush toilets. It's a little hard to argue that it's somehow easier to be a rural Indian subsistence farmer than it is to be a section 8 tenant. From the vantage point of the Indian farmer, the section 8 tenant is mind-bogglingly wealthy. And the rural poor in India outnumber all people in the US below the poverty line by six to one. Chris Stucchio is right. We need to devise a reasonable argument that one of the most important social issues of our time is making a ~40 million relatively wealthy people even wealthier. Personally, I'd prefer to keep a focus on education and equality of opportunity, and not spend so much time thinking about what 14k/yr buys you in New York City. But you'll no doubt want to tell me that it's easy for me to say that, and I agree.
    - ThomPete 13y ago
      you are also missing the point. If you considder a salary where the government have to subsidize to make it possible then by definition you cant live of your salary. It doesent matter what you can live off in other countries, as a society you have a problem. A problem caused primarily by technology.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        One reason you may have been downvoted here is that you've replied to a misreading of my comment. Subsidized or not, the Asian rural poor have no access to healthcare --- or, often, consistent electricity and running water. The government does not have to subsidize anything: for every Medicaid patient in the US, there are 6-8 people in India without access to medical care of any sort.
        ThomPete 13y ago
  - pietro 13y ago
    Indians have families, too.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
I live on well under $1400/month now. For a while I was living in a 400rs/night hostel and spending about 600-700rs/day. Billions of my fellow human beings live on considerably less than that. If you want to argue that wages are not high enough to sustain the moving goalposts of US middle class life, do it. But do it honestly and acknowledge that the main problem is that the definition of "middle class" (or whatever term you want to use) has risen more rapidly than low skill wages. Using phrases like "possible to live off" is simply a lie. If it were true then I should be surrounded by over a billion dying people and I should be dead myself. Check your privilege, dude.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  Oh please. Billions of your fellow human beings do not live in New York or SF or in the US for that matter. Comparing with other countries is so misinformed it's not even worth taking serious. If you want to play with rethorics be my guest. You very well know what I mean and is just trying to dodge the real issue here. Most people once they move out of their early twenties have obligations bigger than themselves. Sure some people can choose to live for 1400/month but most people can't and therefore the government is stepping in to help. Maybe you don't have a problem with that. I do.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Billions of your fellow human beings do not live in New York or SF or in the US for that matter If only I were smart enough to have thought of that. Then I might have cited PPP-adjusted numbers rather than nominal ones. I'd have said this: "GDP/capita (adjusted for purchasing power) in Bulgaria is $14,100...here in India it's $3800" If I were really smart, I might also have anticipated your dishonest response and said this: "These numbers are adjusted for purchasing power, so don't argue that it's cheaper to live over here." [edit: It's amusing that in your response you bring up food. Fun fact: poor people over here aren't fat. You really need to leave the US at some point in your life. Canada and the UK don't count.]
    - ThomPete 13y ago
Avshalom 13y ago
Side note: 40 hr/wk at minimum wage is actually ~1000 month after taxes. 1400 would require ~10.50 an hour.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Could you live on 14.500 a year? That 1400USD a month. 1208/mo, actually.