- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
This is highly dependant on where you live, as has been said before.
deleted by creator
No obviously not.
Rent is like 50% of my income currently and I’m trapped because nowhere charges less for the same space and I don’t qualify for rentals without a guarantor that I no longer have. At this age, my parents were in their 3rd house on a single income with 3 kids.
The wealthy really fucked us over, hey. They’re scum for what they did.
They’re scum for what they are currently still doing, and must be stopped.
1000%. Preach it!
Don’t insult people over their nature. Money corrupts, especially over many generations. They just play a rigged game and have the edge to win. Time for some regulations. Social capitalism is the answer, fair taxes even on rich people. Prevent wealth hoarding over a certain point. Stop insulting people and get to three voting booth. Start telling real people to change their vote.
Spare us the civility horseshit. This level of organized greed and cruelty that is being inflicted on the world is NOT natural.
And “some regulations” and “fair tax” aren’t going to fix shit. Social capitalism? The fuck is that? Fuck off liberal.
Same and I live in what would be considered a rural state. We don’t have any big cities and a studio apartment would cost me about $1500 a month about 50 miles outside our biggest city and $1800+ within 50 miles of Portland Maine which is our biggest city. This shit is out of control. Our wages are more in line with a rural state, but our rent prices are near what you’d expect in a bigger city.
Well shit thats a little Less than 3x what I make lol. 💀💀💀💀
Like always, how far your money goes depends on multiple factors. 140k in the Midwest alone means you’re living comfortably. Like all bills paid off, a lot of extra money for leisure, etc.
If you have a family and live in the bay area, then it’s not that much. I personally wouldn’t put it at poverty, but it’d be somewhat close to being paycheck to paycheck (assuming you still need to pay mortgage and whatnot)
“a family of four needs $136,500 a year”
I could see that, more likely in more expensive areas. You aren’t getting anywhere in New York or San Francisco on $140K.
I mean, we’re poor but we make less than half that just outside San Francisco. Honestly we’re doing okay. We don’t get any of the luxuries my parents had at our age, but we have smartphones so we can never get away from anything!
How much is your rent, if it’s not too much to ask?
in New York or San Francisco on $140K.
A month?
That doesn’t even buy a single politician.
I thought I heard Sam Bankman-Fried say he was surprised at how little it cost, it was like $50k or something.
State level politicians are like $5k-$10k. Shockingly cheap but you do need to buy most of the set.
I live alone in a moderately low cost of living area making about 52k take home. With no extenuating expenses related to health I can put away a hundred or two a month after rent, gas, utilities, food and car maintenance (I drive and fix old shit myself rather than make a car payment). But that is literally all I can do. If I had a second person to support or was in any other area I’d be underwater quick.
Yes. The people saying no are no longer temporarily embarrassed millionaires but temporarily embarrassed middle class. Have or have not, and 140k is have not given inflation, healthcare, education, food, rent/mortgage, energy etc.
No, it’s not. Having to use a budget and not spending whatever you want on anything you want at any time is not poverty. Fuck off with this.
I think the headline is a little misleading.
My gut reaction was the same as yours, but after reading the article I don’t think they are far off.
$140,000 for a family of four in certain locations could be doing very poorly.
After taxes, it’s about $110,000 a year. According to a few sits I found when seaching, the per year cost of a child varies by state. In NY, it’s approx $30k per year. So, for a family of four with two kids that $50k-60k a year.
That leaves about $60k a year. Housing costs in NY is approx $4.3k a month for a 3br house. . That’s $51,600 a year.
You now have $8,400 left for the utilities, food, clothing, etc.
The current federal poverty level is roughly $30k/yr which is basically impossible to make work.
Which method does the U.S. use to calculate its poverty line?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Poverty_income_thresholds
TL;DR: “The U.S. poverty line is calculated as three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, adjusted for inflation.”
Well shit thats a little Less than 3x what I make lol. 💀💀💀💀
uh huh, thank you vice and mr wallstreet substack poster for spreading such awareness, but where does that leave people in actual poverty?
Uh… right where they are? The American welfare state is insufficient across the board, so it needs to be strengthened across the board, and employers across the board should be forced to pay living wages.
The answer is NO, it’s not. However, to be completely fair, I’ve bookmarked the “supporting materials” to give it a review later when I have a little more time.
As someone who grew up in a family actually straggling the poverty line, there’s simply 0% chance that any family anywhere in this country is living in poverty with that kind of income. It’s well above what most households are bringing in, and while there may be a limited subset of circumstances where that money isn’t sufficient, that’s not what poverty is.
And I read through some of the comments in this thread – Assuming they’ve come from real humans not pushing an agenda, it makes me ashamed to be associated with those people.
there’s simply 0% chance that any family anywhere in this country is living in poverty with that kind of income.
The original Substack addresses this point, but the short of it is: Most income gains from 35k to 100k are cancelled out by a loss of government benefits, so there’s a lot less difference between these than you’d expect. You only start making real gains starting from 100k. Now a family making 100k will have expendable income that’s true, but the vast majority of its income will still go towards essentials so it’s still one emergency away from insolvency.
Edit: This means that a family with two incomes and two young children making 50k is getting a market price equivalent of 50k in government benefits, so we can crudely approximate families straddling the poverty line as making 100k net. In that case the difference between the effective official poverty line and the proposed poverty line is a large but realistic 40%.
This makes way more sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Unfortunately, no it doesn’t address that point. It’s basically, if you pervert the definition from a century ago and interpret it in one specific way for a way of life that’s hardly anywhere close to the standard/average, then you can maybe make a clickbait case for a super high income that drives engagement. Think of the click through and comments!
What? You’re not making any sense.
