Quantcast
40% of Americans have negative net income

Forums - Politics Discussion - 40% of Americans have negative net income

DonFerrari said:
SpokenTruth said:

Is that really what you think the poor are demanding?  Expensive city living, bit TVs and a new car?

It's usually what they are putting their money on. They are living on expensive cities instead of some areas on the countryside, a lot have big TVs and iphones and also relatively new cars.

It also my come as surprise to you, but most of the poor people are also more worried about unemployment than gender/identity policies, which is where most of the left is focusing on.

I'm starting to believe your online impression of the US is starkly contrasting with the actual US.  Especially the poor and the left.

But let's do this.  Say you make $10 per hour and work full time.  That's $1,600 per month before taxes which if you are single means you take home closer to $1,400. Now let's look at costs for a single person living in an average cost city.

1 bd apartment - $900 per month
Health insurance - $350 per month

Well hell.  $150 left for everything else.  No car, no big TV....

But let's imagine this person can somehow save enough money to move to an even cheaper part of the country.  Now, if they can find a job, they'll get paid minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) and rent may cost just $600 per month.  After taxes, you're bringing home ~$1,000 per month.

1 bd apartment - $600 per month
Health insurance - $350 per month

Well hell.  That's even worse.  Now you're left with $50 per month for everything else.

That minimum someone needs to live you were talking about isn't happening.  This is why people are living with their parents or working 2 to 3 jobs and demanding changes to wages to reach that minimum.  And look at that, just to live (food and all that), these people have to go into debt.  But go ahead.  Keep blaming it on living in Manhattan and San Fransisco (a combined 1.5% of the US population), new cars, big TVs and (I'm waiting for you to say it) avocado toast.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
SpokenTruth said:

Is that really what you think the poor are demanding?  Expensive city living, bit TVs and a new car?

It's usually what they are putting their money on. They are living on expensive cities instead of some areas on the countryside, a lot have big TVs and iphones and also relatively new cars.

It also my come as surprise to you, but most of the poor people are also more worried about unemployment than gender/identity policies, which is where most of the left is focusing on.

It's important to define what exactly "poor" means in this context. I have always considered myself to have grown up in a poor family. My parents divorced when I was young, so I lived with my mom, my brother, and my sister until I went away for University. We had housing assistance, medical assistance, cheaper utility bills, etcetera. I even remember having to pretend that our front porch was a bedroom so that we could consider our two bedroom house to have three bedrooms (I guess this allowed us to receive more money from housing).

Despite all this, we always had an internet connection in the house, and we always had a vehicle to get around. Cell phones didn't really become a thing until I was in high school, but I did indeed have my own cell phone. Single mom raising three kids on a $12 per hour wage; I don't know how she did it.

However, by definition, poor means lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society. By this definition, maybe we weren't poor. It's hard to say, really, as we always had a roof over our head, always had food, water, electricity, everything else you'd come to expect. It seems like even the poorest people will still be able to scrape by (albeit barely) with the assistance provided to them by the government.



SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

It's usually what they are putting their money on. They are living on expensive cities instead of some areas on the countryside, a lot have big TVs and iphones and also relatively new cars.

It also my come as surprise to you, but most of the poor people are also more worried about unemployment than gender/identity policies, which is where most of the left is focusing on.

I'm starting to believe your online impression of the US is starkly contrasting with the actual US.  Especially the poor and the left.

But let's do this.  Say you make $10 per hour and work full time.  That's $1,600 per month before taxes which if you are single means you take home closer to $1,400. Now let's look at costs for a single person living in an average cost city.

1 bd apartment - $900 per month
Health insurance - $350 per month

Well hell.  $150 left for everything else.  No car, no big TV....

But let's imagine this person can somehow save enough money to move to an even cheaper part of the country.  Now, if they can find a job, they'll get paid minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) and rent may cost just $600 per month.  After taxes, you're bringing home ~$1,000 per month.

1 bd apartment - $600 per month
Health insurance - $350 per month

Well hell.  That's even worse.  Now you're left with $50 per month for everything else.

That minimum someone needs to live you were talking about isn't happening.  This is why people are living with their parents or working 2 to 3 jobs and demanding changes to wages to reach that minimum.  And look at that, just to live (food and all that), these people have to go into debt.  But go ahead.  Keep blaming it on living in Manhattan and San Fransisco (a combined 1.5% of the US population), new cars, big TVs and (I'm waiting for you to say it) avocado toast.

From what we have from USA numbers there is less than 10% of the population earning minimum wage (or even close to it). Going from that to 40% of the population is a very big jump.

And I may be very wrong, but these guys also get a lot of social benefits, stamps, payouts, etc and sorry but not one is demanded to live alone in an apartment.

In Brazil it's very common for people to share a house with another 3 or more when they are working in a city and doesn't have a family there. So your rent would go a lot lower. And only if you are a little crazy you would be paying 350 for health insurance before your 40s since you would rarely even need a doctor from 18 to 40.

Also sorry again to burst your bubble, but minimum wage and the like is entry level that someone shouldn't ever expect to pay for all he needs without moving up the latter.

Let me give you context from a country like Brazil, minimum wage here is 250 USD, rent on a very small place in regular city would be 100-150 USD.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

RaptorChrist said:
DonFerrari said:

It's usually what they are putting their money on. They are living on expensive cities instead of some areas on the countryside, a lot have big TVs and iphones and also relatively new cars.

It also my come as surprise to you, but most of the poor people are also more worried about unemployment than gender/identity policies, which is where most of the left is focusing on.

It's important to define what exactly "poor" means in this context. I have always considered myself to have grown up in a poor family. My parents divorced when I was young, so I lived with my mom, my brother, and my sister until I went away for University. We had housing assistance, medical assistance, cheaper utility bills, etcetera. I even remember having to pretend that our front porch was a bedroom so that we could consider our two bedroom house to have three bedrooms (I guess this allowed us to receive more money from housing).

Despite all this, we always had an internet connection in the house, and we always had a vehicle to get around. Cell phones didn't really become a thing until I was in high school, but I did indeed have my own cell phone. Single mom raising three kids on a $12 per hour wage; I don't know how she did it.

However, by definition, poor means lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society. By this definition, maybe we weren't poor. It's hard to say, really, as we always had a roof over our head, always had food, water, electricity, everything else you'd come to expect. It seems like even the poorest people will still be able to scrape by (albeit barely) with the assistance provided to them by the government.

Totally agree.

Usually people think they are poor when they are middle income, and middle class when they are in fact high standard... they always see themselves as worse than they are.

 

But the thread have 40%, so for this amount of the population of USA to be "negative net income" it isn't the guys with minimum wage working in the worse conditions of the world.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
SpokenTruth said:

I'm starting to believe your online impression of the US is starkly contrasting with the actual US.  Especially the poor and the left.

But let's do this.  Say you make $10 per hour and work full time.  That's $1,600 per month before taxes which if you are single means you take home closer to $1,400. Now let's look at costs for a single person living in an average cost city.

1 bd apartment - $900 per month
Health insurance - $350 per month

Well hell.  $150 left for everything else.  No car, no big TV....

But let's imagine this person can somehow save enough money to move to an even cheaper part of the country.  Now, if they can find a job, they'll get paid minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) and rent may cost just $600 per month.  After taxes, you're bringing home ~$1,000 per month.

1 bd apartment - $600 per month
Health insurance - $350 per month

Well hell.  That's even worse.  Now you're left with $50 per month for everything else.

That minimum someone needs to live you were talking about isn't happening.  This is why people are living with their parents or working 2 to 3 jobs and demanding changes to wages to reach that minimum.  And look at that, just to live (food and all that), these people have to go into debt.  But go ahead.  Keep blaming it on living in Manhattan and San Fransisco (a combined 1.5% of the US population), new cars, big TVs and (I'm waiting for you to say it) avocado toast.

From what we have from USA numbers there is less than 10% of the population earning minimum wage (or even close to it). Going from that to 40% of the population is a very big jump.

And I may be very wrong, but these guys also get a lot of social benefits, stamps, payouts, etc and sorry but not one is demanded to live alone in an apartment.

In Brazil it's very common for people to share a house with another 3 or more when they are working in a city and doesn't have a family there. So your rent would go a lot lower. And only if you are a little crazy you would be paying 350 for health insurance before your 40s since you would rarely even need a doctor from 18 to 40.

Also sorry again to burst your bubble, but minimum wage and the like is entry level that someone shouldn't ever expect to pay for all he needs without moving up the latter.

Let me give you context from a country like Brazil, minimum wage here is 250 USD, rent on a very small place in regular city would be 100-150 USD.

I just calculated $252 per month health insurance is the average for a single person aged 21.  And it ranges by state from a low of $180 in Utah to $366 in Wyoming ($426 in Alaska but that's to be expected).  What?  You thought we've been joking about health care and insurance costs in those other threads?  Want to cover your family of 4?  Close to $900 per month depending on age and state.

Oh, and my initial example wasn't minimum wage now was it? It was $10 per hour. So my example shows them already going up that ladder.  I only showed minimum age because that's what happens when you move from a city to a rural area.  Wages drop.  They don't stay the same.

And yes, there are social benefits but the right wants to gut them...many want to completely get rid of them.  But social welfare doesn't always cover enough. 

Roommates are more common in the urban cores of the bigger cities in the US.  It's rare in smaller cities, suburbs and rural regions.  Our houses, apartments and leasing laws/contracts are simply not often designed with that in mind.  It's all built around the way things were decades ago when a single income allowed you to easily own your home, cars, health car, etc....  Basically, our buying power today is a fraction of what it used to be.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

It's usually what they are putting their money on. They are living on expensive cities instead of some areas on the countryside, a lot have big TVs and iphones and also relatively new cars.

It also my come as surprise to you, but most of the poor people are also more worried about unemployment than gender/identity policies, which is where most of the left is focusing on.

I'm starting to believe your online impression of the US is starkly contrasting with the actual US.  Especially the poor and the left.

But let's do this.  Say you make $10 per hour and work full time.  That's $1,600 per month before taxes which if you are single means you take home closer to $1,400. Now let's look at costs for a single person living in an average cost city.

1 bd apartment - $900 per month
Health insurance - $350 per month

Well hell.  $150 left for everything else.  No car, no big TV....

But let's imagine this person can somehow save enough money to move to an even cheaper part of the country.  Now, if they can find a job, they'll get paid minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) and rent may cost just $600 per month.  After taxes, you're bringing home ~$1,000 per month.

1 bd apartment - $600 per month
Health insurance - $350 per month

Well hell.  That's even worse.  Now you're left with $50 per month for everything else.

That minimum someone needs to live you were talking about isn't happening.  This is why people are living with their parents or working 2 to 3 jobs and demanding changes to wages to reach that minimum.  And look at that, just to live (food and all that), these people have to go into debt.  But go ahead.  Keep blaming it on living in Manhattan and San Fransisco (a combined 1.5% of the US population), new cars, big TVs and (I'm waiting for you to say it) avocado toast.

So lets see here, during college, I lived in a small town (which follows your low cost of living info from above). I worked at Sams Club (anybody can walk in and instantly get a job there. The qualifications to push carts were virtually zero. They were always hiring because people quit nonstop).

Sam's Club pays $11/hr starting * 160 hrs/month = $1,760/mo. Total state + federal taxes (including social security and medicare) will be approximately $225/mo. Take home pay = $1,535.

My entire time of working at a low wage, I lived with 2-3 other people. In my small college town, a 4 bedroom house can be split among 4 people for approximately $300/mo AFTER utilities.

Health insurance either needs to be offered through the employer at less than 9.5% of pay ($167 per month) or you will qualify for federal subsidies.

Food can be done for $100/month

Gas/Insurance/Car can be done for $250/month (If you aren't in an area where biking year round is an option)

Clothing/Other Essentials can be done for $100/month

Seems to me there is still $718/mo leftover. Perhaps that is why I was able to get through college without any debt while working fulltime. Lets not even mention that you aren't entitled to working only 40 hours per week. It isn't uncommon for people earning a bit less an hour to have 2 different jobs so they can bump their earnings up.

The simple truth is, people think they are entitled to a lot more lavish lifestyle than is necessary, thus spend money on lots of unnecessary things (cell phones, tvs, fancy cars, vacations, etc). They then complain because they aren't able to keep up with the Jones' (This happens at virtually all tiers of society, because even once making lets say $60,000/year, it still feels unfair to them that they can't keep up with their neighbors that make $120,000/year).

On top of all of the above, the trades (think road work, welding, carpentry, etc.) have been low on employees for YEARS, and pay extremely well (Our union company pays a level 1 apprentice approximately $20/hr + health insurance + pension, and the only requirement is a year of night schooling). People don't want to work a hard job to make ends meet though. To continue off the apprentice example, once they reach Journeyman wages (after 5 years), they actually make more than myself as an Accounting Supervisor with a CPA & 5 years of college education.

So long story short...I really don't have time for people saying low income people just don't have the ability to make enough to make ends meet.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

From what we have from USA numbers there is less than 10% of the population earning minimum wage (or even close to it). Going from that to 40% of the population is a very big jump.

And I may be very wrong, but these guys also get a lot of social benefits, stamps, payouts, etc and sorry but not one is demanded to live alone in an apartment.

In Brazil it's very common for people to share a house with another 3 or more when they are working in a city and doesn't have a family there. So your rent would go a lot lower. And only if you are a little crazy you would be paying 350 for health insurance before your 40s since you would rarely even need a doctor from 18 to 40.

Also sorry again to burst your bubble, but minimum wage and the like is entry level that someone shouldn't ever expect to pay for all he needs without moving up the latter.

Let me give you context from a country like Brazil, minimum wage here is 250 USD, rent on a very small place in regular city would be 100-150 USD.

I just calculated $252 per month health insurance is the average for a single person aged 21.  And it ranges by state from a low of $180 in Utah to $366 in Wyoming ($426 in Alaska but that's to be expected).  What?  You thought we've been joking about health care and insurance costs in those other threads?  Want to cover your family of 4?  Close to $900 per month depending on age and state.

Oh, and my initial example wasn't minimum wage now was it? It was $10 per hour. So my example shows them already going up that ladder.  I only showed minimum age because that's what happens when you move from a city to a rural area.  Wages drop.  They don't stay the same.

And yes, there are social benefits but the right wants to gut them...many want to completely get rid of them.  But social welfare doesn't always cover enough. 

Roommates are more common in the urban cores of the bigger cities in the US.  It's rare in smaller cities, suburbs and rural regions.  Our houses, apartments and leasing laws/contracts are simply not often designed with that in mind.  It's all built around the way things were decades ago when a single income allowed you to easily own your home, cars, health car, etc....  Basically, our buying power today is a fraction of what it used to be.

I would argue poor people now are living more lavish lifestyles than ever before.

There is a reason the average house size used to be like half the size it is now. Entire families used to own 1 car. People didn't have computers, phones, tvs, etc.

Buying power isn't the problem, it is people believing they are entitled (despite being poor) to a much much better lifestyle than the poor ever used to have.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Baalzamon said:

 In my small college town, a 4 bedroom house can be split among 4 people for approximately $300/mo AFTER utilities.

Gas/Insurance/Car can be done for $250/mont.

Health insurance either needs to be offered through the employer at less than 9.5% of pay ($167 per month) or you will qualify for federal subsidies.

A 4 bedroom house for $1200 per month AFTER utilities?  When was this?  Before or after the housing market crash? 

Your insurance alone is going to be nearly $250 per month now.

Like I told DonFerrari, buying power even from just 8 years ago is way lower.

Yes, you'd qualify for tax credits but you still have to pay the monthly rate.  You aren't charged just 9.5% or less of monthly household income.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Baalzamon said:

I would argue poor people now are living more lavish lifestyles than ever before.

There is a reason the average house size used to be like half the size it is now. Entire families used to own 1 car. People didn't have computers, phones, tvs, etc.

Buying power isn't the problem, it is people believing they are entitled (despite being poor) to a much much better lifestyle than the poor ever used to have.

It most certainly is a problem.  I'll give a simple example.  My father in law bought their house brand new in 1991 for $90k.  That same house is now valued at $270k.  Did wages increase by that same rate?  Not even close.  A brand new house of the same square footage, lot size, etc...would cost nearly $400k. 

Yes, they had 1 car because only 1 person had to work.

Also, TV's are cheaper now than they were back then.  That's a horrible argument point.  You can get a 4K TV for $500.  You couldn't get a 32" color TV for under $1000 back then.  As for phones, that's ~$100 per month.  Far lower than the differential from increase rent or mortgage or health insurance or student loans.....and let's not even bother going down the increased cost of education road.  We ALL know how that is.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

I've been saying for a while the US is deep on a massive bubble of consumption, and has been since 2012 or so. It's mostly heavy subsidies and lack of proper taxes to companies that retail online like Amazon which has kept inflation from climbing too quickly and bursting it already.

Very little of the post-2008 crisis recovery has been due to an increase on productivity, most of it was merely consumption or people being re-employed. That's not just the US but Germany, UK etc. as well, though in Europe and Japan consumption has moved on slower and more sustainable rates.