Quantcast
40% of Americans have negative net income

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

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.

I remember reading back in 1900 you need to work only two or three years on a minimum wage to afford buying a house on London or Birmingham. Try to do the same now: the cost of living has increased so much it basically has wiped out most real gains in earnings for decades or even longer, for the average fellow. It's not people's faults they own smartphones instead of having their own properties, since the latter is so far beyond their expectations now they won't save money for it and will buy other stuff instead.

Besides, I wouldn't necessarily call owning computers and phones and TVs having a "much better lifestyle" than before. Would you choose to live with all your gadgets and abdicate running water and heating? I bet you would agree, then, that two simple urban innovations of the 19th century, which were granted back then when you bought a house, are much more important instead. So, the way people are able to afford not the essentials but only the superflous is indeed a very significant issue.

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

Around the Network
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 haven't paid for health insurance except for 6 months because I wanted to do some exams. I'm 33. It is utter bad use of money to put half your income on healthy insurance at the age of 21.

You know why the right wants to "gut them", because it is much better to keep your taxes to you than pay the government to maybe provide you the service.

And guess the simple solution of not moving out of your house until you can pay for your rent? People to often make debts without planning and not being able to pay.

I'll say again in case you haven't seem. I don't deny there are very poor people living in a bad condition, but this "study" have 40% of the USA population accounted in, so yes a very big chuncky of that is due to bad financial plan, not due to money not being enough.

I welcome you to come and live in Brazil with your American way of consumption, financial planning, and debt living...

Here our interest on your bank account being negative is 15% per month.



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

SpokenTruth said:
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.

The interest rate on your father in law's house was also probably...around 10.5%.

So a 30 year loan (assuming 20% down payment) would have cost total of $255,000 (including the down payment).

The $270k value now will be a total cost of $448,000 over a 30 year loan (at 4.5% interest).

Per government data sites, the average wage in 1990 was $21,000 compared to $48,500 in 2016 (most recent available on data set I'm looking at on social security site). So in 1990, the house represented 12.14 years of wages, whereas in 2016 it represents 9.24 years of income. Seems to me like the house has actually gotten cheaper.

Electronics being cheaper...its almost like you are saying buying power has...increased? Isn't that exactly what I'm saying. In today's day and age, even the poor can afford a much more lavish lifestyle than they ever used to be able to.

And yes, lets not go down the road of student loans, because those are often a choice people make (none of the union workers we bring through our system have any student loans and they are averaging approximately $80-$100k/year in compensation after 5 years, and we are massively short of labor).



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

SpokenTruth said:
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.

Approximately 2012-2014. It really hasn't adjusted at all lately. If anything it has gotten cheaper because attendance to the college is much lower the last couple of years and they are desperate to fill the housing near campus lately.



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

DonFerrari said:

I haven't paid for health insurance except for 6 months because I wanted to do some exams. I'm 33. It is utter bad use of money to put half your income on healthy insurance at the age of 21.

It's practically required here.  This is why I keep saying you can't look through a Brazilian lens.  I'm not saying your can't comment, in fact, I welcome it, but we can't go without insurance here. 1, it's almost illegal to not have it now. 2, good luck paying for any services short of a doctor check up out of pocket.  Not fun paying $1000 or more per month for many medications that probably cost you less than $100.  Need an X-ray?  Those can cost over $1000 too.  Even a damn snake bite can cost you over $150,000 here.

The United States is the only industrialized nation where people have to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills.

Baalzamon said:

Approximately 2012-2014. It really hasn't adjusted at all lately. If anything it has gotten cheaper because attendance to the college is much lower the last couple of years and they are desperate to fill the housing near campus lately.

That must be in the more rural areas of the US for rates like that.  I live in a city with a housing CPI right around the national average and 4 bedrooms near any of our universities cannot be found for less than $1,900.  I'm looking on Zillow now.

Baalzamon said:
SpokenTruth said:

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.

The interest rate on your father in law's house was also probably...around 10.5%.

So a 30 year loan (assuming 20% down payment) would have cost total of $255,000 (including the down payment).

The $270k value now will be a total cost of $448,000 over a 30 year loan (at 4.5% interest).

Per government data sites, the average wage in 1990 was $21,000 compared to $48,500 in 2016 (most recent available on data set I'm looking at on social security site). So in 1990, the house represented 12.14 years of wages, whereas in 2016 it represents 9.24 years of income. Seems to me like the house has actually gotten cheaper.

Electronics being cheaper...its almost like you are saying buying power has...increased? Isn't that exactly what I'm saying. In today's day and age, even the poor can afford a much more lavish lifestyle than they ever used to be able to.

And yes, lets not go down the road of student loans, because those are often a choice people make (none of the union workers we bring through our system have any student loans and they are averaging approximately $80-$100k/year in compensation after 5 years, and we are massively short of labor).

They got 9.5% so ~$235k but I also know they refinanced around 2005 when rates were closer to 5%.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

I haven't paid for health insurance except for 6 months because I wanted to do some exams. I'm 33. It is utter bad use of money to put half your income on healthy insurance at the age of 21.

It's practically required here.  This is why I keep saying you can't look through a Brazilian lens.  I'm not saying your can't comment, in fact, I welcome it, but we can't go without insurance here. 1, it's almost illegal to not have it now. 2, good luck paying for any services short of a doctor check up out of pocket.  Not fun paying $1000 or more per month for many medications that probably cost you less than $100.  Need an X-ray?  Those can cost over $1000 too.  Even a damn snake bite can cost you over $150,000 here.

The United States is the only industrialized nation where people have to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills.

Baalzamon said:

Approximately 2012-2014. It really hasn't adjusted at all lately. If anything it has gotten cheaper because attendance to the college is much lower the last couple of years and they are desperate to fill the housing near campus lately.

That must be in the more rural areas of the US for rates like that.  I live in a city with a housing CPI right around the national average and 4 bedrooms near any of our universities cannot be found for less than $1,900.  I'm looking on Zillow now.

Baalzamon said:

The interest rate on your father in law's house was also probably...around 10.5%.

So a 30 year loan (assuming 20% down payment) would have cost total of $255,000 (including the down payment).

The $270k value now will be a total cost of $448,000 over a 30 year loan (at 4.5% interest).

Per government data sites, the average wage in 1990 was $21,000 compared to $48,500 in 2016 (most recent available on data set I'm looking at on social security site). So in 1990, the house represented 12.14 years of wages, whereas in 2016 it represents 9.24 years of income. Seems to me like the house has actually gotten cheaper.

Electronics being cheaper...its almost like you are saying buying power has...increased? Isn't that exactly what I'm saying. In today's day and age, even the poor can afford a much more lavish lifestyle than they ever used to be able to.

And yes, lets not go down the road of student loans, because those are often a choice people make (none of the union workers we bring through our system have any student loans and they are averaging approximately $80-$100k/year in compensation after 5 years, and we are massively short of labor).

They got 9.5% so ~$235k but I also know they refinanced around 2005 when rates were closer to 5%.

1) Almost illegal doesn't make it really illegal, and as said before, on the cases of people without revenue the government "give" it.

2) When you don't have to pay 450 USD per month in healthy insurance, paying 1000 for X-Ray won't be a problem... Haven't needed to go to a doctor in the last 20 years... so per your math I would have saved 108k which already half a house payment.

Houses being refinanced 20 years after they started paying won't really go much lower the total paid.

My "Brazilian lens" come in hand to show when you put your 40% lower income to make a case of poor poor american and how much they suffer it is a joke compared to any place people are really poor and without much opportunity.



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

I hear this time and time again--- They don't teach us taxes in school, they don't teach us budgeting in school, they don't teach us X in school. Wah, wah, wah!

This is just major bullshit and is just people trying to point their fingers at a government run system to find a scapegoat. It can never be "their" fault, it's gotta be everyone else's fault.

I was never taught how to do my Taxes or how to put together a monthly budget. I had to figure that out for myself. But truly the task of budgeting and paying taxes is something that should lie upon the parents and not a government run agency. Yeah, my parents were never taught this and so could never teach it to me but they should have. I know that I will make sure that I teach my son how to do his taxes and how to budget.

Buck up Sally, take some initiative, and quit being a crybaby!

 

Edit - This is in response mostly to posts on the first few pages I read before posting this.

Last edited by Raistline - on 09 August 2018

Raistline said:

I hear this time and time again--- They don't teach us taxes in school, they don't teach us budgeting in school, they don't teach us X in school. Wah, wah, wah!

This is just major bullshit and is just people trying to point their fingers at a government run system to find a scapegoat. It can never be "their" fault, it's gotta be everyone else's fault.

I was never taught how to do my Taxes or how to put together a monthly budget. I had to figure that out for myself. But truly the task of budgeting and paying taxes is something that should lie upon the parents and not a government run agency. Yeah, my parents were never taught this and so could never teach it to me but they should have. I know that I will make sure that I teach my son how to do his taxes and how to budget.

Buck up Sally, take some initiative, and quit being a crybaby!

 

Edit - This is in response mostly to posts on the first few pages I read before posting this.

Sincerely would be much better to teach basic economy on school than gender identity or "intelligent design".



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

Raistline said:

I hear this time and time again--- They don't teach us taxes in school, they don't teach us budgeting in school, they don't teach us X in school. Wah, wah, wah!

This is just major bullshit and is just people trying to point their fingers at a government run system to find a scapegoat. It can never be "their" fault, it's gotta be everyone else's fault.

I was never taught how to do my Taxes or how to put together a monthly budget. I had to figure that out for myself. But truly the task of budgeting and paying taxes is something that should lie upon the parents and not a government run agency. Yeah, my parents were never taught this and so could never teach it to me but they should have. I know that I will make sure that I teach my son how to do his taxes and how to budget.

Buck up Sally, take some initiative, and quit being a crybaby!

 

Edit - This is in response mostly to posts on the first few pages I read before posting this.

I started doing my taxes at 12 when I got my first job.  Very easy to do when you only have one source of income.



Vizigoth04 said:

I 100% agree with that. The problem with using an alternate system whether as a nation or the entire world is we never have that open conversation about an alternate. We can't just say socialism or capitalism or any other form of economic will work, we have to conversate, plan and agree on how a system will work. One tactic I've thought of is your service to society should be societies service back to you. In another words if you work for a living you should be able to go to your store and attain your groceries or things you need or want. But you shouldn't just take the entire bin of beef as that doesn't leave anything left for anyone else. So then you think ration control. The problem with that is some families are bigger than others. So where's the cap? The rations for a 4 person family is the same as a 7 person family? Who makes those decisions other than a voting system to decide. Vote and decide on the individual policies, not the president/prime Minister or king or queen to make decisions for all. 

I think we should return to feudal manorialism.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.