Quantcast
40% of Americans have negative net income

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

SpokenTruth said:

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 mean, I dunno what you call a smaller city, but in the cities I've lived in (sub 1 million metro populations in poorer areas of the South), that's not really the case. Roommates are super common and a plain 2 bd apartment in a ok part of town costs around $400-500/month (obviously split with a roommate). There's also a lot more competition for jobs in those rural areas because they don't have enough people to fill the positions. While some fast food or service places start near the minimum wage (isn't the case for most), you can pretty easily get $10/hour with just a HS degree and felony-free record.

Now, for people with families trying to live at this level, it's pretty impossible. Requires multiple jobs and help from friends/family to stay above water. But for younger people (as was the example), it's a lot more managable. Out of curosity, where do you live? I've lived in East Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama, where you can find places with even lower cost of living than what we talked about.

Last edited by outlawauron - on 10 August 2018

Around the Network
outlawauron said:
SpokenTruth said:

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 mean, I dunno what you call a smaller city, but in the cities I've lived in (sub 1 million metro populations in poorer areas of the South), that's not really the case. Roommates are super common and a plain 2 bd apartment in a ok part of town costs around $400-500/month (obviously split with a roommate). There's also a lot more competition for jobs in those rural areas because they don't have enough people to fill the positions. While some fast food or service places start near the minimum wage (isn't the case for most), you can pretty easily get $10/hour with just a HS degree and felony-free record.

Now, for people with families trying to live at this level, it's pretty impossible. Requires multiple jobs and help from friends/family to stay above water. But for younger people (as was the example), it's a lot more managable. Out of curosity, where do you live? I've lived in East Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama.

And if you can't pay for your own needs you really shouldn't be making a family and putting children in the world that you can't sustain.



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

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.

Point of clarification:  the NEW house in 1991 was what you calculated to have a total cost of $255,000.  The TWENTY-SEVEN year old house in 2018 was what you calculated to be cheaper relative to wages compared to the new house back then.  If SpokenTruth is right about an equivalent new house costing $400k, then that is indeed more expensive than the 1991 house was relative to wages.  By, you know, a lot. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Baalzamon said:

Food can be done for $100/month

What? You were eating noodles only?



Visit my eBay stampers store: eims-stampers

Deus Ex (2000) - a game that pushes the boundaries of what the video game medium is capable of to a degree unmatched to this very day.

JRPGfan said:
Zappykins said:
Clearly, we need to give the top 1% of the 1% a bit more of a tax cut, that's all they need then they will finally start creating those high paying jobs everyone needs.

(time passes)

Oh, that's didn't work? How about some more Welfare for Billionaires. Surely it's bound to work one of these days. (It's Economics 'Nice Guys' version.)

Trickle down economics never seems to works..... no idea why its taught in bussiness schools.
It doesnt seem to be supported by reality.

Rather giveing tax cuts to the poorest usually have huge effects though, those people that before hand couldnt afford to buy things then can = huge spending boom = higher production = more jobs.

"Trickle down economics never seems to works"

I agree, my post was sarcastic, if that wasn't clear.

I think the only 'business schools' that teach it are the one sponsored by the Koch brother and other Republican for profit centers.  I think it's right up there with the King calming they have a 'diving right' to rule or Pharos being an actual God.  

It's all pr to control the gullible, the masses, and the ones that want to 'be good people' by doing what they are told. 



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!

Around the Network

Central bank and their fiat currency system is the cancer and curse of the middle class. What we have today in this central bank system is socialism for the top 1%: whenever some bad bank or bad company is on the brink of failing, Central banks intervene, and bail them out at the expense of everyone else. This is not captalism anymore. Bad/unproductive companies and banks should be let to fail.

 

Stop bailing the elites out with cheap money/zero interst rates at the cost of pensioners, savers and the middle class as a whole.

Last edited by CuCabeludo - on 01 October 2018