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%.
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!
So what you’re saying is, if you’re not on the brink of starvation and/or homelessness you’re not poor?
Like, someone who hasn’t been able to afford vacations or any other luxury, is one medical issue or car issue away from homelessness, and doesn’t go to the doctor for routine/preventative stuff because it’s too expensive, isn’t poor. So long as they pay rent on time and eat three meals a day.
dude, everyone is one medical issue away from bankrupcy. if i got cancer i’d go bankrupt.
yes, as long as you pay rent, have heat, and other necessities you’re not poor in in poverty.
i don’t know what your standard is, but i grew up with a roof over my head, food in my belly, and zero luxuries. we were considered middle class. not poor. our houses were old and crappy, and our cars were used based models. the only ‘luxury’ we had was cable tv.
the issue is now ‘middle class’ seems to mean ‘upper middle class’ as if if you can’t lve in the best towns, with teh best schools, and travel to europe with your family every year, you are ‘poor’. where i live people lve in posh expensive years, have the $5000 in electronics or more, are leasing new model cars, and traveling abroad 2-3x a year and claim they are ‘in poverty’. because their salary is ‘only’ 100K.
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!
So what you’re saying is, if you’re not on the brink of starvation and/or homelessness you’re not poor?
Like, someone who hasn’t been able to afford vacations or any other luxury, is one medical issue or car issue away from homelessness, and doesn’t go to the doctor for routine/preventative stuff because it’s too expensive, isn’t poor. So long as they pay rent on time and eat three meals a day.
dude, everyone is one medical issue away from bankrupcy. if i got cancer i’d go bankrupt.
yes, as long as you pay rent, have heat, and other necessities you’re not poor in in poverty.
i don’t know what your standard is, but i grew up with a roof over my head, food in my belly, and zero luxuries. we were considered middle class. not poor. our houses were old and crappy, and our cars were used based models. the only ‘luxury’ we had was cable tv.
the issue is now ‘middle class’ seems to mean ‘upper middle class’ as if if you can’t lve in the best towns, with teh best schools, and travel to europe with your family every year, you are ‘poor’. where i live people lve in posh expensive years, have the $5000 in electronics or more, are leasing new model cars, and traveling abroad 2-3x a year and claim they are ‘in poverty’. because their salary is ‘only’ 100K.
No, what I’m saying is $140,000 is not the new poverty line for Americans.
It’s not the line between being poor or not, it’s the poverty line and what you’re describing would be considered poverty.
What? You’re not making any sense.