Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   When you read about "The Poverty Line" in America, keep in mind the line was originally set in 1963 and it assumes all houses have a full-time housewife who is a "skilled cook" and "careful shopper" to stretch their budget   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, abstract concepts  
•       •       •

10049 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 2:11 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-09 02:12:13 PM  
And no need for daycare
 
2014-01-09 02:13:03 PM  
The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.
 
2014-01-09 02:15:20 PM  
If you're so rich, why aren't you smart?
 
2014-01-09 02:17:05 PM  

ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


How hard you work and what you're paid arnt really too correlated.

Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.
 
2014-01-09 02:17:25 PM  
The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?
 
2014-01-09 02:17:51 PM  
*shrug* Everything needs updating now and then. The problem is when it  isn't updated, and that's a problem our government has in spades.
 
2014-01-09 02:18:33 PM  
So the point of the FA is that a single mother raising three kids on $18,000/yr is a good thing. Right?
 
2014-01-09 02:18:42 PM  
That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.

Problem is, now a lot of time both parents have to work just to have those essentials, which adds a daycare expense, and makes fixing proper meals tough when nobody is home to do the work that entails.
 
2014-01-09 02:19:10 PM  

telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?


You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?
 
2014-01-09 02:19:23 PM  
Much like capitalism only works if you have an informed consumer, but those died out with personal responsibility sometime in the 1980's.
 
2014-01-09 02:20:35 PM  

CleanAndPure: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

How hard you work and what you're paid arnt really too correlated.

Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.


The Poltically Correct term is "motivationally challenged." We can't hurt anyone's feeling by calling them a slacker
 
2014-01-09 02:20:46 PM  

JackieRabbit: So the point of the FA is that a single mother raising three kids on $18,000/yr is a good thing. Right?


No, she's saying she needs to get off her ass and cook to make it work.
 
2014-01-09 02:22:16 PM  

AgentPothead: Much like capitalism only works if you have an informed consumer, but those died out with personal responsibility sometime in the 1980's.


Well you know poverty has been the problem of indolent irresponsible people. Job creators try to help them, but you know what the bible says, job creators only help those that help themselves.
 
2014-01-09 02:23:03 PM  

telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

boygeniusreport.files.wordpress.com

They don't pay their workers overtime, they tell their workers how to apply for food stamps, they discriminate against women...
 
2014-01-09 02:23:04 PM  
Of course people had time to cook in 1963. TV SUCKED back then.
 
2014-01-09 02:26:00 PM  

ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?


I have and lots of them work hard.  Most of them are idiots.  I say that honestly.  They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".

I say "most" because there are people who got caught in medical bills, layoffs, metal illness, etc. and ended up poor (usually temporarily) and they are not idiots.  However the people who were born poor, stayed poor, and do not show any signs of ever getting out of poverty, are generally morons.
 
2014-01-09 02:26:49 PM  

buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.

Problem is, now a lot of time both parents have to work just to have those essentials, which adds a daycare expense, and makes fixing proper meals tough when nobody is home to do the work that entails.


This, and we justify it with the Prosperity Gospel.
 
2014-01-09 02:27:15 PM  
What you need to do is take the most popular male name and most popular female name for the year proceeding the current by two, assign a numerical value to each later (A=1, B=2 and so on).  and then generate a sum for each name.

For example, in 2012 the names were Sophia=68  and William=79  (This explains why men earn more than women, incidentally).

Add the two values together, divide by two, multiply by the number of people in the family, divide by pets and square that number.

For example, if Sophia and William were married and had 3 kids (children) and 2 kids (goats), poverty for them would be anything less than $33,764.06 annually.  Do this for each family and set the minimum wage locally by household.

There.  Problem solved.  Why do they always have to complicate things?
 
2014-01-09 02:27:57 PM  

mike_d85: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

I have and lots of them work hard.  Most of them are idiots.  I say that honestly.  They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".

I say "most" because there are people who got caught in medical bills, layoffs, metal illness, etc. and ended up poor (usually temporarily) and they are not idiots.  However the people who were born poor, stayed poor, and do not show any signs of ever getting out of poverty, are generally morons.


You're like Pope Francis except you're a complete dick.
 
2014-01-09 02:28:04 PM  
So it's women's fault then.  I always suspected.  If they would just stick to making sammiches, everything would be better.
 
2014-01-09 02:28:05 PM  
TIL every woman in America was a skillful cook in the 60's.

Thanks, feminism.
 
2014-01-09 02:28:11 PM  
Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
www.doctorhousingbubble.com

now look at this one:
www.davemanuel.com

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
2.bp.blogspot.com

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
graphics8.nytimes.com

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat
 
2014-01-09 02:30:11 PM  

CleanAndPure: Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.


Interesting that the rich people who have do little work aren't lazy but the poor people are.
 
2014-01-09 02:33:02 PM  

AngryDragon: So it's women's fault then.  I always suspected.  If they would just stick to making sammiches, everything would be better.


j-walk.com
 
2014-01-09 02:34:32 PM  

ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?


Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.
 
2014-01-09 02:34:37 PM  
I don't know what the point of that article was.    Other than the comment that '1963 may seem outdated today' ?

Yeah, it might.      And it was a pretty uninteresting article.

1963
Average Cost of new house $12,650.00 Average Income per year $5,807.00 Gas per Gallon 29 cents
what that has to do with today.....I have no idea.
 
2014-01-09 02:34:38 PM  

ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


Funny'd
 
2014-01-09 02:35:37 PM  

MayoSlather: You're like Pope Francis except you're a complete dick.


Thank you?
 
2014-01-09 02:35:50 PM  

ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?


I have. And they were stupid and lazy motherfarkers to a person.
 
2014-01-09 02:36:27 PM  

mike_d85: I have and lots of them work hard.  Most of them are idiots.  I say that honestly.  They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".


And?

Look, the dumb will be with you. Always.  It's not like the Scandinavian countries or whatever Asian tiger economy doesn't have plenty of 80-some IQ Joes. Everywhere does.

But, through some degree of economic protectionism, some degree of make-work, some degree of artificial value, a society can choose to trade in a little 'pure economic efficiency' for 'and the Joes do okay too'.  Or, you can say fark 'em all, gate your communities, and sell them meth.  One or the other.
 
2014-01-09 02:36:41 PM  
Oh, Magorn, quit trying to confuse the matter with the truth. Sheeple, ignore this man.
 
2014-01-09 02:39:22 PM  

Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat


It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.
 
2014-01-09 02:40:21 PM  

mike_d85: ikanreed:
You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

I have and lots of them work hard.  Most of them are idiots.  I say that honestly.  They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".



This. Go be a regular at a dive bar for a month. Just sit there for an hour or two after work. You'll get to know the (many) other regulars and learn their stories. Most of them will be middling poor and you'll come to understand they'd be much better off if they weren't so stubbornly dumb.
 
2014-01-09 02:41:32 PM  

blatz514: AngryDragon: So it's women's fault then.  I always suspected.  If they would just stick to making sammiches, everything would be better.

[j-walk.com image 850x550]


I love reading shait like that.  Hell, it's scary that was written a tish over fifty years ago.
 
2014-01-09 02:41:42 PM  

ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?


I have met people who are genuinely poor because of laziness.  Not saying all poor people are lazy of course.  But they're not all hard working either.
 
2014-01-09 02:42:08 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.


Lol. I nominate this post as the most hilarious post of the day. No one is this clueless.

But yeah, keep sucking that Koch. I am sure one day something will trickle down.
 
2014-01-09 02:43:26 PM  

Target Builder: CleanAndPure: Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.

Interesting that the rich people who have do little work aren't lazy but the poor people are.


If had plenty of money, I would have better things to do.

If I had no money, not so much...
 
2014-01-09 02:46:59 PM  

PsiChick: *shrug* Everything needs updating now and then. The problem is when it  isn't updated, and that's a problem our government has in spades.


The Republican party agrees with you.
 
2014-01-09 02:49:48 PM  

mdeesnuts: Go be a regular at a dive bar for a month. Just sit there for an hour or two after work. You'll get to know the (many) other regulars and learn their stories. Most of them will be middling poor and you'll come to understand they'd be much better off if they weren't so stubbornly dumb.


They should hit the reset button and put in the Konami code next go-around, amirite?
 
GBB
2014-01-09 02:51:07 PM  
Good luck finding a woman that's either a skilled cook or careful shopper these days.  Don't even consider finding one that's both.

/my experience.
//YMMV
 
2014-01-09 02:52:23 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.


You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
paganpages.org
 
2014-01-09 02:54:17 PM  

zeroman987: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

Lol. I nominate this post as the most hilarious post of the day. No one is this clueless.

But yeah, keep sucking that Koch. I am sure one day something will trickle down.


zero, you appear to have said absolutely nothing.  that is an interesting feat on Fark.  How can describing people I am related to and know quire well possibly be clueless?  Or do you not understand the word clueless?  A post ostensibly asked for annecdotal evidence, and I gave it. Or do you think I am mistaken when an associate appologized to me for having to fire a person I recommended to them. Or perhaps I am mis-remembering the pregnancies my cousin went through?
 
2014-01-09 02:56:01 PM  

mdeesnuts: mike_d85: ikanreed:
You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

I have and lots of them work hard.  Most of them are idiots.  I say that honestly.  They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".


This. Go be a regular at a dive bar for a month. Just sit there for an hour or two after work. You'll get to know the (many) other regulars and learn their stories. Most of them will be middling poor and you'll come to understand they'd be much better off if they weren't so stubbornly dumb.


You know there are a lto fo poor peopel who don't hang otu at bars, right?

And if you are getting your info rom that, it could be coloring your view.
 
2014-01-09 02:56:08 PM  

Magorn: See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.


Learn to math.  That's not what your numbers show at all.  Unless polygamy has suddenly become popular without me finding out, it would be impossible for the number of people per household to double.  It shows that (omitting households where only the wife works) in 1967, an average of 1.32 people were working per household and in 2002, an average of 1.55 people were working per household.  That is a 17.4% increase in the number of people working per household, compared to a ~20% increase (I'm estimating $41k and $45k as household income numbers here, since your graph doesn't give exact numbers).

Now, I would expect that those numbers have increased by more than the .23 people per household that your numbers show, given that there has been a rise in stay at home husbands (though it is somewhat small).  That doesn't however, come anywhere close to confirming your statement.  If anything, it actually refutes it, showing that household income has risen faster than the average workers per family.

It also doesn't begin to address the couples where both people work because they chose to.  My parents (I'm not married, so my life doesn't really apply in this situation, which is why I'm using them), for example, both work because they chose to, not because they need to.  Back in 1967, that situation was much less common, since women were more likely to stop working once they got married even if they didn't have kids.


So, in reality, the only thing I want to dust off my torch for is to burn down whatever school you went to because it clearly didn't do it's job.
 
2014-01-09 02:57:31 PM  

Tricky Chicken: zeroman987: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

Lol. I nominate this post as the most hilarious post of the day. No one is this clueless.

But yeah, keep sucking that Koch. I am sure one day something will trickle down.

zero, you appear to have said absolutely nothing.  that is an interesting feat on Fark.  How can describing people I am related to and know quire well possibly be clueless?  Or do you not understand the word clueless?  A post ostensibly asked for annecdotal evidence, and I gave it. Or do you think I am mistaken when an associate appologized to me for having to fire a person I recommended to them. Or perhaps I am mis-remembering the pregnancies my cousin went through?


No, you're just suffering from the Fallacy of Composition.  It's ok, it happens.
 
2014-01-09 02:58:37 PM  
We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.

That said the cost of food, especially staples, has soared as has all essential costs like housing, transportation, etc while the wages have not only stagnated but have been going DOWN when factoring in inflation, benefits, full time status (working two decently paid part time jobs is FAR more expensive than one meagerly compensated full time job) and the like.

We have trained the past couple of generations to be the ultimate bean counters who specialize in nickel and dime tactics to squeeze every last micro cent and millisecond out of every scenario they can while the salesmen lull everyone into believing they are subhuman for not making fiscally irresponsible purchases even if it means going into to debt at ridiculously high interest rates.

Then, those seemingly intelligent and cautious few who scrimp and save and claw their way into saving and investing or slave their way through jobs with supposed retirement benefits have their entire efforts wiped out every decade or so funneling it into the pockets of the very same people who would shame them if they did anything less than complete and utter meekness and subservience. Of course once the grift is complete those same entities that cried poverty and "too big to fail" have gotten their bailouts and reduced the quality of life for everyone everywhere start reporting "RECORD PROFITS" a few short years later while their victims are too old and tired to hold them accountable for their crimes.

My solution? Completely overhaul how business and economics is taught. These types of business models do NOT work in the long term despite the huge short term gains. If corporations want to be citizens and want their own little social safety net then they should also realize, that like the rest of us, contributing to that society for it's overall and sustained health will benefit them in the long run as well.

No one can buy your useless, overpriced crap if no one has the money to pay for it. I think this last ass raping we received by corporate America is about as far as it can go. The next big heist will sink the ship and even the suits will be out here with us dirty poors in the streets scrounging for rat corpses.
 
2014-01-09 02:59:26 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester:

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
[paganpages.org image 280x456]


Do you have some evidence of this charge? Aside from the time I spend on Fark? Or is this just more baseless tripe you like to spew? Like your classics " the hardest working people are among the poorest." and "Just knowing that there were global cooling articles in the 70's automatically makes you a denier" (circa thread 8079447).

You do seem to have a dizzying lack of depth and ability to support your assertions.
 
2014-01-09 03:01:04 PM  

ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.



Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.
 
2014-01-09 03:01:37 PM  

Target Builder: CleanAndPure: Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.

Interesting that the rich people who have do little work aren't lazy but the poor people are.


If you have no money and don't work to try and get some to feed your family... you're lazy.

If you alreafy have huge amounts of money and don't work hard... big deal... why waste your life working when you could be sipping pina coladas in Rio?
 
GBB
2014-01-09 03:02:26 PM  

buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.


The problem is that rent is partially based on the actual value of the home and the cost of upkeep to the landlord, and probably more based on the ability of the tenant to pay.

If you are getting by paying $500 a month on minimum wage and suddenly you are making an additional $300 a month because of an increase in minimum wage, your landlord is going to want a piece of that.

In 2007, rent for my apartment was $750.  In 2006 is was $730.  When the lease came up for renewal in 2008, just before the housing market collapse, they wanted $900.  I moved.  In 2011, I looked on their website and that floorplan was $8XX.  Landlords will always be greedy bastards that will base their rent schedules on the income potential of their tenants actual or prospective.

When I was car shopping quite a few years ago, the Honda Insight was the only hybrid on the market.  There was also a tax credit available from the IRS for $2,000 for buying an alternative fuel vehicle.  That was mentioned by the salesperson when I was looking.  Take a wild guess at how much over MSRP the Honda Insight I was looking at was.
 
2014-01-09 03:03:53 PM  

ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?


I only have anecdotes, but sadly they involve poor people who do in fact work hard, but make absolutely awful decisions.

Of course, making awful decisions is hardly unique to poor people.
 
2014-01-09 03:04:25 PM  

GBB: Good luck finding a woman that's either a skilled cook or careful shopper these days.  Don't even consider finding one that's both.

/my experience.
//YMMV


I've got one that is a great cook... and shops smart... very budget conscious.

She has no libido though.

So one major arm of the perfect trifecta missing.
 
2014-01-09 03:05:56 PM  

ikanreed: You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
paganpages.org


Snow White?
 
2014-01-09 03:06:55 PM  
Even if you put the poverty line at $.01 annually for a family of fifteen, the conservative mouthbreathers will insist that's way more than they need. Particularly stupid since most of the conservative mouthbreathers are poor themselves. Oh wait, sorry; they're future millionaires so they vote like they want to be in the future.
 
2014-01-09 03:06:58 PM  

CleanAndPure: Target Builder: CleanAndPure: Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.

Interesting that the rich people who have do little work aren't lazy but the poor people are.

If you have no money and don't work to try and get some to feed your family... you're lazy.

If you alreafy have huge amounts of money and don't work hard... big deal... why waste your life working when you could be sipping pina coladas in Rio at Trader Vics?


/Ah-OOOOOOO!
 
2014-01-09 03:10:28 PM  

Carn: Tricky Chicken: zeroman987: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  ***Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem***?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

***I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).***Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

Lol. I nominate this post as the most hilarious post of the day. No one is this clueless.

But yeah, keep sucking that Koch. I am sure one day something will trickle down.

zero, you appear to have said absolutely nothing.  that is an interesting feat on Fark.  How can describing people I am related to and know quire well possibly be clueless?  Or do you not understand the word clueless?  A post ostensibly asked for annecdotal evidence, and I gave it. Or do you think I am mistaken when an associate appologized to me for having to fire a person I recommended to them. Or perhaps I am mis-remembering the pregnancies my cousin went through?

No, you're just suffering from the Fallacy of Composition.  It's ok, it happens.


Yes, please do read the link you posted. then come back and read what I bolded. Keep doing it until you start to understand what was posted.

You see, fallacy of composition would apply if I implied that all poor are as useless as the ones I listed.  I did not do that. A question was asked "You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?" See that is a direct question asking for information that in the given context could only ever be taken as annecdotal. I responded with the list I bolded above.  Now I know that throwing around classical falacy accusations is popular here, but you really do need to invoke them correctly or you wind up looking like a fool as you do currently.

The quip I added at the end was directed at ikanreed's beatification of the poor in the statement "The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest."
 
2014-01-09 03:11:55 PM  

Chummer45: Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat

It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.


For you, A ceeegar and another chart:

wonkroom.thinkprogress.org
 
2014-01-09 03:12:56 PM  
"No one can buy your useless, overpriced crap if no one has the money to pay for it. I think this last ass raping we received by corporate America is about as far as it can go."


So if you are a working, middle class family in America...

Who is taking money out of your wallet each month.

Corporate America ?

or poor people ?

/it's rhetorical
 
2014-01-09 03:13:41 PM  

theknuckler_33: CleanAndPure: Target Builder: CleanAndPure: Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.

Interesting that the rich people who have do little work aren't lazy but the poor people are.

If you have no money and don't work to try and get some to feed your family... you're lazy.

If you alreafy have huge amounts of money and don't work hard... big deal... why waste your life working when you could be sipping pina coladas in Rio at Trader Vics?

/Ah-OOOOOOO!


Only if your hair is perfect.

/DEP
 
2014-01-09 03:15:26 PM  

flak attack: Magorn: See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Learn to math.  That's not what your numbers show at all.  Unless polygamy has suddenly become popular without me finding out, it would be impossible for the number of people per household to double.  It shows that (omitting households where only the wife works) in 1967, an average of 1.32 people were working per household and in 2002, an average of 1.55 people were working per household.  That is a 17.4% increase in the number of people working per household, compared to a ~20% increase (I'm estimating $41k and $45k as household income numbers here, since your graph doesn't give exact numbers).

Now, I would expect that those numbers have increased by more than the .23 people per household that your numbers show, given that there has been a rise in stay at home husbands (though it is somewhat small).  That doesn't however, come anywhere close to confirming your statement.  If anything, it actually refutes it, showing that household income has risen faster than the average workers per family.
Learn to grammar: "it clearly didn't do it's job."

It also doesn't begin to address the couples where both people work because they chose to.  My parents (I'm not married, so my life doesn't really apply in this situation, which is why I'm using them), for example, both work because they chose to, not because they need to.  Back in 1967, that situation was much less common, since women were more likely to stop working once they got married even if they didn't have kids.


So, in reality, the only thing I want to dust off my torch for is to burn down whatever school you went to because it clearly didn't do it's job.

 
2014-01-09 03:16:11 PM  

Magorn: Chummer45: Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat

It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.

For you, A ceeegar and another chart:

[wonkroom.thinkprogress.org image 402x253]



It's especially laugh-worthy that the scale on the left is five (5) percentage point per line, while the scale on the right is two (2) percentage points per line.

But it was gratuitous for the chart-maker to line up a 30% union membership rate with a 54% rate of middle class income representation.

Would you like to see my chart comparing global warming and pirates?
 
2014-01-09 03:16:23 PM  

umad: ikanreed:
You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?
I have. And they were stupid and lazy motherfarkers to a person.


Not too lazy to finally put you on ignore, douchebag.

Except now I've figured out why you finally hate me so much--I don't fit in with your narrow worldview.
 
2014-01-09 03:16:29 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.


This and other posts make me want to ask whether folks would like to go the Victorian route and distinguish between the "deserving" poor and the "undeserving" poor. The "undeserving" would be given assistance and the "deserving" poor would be put in the workhouse, etc. Then maybe we could add in your Victorian capitalist to the picture, the guy with the top hat carrying a diamond-topped walking stick to twirl around, and who has 99.9% of the wealth in the town. This is what you guys seem to be asking for.
 
2014-01-09 03:16:56 PM  
In real terms, not numbers. What is the definition of "living in poverty" in the US? I'm guessing those living in "poverty" today have quite a more comfortable life than even the "middle" class in the 60's.

Then again there is that whole choice and consequence thing that "freedom" loving people seem to forget about. Everyone wants freedom of choice but they don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their actions if they are bad.
 
2014-01-09 03:17:10 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Yes, please do read the link you posted. then come back and read what I bolded. Keep doing it until you start to understand what was posted.

You see, fallacy of composition would apply if I implied that all poor are as useless as the ones I listed.  I did not do that. A question was asked "You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?" See that is a direct question asking for information that in the given context could only ever be taken as annecdotal. I responded with the list I bolded above.  Now I know that throwing around classical falacy accusations is popular here, but you really do need to invoke them correctly or you wind up looking like a fool as you do currently.

The quip I added at the end was directed at ikanreed's beatification of the poor in the statement "The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest."


So you agree with ikanreed's statement, but just wanted to add some exceptional cases for our consideration?  Or were you trying to use a few cases of lazy poor people that you know personally to make a statement about all poor people?  That sure seemed like what you were doing.  Would you care to clarify your position?  Are you only objecting to his use of the word "most"?  If so, what would you replace it with?  Some/many/few/none?
 
2014-01-09 03:17:17 PM  

Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat


Can I just suggest another interpretation?

1) Ever since women started working, men haven't gotten a pay raise.  Women have been going gangbusters, but it's been at the "cost" of men's incomes going flat.  (Which is partly due to some long-term structural issues killing off manufacturing jobs).
2) So where it used to be "Dad makes everything, Mom makes nothing", it's now "Dad makes some, and Mom makes some."  This combines with anti-growth policies driving rents through the roof to the point where you need both those incomes.
3) The HOUSEHOLD issue is really simple.  If Mom got divorced, Mom was destitute.  But now Mom's making some cash (and she's always hated Dad, which is why she's a complete drunk and they fight over the dinner table every night), so she divorces Dad, and ends up as poor.  Poor, not destitute.  Oh, and meanwhile, the kid goes to college to be an engineer, and walks out making $40-100K, so he's on his own in an apartment.  The average "personal" income is way up ($22,000 to $38,000 since 1980, NOT counting inflation).  The average "household" income is stable because there's less incomes per household.
4) And meanwhile, while some of the inequality is driven by well, inequality built into capitalism as a feature, some of it is just getting driven by the spread of the one-parent household.

Dad + Mom = $100K.
Dad - alimony = $14K
Mom + alimony = $85K

See how unequal that is?  (Actual numbers growing up).

You are better off personally than you were 30 years ago (on the average and the median.  Not necessarily you).

Now, there's some really long-term issues driving out unskilled rote labor and replacing or augmenting it with cheaper automation and machines which leads to increased urbanization (which then combines with anti-growth policies to fark over EVERYBODY).  And a lot of those people are settling for welfare (because of, among other things, the welfare cliff, which penalizes people for almost making it), partly because they're brutally underqualified for the modern world, partly because rural regions have been dying off for the last century, and partly because it's there as an option.  And yet, we've gone from $22K to $38K.

/Also, if you want to solve inequality, solve the productivity gap first.
//And then if you treat inequality as a problem in and of itself, instead of a possible symptom of other issues (and at a certain level, a good thing.  Google redefined the world, everyone involved at every level *should* be multi-billionaires.  Netflix created a post-scarcity economy in media, ditto, Apple, ditto, MSFT, ditto.), go look up:
* the difference between "value", "price", and "cost".
* what "network effects" do to value
* what "economies of scale" do to cost
* How the computing industries really benefit from this because the cost of the Nth copy is functionally 0 when compared to the cost of the 1st copy
* How that encourages one or two big winners amongst a giant pile of losers, since the winners are able to provide more for less by spreading around the costs, which in turn makes computing into the most unequal industry currently in existence (I'm willing to bet).
* why no one actually in the industry gives a shiat about the above bullet point, and how this provides one possible way to (for lack of a better term) ignore crippling inequality as a social problem.
///Seriously, ask around your family for the stories. Yes, I had a rat-infested apartment, but I didn't have a rat-infested, unheated garage that I was illegally subletting.
 
2014-01-09 03:17:32 PM  

Magorn: Chummer45: Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat

It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.

For you, A ceeegar and another chart:

[wonkroom.thinkprogress.org image 402x253]


People who have embraced this "race to the bottom" are under the impression that if people work for nothing, everything will be free.
 
2014-01-09 03:17:34 PM  

here to help: We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.
...


WTF are you eating?  Soylent Green and chicken feet?  I get fresh veg, canned foods in bulk, meat in bulk, and cook most everything from scratch and I can't do much better than $80 a WEEK.

FFS, just getting dried rice ($1.29) and beans ($1.30) for 7 days a week is $20 ($18.20).  And that's assuming you only consume one bag per day.  I'm shopping for 3 full grown adults so I assume we'd eat more.
 
2014-01-09 03:17:58 PM  

ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.
 
2014-01-09 03:18:02 PM  
poverty is a result, not a cause

poor decisions, inadequate self-control, lack of ambition, no shame

a man may be born poor, and that's the fault of his parents, but a man who's born poor, and still poor by the age of 30 has nobody to blame but himself

poverty will never be eradicated, because poverty is relative -- the bottom tenth of any population is doing worse than the upper 90%, and they will be called the "poor".

they will be "poor" even if they have resources otherwise to buy cars, or 42" colour televisions, or bean bag chairs, or mobile phones, or george foreman grills, or tennis shoes with flashing lights on them.
 
2014-01-09 03:18:19 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester:

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
[paganpages.org image 280x456]

Do you have some evidence of this charge? Aside from the time I spend on Fark? Or is this just more baseless tripe you like to spew? Like your classics " the hardest working people are among the poorest." and "Just knowing that there were global cooling articles in the 70's automatically makes you a denier" (circa thread 8079447).

You do seem to have a dizzying lack of depth and ability to support your assertions.


Oh, look, you bringing up a point where you were wrong in the past makes you less wrong now.
 
2014-01-09 03:18:42 PM  

liam76: mdeesnuts: mike_d85: ikanreed:
You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

I have and lots of them work hard.  Most of them are idiots.  I say that honestly.  They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".


This. Go be a regular at a dive bar for a month. Just sit there for an hour or two after work. You'll get to know the (many) other regulars and learn their stories. Most of them will be middling poor and you'll come to understand they'd be much better off if they weren't so stubbornly dumb.

You know there are a lto fo poor peopel who don't hang otu at bars, right?

And if you are getting your info rom that, it could be coloring your view.


That's true. It's just where I noticed the correlation of stubbornly dumb to poor. And I say stubborn because most of the people I base this off of weren't actually dumb, just made self-defeating decisions and would defend them no matter what.

/have family like that, too, just not such a large pool
//I like dive bars so I have a pretty good sample size
 
2014-01-09 03:19:10 PM  

MilesTeg: In real terms, not numbers. What is the definition of "living in poverty" in the US? I'm guessing those living in "poverty" today have quite a more comfortable life than even the "middle" class in the 60's.

Then again there is that whole choice and consequence thing that "freedom" loving people seem to forget about. Everyone wants freedom of choice but they don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their actions if they are bad.


Most of them do have refrigerators.
 
2014-01-09 03:19:41 PM  

Phinn: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.


What you are talking about sounds like supply and demand.  Janitorial work is arduous, but can be performed by nearly everybody with almost no training.  Therefore the available workforce for any particular position is massive and therefore inexpensive.  An extremely necessary position, but not very financially valuable.

Whereas what I do is not particularly strenuous, but the knowledge and skill set to do it is quite unique and required extreme effort to attain.  there are very few that can do what I actually do, so I can comand a higher salary.

but If you look at the work itself.  It is far more important for us to have janitorial services than the stuff I do. If I weren't here, the stuff would just get done much much more slowly.  If the custodians weren't here, nobody would be able to work at all after a few days.
 
2014-01-09 03:20:31 PM  

here to help: We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.

That said the cost of food, especially staples, has soared as has all essential costs like housing, transportation, etc while the wages have not only stagnated but have been going DOWN when factoring in inflation, benefits, full time status (working two decently paid part time jobs is FAR more expensive than one meagerly compensated full time job) and the like.

We have trained the past couple of generations to be the ultimate bean counters who specialize in nickel and dime tactics to squeeze every last micro cent and millisecond out of every scenario they can while the salesmen lull everyone into believing they are subhuman for not making fiscally irresponsible purchases even if it means going into to debt at ridiculously high interest rates.

Then, those seemingly intelligent and cautious few who scrimp and save and claw their way into saving and investing or slave their way through jobs with supposed retirement benefits have their entire efforts wiped out every decade or so funneling it into the pockets of the very same people who would shame them if they did anything less than complete and utter meekness and subservience. Of course once the grift is complete those same entities that cried poverty and "too big to fail" have gotten their bailouts and reduced the quality of life for everyone everywhere start reporting "RECORD PROFITS" a few short years later while their victims are too old and tired to hold them accountable for their crimes.

My solution? Completely overhaul how busines ...


I'm curious as how you can feed yourself for $2.50 a day, let alone eat 'rather well' on that budget.
 
2014-01-09 03:20:50 PM  

Enigmamf: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.


Oh, no, I don't care about value(at least in the context of the working poor), I care about human suffering, just world hypothesis bullshiat, and minimizing it.   When the sanctity of your economic system's assumptions come before the people who make it up, you're doing something wrong.
 
2014-01-09 03:20:53 PM  

mike_d85: I have and lots of them work hard. Most of them are idiots. I say that honestly. They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".

I say "most" because there are people who got caught in medical bills, layoffs, metal illness, etc. and ended up poor (usually temporarily) and they are not idiots. However the people who were born poor, stayed poor, and do not show any signs of ever getting out of poverty, are generally morons.


I definitely agree.  I have seen far too many who just dig themselves in deeper if given the slightest chance to.  If they have a dollar they spend it, they don't think about the future.

And you missed one category of poor but not idiots--immigrants with limited English.

Magorn: See the Problem? Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.


Except for the little detail that there are now far more households than there were then.


It doesn't take much in the way of skilled cooking in order to live on cheap food.  A skilled cook will certainly make it taste better but isn't mandatory.  Smart shopping is far more important but it's not that hard a skill, everyone should develop it.  The other thing I would add is to make meals around what's a good deal rather than plan meals and then buy what you need to make them.
 
2014-01-09 03:23:17 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Phinn: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.

What you are talking about sounds like supply and demand.  Janitorial work is arduous, but can be performed by nearly everybody with almost no training.  Therefore the available workforce for any particular position is massive and therefore inexpensive.  An extremely necessary position, but not very financially valuable.

Whereas what I do is not particularly strenuous, but the knowledge and skill set to do it is quite unique and required extreme effort to attain.  there are very few that can do what I actually do, so I can comand a higher salary.

but If you look at the work itself.  It is far more important for us to have janitorial services than the stuff I do. If I weren't here, the stuff would just get done much much more slowly.  If the custodians weren't here, nobody would be able to work at all after a few days.


Here's the bullshiat.  That's it.  What you do, like what I did, required a lot of free time for education from your parents in your youth.  A lot of money and free time for education in your young adulthood, and a foot in the door with respect to "respectability".  It's not "difficult" but it is rare(er).
 
2014-01-09 03:24:46 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester:

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
[paganpages.org image 280x456]

Do you have some evidence of this charge? Aside from the time I spend on Fark? Or is this just more baseless tripe you like to spew? Like your classics " the hardest working people are among the poorest." and "Just knowing that there were global cooling articles in the 70's automatically makes you a denier" (circa thread 8079447).

You do seem to have a dizzying lack of depth and ability to support your assertions.

Oh, look, you bringing up a point where you were wrong in the past makes you less wrong now.


Are you starting with the argument that there were NO articles touting global cooling in the 70s?! Or do you assert that I was wrong to confirm that yes such articles existed?
 
2014-01-09 03:25:14 PM  

ikanreed: Enigmamf: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.

Oh, no, I don't care about value(at least in the context of the working poor), I care about human suffering, just world hypothesis bullshiat, and minimizing it.   When the sanctity of your economic system's assumptions come before the people who make it up, you're doing something wrong.



Then YOU alleviate their suffering, big guy.  You've got your caring meter cranked up to 11, so that clearly makes you better than everyone else.  And since caring is all that matters, go ahead, run with it, dude.  Give the poor what they need.

Oh, wait, do you actually need other people's cooperation in solving complex social problems?  Well, then, you might want to actually communicating with the general public in terms of something we like to call "economic reality."
 
2014-01-09 03:25:48 PM  

menschenfresser: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

This and other posts make me want to ask whether folks would like to go the Victorian route and distinguish between the "deserving" poor and the "undeserving" poor. The "undeserving" would be given assistance and the "deserving" poor would be put in the workhouse, etc. Then maybe we could add in your Victorian capitalist to the picture, the guy with the top hat carrying a diamond-topped walking stick to twirl around, and who has 99.9% of the wealth in the town. This is what you guys seem to be asking for.


Ugh, I wrote this backwards: I should have said that the "deserving" poor got the aid while the "undeserving" ones were sent to the workhouse. Apologies all round for my error.
 
2014-01-09 03:26:21 PM  
ZOMG, they assumed you were an educated consumer!

But Responsibility !!!
 
2014-01-09 03:26:25 PM  

1derful: TIL every woman in America was a skillful cook in the 60's.

Thanks, feminism.



Someone has never tasted my grandmother's cooking...

/miss you, Granny
 
2014-01-09 03:27:31 PM  
So, the general consensus is people are poor because they're ignorant/stupid.

Well, obviously a good education is the cure.

oh, wait. We have an entire political party dedicated to privatizing education and eliminating critical thinking from the curriculum.

Well, we can fix that by sending them to college right?

oh, wait, crushing debt and a lack of jobs that pay enough for people to pay back the debt.
 
2014-01-09 03:27:58 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester:

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
[paganpages.org image 280x456]

Do you have some evidence of this charge? Aside from the time I spend on Fark? Or is this just more baseless tripe you like to spew? Like your classics " the hardest working people are among the poorest." and "Just knowing that there were global cooling articles in the 70's automatically makes you a denier" (circa thread 8079447).

You do seem to have a dizzying lack of depth and ability to support your assertions.

Oh, look, you bringing up a point where you were wrong in the past makes you less wrong now.

Are you starting with the argument that there were NO articles touting global cooling in the 70s?! Or do you assert that I was wrong to confirm that yes such articles existed?


Christ, I'm not putting up with this pedantic bullshiat again.  Yes, you are a climate change denier, and you're making the world a worse place.  Yes, you're wrong today, too, and you should go away.
 
2014-01-09 03:28:16 PM  

zeroman987: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

Lol. I nominate this post as the most hilarious post of the day. No one is this clueless.

But yeah, keep sucking that Koch. I am sure one day something will trickle down.


This
 
2014-01-09 03:29:25 PM  

Phinn: ikanreed: Enigmamf: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.

Oh, no, I don't care about value(at least in the context of the working poor), I care about human suffering, just world hypothesis bullshiat, and minimizing it.   When the sanctity of your economic system's assumptions come before the people who make it up, you're doing something wrong.

Then YOU alleviate their suffering, big guy.  You've got your caring meter cranked up to 11, so that clearly makes you better than everyone else.  And since caring is all that matters, go ahead, run with it, dude.  Give the poor what they need.

Oh, wait, do you actually need other people's cooperation in solving complex social problems?  Well, then, you might want to actually communicating with the general public in terms of something we like to call "economic reality."


Or how about we don't have an economic system built on screwing people, for the benefit of a very select few on the the justification that it's somehow "fair"?  There's a bullshiat "I care about fairness" ethical lie in your system too, only you're in favor of human suffering to get it.
 
2014-01-09 03:29:55 PM  

CleanAndPure: GBB: Good luck finding a woman that's either a skilled cook or careful shopper these days.  Don't even consider finding one that's both.

/my experience.
//YMMV

I've got one that is a great cook... and shops smart... very budget conscious.

She has no libido though.

So one major arm of the perfect trifecta missing.


I have good cook and decent libido, but she thinks that just because it says "organic" on the label it must be better.  1.7/3
 
2014-01-09 03:30:59 PM  

meyerkev: increased urbanization (which then combines with anti-growth policies to fark over EVERYBODY).


Where are you getting this "everything's anti-growth" victim complex?  Portland, fine, but that's the extreme outlier.  A lot more of the nation is like greater Houston... ever-the-more enthralled, begging, and will give you tax breaks (if not straight-up give you money) to put up all the duplexes, Walmarts, and fried-chicken-and-oil-change huts you want.

The problem is with urban renewal and gentrification, the wealthy are moving back into cities.  The poor are ending up in the peripheries.  Trailer parks in Victorville and Tracy.  Which are far worse places for the poor, since they're so tied to driving 300 miles a week, which kills the poor at $4 gas.
 
2014-01-09 03:32:24 PM  

ikanreed: You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?


That may not be the right counter-argument there, since, like the other five or so people that replied, my Weeners is "yes, and most of them are poor mostly due to being lazy".  Not  necessarily, but statistically.  Those of us that are poor but working on it are the first to tell you that most of the people in our income bracket... aren't, so much.

I'd say the hardest-working people are mostly in the lower-middle class, where your income is actually mostly a matter of applied effort.  Second hardest-working would be upper-middle-class where it's not so much a matter of effort as skill, but it takes effort to acquire the skilled labor (i.e. it's a lot of work but some of it's in advance), then the working poor where they're basically putting in enough work to get by but can't find quite enough to get into the middle class, then the outright unemployed (which is mostly a matter of luck but with some return on effort in applying for jobs), and last and least the extremely rich where income is  entirely a matter of luck and no real effort is involved.

// Not that I begrudge the wealthy, particularly.  Historically, being a lucky son of a biatch is a completely legit way to move your society forward, whether money is involved or not.  Most inventors could swear by this.
 
2014-01-09 03:32:40 PM  

Lawnchair: meyerkev: increased urbanization (which then combines with anti-growth policies to fark over EVERYBODY).

Where are you getting this "everything's anti-growth" victim complex?  Portland, fine, but that's the extreme outlier.  A lot more of the nation is like greater Houston... ever-the-more enthralled, begging, and will give you tax breaks (if not straight-up give you money) to put up all the duplexes, Walmarts, and fried-chicken-and-oil-change huts you want.

The problem is with urban renewal and gentrification, the wealthy are moving back into cities.  The poor are ending up in the peripheries.  Trailer parks in Victorville and Tracy.  Which are far worse places for the poor, since they're so tied to driving 300 miles a week, which kills the poor at $4 gas.


Except cities don't really have the "low-income" jobs anymore either.  There aren't factories downtown where you can just jump in and start making lower-middle class wages.
 
2014-01-09 03:32:58 PM  
The right wing really does want poor Americans to be POOR-poor. Like, starving skinny orphans poor.

www.thelondoneveningpost.com

And then instead of food, all the right wing will offer are bibles and a hob-nailed boot to the face.
 
2014-01-09 03:33:03 PM  

ikanreed: Or how about we don't have an economic system built on screwing people, for the benefit of a very select few on the the justification that it's somehow "fair"?


So which system is that?
 
2014-01-09 03:34:47 PM  

Jim_Callahan: ikanreed: You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

That may not be the right counter-argument there, since, like the other five or so people that replied, my Weeners is "yes, and most of them are poor mostly due to being lazy".  Not  necessarily, but statistically.  Those of us that are poor but working on it are the first to tell you that most of the people in our income bracket... aren't, so much.

I'd say the hardest-working people are mostly in the lower-middle class, where your income is actually mostly a matter of applied effort.  Second hardest-working would be upper-middle-class where it's not so much a matter of effort as skill, but it takes effort to acquire the skilled labor (i.e. it's a lot of work but some of it's in advance), then the working poor where they're basically putting in enough work to get by but can't find quite enough to get into the middle class, then the outright unemployed (which is mostly a matter of luck but with some return on effort in applying for jobs), and last and least the extremely rich where income is  entirely a matter of luck and no real effort is involved.

// Not that I begrudge the wealthy, particularly.  Historically, being a lucky son of a biatch is a completely legit way to move your society forward, whether money is involved or not.  Most inventors could swear by this.


Okay, the distinction, I suppose, is that nowadays, what used to be lower-middle class, as you describe it, is really just lower class pay today.  Wage stagnation and inflation have been pretty awful in that regard.
 
2014-01-09 03:35:00 PM  

Carn: Tricky Chicken: Yes, please do read the link you posted. then come back and read what I bolded. Keep doing it until you start to understand what was posted.

You see, fallacy of composition would apply if I implied that all poor are as useless as the ones I listed.  I did not do that. A question was asked "You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?" See that is a direct question asking for information that in the given context could only ever be taken as annecdotal. I responded with the list I bolded above.  Now I know that throwing around classical falacy accusations is popular here, but you really do need to invoke them correctly or you wind up looking like a fool as you do currently.

The quip I added at the end was directed at ikanreed's beatification of the poor in the statement "The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest."

So you agree with ikanreed's statement, but just wanted to add some exceptional cases for our consideration?  Or were you trying to use a few cases of lazy poor people that you know personally to make a statement about all poor people?  That sure seemed like what you were doing.  Would you care to clarify your position?  Are you only objecting to his use of the word "most"?  If so, what would you replace it with?  Some/many/few/none?


Well, the ONLY truely poor people I know are the relatives I have and they are universally lazy scheeming dirtbags. I can make no generalization of the poor population in general.  I sincerely hope that my relatives are outliers.

My personal position regarding the poor and unemployed would probably be a most callous capitalistic one.  I see them as a resource that needs to be exploited. And much like all other resources, they are of little value in their raw state. Much like you have to devellop resources like trees to wood and ores to metals, you should likewise develop the poor into something more useful than what they are currently.


Which use of the word most are you referring to? the statement "The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest " is what I had a problem with. that statement lumps all the hardest workers into the poorest group.  That is patently wrong.
 
2014-01-09 03:35:07 PM  

ikanreed: Phinn: ikanreed: Enigmamf: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.

Oh, no, I don't care about value(at least in the context of the working poor), I care about human suffering, just world hypothesis bullshiat, and minimizing it.   When the sanctity of your economic system's assumptions come before the people who make it up, you're doing something wrong.

Then YOU alleviate their suffering, big guy.  You've got your caring meter cranked up to 11, so that clearly makes you better than everyone else.  And since caring is all that matters, go ahead, run with it, dude.  Give the poor what they need.

Oh, wait, do you actually need other people's cooperation in solving complex social problems?  Well, then, you might want to actually communicating with the general public in terms of something we like to call "economic reality."

Or how about we don't have an economic system built on screwing people, for the benefit of a very select few on the the justification that it's somehow "fair"?  There's a bullshiat "I care about fairness" ethical lie in your system too, only you're in favor of human suffering to get it.



You're right -- the Federal Reserve should be abolished immediately.
 
2014-01-09 03:35:14 PM  

Tricky Chicken: zeroman987: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

Lol. I nominate this post as the most hilarious post of the day. No one is this clueless.

But yeah, keep sucking that Koch. I am sure one day something will trickle down.

zero, you appear to have said absolutely nothing.  that is an interesting feat on Fark.  How can describing people I am related to and know quire well possibly be clueless?  Or do you not understand the word clueless?  A post ostensibly asked for annecdotal evidence, and I gave it. Or do you think I am mistaken when an associate appologized to me for having to fire a person I recommended to them. Or perhaps I am mis-remembering the pregnancies my cousin went through?


You should have been born in a family with more bootstraps. Then you wouldn't have to be related to those hideous POORS!

Although, your posts, rife with misspelled words, do lend credence to your claim that your cousin loves getting pregnant. Either way, your nonsense gives me a headache.

Its almost as if when people are born into poverty, they fail to learn the behaviors that allow them to escape. It creates a circle... maybe a cycle? A cycle of poverty? And when they are confronted with a different way of doing things, they reject it because they have not developed the ability to formulate long term goals; it is almost as if they have seen the people that work hard, have goals, and save money be punished with more poverty and disappointment, and they figure, shiat it cannot get any worse.

Make sure to open up your throat.
 
2014-01-09 03:35:41 PM  

asquian: So, the general consensus is people are poor because they're ignorant/stupid.

Well, obviously a good education is the cure.


I think budgeting and how to balance a checkbook should be mandatory classes in primary and secondary schools (yes, do it at least twice).

But by and large the issue I see is life skills. For instance, you don't tell your boss to EABOD because you had a minor disagreement. But you tell Joe Blow that telling his boss to EABOD was a bad idea and he'll defend it.

Education has no help for those raised stubbornly dumb.
 
2014-01-09 03:36:28 PM  

letrole: poverty is a result, not a cause

poor decisions, inadequate self-control, lack of ambition, no shame

a man may be born poor, and that's the fault of his parents, but a man who's born poor, and still poor by the age of 30 has nobody to blame but himself


A man born poor will have to grow up in a house where he wont get the same kind of interactions as his more successful counterparts. He won't get the same level of schooling. He won't receive many of the other similar opportunities and benefits as a person who is born into a better situation. s it still possible to overcome this deck stacked against him? Sure, but that's going to be the exception not the rule.
 
2014-01-09 03:38:46 PM  

mdeesnuts: asquian: So, the general consensus is people are poor because they're ignorant/stupid.

Well, obviously a good education is the cure.

I think budgeting and how to balance a checkbook should be mandatory classes in primary and secondary schools (yes, do it at least twice).

But by and large the issue I see is life skills. For instance, you don't tell your boss to EABOD because you had a minor disagreement. But you tell Joe Blow that telling his boss to EABOD was a bad idea and he'll defend it.

Education has no help for those raised stubbornly dumb.


True, but trickle down economics and the crippling of our educational system have gone hand in hand towards putting us where we are.
 
2014-01-09 03:39:34 PM  

Phinn: ikanreed: Phinn: ikanreed: Enigmamf: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.

Oh, no, I don't care about value(at least in the context of the working poor), I care about human suffering, just world hypothesis bullshiat, and minimizing it.   When the sanctity of your economic system's assumptions come before the people who make it up, you're doing something wrong.

Then YOU alleviate their suffering, big guy.  You've got your caring meter cranked up to 11, so that clearly makes you better than everyone else.  And since caring is all that matters, go ahead, run with it, dude.  Give the poor what they need.

Oh, wait, do you actually need other people's cooperation in solving complex social problems?  Well, then, you might want to actually communicating with the general public in terms of something we like to call "economic reality."

Or how about we don't have an economic system built on screwing people, for the benefit of a very select few on the the justification that it's somehow "fair"?  There's a bullshiat "I care about fairness" ethical lie in your system too, only you're in favor of human suffering to get it.

You're right -- the Federal Reserve should be abolished immediately.


Because that follows.

Let's seriously see you develop a train of logic, from the preposition: "we shouldn't let our economic system be built on screwing people" to "abolish the federal reserve."  Not because I want to challenge that logic, so much as I want to be amused by it.
 
2014-01-09 03:39:35 PM  

Loren: And you missed one category of poor but not idiots--immigrants with limited English.


I'm glad you mentioned them because I have nothing but respect for those people.  Any one who thinks I'm being sarcastic should learn to install plumbing without instructions while someone is shouting at you.
 
2014-01-09 03:41:58 PM  

ikanreed: Except cities don't really have the "low-income" jobs anymore either.  There aren't factories downtown where you can just jump in and start making lower-middle class wages.


As has been explained to me, as we outsource virtually all primary production, the dream job of the future for the 90% is step-and-fetch-it work in service to the top 5%.  As more of the wealthy move into the urban core, they need hairdressers, waiters, maids, hos, Whole Foods cashiers, personal trainers, etc, but they need them to live somewhere else.
 
2014-01-09 03:43:01 PM  

mike_d85: here to help: We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.
...

WTF are you eating?  Soylent Green and chicken feet?  I get fresh veg, canned foods in bulk, meat in bulk, and cook most everything from scratch and I can't do much better than $80 a WEEK.

FFS, just getting dried rice ($1.29) and beans ($1.30) for 7 days a week is $20 ($18.20).  And that's assuming you only consume one bag per day.  I'm shopping for 3 full grown adults so I assume we'd eat more.

It all depends on your time to cook and you abilities.  Yes you CAN eat cheaply but it takes time.  For example    We figured last night that my wife had fed the family for two nights  on $8 because she made a huge pot of a phenomenal ham and bean soup from the bone of a Christmas ham that we'd frozen.

BUT the soup was possible because she works from home and has a huge cast iron pot that she was able to set to cooking for 9+ hours, season when needed etc.

More realistically I'd say in a typical month, I tend to run about <$400 to feed a family of Three

, BUT the caveat there is that I have a nearly perfect system of food stores around me.   I get most of my protein from Costco, or on deep discount at the regular grocery store (I leverage sales coupons , markdown stickers etc )

, I use the nearby Aldi's for a lot fo staple dry goods and produce and twice a month drop around $100-125  to literally fill the back of my minivan at something called a "Grocery outlet"  where you can get things like BOXES (12 pack)  of organic oatmeal at 3/$1 or 4 packs of Greek yogurt for $0.50 ea if they happen to be brands that we less than successful at the regular supermarkets (the oatmeal sold for $4/box at whole foods for example, or I've paid $7  for a 4lb round of a specialty cheese that sold for $15/lb at my local grocer )

Basically the place is so cheap that  I'm contemplating making a special trip to fill the van rather than donating cash to my local food bank, because I can get things there that are less than even they can get canned and non-perishable food for  sometimes.
 
2014-01-09 03:43:05 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Phinn: ikanreed:
Here's the bullshiat.  That's it.  What you do, like what I did, required a lot of free time for education from your parents in your youth.  A lot of money and free time for education in your young adulthood, and a foot in the door with respect to "respectability".  It's not "difficult" but it is rare(er).


Are you implying that my access to education was somehow greater that that of the poor? I was public school educated at no cost to my parents other than feeding me. I attended university while working and paid for it all myself.  My scholastic aptitude is the only advantage I would have over some of the poor.  I would assume many of them probably have greater aptitude than I.  But I made wiser life choices.  I had no children (easy to do) until I was settled. I made other basic sound decisions.  Nothing I did was ever extreme or overly difficult. My opportunities were not particularly rare. I paid attention in public school. I attended regularly. I generally did about the minimum required of me.
 
2014-01-09 03:43:55 PM  
As I saw in an episode of The West Wing:

They government hates the idea of changing the calculation in a way that raises the poverty line, because then YOU HAVE MORE POOR PEOPLE.

I can see it now, and it makes me cringe how if the Obama administration changed the calculation that put another 10 million people under the line, the GOP would be screaming: 10 MILLION MORE POOR PEOPLE UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH!!!!

/republican
 
2014-01-09 03:49:21 PM  
I'm not poor but I AM lazy. So at least I got that going for me.
 
2014-01-09 03:50:46 PM  

flak attack: So, in reality, the only thing I want to dust off my torch for is to burn down whatever school you went to because it clearly didn't do it's job.


Can you burn down whichever school also taught you this?
 a ~20% increase (I'm estimating $41k and $45k as household income numbers here, since your graph doesn't give exact numbers).

Going from $41k to $45k is a 10% increase, not 20%.
 
2014-01-09 03:50:50 PM  

GDubDub: As I saw in an episode of The West Wing:

They government hates the idea of changing the calculation in a way that raises the poverty line, because then YOU HAVE MORE POOR PEOPLE.

I can see it now, and it makes me cringe how if the Obama administration changed the calculation that put another 10 million people under the line, the GOP would be screaming: 10 MILLION MORE POOR PEOPLE UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH!!!!

/republican


It's both funny, and a little sad how relevant that show still is.

also, the GOP scream if Obama goes to the bathroom, so worrying over their BS isn't worth the time. If something needs done, do it anyway.
 
2014-01-09 03:51:00 PM  

blatz514: AngryDragon: So it's women's fault then.  I always suspected.  If they would just stick to making sammiches, everything would be better.

[j-walk.com image 850x550]


ahh yes, let's encourage women to think being a housewife is below them and deserving of contempt.  it's not like it's a real job, right?
they should apparently work to only undermine their husband & doing anything pleasing is just living in the backwards past.
 
2014-01-09 03:51:01 PM  

menschenfresser: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

This and other posts make me want to ask whether folks would like to go the Victorian route and distinguish between the "deserving" poor and the "undeserving" poor. The "undeserving" would be given assistance and the "deserving" poor would be put in the workhouse, etc. Then maybe we could add in your Victorian capitalist to the picture, the guy with the top hat carrying a diamond-topped walking stick to twirl around, and who has 99.9% of the wealth in the town. This is what you guys seem to be asking for.


Do I get a monocle and cape too? I like to dress up my scarecrows.
 
2014-01-09 03:51:31 PM  
When you read about "The Poverty Line" in America, keep in mind the line was originally set in 1963 and it assumes all houses have a full-time housewife who is a "skilled cook" and "careful shopper" to stretch their budget

So because they don't want to cook or clip coupons the ball is now in my court to fix them?
 
2014-01-09 03:53:05 PM  
Don't play the serf game, people.

Opt out.

Apply for ten credit cards, get them, then stiff them.

Never, never, never become encumbered with student loan debt -- not worth it.
 
2014-01-09 03:53:21 PM  
The problem with poverty statistics in America is, you add them all up, and they just don't make any sense.
Example: 98.4% of poor people have refrigerators. I don't know where that comes from, but it's a known fact. It's also a known fact that refrigerators come in boxes.
So how come we have any homeless people at all? What happened to all those refrigerator boxes? See, it just doesn't make sense. I'm not going to gnash my teeth over something that doesn't even make sense.
 
2014-01-09 03:53:51 PM  
zeroman987:

You should have been born in a family with more bootstraps. Then you wouldn't have to be related to those hideous POORS!

I wouldn't like to lump my relatives in with the general poor population, but they are the only poor people I know personally.  I wouldn't refer to them as hieous POORS! as much as I would refer to them as hideous people in general.  They really are a revolting bunch. I wouldn't even introduce them to ikanreed who still affirms that if you ever read one of those articles in the 70s that mistakenly brought up global cooling and in the same breath pointed out how they were mistaken and based upon ever developing information, and that climate change really is happening, you are automatically a denier. It is like saying that some people have disputed the moon landing, but they are wrong and we really did go to the moon makes you a moon landing conspiracy nut.  He also claimed I was a flat earth evolution denier. But I digress.

As far as my spelling and typography.  they are admittedly criminal.
 
2014-01-09 03:55:58 PM  
Percent of food expenditures as a share of disposable income
1929  16%
1940  13.5%
1960  14.1%
1970  10.3%
1990  7.4%
2000  5.9%
2012  5.7%
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-expenditures.aspx

Food in 1960 was ghastly crap.  Sure, Mom was staying home to cook it, but it was mostly casseroles that contained a can of Cream of xxxx soup.  That's why Julia Child was such an amazing revelation.  It was only in the mid 1970s when most Americans started to become adventurous and experimental in their cuisine.
 
2014-01-09 03:56:08 PM  

GDubDub: As I saw in an episode of The West Wing:

They government hates the idea of changing the calculation in a way that raises the poverty line, because then YOU HAVE MORE POOR PEOPLE.

I can see it now, and it makes me cringe how if the Obama administration changed the calculation that put another 10 million people under the line, the GOP would be screaming: 10 MILLION MORE POOR PEOPLE UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH!!!!

/republican


Sadly, this is exactly the way it would go down too.
 
2014-01-09 03:56:37 PM  

mike_d85: Most of them are idiots.


This is true, but what makes you think it is correlated with wealth?
 
2014-01-09 03:56:39 PM  

Tricky Chicken: You see, fallacy of composition would apply if I implied that all poor are as useless as the ones I listed.  I did not do that.


It's what liberals do.  You say, "I know one poor person who is lazy" and then they start slamming you for making a wild accusation that poor people are lazy.  No, that's not what you said.  Facts don't matter to them though.
 
2014-01-09 03:58:53 PM  

Magorn: Chummer45: Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat

It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.

For you, A ceeegar and another chart:

[wonkroom.thinkprogress.org image 402x253]


Correlation something, something.  Do you really think the competition for manufacturing jobs from China has nothing to do with this?
 
2014-01-09 03:59:33 PM  

GDubDub: As I saw in an episode of The West Wing:


Just happened to watch that very episode last night. "The Indians in the Lobby", season 3, episode 8. Gave some fascinating background on the calculation of the poverty line in 1963.
 
2014-01-09 04:00:02 PM  

Tricky Chicken: zeroman987:

You should have been born in a family with more bootstraps. Then you wouldn't have to be related to those hideous POORS!

I wouldn't like to lump my relatives in with the general poor population, but they are the only poor people I know personally.  I wouldn't refer to them as hieous POORS! as much as I would refer to them as hideous people in general.  They really are a revolting bunch. I wouldn't even introduce them to ikanreed who still affirms that if you ever read one of those articles in the 70s that mistakenly brought up global cooling and in the same breath pointed out how they were mistaken and based upon ever developing information, and that climate change really is happening, you are automatically a denier. It is like saying that some people have disputed the moon landing, but they are wrong and we really did go to the moon makes you a moon landing conspiracy nut.  He also claimed I was a flat earth evolution denier. But I digress.

As far as my spelling and typography.  they are admittedly criminal.


He obviously lacks a point and has resorted to drive by attacks in an attempt to lump you into some imaginary box. He isn't satisfied with simply agreeing to disagree and has some need to try and bash you because he can't accept contrary opinions.
 
2014-01-09 04:01:17 PM  

Carn: No, you're just suffering from the Fallacy of Composition.  It's ok, it happens.


It seems like the error is the fallacy of hasty generalization, since the comments are about a population of people, rather than a part of an object.
 
2014-01-09 04:03:19 PM  

Tricky Chicken: I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all.


So you're related to people who don't work hard and are poor. Are you suggesting that because you know some people who "deserve" to be poor that all poor people must deserve it?
 
2014-01-09 04:03:58 PM  

buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.

Problem is, now a lot of time both parents have to work just to have those essentials, which adds a daycare expense, and makes fixing proper meals tough when nobody is home to do the work that entails.


You'd be surprised at how wrong those assumptions can be.

For example,  back when the distaffbopper was working, we had to pay for childcare for the littlebopper (before he started school).  It was $35 a day, for two days a week (distaffbopper was working part time).  So that's $70 a week in childcare expenses, which meant that even with her over-minimum-wage job, one whole day of her two days work during the week was paying just for child care.

When you added in the gas and wear and tear on the one car, plus the inevitable her eating at the cafeteria at work and me often just picking up something because I didn't feel like cooking after 8 hours of work and 2 hours of driving, I think it actually cost us money.

Now that the littlebopper is in school, and she's not working anymore, and the car that needed to be reliable enough for a 40 mile commute 3 days a week* that now only gets driven an average of 2 to 5 miles a day is going to be paid off, we're actually a bit better off.

So few people actually do the math.  If the distaffbopper hadn't been working, we could have gotten a much cheaper used car for her to drive, which probably would have saved us at least $300-$400 in car payments and required insurance.  So if you divide that by 4 (300/4) = $75 a week savings.  So our monthly savings on just daycare and care expense would have been $580, or roughly 60% of her *GROSS* pay, and as I recall it was about 2/3rds of her take home pay, eaten up with childcare and car expenses.  That left about $280-ish, which if you subtract out the 10 or 12 $4 meals she'd get at work, leaves $232.  If you figure I did the same, that leaves you around $185-ish.  So for those 90 hours of work, her effective pay rate was $2 an hour.

Then there is the gas:  Car gets 30 MPG, driving (40*12) = 480 miles used 16 gallons of gas, which at $3.50 a gallon cost another $56 a month.  Figure she drives 5 miles on average a day, 5 days a week, now, she's only driving 100 miles a month, and at $3.50 that's only $12 in gas.  She actually uses a bit more ;)

That doesn't include the money she had to periodically spend on uniform items she wouldn't wear out of work.

So, she has time to visit with friends or do shopping or whatever during the day while the littlebopper is at school.  I get home, most of the time she's got a decent meal either ready, or in the process of cooking.  House is well kept up, because when you aren't tired from work

If her job payed as much as mine, and I quite and stayed home, we'd save even more, because I drive $1,200 a month.  Granted, my car gets better mileage, but I'd be perfectly happy with doing the domestic thing.   Give me a bit more time to play ham radio, and I might even start writing code for fun again (I stopped doing that when it became a job).

*She worked 2 weekdays and alternate weekends, so it averaged to 1 weekend day and 2 weekdays a week
 
2014-01-09 04:05:12 PM  

profplump: Tricky Chicken: I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all.

So you're related to people who don't work hard and are poor. Are you suggesting that because you know some people who "deserve" to be poor that all poor people must deserve it?


No he suggested that many poor are their own worst enemy. Did you read what he wrote?
 
2014-01-09 04:08:13 PM  

trappedspirit: So because they don't want to cook or clip coupons the ball is now in my court to fix them?


I'm sure they'd be happy if your provided them with a no-cost full-time household employee instead. Or you could take the article's actual point and consider re-defining "poverty line" to reflect modern life instead of assuming everything is the same as it was half a century ago.
 
2014-01-09 04:09:26 PM  

CleanAndPure: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

How hard you work and what you're paid arnt really too correlated.

Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.


Yes.  But there are drastically more poor people then wealthy.  So overwhelmingly more hardworking people are poor then wealthy.
 
2014-01-09 04:10:58 PM  

DerpHerder: No he suggested that many poor are their own worst enemy. Did you read what he wrote?


I did. He seemed to be drawing a correlation between poverty and personal effort, based on evidence from a small, non-random sample group, as a counter-argument to previous comments about how effort and wealth are not strongly correlated. Did you read the comments he was replying to?
 
2014-01-09 04:11:36 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Phinn: ikanreed:
Here's the bullshiat.  That's it.  What you do, like what I did, required a lot of free time for education from your parents in your youth.  A lot of money and free time for education in your young adulthood, and a foot in the door with respect to "respectability".  It's not "difficult" but it is rare(er).

Are you implying that my access to education was somehow greater that that of the poor? I was public school educated at no cost to my parents other than feeding me. I attended university while working and paid for it all myself.  My scholastic aptitude is the only advantage I would have over some of the poor.  I would assume many of them probably have greater aptitude than I.  But I made wiser life choices.  I had no children (easy to do) until I was settled. I made other basic sound decisions.  Nothing I did was ever extreme or overly difficult. My opportunities were not particularly rare. I paid attention in public school. I attended regularly. I generally did about the minimum required of me.


WHICH public school?  How many resources did they have?  IS it like the HS  my son attends now that spent $65 million building the place and has everything a school could want since home prices in my area are some of the highest in the nation, or was it like the one in Chicago he went to for 1st grade where they had to ask parents to donate an old books they had lying around so the school could finally have an actual library?   How much money did they have to pay teachers? could they attract the best and brightest or did they have to make do with the inexperienced and burnt out?   Could you "pay attention" in class because of your innate status as an ubermencsh or did it have to do with the fact that your family could afford to send you to school on a full stomach so you could concentrate (and take you to a doctor and get medicines if you DID have focus issues?)

How about your parents?  Were they educated middle-class professionals?  Did they work one job that they got home at 5pm for and so were available to help you with homework?  Or were they barely educated themselves and having to work two jobs just to make ends meet?   How was your local public library?  Could your family afford a computer for you to do schoolwork on?  what was your community like? Did you have other middle class people and professionals available to use as role models?  Did they help set for you an expectation that you too, would one day have a similarly white-collar job just like everyone's parents you knew?

The fact that you think YOU made any decisions as a child that affected your future outcomes as an adult , and your success is a result of your innate virtue and wisdom in making life choices as a 7-year old is pathetically, laughably, delusional.    But a delusion all to common among those who ridiculously think of themselves as "self-made"
 
2014-01-09 04:11:45 PM  

kidgenius: letrole: poverty is a result, not a cause

poor decisions, inadequate self-control, lack of ambition, no shame

a man may be born poor, and that's the fault of his parents, but a man who's born poor, and still poor by the age of 30 has nobody to blame but himself

A man born poor will have to grow up in a house where he wont get the same kind of interactions as his more successful counterparts. He won't get the same level of schooling. He won't receive many of the other similar opportunities and benefits as a person who is born into a better situation. s it still possible to overcome this deck stacked against him? Sure, but that's going to be the exception not the rule.


Hold on, lets draw a line here.

You have people with a lack of education and "street smarts" that live somewhat normal lives (which I hope is what letrole was thinking of).  These people get menial jobs, work at them and some day become the manager of a local McDonalds or get another menial job with moderately good pay (landscaper, unskilled construction, etc.).  THIS is not "poor".  This is "lower class" or "working poor" maybe.  At 30, you should have worked out making shift supervisor at Pizza Hut, at least.  I mean, many of them even let you smoke pot while you work.

Then you have the people who have "street smarts" who turn to crime because, unfortunately, they can do math well enough to calculate the benefits of drug dealing.  I actually do not begrudge these people.  I can respect a decent drug dealer or bootleg DVD manufacturer.

Then you have the people who DON'T have "street smarts" or "book smarts" or "smart ass" and barely qualify for "dumb ass".  They can't keep a job at a fast food place.  They don't turn to crime in an effective way.  They might sling dime bags trying to pay for their habit or steal an xbox to make rent, but they aren't making a real living.  These are the poor people that are idiots.  They are the people who don't pay a bill until they get their fifth and final notice because that's when they cut it off.  These are the people who are continually 3 months behind on rent because if they aren't getting evicted, rent isn't due.

These are people who are told time and again how to manage their lives and ignore it because they only see immediate, direct consequences to their personal comfort and cannot manage the abstract thought of pursuing anything or effectively managing anything.  They're the same people with a Playstation and no pictures on the walls.  I don't know why, but that's how you can tell the houses.
 
2014-01-09 04:12:27 PM  

here to help: We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.

That said the cost of food, especially staples, has soared as has all essential costs like housing, transportation, etc while the wages have not only stagnated but have been going DOWN when factoring in inflation, benefits, full time status (working two decently paid part time jobs is FAR more expensive than one meagerly compensated full time job) and the like.

We have trained the past couple of generations to be the ultimate bean counters who specialize in nickel and dime tactics to squeeze every last micro cent and millisecond out of every scenario they can while the salesmen lull everyone into believing they are subhuman for not making fiscally irresponsible purchases even if it means going into to debt at ridiculously high interest rates.

Then, those seemingly intelligent and cautious few who scrimp and save and claw their way into saving and investing or slave their way through jobs with supposed retirement benefits have their entire efforts wiped out every decade or so funneling it into the pockets of the very same people who would shame them if they did anything less than complete and utter meekness and subservience. Of course once the grift is complete those same entities that cried poverty and "too big to fail" have gotten their bailouts and reduced the quality of life for everyone everywhere start reporting "RECORD PROFITS" a few short years later while their victims are too old and tired to hold them accountable for their crimes.

My solution? Completely overhaul how busines ...




If the next crash doesn't do it, the next war will
 
2014-01-09 04:13:49 PM  

Magorn: mike_d85: here to help: We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.
...

WTF are you eating?  Soylent Green and chicken feet?  I get fresh veg, canned foods in bulk, meat in bulk, and cook most everything from scratch and I can't do much better than $80 a WEEK.

FFS, just getting dried rice ($1.29) and beans ($1.30) for 7 days a week is $20 ($18.20).  And that's assuming you only consume one bag per day.  I'm shopping for 3 full grown adults so I assume we'd eat more.
It all depends on your time to cook and you abilities.   Yes you CAN eat cheaply but it takes time.  For example    We figured last night that my wife had fed the family for two nights  on $8 because she made a huge pot of a phenomenal ham and bean soup from the bone of a Christmas ham that we'd frozen.

BUT the soup was possible because she works from home and has a huge cast iron pot that she was able to set to cooking for 9+ hours, season when needed etc.


More realistically I'd say in a typical month, I tend to run about <$400 to feed a family of Three

, BUT the caveat there is that I have a nearly perfect system of food stores around me.   I get most of my protein from Costco, or on deep discount at the regular grocery store (I leverage sales coupons , markdown stickers etc )

, I use the nearby Aldi's for a lot fo staple dry goods and produce and twice a month drop around $100-125  to literally fill the back of my minivan at something called a "Grocery outlet"  where you can get things like BOXES (12 pack)  of organic oatmeal at 3/$1 or 4 packs of Greek yogur ...


1 - Gary?
2 - Now your numbers match mine.
 
2014-01-09 04:14:45 PM  
There is nothing funnier than a thread where a bunch of people keep demanding proof  that they'll dismiss simply because they don't "believe" it, just like any scientific subject.
 
2014-01-09 04:14:49 PM  

mike_d85: work at them and some day become the manager of a local McDonalds or get another menial job with moderately good pay (landscaper, unskilled construction, etc.).  THIS is not "poor".  This is "lower class" or "working poor" maybe.  At 30, you should have worked out making shift supervisor at Pizza Hut, at least.


No. This is poor.  Landscaper, construction labor, or shift supervisor at Pizza Hut level jobs paid working-poor/lower-class wages 15 years ago.  They pay utter poverty wages now.
 
2014-01-09 04:17:45 PM  

Lawnchair: meyerkev: increased urbanization (which then combines with anti-growth policies to fark over EVERYBODY).

Where are you getting this "everything's anti-growth" victim complex?  Portland, fine, but that's the extreme outlier.  A lot more of the nation is like greater Houston... ever-the-more enthralled, begging, and will give you tax breaks (if not straight-up give you money) to put up all the duplexes, Walmarts, and fried-chicken-and-oil-change huts you want.

The problem is with urban renewal and gentrification, the wealthy are moving back into cities.  The poor are ending up in the peripheries.  Trailer parks in Victorville and Tracy.  Which are far worse places for the poor, since they're so tied to driving 300 miles a week, which kills the poor at $4 gas.


So I'm sitting in SF.  Anti-growth out the wazoo.

No building up, no proper mass intra/inter-city mass transit late-nights and weekends so you can't live in the burbs and "live" in the city (and even with the piss-poor regional transit we have now, it's just as expensive to be at the suburban transit stations as it is to live in the city), no new freeways (or added lanes) to at least support more commutes.  They're supposed to increase the regional population by 30% over the next few decades, and I have no clue how they're going to do it because every time someone builds more housing, there's screaming, and there's absolutely no intention of fixing the problems (namely, a super-low supply of housing, exacerbated by unfortunate rent control policies, the geography forcing all traffic through a couple of choke points, and a piss-poor mass transit network).

And all that ends up happening is that the rich get richer (not necessarily a bad thing depending on how and why it happens), the "rich" get poor because a 1 BR is $4K/month and that's 2/3rds of their take-home, the middle-class gets farked and pushed out past Altamont because they can't afford that and never could, and the poor get stuck on welfare, because Section 8 pays for it and moving up to middle-class just gets you farked.

Mind you, you will never get to a point where you can live cheaply in a big house that you bought with petty cash, AND live in a cool city because lots of people want to live in cool cities which requires density, but FFS, you're driving out the software engineers (who you blame for causing all the problems) because they can't afford to live here.  Do you not see the issue here?

/And meanwhile, anytime someone suggests fixing the problems, the "Let's keep our city wierd AND Let's somehow make it affordable by wishing for unicorns" activist nuts show up and start ranting.
//Trust me, the city will be weirder with high-rises then it will be when the poor and "poor" people all leave because they can't afford it and you're just left with super-rich people and their groveling servants.
///And in all fairness, "wishing for unicorns" probably equals "Making Silicon Valley leave".  So they do have a plan, it's just unrealistic.
////And so Victorville people are just screwed (Weren't they looking at Caltrain to Monterey at one point?), but there *are* plans to extend BART to Tracy at some point.  It'll never, ever happen because the NIMBY's will kill it, but the sane people get that you can only live in the super Central Valley exurbs, and  are trying to make that at least possible.
 
2014-01-09 04:19:20 PM  

ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


They probably wouldn't be poor if they had that same work ethic you claim in school.
 
2014-01-09 04:24:38 PM  

meyerkev: exacerbated by unfortunate rent control and zoning policies


FTFM.

Honestly, the zoning is probably more of a problem than the rent control.
Build enough 20-story apartment buildings and the rent control stops mattering (much.  I mean, it's still a bad idea for a lot of reasons.)
 
2014-01-09 04:25:24 PM  
Getting a strong Craig Nelson vibe from this thread.

The poverty line calculation is antiquated.  To prove how useless it is, look at the number of programs that are targeted at people 2X to 4X the poverty level.  The actual poverty level is much higher than the government's calculation.

Sorry if I disrupted the discussion on how a family of four can actually survive on recycled corn husks and boiled tree bark if they just stayed up cooking all night.
 
2014-01-09 04:26:23 PM  

buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.

Problem is, now a lot of time both parents have to work just to have those essentials, which adds a daycare expense, and makes fixing proper meals tough when nobody is home to do the work that entails.


Why should a single 16 year old make the pay required to have a home and provide for 2 kids? That is a stupid standard.

Also if each make enough to provide for 2 kids and a home, why are you advocating double the income is needed?

Do you see the ironic correlation in your post with the doubling of the work force as women entered the workforce in large numbers? If we halved the current workforce, wages would go up dramatically.
 
2014-01-09 04:27:16 PM  

Lawnchair: mike_d85: work at them and some day become the manager of a local McDonalds or get another menial job with moderately good pay (landscaper, unskilled construction, etc.).  THIS is not "poor".  This is "lower class" or "working poor" maybe.  At 30, you should have worked out making shift supervisor at Pizza Hut, at least.

No. This is poor.  Landscaper, construction labor, or shift supervisor at Pizza Hut level jobs paid working-poor/lower-class wages 15 years ago.  They pay utter poverty wages now.


Eh, I should have said "assistant manager".
Last time I checked (5-ish years ago) I was considering quitting my office job to become a pizza place manager and my $27,000/year pay was equivalent to the pay I would make at slinging dough (assuming I made the $15 an hour a friend made at Mellow Mushroom).  Plus after working as a general manager at a Domino's for 2 years, you qualify for franchise financing programs.
 
2014-01-09 04:28:37 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?


They don't pay their workers overtime, they tell their workers how to apply for food stamps, they discriminate against women...


Liberals tell people to apply for food stamps too. Are they evil?
 
2014-01-09 04:30:10 PM  

ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


That's preciesly the point. Work smart, not hard.
 
2014-01-09 04:32:23 PM  

MyRandomName: Liberals tell people to apply for food stamps too. Are they evil?


Yes.  And so are Conservatives, Moderates, Libertarians, Green Partiers, Tea Partiers, and Coke Partiers.
 
2014-01-09 04:34:34 PM  

cryinoutloud: umad: ikanreed:
You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?
I have. And they were stupid and lazy motherfarkers to a person.

Not too lazy to finally put you on ignore, douchebag.


Oh noes! A trailer trash welfare queen called me a mean name. This just totally ruins my day. I don't know how I can continue to live with myself.

Except now I've figured out why you finally hate me so much

Because you are lazy and stupid? You're probably right.
 
2014-01-09 04:37:03 PM  

acohn: Carn: No, you're just suffering from the Fallacy of Composition.  It's ok, it happens.

It seems like the error is the fallacy of hasty generalization, since the comments are about a population of people, rather than a part of an object.


Touche'
 
2014-01-09 04:38:49 PM  

timujin: flak attack: So, in reality, the only thing I want to dust off my torch for is to burn down whatever school you went to because it clearly didn't do it's job.

Can you burn down whichever school also taught you this?
 a ~20% increase (I'm estimating $41k and $45k as household income numbers here, since your graph doesn't give exact numbers).

Going from $41k to $45k is a 10% increase, not 20%.


I goofed and forgot my numbers.  It was actually $41k to $49k.
 
2014-01-09 04:41:29 PM  

mike_d85: WTF are you eating? Soylent Green and chicken feet? I get fresh veg, canned foods in bulk, meat in bulk, and cook most everything from scratch and I can't do much better than $80 a WEEK.

FFS, just getting dried rice ($1.29) and beans ($1.30) for 7 days a week is $20 ($18.20). And that's assuming you only consume one bag per day. I'm shopping for 3 full grown adults so I assume we'd eat more.


rustypouch: I'm curious as how you can feed yourself for $2.50 a day, let alone eat 'rather well' on that budget.


Well I should probably be working on some music but for the sake of perhaps saving some folks some cash here is a semi long winded but semi truncated explanation.

I do in a way try to run my home kitchen like a restaurant kitchen in the sense I try to keep ingredients around that are multi purpose. I will snag these items on special when I see them but some are just so cheap as it is specials aren't even necessary.

I also own a cheap little energy efficient chest freezer so I can stock up on goods. I HIGHLY recommend getting even a small chest freezer because those f*ckers can save you a FORTUNE on food.

Starch/carbs:

Rice (I mean really everyone should ALWAYS have a bag of rice in their cupboard. I also buy those packets of flavored rice for a buck a piece or less which I can get two large meal sides out of of... my fave is the broc and cheese flavor)

Ramen style noodles (yes I know this may not seem all that healthy or "good" but read on... you don't eat the fookers plain. You add stuff to them)

5-10lbs bag of potatoes (I've just started getting back into this habit now that I have a full kitchen again but suitable alternatives are looking for frozen potato patties, fries, perogies or other frozen potato starches.

Rotini (my favorite pasta because it's big and hearty and soaks up all the goo into it's delicious spirals)

Breads/Cereals:

Instant oatmeal (I could save even more buying the plain boxed stuff but I just buy those little packets because really they are dirt cheap anyway, are easier to make and taste better).

Corn Flakes (no name corn flakes or even the Kellogg's stuff really costs next to nothing if you watch for specials)

Whole wheat bread (the no name/cheapo brands/good brands/whatever will ALWAYS be available for under $2 a loaf and sometimes $1 per loaf so I stock up and toss them in the freezer. I make tons of sandwiches so it will always get used).

English muffins/Bagels (this is my own little quirk and a bit of a luxury but I like bagels with cream cheese and home made egg mcmuffin dealies)

Note: I do not eat breakfast as much as I should and actually have boxes of cereal and oatmeal going uneaten at the moment but even if I ate breakfast every morning it would not increase my food budget in any significant way except perhaps for the milk but even then that's only pennies.

Fruits/Veggies:

Veggies have gotten stupid expensive lately IMO but because of some specific brands of frozen stuff and the fact I've started freezing certain fresh stuff until I'm ready to use it I can still keep this down.

Frozen (I buy big 1kilo bags of "California mix" for $3 which acts as a filler for soups, sauces, etc but I'll also add fresh veg to those recipes as well a bag can last me two months)

Fresh broccolli/cabbage (red)/carrots (dirt cheap and wicked healthy. The broccolli can go in pretty much anything and I like the carrots and cabbage on their own as side dishes. I also used to be able to get huge bags of flash frozen spinach for cheap but alas that is no more and the fresh stuff goes bad too quickly).

BRUSSEL SPROUTS!!! These are like CANDY to me so if I see frozen bags on special I'll buy them. Sadly I find the fresh ones in most supermarkets to be too dry and woody so I stick to frozen. This is a special treat though.

I do not eat much fruit because I do not care for it but I will buy bananas on occasion for my oatmeal or sometimes I'll buy muffin mix and stir them into that. However if I WERE into fruit apples and oranges are dirt cheap so that wouldn't cause any significant dent to the budget.

Meat/Protein:

I will ONLY buy meat that is on special for UNDER $2-2.50 per lbs. Fortunately because of the freezer this is very easy to stock up on. I get chicken breasts, pork chops, ground beef, sausages, roasts, etc, in those big trays and use cling wrap to separate it all into meal sized portions and toss them in the freezer (in the case of the roasts I will cut huge roasts up into smaller ones). The only thing that is extremely difficult to get in that price range is full cuts of beef but chicken is easy and is healthier anyway.

I will also watch for things like those breaded chicken strip or fish fillets on special and snag 1kilo boxes for $5-6.

Most of that is all straight forward cooking. Spice it, cook it and eat it however the ground beef gets put into my homemade burgers (which I freeze as patties and take out one or two at a time for dinner) or tossed into a pasta sauce with chopped up sausage and veggies (and on the delicious rotini and some cheese).

Eggs!! I always keep at least a dozen eggs in my fridge because they are the cheapest and easiest to prepare animal protein of all. I make egg salad, egg mcfuffin thingies or just boil them up and eat them straight with some salt and hot sauce.

Canned tuna (SAMMICHES! Little pricey but I watch for specials and I get two sandwiches out of a can so I can have tuna sammies for dinner two nights in a row with soup or have a sandwich the next day for lunch).

BACON! I skulk and wait and plot and scheme until I can get bacon for under $5 for 500g. Usually I can get it for $3. Then it goes in the freezer. I only eat 2-3 slices at a time so one package can last me quite a while. It goes with my egg mcmuffins or my burgers and is kind of a treat.

Dairy:

Milk (I buy in bulk and freeze it because it's cheaper. I only use milk in my tea or in recipes that call for it which is rare).

Cheese. (I buy big blocks of cheddar for $4 per 500g and use it sparingly but almost every night. One block lasts about a month. I also try to snag buckets of cream cheese on special like today I got a 500g bucket for 3 bucks. It will last me until spring and goes on my bagels or pasta.)

Yogurt. (Yogurt is cheap and I'll snag some every so often for breakfast but not as often as I should I guess).

Stuff that glues it all together...

Obviously much of that stuff requires other ingredients to make it work so the things I keep around ALWAYS are...

Mayo. (tuna/egg sammies cannot be made without mayo and I slap it on my burgers. It's a little pricey but considering how many cheap meals it enables it is worth it and I get it when it goes on special so a small jar for $3 lasts me a month or a big jar for $5 can last me 2 or more months).

Garlic powder. ($2-3 for a bag that lasts like a year. I get other spices too like paprika, curry or whatever but garlic powder is the main one I use because damn garlic is awesome)

Fresh onions/garlic. (Onions are cheap, last a looong time and just add something awesome to so many things so I've started keeping a bag around. Fresh garlic is a little redundant but it tastes better for some things than the powdered stuff and sometimes I like eating a raw clove because I'm weird like that. It's also cheap.)

Mustard. (Can't have burgers without mustard. A $1 bottle of yellow mustard last forever around here).

Sriracha. (Kind of expensive but is the spice of life. Goes in the burger mix and ramen soup. I bought my current bottle a year ago and still have a quarter left)

Frank's Red Hot. (Another luxury but it goes in the tuna, egg sammies/mcmuffins and sometimes I just suckle on the bottle. Again long lasting and worth it).

Pickles and olives. (My vice. My candy. I spend far too much on pickles and olives but god damned do I love them and my sandwich nights just aren't the same without them. I spend about $5 per month on these alone. I'M AN ADDICT!)


So that's the stuff I ALWAYS look for and try to keep around but obviously I don't eat ALL of that every month. I just keep it around and have my own recipes that are quick, tasty and filling. My meals literally do end up costing me $2-2.50 per day, do not require anything particularly epic cooking wise unless I'm feeling fancy and is all more or less healthy.


The moral of the story is...

a) Look for specials

b) Get a freezer

c) Learn to cook and keep a consistent set of ingredients around that compliment each other

d) Don't gorge but don't starve
 
2014-01-09 04:42:30 PM  

asquian: So, the general consensus is people are poor because they're ignorant/stupid.

Well, obviously a good education is the cure.

oh, wait. We have an entire political party dedicated to privatizing education and eliminating critical thinking from the curriculum.

Well, we can fix that by sending them to college right?

oh, wait, crushing debt and a lack of jobs that pay enough for people to pay back the debt.


Uhh... it is common core who is now grading wrong answers as partially correct. It is unions who have attempted to move to pass fail instead of grading. Ted Kennedy was the architect of NCLB. How do private schools do worse than public? They don't.
 
2014-01-09 04:42:32 PM  

Magorn: mike_d85: here to help: We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.
...

WTF are you eating?  Soylent Green and chicken feet?  I get fresh veg, canned foods in bulk, meat in bulk, and cook most everything from scratch and I can't do much better than $80 a WEEK.

FFS, just getting dried rice ($1.29) and beans ($1.30) for 7 days a week is $20 ($18.20).  And that's assuming you only consume one bag per day.  I'm shopping for 3 full grown adults so I assume we'd eat more.
It all depends on your time to cook and you abilities.  Yes you CAN eat cheaply but it takes time.  For example    We figured last night that my wife had fed the family for two nights  on $8 because she made a huge pot of a phenomenal ham and bean soup from the bone of a Christmas ham that we'd frozen.

BUT the soup was possible because she works from home and has a huge cast iron pot that she was able to set to cooking for 9+ hours, season when needed etc.

More realistically I'd say in a typical month, I tend to run about <$400 to feed a family of Three

, BUT the caveat there is that I have a nearly perfect system of food stores around me.   I get most of my protein from Costco, or on deep discount at the regular grocery store (I leverage sales coupons , markdown stickers etc )

, I use the nearby Aldi's for a lot fo staple dry goods and produce and twice a month drop around $100-125  to literally fill the back of my minivan at something called a "Grocery outlet"  where you can get things like BOXES (12 pack)  of organic oatmeal at 3/$1 or 4 packs of Greek yogurt for $0.50 ea if they happen to be brands that we less than successful at the regular supermarkets (the oatmeal sold for $4/box at whole foods for example, or I've paid $7  for a 4lb round of a specialty cheese that sold for $15/lb at my local grocer )

Basically the place is so cheap that  I'm contemplating making a special trip to fill the van rather than donating cash to my local food bank, because I can get things there that are less than even they can get canned and non-perishable food for  sometimes.


I've been making soup from ham hocks and dried beans in large batches for the last two weeks. Makes for easy, healthy, cheap meals. I gave up all hope of eating for pleasure though, honestly, unless you have variety it's just a fuelling operation no matter how imaginatively it is made/spiced.
 
2014-01-09 04:44:03 PM  

profplump: trappedspirit: So because they don't want to cook or clip coupons the ball is now in my court to fix them?

I'm sure they'd be happy if your provided them with a no-cost full-time household employee instead. Or you could take the article's actual point and consider re-defining "poverty line" to reflect modern life instead of assuming everything is the same as it was half a century ago.


People don't make their beds anymore?
 
2014-01-09 04:46:43 PM  

profplump: DerpHerder: No he suggested that many poor are their own worst enemy. Did you read what he wrote?

I did. He seemed to be drawing a correlation between poverty and personal effort, based on evidence from a small, non-random sample group, as a counter-argument to previous comments about how effort and wealth are not strongly correlated. Did you read the comments he was replying to?


Yes I did. He formed an opinion partially based on personal experience which you reject because it does not meet your standards. Specifically the portion you referenced was to answer someone who suggested he had no first hand experience with the poor. I believe he successfully proved his point to that individual. You can dismiss his option, but if you want to set standards please meet them yourself...
 
2014-01-09 04:47:23 PM  
Don't play the serf game, people.

Opt out.

Apply for ten credit cards, get them, then stiff them.

Never, never, never become encumbered with student loan debt -- not worth it.


What did you smoke for lunch today?  Not paying credit card bills is one of the ways poor people manage to stay that way.  As for student loans, it would all depend on the school and the degree.
 
2014-01-09 04:48:27 PM  

Magorn: WHICH public school?  How many resources did they have?  IS it like the HS  my son attends now that spent $65 million building the place and has everything a school could want since home prices in my area are some of the highest in the nation, or was it like the one in Chicago he went to for 1st grade where they had to ask parents to donate an old books they had lying around so the school could finally have an actual library?   How much money did they have to pay teachers? could they attract the best and brightest or did they have to make do with the inexperienced and burnt out?   Could you "pay attention" in class because of your innate status as an ubermencsh or did it have to do with the fact that your family could afford to send you to school on a full stomach so you could concentrate (and take you to a doctor and get medicines if you DID have focus issues?)

How about your parents?  Were they educated middle-class professionals?  Did they work one job that they got home at 5pm for and so were available to help you with homework?  Or were they barely educated themselves and having to work two jobs just to make ends meet?   How was your local public library?  Could your family afford a computer for you to do schoolwork on?  what was your community like? Did you have other middle class people and professionals available to use as role models?  Did they help set for you an expectation that you too, would one day have a similarly white-collar job just like everyone's parents you knew?

The fact that you think YOU made any decisions as a child that affected your future outcomes as an adult , and your success is a result of your innate virtue and wisdom in making life choices as a 7-year old is pathetically, laughably, delusional.    But a delusion all to common among those who ridiculously think of themselves as "self-made

...

I went to a school that is currently ranked a 6 out of 10 on the Great Schools.org website for whatever that would be worth. I would say middle of the road would be appropriate.  It was a massive place with over about a thousand graduating seniors. An easy place to get lost in the crowd. I was undiagnosed at the time with ADD, but I am medicated now. I have no idea what teachers made, but it seemed like we had some good ones and some just going through the motions.

Neither parent was educated past high school. Dad worked in a mill and mom was a waitress. Neither ever worked with me on homework. i know where the library was but didn't go.  Computers were not a thing at the time. Everybody in the area was working class. There was no crime to speak of that I was aware of.  There were regular waves of lay-offs at the mill.  Nobody that I knew of in my family had gone to college, and I was the only of 4 siblings to actually graduate High School.

I think the only 'decisions' I made that could affect my life would have been to actually just show up at school and not to have kids. I thought I made it clear that i didn't do anything exceptional or even mdestly impressive. I hardly think I am delusional about what I did in my youth.  I just kept doing just about the bare minimum and didn't stop.

Now if that is all it takes to be boot-strappy, then it is pretty freaking easy.  I made maximum two decisions (really just two habits) that could be even noted.  I went to school, and I didn't have kids.  I didn't study particularly hard, I didn't strive to excel, I didn't join clubs, I didn't really do much.  In fact, I only think the truant officer knew me on sight.  My first day he took me aside and said "I'm not going to have the same problems with you like I did with your brother and sister am I?".  I graduated Very slightly above the middle of the pack.

I would not say I am 'self-made' as much as I would say I am the result of tme most minimal of effort.  I am effectively the default level of success.
 
2014-01-09 04:49:02 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Are you implying that my access to education was somehow greater that that of the poor?


Yes.  I am.  With no ambiguity.
 
2014-01-09 04:50:07 PM  

menschenfresser: Even if you put the poverty line at $.01 annually for a family of fifteen, the conservative mouthbreathers will insist that's way more than they need. Particularly stupid since most of the conservative mouthbreathers are poor themselves. Oh wait, sorry; they're future millionaires so they vote like they want to be in the future.


*** THIS IS WHAT LIBERAL MOUTH BREATHERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE ***
 
2014-01-09 04:53:32 PM  

profplump: Tricky Chicken: I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all.

So you're related to people who don't work hard and are poor. Are you suggesting that because you know some people who "deserve" to be poor that all poor people must deserve it?


No. He was suggesting that he does indeed know some poor people, which was the answer to the farking question he was asked.

/lmao at all of the terrible reading comprehension happening in this thread by all of the "definitely not dumb" people
 
2014-01-09 04:54:44 PM  

Maul555: menschenfresser: Even if you put the poverty line at $.01 annually for a family of fifteen, the conservative mouthbreathers will insist that's way more than they need. Particularly stupid since most of the conservative mouthbreathers are poor themselves. Oh wait, sorry; they're future millionaires so they vote like they want to be in the future.

*** THIS IS WHAT LIBERAL MOUTH BREATHERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE ***


Yeah, pretty much. It is.   We haven't seen any hint of contravarience against this hypothesis about conservative beliefs.
 
2014-01-09 04:58:54 PM  

mike_d85: here to help: We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.
...

WTF are you eating?  Soylent Green and chicken feet?  I get fresh veg, canned foods in bulk, meat in bulk, and cook most everything from scratch and I can't do much better than $80 a WEEK.

FFS, just getting dried rice ($1.29) and beans ($1.30) for 7 days a week is $20 ($18.20).  And that's assuming you only consume one bag per day.  I'm shopping for 3 full grown adults so I assume we'd eat more.


I think the difference with the final food bill is, he is buying for 1 person, while you said you buy for 3 people. He was living on $20/wk per person, while you appear to be living on $27/wk per person. So, not that much difference.

I myself eat on $30/wk or so. Granted, much of that may be due to the lower than average cost of living where I am, since I don't make any effort to buy in bulk or use other cost-saving measures.
 
2014-01-09 05:00:00 PM  

MyRandomName: How do private schools do worse than public? They don't.


So some of the new charter schools are.

Private Schools USED to do better than public schools because not all kids are created equal.  And more importantly, not all PARENTS are created equal.

Ok, if private school is $16K/year, it means 1 of 2 things:

1) The parents are super-rich, and the kid gets A's in exchange for donations.
2) Big long list
* The parents make enough money that they have $16K/year lying around.  That right there correlates to all sorts of good things like having 2 parents, parents having an education, etc, etc.
* The parents were willing to invest $16K/year into their kid's education.
* Because $16K/year, the parents will literally woop the kid's ass if the kid farks up.
* Because $16K/year, the parents are INVESTED in the kid's education and will help the kid at home.
* To the extent that education and hard work are correlated to having $16K/year and being willing to spend $16K/year on education, and to the extent that intelligence and work ethic are passed down by nature or nurture, the kids are brighter and hard-working.

All kids are not equal.  Charging $16K/year gets you bright kids and involved, educated parents on the average.  Having no gate at all whatsoever gets you nothing.  (I recall there being a study that said that it didn't matter whether or not you made it into charter school, but the mere act of trying made you a much better student since it correlated to parental involvement).

/Seriously, Dad might not always have had food on the table growing up, but he was going to private school.  Guess how he feels about education today?  Guess what values he passed down?
//And $16K is pulled out of my ass, but I recall Mom talking about some private school and saying "It was a choice of paying for high school or college and we chose college".
 
2014-01-09 05:00:04 PM  

GDubDub: As I saw in an episode of The West Wing:

They government hates the idea of changing the calculation in a way that raises the poverty line, because then YOU HAVE MORE POOR PEOPLE.

I can see it now, and it makes me cringe how if the Obama administration changed the calculation that put another 10 million people under the line, the GOP would be screaming: 10 MILLION MORE POOR PEOPLE UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH!!!!

/republican


this is really this point.
 
2014-01-09 05:01:41 PM  

profplump: Tricky Chicken: I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all.

So you're related to people who don't work hard and are poor. Are you suggesting that because you know some people who "deserve" to be poor that all poor people must deserve it?


Interesting. But no, that is not what I am suggesting. But I like the way you put it somewhat. Let me use your words my way.

All the poor people I know deserve to be poor.
I cannot make a statement about any poor people I do not know.

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Are you implying that my access to education was somehow greater that that of the poor?

Yes.  I am.  With no ambiguity.


Well, that is a very sweeping generality. Now I am only talking about the United States here, but we have a wide ranging public school system, and I just looked mine up and it ranked a 6 out of 10 on some greatschools.org site that I'll admit I know nothing about. but I am fairly comfortable in saying that my access to public education was as close to average as makes no difference.  Now I'd be skeptical if you were to imply that all the poor come from school systems that ranked below average. No, I'd be comfortable in assuming that at least some of the poor had access to a public education even greater than my own. I'd even wager that some of the poor had access to expensive private educations and still failed.
 
2014-01-09 05:02:17 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Magorn: WHICH public school?  How many resources did they have?  IS it like the HS  my son attends now that spent $65 million building the place and has everything a school could want since home prices in my area are some of the highest in the nation, or was it like the one in Chicago he went to for 1st grade where they had to ask parents to donate an old books they had lying around so the school could finally have an actual library?   How much money did they have to pay teachers? could they attract the best and brightest or did they have to make do with the inexperienced and burnt out?   Could you "pay attention" in class because of your innate status as an ubermencsh or did it have to do with the fact that your family could afford to send you to school on a full stomach so you could concentrate (and take you to a doctor and get medicines if you DID have focus issues?)

How about your parents?  Were they educated middle-class professionals?  Did they work one job that they got home at 5pm for and so were available to help you with homework?  Or were they barely educated themselves and having to work two jobs just to make ends meet?   How was your local public library?  Could your family afford a computer for you to do schoolwork on?  what was your community like? Did you have other middle class people and professionals available to use as role models?  Did they help set for you an expectation that you too, would one day have a similarly white-collar job just like everyone's parents you knew?

The fact that you think YOU made any decisions as a child that affected your future outcomes as an adult , and your success is a result of your innate virtue and wisdom in making life choices as a 7-year old is pathetically, laughably, delusional.    But a delusion all to common among those who ridiculously think of themselves as "self-made"  ...

I went to a school that is currently ranked a 6 out of 10 on the Great Schools.org website for whatever that would be worth. I woul ...


Congratulations. Seriously.
 
2014-01-09 05:09:18 PM  
In 2012, 16.1 million or approximately 22 percent of children in the U.S. lived in poverty.
 
2014-01-09 05:11:22 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Congratulations. Seriously.


Seriously, I didn't know what that guy wanted, so I just answered the questionaire. I don't know where he was going, so I am a bit curious. I am guessing it was more of a 'you were the benefactor of a great environment' tack and less of a 'you were exceptionally gifted' one. But when I consider it, I am very close to the mean on every normal distribution curve I can think of. I could be a on a poster for 'this is what unremarkable looks like'.

But you wouldn't notice it.
 
2014-01-09 05:15:34 PM  

MyRandomName: TheShavingofOccam123: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?


They don't pay their workers overtime, they tell their workers how to apply for food stamps, they discriminate against women...

Liberals tell people to apply for food stamps too. Are they evil?


If the people they're telling it to are their employees, and they can choose to pay those people more instead of letting the taxpayers subsidize their profits- then yes.
 
2014-01-09 05:16:44 PM  

Tricky Chicken: No, I'd be comfortable in assuming that at least some of the poor had access to a public education even greater than my own. I'd even wager that some of the poor had access to expensive private educations and still failed.


Let's go back to what I originally said, shall we:
"The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest."  No one said that you had to be hardworking to be poor.  Just that you're really farked over after a certain level of early life poverty.
 
2014-01-09 05:18:08 PM  

Colour_out_of_Space: MyRandomName: TheShavingofOccam123: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?


They don't pay their workers overtime, they tell their workers how to apply for food stamps, they discriminate against women...

Liberals tell people to apply for food stamps too. Are they evil?

If the people they're telling it to are their employees, and they can choose to pay those people more instead of letting the taxpayers subsidize their profits- then yes.


No, see, wantonly taking advantage of the system as a means of screwing people out of money is totally the same as thinking that a system should exist to protect people.
 
2014-01-09 05:19:37 PM  
In a 1965 article, Orshansky said her threshold, dependent on this budget, should be used to measure when a family had "inadequate" funds, not adequate funds.


cdn.billmoyers.com
Mollie Orshansky

The poverty line calculation is ridiculous. Argue about lazy poor like people have for decades as if it will do any good, but let's at least fix this so we can figure out exactly how many poor people we have.
 
2014-01-09 05:20:01 PM  
Not exactly to TFA, but more the thread, you will always have people who are too lazy or lack the intellect to make a life for themselves beyond minimum wage jobs/government aided survival. While education and opportunity are ways out of poverty, for some, it isn't for everyone. You need to be honest, economically and politically, do you want these people to have basic food, shelter, and transportation, or do you not care if they can survive. If you just say, people need to work harder or go to school and get better jobs, you are ignoring the fact that many people can't or won't. If you don't care if those people survive, at least that is an honest position. Not one I agree with, but it is a real opinion.
 
2014-01-09 05:20:39 PM  
When you read about "The Poverty Line" in America, keep in mind
That there are far more families below that line since the messiah took office and both black income and employment is lower (percentage and adjusted for todays dollar) than under Reagan who is always called a racist by fark's moon-bats..
 
2014-01-09 05:23:04 PM  
I think the fact that Tricky Chicken trolls Fark for kicks is all we really need to know about how successful he is in life.
 
2014-01-09 05:27:57 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: No, I'd be comfortable in assuming that at least some of the poor had access to a public education even greater than my own. I'd even wager that some of the poor had access to expensive private educations and still failed.

Let's go back to what I originally said, shall we:
"The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest."  No one said that you had to be hardworking to be poor.  Just that you're really farked over after a certain level of early life poverty.


I was replying to your assertion "with no ambiguity" that my access to education was greater than that of the poor.  I illustrated ho I think that cannot possibly be true.

Are you now attempting to redefine what you originally said? If you had said what I bolded, then I would agree with you, but you didn't. Nobody accused you of saying you had to be hardworking to be poor.  But you did lump ALL the hardworking people into the poor category.
 
2014-01-09 05:29:17 PM  

here to help: I think the fact that Tricky Chicken trolls Fark for kicks is all we really need to know about how successful he is in life.


You're not helping.
 
2014-01-09 05:29:22 PM  

Tricky Chicken: I am very close to the mean on every normal distribution curve I can think of.


static.yify-torrents.com
knows that feel
 
2014-01-09 05:29:42 PM  

OnlyM3: When you read about "The Poverty Line" in America, keep in mind That there are far more families below that line since the messiah took office and both black income and employment is lower (percentage and adjusted for todays dollar) than under Reagan who is always called a racist by fark's moon-bats..


Boooooring.
 
2014-01-09 05:33:26 PM  

umad: Tricky Chicken: I am very close to the mean on every normal distribution curve I can think of.

[static.yify-torrents.com image 425x238]
knows that feel


Except I'm not as good looking, but yeah, I really identify with that part of the movie.
 
2014-01-09 05:36:14 PM  

Tricky Chicken: umad: Tricky Chicken: I am very close to the mean on every normal distribution curve I can think of.

[static.yify-torrents.com image 425x238]
knows that feel

Except I'm not as good looking, but yeah, I really identify with that part of the movie.


Come to think of it, now I want to get a friend of mine to photoshop me into a large group photo several times and see if anybody notices. I'd do it myself but go figure, my photoshop skils are about average.
 
2014-01-09 05:37:02 PM  

here to help: Canned tuna (SAMMICHES! Little pricey but I watch for specials and I get two sandwiches out of a can so I can have tuna sammies for dinner two nights in a row with soup or have a sandwich the next day for lunch).


No.  And never.
 
2014-01-09 05:45:26 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.


Science is not anecdotal, Gucci licker.  There are 310 million people in the US: most of the adults are employed, yet the majority are poor, notwithstanding the smoke and mirrors of dated government and pro-corporate polling firms (hello Gallup!).  And mostly because of laziness?  Really?
 
2014-01-09 05:46:50 PM  

roc6783: basic food, shelter, and transportation


Define this.

Keep in mind that we already HAVE this to the point of "You will not starve".  It's hidden because rich white people riot too, but it exists.  You get poor, we hand you SSI, Section 8, Medicaid, and possibly a subsidized bus pass.  So you will be poor, but not destitute.  And I'm OK with that.  I wish that we were a little more wary of the welfare cliff, because I want it to be possible for people to climb out (and I'm OK with spending more money on welfare if that's what it takes), but if your deliberate choice is to sit on your ass all day, you will be poor.  And if you're this way because I farked over your entire industry because having really efficient manufacturing is an awesome thing, but that requires making you unqualified for any job that doesn't require flipping burgers, man that sucks.  I really hope you managed to save up some money.

And that's the problem.  The more money you hand over to play around in the capitalist society, the more money they turn it into.  They're unequal as fark, but there's some social mobility (and if the rich people are smart, there's charity and more perception of mobility than there actually is), so no one really cares.  So no one cares that the median household income is stable (because of smaller household size), because they personally have seen what happens when they or a neighbor gets rich.  And then a century later, the capitalist society is going strong, and the socialist society has either collapsed into literal famine (Nork's, China, Cambodia, Zimbabwe) or said "Fark this" and turned semi-capitalist (Russia, Eastern Europe, China).  And meanwhile the USA just keeps rocking and getting richer and richer and richer (even if it is incredibly unequal in part because a bunch of people keep inventing world-changing inventions and selling 200 million of them to everyone in America).

And the lesson of history is that "If you try to make everyone equal, you make everyone equally poor."

/Look, as long as Keisha exists, you're not going to be able to expand the welfare state.  When lifelong Democrats are biatching about their higher health insurance premiums because of the moochers (They're wrong.  The "moochers" are getting paid for via taxes and debt.  The pre-existing condition people who aren't "moochers" are getting paid for by your premiums), it's just not happening.
//Of course, those people never vote and think that 9/11 was a CIA false flag so that we could deploy troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan as pre-deployment so that we could invade Iraq for oil.
///I can argue the Iraq thing (Namely, there's other reasons for invading than just oil), the 9/11 flag thing is stupid (Among other things, it requires that we deploy troops in a non-adjacent, land-locked, mountainous country instead of the other, awesome adjacent country that we're already deployed in)
 
2014-01-09 05:48:20 PM  
More than 16 million children in the United States - 22% of all children - live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level - $23,550 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 45% of children live in low-income families.

Look at all the lazies.
 
2014-01-09 05:54:13 PM  

trappedspirit: here to help: Canned tuna (SAMMICHES! Little pricey but I watch for specials and I get two sandwiches out of a can so I can have tuna sammies for dinner two nights in a row with soup or have a sandwich the next day for lunch).

No.  And never.


Yes, yes. I know you disapprove of quirky intertube slangs and mannerisms. I'll give you props for at least reading that far.

That's dedication, man.
 
2014-01-09 05:58:25 PM  

here to help: trappedspirit: here to help: Canned tuna (SAMMICHES! Little pricey but I watch for specials and I get two sandwiches out of a can so I can have tuna sammies for dinner two nights in a row with soup or have a sandwich the next day for lunch).

No.  And never.

Yes, yes. I know you disapprove of quirky intertube slangs and mannerisms. I'll give you props for at least reading that far.

That's dedication, man.


A sammich is something a model needs.  Or that you need to get in the kitchen and make me.

Sammies are another concern all together.
 
2014-01-09 05:59:01 PM  
Isn't the real 18+ unemployment rate in the country about 50%?  That tells me everyone home DOES have a live-in cook, maid, child care, etc.

Only in America is it possible to be in poverty, have a flat screen TV, cable, and be overweight.  Yeah, yeah, also a refrigerator.

There's poor, then there's America-poor, with every avenue available to advance yourself if you aren't a complete farkup making one bad decision after another.

A little sympathy if you weren't raised right, but not much.
 
2014-01-09 06:00:17 PM  
And in perhaps the cruelest irony, people without "conventional housing (and who are not in shelters)" (i.e., the homeless) aren't part of the official poor.

If you don't count them then they really aren't a problem that needs to be solved, are they?
 
2014-01-09 06:03:10 PM  

GORDON: Isn't the real 18+ unemployment rate in the country about 50%?


I live with my mom

/Weak start out of the gate
 
2014-01-09 06:05:38 PM  

OnlyM3: When you read about "The Poverty Line" in America, keep in mind That there are far more families below that line since the messiah took office and both black income and employment is lower (percentage and adjusted for todays dollar) than under Reagan who is always called a racist by fark's moon-bats..


I've read a couple of articles (both describing and as beautiful examples of the phenomenon) that at this point, conservatives are beginning to treat "racist" as a badge of honor.

Because everytime you say things like:
* "I pulled my kid out of public school because of all the drug dealers"
* "Seriously, blacks go to jail more than whites because maybe they commit more crime.  Yeah, racist judges/cops, but it can't ALL be racist judges and cops"
* "So given that we're less racist and sexist as a society than we were 50 years ago, how come inner-city blacks are even more farked up?  Maybe it's thug/rap culture + welfare encouraging single-parent homes and lots of children with no father figures?"
* "Equal opportunity can produce unequal results, and using explicit discrimination to require equal results is evil and wrong and a really bad idea on a bunch of levels"
* "When do we stop treating people as groups and start treating them as people?"
* "Maybe having a bunch of professional blacks (as opposed to black professionals) driving policy on racial issues in this country is a bad idea."
* "Maybe automatically naying good policies because they *might* cause disproportionate effects on minorities isn't the best possible policy."

you get called a racist.

And so at this point, they're basically looking at "racist" as "You can't say that, and I'm not going to respond to your points in a reasonable fashion.  Instead, I'm just going to rage-quit this conversation with 'racist'."  (And since post-modernism says that truth and power are almost the same thing, by their lights, they DID.)

Seriously, look up "The Left's 20 rules of racism" and "The Right's 20 rules of racism" and similar.  They actually believe that shiat.  And the problem is that since they honestly DO NOT give a shiat about getting called racists anymore, you can't call out actual instances of blatant racism.  They've just become desensitized.  If Al Sharpton says it's wrong, it's probably right (though on that, I'd agree with them).

/Heck, feminism faces the same problem.
//http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/correias-simple-rules -for -understanding-racism/
 
2014-01-09 06:17:20 PM  

meyerkev: All kids are not equal. Charging $16K/year gets you bright kids and involved, educated parents on the average. Having no gate at all whatsoever gets you nothing. (I recall there being a study that said that it didn't matter whether or not you made it into charter school, but the mere act of trying made you a much better student since it correlated to parental involvement).


The real advantage of charters and free privates is that they can expel the idiots/troublemakers/felons-in-training back to the public schools -- who cannot.

They can raise the mean by cutting the chaff.
 
2014-01-09 06:39:36 PM  

telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?


I have to agree.   It's absolutely true that a lot of the hardest working people are among the poorest.  That's just a basic fact that everybody in America already knows.

But there are many, many people who are just downright evil and corrupt in their very soul, and then don't understand why such a gross injustice is an overwhelming problem.   Those people are going to take more convincing.
 
2014-01-09 06:40:24 PM  

GBB: buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.

The problem is that rent is partially based on the actual value of the home and the cost of upkeep to the landlord, and probably more based on the ability of the tenant to pay.

If you are getting by paying $500 a month on minimum wage and suddenly you are making an additional $300 a month because of an increase in minimum wage, your landlord is going to want a piece of that.

In 2007, rent for my apartment was $750.  In 2006 is was $730.  When the lease came up for renewal in 2008, just before the housing market collapse, they wanted $900.  I moved.  In 2011, I looked on their website and that floorplan was $8XX.  Landlords will always be greedy bastards that will base their rent schedules on the income potential of their tenants actual or prospective.


Bosses and landlords are often disparaged like this. Having been both and also on the other side, I promise that bosses and landlords are no more or less greedy than other parts of the population, anecdotes notwithstanding. But i have horror stories about tenants and employees if you need some balance.
 
2014-01-09 06:49:53 PM  

CleanAndPure: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

How hard you work and what you're paid arnt really too correlated.

Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.


No one who is rich, got rich because of hard work, they got rich from being at the right place at the right time.
 
2014-01-09 06:53:14 PM  
Gender aside, shouldn't everyone want to be either a skilled cook or shrewd shopper? Perhaps be in a partnership where there is one of each? If you are on a tight budget, it makes sense.
 
2014-01-09 07:11:53 PM  

Phinn: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.


You are picking something you disagree with and making an argument about something else.  Value is not the only thing you can pay someone for (it's what it makes sense for a company to pay for under Capitalism, but that's why we have governments, to look out for the welfare of people when Capitalistic forces don't align in the public interest.  Pure Capitalism may put a premium on 'value' but at the same time is doesn't put much of a premium on fairness.  If two people bust their ass at work and one takes home 10 times as much because his work had more value that's only fair because we say it is and because we live in a society that has set that up as a rule.  (Capitalism does have some things going for it in the realm of wealth creation, but when people start calling it 'fair' it's questionable).

Unfortunately, since money and free speech go hand in hand, you get a government bought by the people it's supposed to be regulating.
 
2014-01-09 07:12:32 PM  
And it's not a terribly ineffective political argument! Americans hate the poor, and deeply resent the idea of any of their money going to help them. That's why Clinton killed welfare, and why food stamps are now at risk. There's little political upside in promising to help the poor, and for years Democrats have only ever promised to help "all Americans" and "the middle class."
 
2014-01-09 07:22:19 PM  

Thisbymaster: CleanAndPure: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

How hard you work and what you're paid arnt really too correlated.

Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.

No one who is rich, got rich because of hard work, they got rich from being at the right place at the right time.


"Give me lucky generals" - Napoleon Bonaparte.

Luck is being in the right place at the right time AND being able to both recognize and exploit it.

And uh, given that Bill Gates is sorta famous in the industry for working 80+ hour weeks, not so much.  Right place, right time, yes.  Recognizing the right place/time, having the right skillset to employ it, having the guts to go for it (Informal poll: How many of you thought up the Snuggy before there was a Snuggy and never did anything about it?),  Brilliant, innovative business model, insanely hard worker, good at finding other brilliant people to surround him, also yes.  The 2nd without the first is a good middle manager at IBM or Google, the 1st without the 2nd is worthless.

/And keep in mind that you used an absolute and the problem with absolutes is that you only need one example to disprove them.  NEVER say All, always say most unless you can prove it.
 
2014-01-09 07:26:14 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

Bernice: In 1963, an eastern European immigrant named Mollie Orshansky, who was working over in social security, came up with it. Food was the most costly living expense where she came from.

Sam: Our cost of living formula for the last 40 years has been based on life in Poland during the Cold War?

Bernice: This is what I'm talking about. I mean, food doesn't account for one-third of a family's budget. Housing is more expensive than food. The current model also doesn't take into account transportation and health insurance. So let's call the current model the old model and sign off on the new model.
 
2014-01-09 07:47:09 PM  

buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.


Just to play the devil's advocate, why should a person be considered poor if they have family/friends/communities available to assist them?   Where is the incentive for families, friends, and the local community to take care of those truly in need if the government will provide assistance first?
 
2014-01-09 08:07:25 PM  

DrBrownCow: buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.

Just to play the devil's advocate, why should a person be considered poor if they have family/friends/communities available to assist them?   Where is the incentive for families, friends, and the local community to take care of those truly in need if the government will provide assistance first?


There's not.  And so they don't.   http://philanthropy.com/article/Generosity-in-the-States/133707/

I've heard it described as grasshoppers and ants.

Ants -  "Americans, contrary to every other society I have studied, form voluntary random social alliances."
Grasshoppers - "There's a problem, so we sit here until the king government comes and rescues us.  And then biatch about how long it took."

Completely different societal outlook.  It's the *main* reason that I'm more Republican than Democrat.

When it's the church (or hell, HOA. It's just got to be local and trusted to do 'what is right'.  It can be the local bank cutting you a sweet deal on that house loan) running things, everyone pitches in what they can and then it goes to whoever needs it IF AND ONLY IF that person is considered a 'good guy'.  "Yeah, Bill's just down on his luck.  Hopefully, he'll be doing better next year." vs. "Yeah, Bob's a total methhead, let him starve".  That's the key thing.  Societal trust is high (I give because I TRUST that everyone else will give if, God forbid, I need it) and it only goes to those who are considered contributing.  Aggressively functional, somewhat ruthless.  Mind you, there's issues with having a good old boy network, and it scales poorly, but it works on a small, local level.
 
2014-01-09 08:23:11 PM  
meyerkev:
Ah. Grasshoppers.

"Liberals Believe in the government the way (the religious lady) Believes in the Lord. It's almost a disservice to refer to such people as liberals. They were, in fact, aristocratists. They were very Old country in that they felt that beyond their little fence it was the King's duty to fix things."

/Keep in mind that this is a direct quote from someone who believes that they are an ant, but you've seen it where something is broken and no one fixes it, because "it's not my problem".
 
2014-01-09 08:31:12 PM  

mike_d85: WTF are you eating? Soylent Green and chicken feet? I get fresh veg, canned foods in bulk, meat in bulk, and cook most everything from scratch and I can't do much better than $80 a WEEK.

FFS, just getting dried rice ($1.29) and beans ($1.30) for 7 days a week is $20 ($18.20). And that's assuming you only consume one bag per day. I'm shopping for 3 full grown adults so I assume we'd eat more.


Where are you shopping, Neiman Marcus?  I buy a lot of rice.  I grab a pile of it when I find it for no more than 40 cents/pound.   Occasionally I'll see cheap brands at 30 cents/pound.

Our most recent shopping trip was purely produce.  8 bags worth (7 were in the 7-8 pound range, the last was light because it was broccoli) for $15.

mike_d85: Loren: And you missed one category of poor but not idiots--immigrants with limited English.

I'm glad you mentioned them because I have nothing but respect for those people.  Any one who thinks I'm being sarcastic should learn to install plumbing without instructions while someone is shouting at you.


I'm married to one of those immigrants (although she no longer has limited English) so I've seen quite a few and they impress me.
 
2014-01-09 08:37:32 PM  
"...and it assumes all houses have a full-time housewife who is a "skilled cook" and "careful shopper" to stretch their budget"

Yes, so what is the problem? Its not the government's fault if someone is the self centered type that didn't marry and/or if they were not smart enough to pick a good woman and/or are one of those extreme progressives that forces their wife into the workforce.  If someone does any of those things then any poverty is of their own doing and should be left out of the poverty stats.
 
GBB
2014-01-09 09:05:15 PM  

Phil McKraken: GBB: buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.

The problem is that rent is partially based on the actual value of the home and the cost of upkeep to the landlord, and probably more based on the ability of the tenant to pay.

If you are getting by paying $500 a month on minimum wage and suddenly you are making an additional $300 a month because of an increase in minimum wage, your landlord is going to want a piece of that.

In 2007, rent for my apartment was $750.  In 2006 is was $730.  When the lease came up for renewal in 2008, just before the housing market collapse, they wanted $900.  I moved.  In 2011, I looked on their website and that floorplan was $8XX.  Landlords will always be greedy bastards that will base their rent schedules on the income potential of their tenants actual or prospective.

Bosses and landlords are often disparaged like this. Having been both and also on the other side, I promise that bosses and landlords are no more or less greedy than other parts of the population, anecdotes notwithstanding. But i have horror stories about tenants and employees if you need some balance.


When you get down to the root of all human decision making, we're all greedy.
 
2014-01-09 09:09:38 PM  

Magorn: and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:


Please adjust that last graph for inflation first. I don't want to needlessly prep that pitchfork.
 
2014-01-09 09:21:40 PM  

Chummer45: Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat

It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.


You forgot to add in corporate Americas love of befuddled, poorly motivated, work just hard enough to not lose my job middle management.
 
2014-01-09 09:28:23 PM  

Loren: mike_d85: WTF are you eating? Soylent Green and chicken feet? I get fresh veg, canned foods in bulk, meat in bulk, and cook most everything from scratch and I can't do much better than $80 a WEEK.

FFS, just getting dried rice ($1.29) and beans ($1.30) for 7 days a week is $20 ($18.20). And that's assuming you only consume one bag per day. I'm shopping for 3 full grown adults so I assume we'd eat more.

Where are you shopping, Neiman Marcus?  I buy a lot of rice.  I grab a pile of it when I find it for no more than 40 cents/pound.   Occasionally I'll see cheap brands at 30 cents/pound.

Our most recent shopping trip was purely produce.  8 bags worth (7 were in the 7-8 pound range, the last was light because it was broccoli) for $15.

mike_d85: Loren: And you missed one category of poor but not idiots--immigrants with limited English.

I'm glad you mentioned them because I have nothing but respect for those people.  Any one who thinks I'm being sarcastic should learn to install plumbing without instructions while someone is shouting at you.

I'm married to one of those immigrants (although she no longer has limited English) so I've seen quite a few and they impress me.


I thought that everyone knew that the less you buy, the more you are going to pay per unit...    if you want to buy rice on the cheap, you have to buy the big bags...
 
2014-01-09 09:33:34 PM  

Phinn: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.


For the people arguing that people are being paid what they are worth:

Why do you believe that the value of work has diminished over the years?

If people are being paid according to their value, why are profits higher than ever, worker productivity is higher than ever, and worker's wages are stagnant?

Worker's today are better educated as well..... though much less valuable.

And now the really important question..... If this pattern continues (I'm sure that it will), SHOULD the government get involved to try to turn it around?
 
2014-01-09 09:48:31 PM  

Maul555: I thought that everyone knew that the less you buy, the more you are going to pay per unit... if you want to buy rice on the cheap, you have to buy the big bags...


Usually, although I have hit my target price on 5# bags once.  Generally I buy the 20# bags, though.
 
2014-01-09 09:49:02 PM  
I make a good living, but after buying beer, liquor, cat food and liter, there's very little left for food.
 
2014-01-09 09:50:02 PM  
And now, homes with full time house wives are usually the financially strong homes.

My wife would love to quit her job and just stay at home to be with the kids.
 
2014-01-09 09:58:17 PM  

umad: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

I have. And they were stupid and lazy motherfarkers to a person.


There are people who have several kids and work hard full time, but don't make a high enough wage to support their family without assistance. There are also people who are mentally ill, but not lazy or stupid. And being stupid doesn't mean you're lazy.
 
2014-01-09 10:03:12 PM  

GBB: When you get down to the root of all human decision making, we're all greedy.


If casual and unnecessary destruction of property count as greed, you're right.
 
2014-01-09 10:46:00 PM  
With 50 million Americans on SNAP and 100 million receiving some level of Federal assistance can we just admit that Capitalism won and move back to Feudalism or some other system where the solution to rich people is storming their houses with pitchforks?
 
2014-01-09 10:46:51 PM  

meyerkev: meyerkev:
Ah. Grasshoppers.

"Liberals Believe in the government the way (the religious lady) Believes in the Lord. It's almost a disservice to refer to such people as liberals. They were, in fact, aristocratists. They were very Old country in that they felt that beyond their little fence it was the King's duty to fix things."

/Keep in mind that this is a direct quote from someone who believes that they are an ant, but you've seen it where something is broken and no one fixes it, because "it's not my problem".


Am I understanding you correctly that you're stating it's liberalswho have the "not my problem" attitude towards others? Liberals don't think of anyone beyond their front door? Dude, I respect your opinion and maybe I misunderstand you here, but that's exactly what  conservativesthink, not liberals. Conservatives are the ones who seem content to let other people suffer and die since they themselves have "got theirs" as the saying goes. Conservatives are the ones who are actively fighting to remove the paltry safety net we still have in place (for now). Conservatives are the ones screaming that they can't even fathom the idea of people having basic healthcare and would rather some for-profit insurance company runs it instead of the people.

This innate mistrust of the government (which is supposedly made of us - the people) and wanting to make it smaller to the point of nonexistence is irrational. The idea that private charity or communities should take on responsibility for administering aid and alms to the poor is such a cruel, Dickensian "not my problem" attitude that it alone puts the lie to your assertion that liberals are the "not my problem" crowd. I hope I've misunderstood you here and, if so, I apologize.
 
2014-01-09 10:59:50 PM  

Magorn: "...Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:

img.fark.net"



WTF? Do you not recognize that manufacturing machinery has gotten WAY more advanced over the 38 years covered by this chart, and that the increase in worker output is due primarily to the tools used in manufacturing and to process efficiency? Or do you actually believe that manufacturing employees are working 3.5 times as hard as whey were in the 1970s?

This chart, especially in the context you presented it in, is equivalent to saying that since people are traveling much greater distances today than they were in 1895, it means that they're running faster, getting more exercise, and have less time to spend at their destinations.
 
2014-01-09 11:01:28 PM  
if its one thing I can count on fark for, its a complete misunderstanding of conservatives...
 
2014-01-09 11:18:26 PM  

TV's Vinnie: The right wing really does want poor Americans to be POOR-poor. Like, starving skinny orphans poor.

[www.thelondoneveningpost.com image 700x466]

And then instead of food, all the right wing will offer are bibles and a hob-nailed boot to the face.


they should be, might make them work.

There are no poor people in America. Our poor live damn good lives, and have no stress because they get everything free.
 
2014-01-09 11:19:18 PM  
And by the way, poor kids are the fattest, so don't give us this starving crap. They are fat and lazy like Mom and absent Dad.
 
2014-01-09 11:55:00 PM  

Thunderpipes: And by the way, poor kids are the fattest, so don't give us this starving crap. They are fat and lazy like Mom and absent Dad.


images.zap2it.com
Monster's Ball (2001) Halle Berry, Billy Bob Thornton
 
2014-01-10 12:06:35 AM  

HoratioGates: Phinn: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.

You are picking something you disagree with and making an argument about something else.  Value is not the only thing you can pay someone for (it's what it makes sense for a company to pay for under Capitalism, but that's why we have governments, to look out for the welfare of people when Capitalistic forces don't align in the public interest.  Pure Capitalism may put a premium on 'value' but at the same time is doesn't put much of a premium on fairness.  If two people bust their ass at work and one takes home 10 times as much because his work had more value that's only fair because we say it is and because we live in a society that has set that up as a rule.  (Capitalism does have some things going for it in the realm of wealth creation, but when people start calling it 'fair' it's questionable).

Unfortunately, since money and free speech go hand in hand, you get a government bought by the people it's supposed to be regulating.


The word "fair" needs to be eliminated from political vocabulary. It means nothing. The way you're using it, it means something like "good" or "right." That's not the issue. The issue is HOW you define what's good and right--how you choose between competing goods.

A guy "busts his ass" and gets one-tenth the income of someone else? What if this ass-busting behavior is making donkey porn? Is it good or right or FAIR that he gets paid so much less than a film producer who makes wildly popular entertainment with one-tenth the effort? What if this porn producer makes 10 times more than a guy who makes obscure art films in archaic languages that a small coterie of elite academics love but are completely unappealing to everyone else? More importantly, who decides what these various producers get paid? Based on what methodology? Effort? Social value? Determined how?

Or what about a guy who "busts his ass" by fashioning exquisite hand-made large-scale replicas of office buildings from sugar cubes and old grocery bags? It could be the most grueling, time-consuming, highly refined work imaginable, but socially worthless. By what possible means could his income be determined by reference to his effort? Who should make that determination, in your ideal society? Using what criteria?

Deciding if work is "in the public interest" is another one of your weasel words. What is the means by which these public interests are identified and their relative importance determined? By what method are they to be prioritized? How does one decide how resources are to be diverted from (or to) the infinite number of things that people could be producing?

Your propositions are vacuous to the point of being meaningless -- all you've said is that we should be "fair" to people who "work hard" doing things that are in the "public interest."

Well, whoopdie-farking-doo, but if you're going to propose a new GLOBAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM, you're going to need to be a little more thorough.
 
2014-01-10 12:46:08 AM  
Meyerkev...you kind of went off the derp end there, but my point is that quite a few people want those programs reduced or eliminated, like the 90k people who are losing health insurance in WI this year, and the answer is always "If you don't want to starve or go to a doctor or etc. don't be poor." That is not a valid position as it ignores the segment of the population to which I referred previously. If someone wants to eliminate or reduce these programs wholesale, they should be honest about why. What do they propose to do with people unable or unwilling to live above income levels that need aid for survival?
 
2014-01-10 12:57:58 AM  

roc6783: Meyerkev...you kind of went off the derp end there, but my point is that quite a few people want those programs reduced or eliminated, like the 90k people who are losing health insurance in WI this year, and the answer is always "If you don't want to starve or go to a doctor or etc. don't be poor." That is not a valid position as it ignores the segment of the population to which I referred previously. If someone wants to eliminate or reduce these programs wholesale, they should be honest about why. What do they propose to do with people unable or unwilling to live above income levels that need aid for survival?


I know of no conservative that wants all, or even most social safety nets to be eliminated...
 
2014-01-10 02:21:42 AM  

GBB: Good luck finding a woman that's either a skilled cook or careful shopper these days.  Don't even consider finding one that's both.

/my experience.
//YMMV


I'm both. We've managed to make it on one modest income long enough for both our kids to get into school. I cook and balance the budget and shop wisely. I've got maybe three nice outfits to my name because the kids come first, but we did it. And I went back to college and finished my degree. Last kid just started kindergarten this week and it's back to the workforce for this mother. ;)
 
2014-01-10 02:47:02 AM  
good cook and careful shopper may be mutually exclusive requirements.
 
2014-01-10 03:40:34 AM  

timujin: flak attack: So, in reality, the only thing I want to dust off my torch for is to burn down whatever school you went to because it clearly didn't do it's job.

Can you burn down whichever school also taught you this?
 a ~20% increase (I'm estimating $41k and $45k as household income numbers here, since your graph doesn't give exact numbers).

Going from $41k to $45k is a 10% increase, not 20%.


And that's over 40 years, without accounting inflation or cost of living.

That 41k should be over 100k now.
 
2014-01-10 11:34:43 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: umad: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

I have. And they were stupid and lazy motherfarkers to a person.

There are people who have several kids and work hard full time, but don't make a high enough wage to support their family without assistance. There are also people who are mentally ill, but not lazy or stupid. And being stupid doesn't mean you're lazy.


Yeah, I should have said lazy and/or stupid.
 
2014-01-10 11:53:02 AM  

spmkk: WTF? Do you not recognize that manufacturing machinery has gotten WAY more advanced over the 38 years covered by this chart, and that the increase in worker output is due primarily to the tools used in manufacturing and to process efficiency? Or do you actually believe that manufacturing employees are working 3.5 times as hard as whey were in the 1970s?

This chart, especially in the context you presented it in, is equivalent to saying that since people are traveling much greater distances today than they were in 1895, it means that they're running faster, getting more exercise, and have less time to spend at their destinations.


Exactly.  I used to work for a factory.  Over the years I worked there I watched production go up 20x while the staffing might have gone up 4x.  It's not that the workers were working any harder, it was that machinery was taking more and more of the load.  If anything the workload got easier as the computers did more and more spoon-feeding.

The extra money didn't go to the factory floor workers because they weren't doing anything more.  It went to the bigger building, it went to the equipment suppliers, it went to people like me (the guy who wrote the software that made it work) and a few guys who built some of the equipment.
 
2014-01-10 01:23:58 PM  

Thunderpipes: And by the way, poor kids are the fattest, so don't give us this starving crap. They are fat and lazy like Mom and absent Dad.


Fat is just as malnourished as ribs sticking out.
From a medical view, not an emotional one.
 
2014-01-10 01:26:08 PM  

spmkk: Magorn: "...Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:

This chart, especially in the context you presented it in, is equivalent to saying that since people are traveling much greater distances today than they were in 1895, it means that they're running faster, getting more exercise, and have less time to spend at their destinations.


Jeez, all this time, I thought it was pirates, but that graph!
I see the light!
 
2014-01-10 01:34:51 PM  

Magorn: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Phinn: ikanreed:

The fact that you think YOU made any decisions as a child that affected your future outcomes as an adult , and your success is a result of your innate virtue and wisdom in making life choices as a 7-year old is pathetically, laughably, delusional.    But a delusion all to common among those who ridiculously think of themselves as "self-made"


Oh, the self-made are so cute.
Not even if you were raised by wolves in the forest is any farker "self-made".
Not sure where such a delusion comes from, but it is usually accompanied by douchbagyness worn like Emperor's Clothing and ALWAYS announced by self.
Exception proving rule, sycophant "journalists" proclaiming the "self made man".
Delusions.
 
2014-01-10 05:43:23 PM  

Phinn: A guy "busts his ass" and gets one-tenth the income of someone else? What if this ass-busting behavior is making donkey porn? Is it good or right or FAIR that he gets paid so much less than a film producer who makes wildly popular entertainment with one-tenth the effort? What if this porn producer makes 10 times more than a guy who makes obscure art films in archaic languages that a small coterie of elite academics love but are completely unappealing to everyone else? More importantly, who decides what these various producers get paid? Based on what methodology? Effort? Social value? Determined how?

Or what about a guy who "busts his ass" by fashioning exquisite hand-made large-scale replicas of office buildings from sugar cubes and old grocery bags? It could be the most grueling, time-consuming, highly refined work imaginable, but socially worthless. By what possible means could his income be determined by reference to his effort? Who should make that determination, in your ideal society? Using what criteria?

Deciding if work is "in the public interest" is another one of your weasel words. What is the means by which these public interests are identified and their relative importance determined? By what method are they to be prioritized? How does one decide how resources are to be diverted from (or to) the infinite number of things that people could be producing?

Your propositions are vacuous to the point of being meaningless -- all you've said is that we should be "fair" to people who "work hard" doing things that are in the "public interest."

Well, whoopdie-farking-doo, but if you're going to propose a new GLOBAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM, you're going to need to be a little more thorough.


And I guess we'll bounce to another argument then, since you don't seem to want to actually argue the point you started with, so, well, how about a negative income tax then.  The countries that use it have blown past on most measures of standards of living and it doesn't distort the job market as much as   Land Value Tax.  It's one of the best ways to get people to actually pay tax and spend on improving property (and thereby the net worth of the country).  Sign more treaties to cooperate on tax issues- don't let countries get away with being tax havens.  Pass an amendment that says money and free speech aren't the same thing. 

When you start citing donkey porn arguments, you might want to look to see if you are about to run into Godwin's Law.  I took issue with your Weeners because you complained about one thing and then created an argument for something else.  What I'm saying is that, unless you want to long term civil unrest that some balance of wealth is desirable.  Middle class levels of wealth mean good school districts for everyone, and an opportunity to at least see the ladder of upward mobility so you can start making choices about how to go about getting out of the cycle of poverty.

Pure capitalism is good at creating GDP growth, but it's a lousy at distributing it.  Communism, (even in it's mythical form) is lousy at creating GDP growth.  It is possible to balance the two.  There are countries that do it much better than we do, and in the long run, when generations roll over and replace the current work force, they do better at GDP growth than we do.

We frame the argument over the 'self made man' in terms of 'did you go to a good school that gave you a foot up' and people reject that because of biases built into the human brain.  The truth is that you even need to take it a step further.  If you want to sell a computer you've built to someone you need someone smart enough to use a computer to sell to.  You need someone smart enough to build it for you.  You need roads to ship it over, and people smart enough to run distribution networks.  You need a country with resources to enforce trade treaties, and back them up.  Pure Capitalism, in the long run, doesn't provide you with that.  Some mix of Capitalism and a social safety net is needed.

But, no one is going to convince a self made man that.
 
2014-01-10 10:39:14 PM  

HoratioGates: But, no one is going to convince a self made man that.



Certainly not YOU, and certainly not with facile, shallow platitudes like that recycled "balancing" crap.
 
Displayed 232 of 232 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report