Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 112 posts

Re: Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

#41

Post by llamataboot »

LUmBULtERA wrote: post #16

>"For instance, in Seattle's King County, the annual household survival budget for a family of four (including one infant and one preschooler) in 2016 was nearly $85,000." An $85,000 "budget" is needed for a 4-person household's "survival" in King County? Otherwise they're dying? Maybe United Way's underlying data explains this better, but CNN's conclusions don't seem well explained or supported. Edit: What's weird i…

I'm not sure whether you are arguing in good faith or not, so I'd say just bypass all the 'survival' stuff you are stuck on and essentially replace it with 'middle class'.

Now you may also be pedantic and say that middle-class is supposed to be the middle, so 50% is about right.

But what you can't argue with is that nearly half of Americans simply cannot build any wealth or get out of any debt and likely can't meet the basic standards of education/transportation/food/housing that we used to assume was the birthright of any American (1).

And that this is much higher than it used to be, and it is getting worse. And that literally most of the basic working class of the US - nurses aides, childcare workers, etc are often literally one missed paycheck away from the street.

1) May not apply depending on skin color

Re: Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

#42

Post by ryanmercer »

deogeo wrote: post #32
danesparza wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that there are worse things than the sweet release of death. Living without dignity might be one of them. That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about having "cell phone" in that list of things that are considered necessities.

Cell phone could be necessary for many jobs (like deliveries). And cell phone + mobile data can be a cheaper alternative to computer + landline internet, which is pretty essential nowadays. Even if you argue you can do without, the money you'd spend on transportation to do in person what you'd otherwise do online would outweigh the price of a cell-phone. Not to mention the time you save, which can be used to avoid ne…

>Cell phone could be necessary for many jobs (like deliveries)

Then it should be provided by the employer.

I don't know how old you are but, we got by without mass adoption of cellphones in the 90's just fine. You had an answering machine, people called you and if they didn't get you they left a message and you got home and pressed play.

We also survived just fine without GPS and digital maps, people actually knew how to look at maps and write down directions.

The only time I can even think of when someone would need to install a location app would be for gig economy stuff. Ride share and food delivery apps are often break-even at best when maintenance/upkeep is factored in and are not valid income sources for low-income individuals (if they even have a vehicle that meets the insurance requirements of the company).

You don't even need to own a computer or have internet access at home, libraries exist. They have computers and internet for public use with the general requirement being a (free) library card. Businesses like FedEx Office also offer computer access for a modest fee https://www.fedex.com/en-us/office/computer-rental.html .

Re: Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

#43

Post by j4kp07 »

CabSauce wrote: post #33
LUmBULtERA wrote: post #16

>"For instance, in Seattle's King County, the annual household survival budget for a family of four (including one infant and one preschooler) in 2016 was nearly $85,000." An $85,000 "budget" is needed for a 4-person household's "survival" in King County? Otherwise they're dying? Maybe United Way's underlying data explains this better, but CNN's conclusions don't seem well explained or supported. Edit: What's weird i…

>"households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone" Literally the first line of the article.

1) Get rid of the cellphone

2) Cancel your cable/streaming subscriptions

3) Starting cooking meals at home

4) Apply for ACA

Re: Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

#44

Post by amelius »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #5

If "Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone" Is true does that mean those households do without those things? Or are they subsidized via other methods? Medicare/medicaid for health insurance for example. Such programs often have income maximums that households may be attempting to optimise for. We o…

Also, these people are more wealthy than people (in the same income percentile), say, 100 years ago. This makes me wonder if capitalism always progresses to such a point that a large portion of the population lives in misery.

Re: Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

#45

Post by hnaccy »

bachmeier wrote: post #17
algaeontoast wrote: post #2

In many of these cases it seems like having kids may have been an ill-advised life choice. Having kids is always a choice not a right.

1. Human beings will always make bad choices. There is nothing wrong with helping them when they do. 2. You can't blame children for mistakes made by their parents.

>Human beings will always make bad choices. There is nothing wrong with helping them when they do.

You're forcing others to help them by threat of force.

Re: Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

#46

Post by abstractbarista »

LUmBULtERA wrote: post #16

>"For instance, in Seattle's King County, the annual household survival budget for a family of four (including one infant and one preschooler) in 2016 was nearly $85,000." An $85,000 "budget" is needed for a 4-person household's "survival" in King County? Otherwise they're dying? Maybe United Way's underlying data explains this better, but CNN's conclusions don't seem well explained or supported. Edit: What's weird i…

I am always curious of the discretionary spending when these reports come out. And they never seem to talk about it. What percentage of their income is going to things not needed to survive?

I don't want to make rash assumptions, but it sure seems like many people "live paycheck to paycheck" but still buy alcohol, watch Netflix, etc. I realize they've made the choice to be that way - as opposed to being pinched into it. Of course others are truly screwed, and simply must find ways to increase income.

Re: Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

#47

Post by Tsubasachan »

skrebbel wrote: post #25
pnutjam wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They end up shuffling between homelessness, homeless programs, and family / friends. A good portion of the children pass through the foster care system and the adults end up in jail or prison for various stretches. It's a very expensive system, and people's lives are wasted even if they are not out right killed.

> They end up shuffling between homelessness, homeless programs, and family / friends. 51 million people? A sixth of the US?

Average income in the Netherlands is 40k USD. If being poor in the US is double that... Maybe the complete lack of healthcare and social housing makes up the difference?

Re: Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

#48

Post by happytoexplain »

vernie wrote: post #29
sorryforthethro wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Deleted]

In response to your original comment, I believe there's also a desire to punish people for having premarital sex, as evidenced by right-wingers' strong opposition to emergency contraceptives.

I've never had a conversation with a person who was broadly anti-abortion and anti-subsidized-birth-control that didn't end with the explicit impression that they feel disgust for people who have sex before marriage or for reasons other than reproduction, and that the primary notion upsetting them is the idea of their taxes going toward those people in any form. It's clearly a notion born out of the popular and too-eagerly-applied idea of "bad" people who "deserve" consequences.

Re: Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

#49

Post by hnaccy »

mach5 wrote: post #11
algaeontoast wrote: post #2

In many of these cases it seems like having kids may have been an ill-advised life choice. Having kids is always a choice not a right.

so only the rich should reproduce? absolutely disgusting mindset. nobody chooses a life of poverty, and the overwhelming inequality of our current society both perpetuates and exacerbates it.

There's a gap between only the rich reproduce and habitually unemployed/low-wage workers shouldn't have multiple kids at a young age.

Re: Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

#50

Post by dsfyu404ed »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #40
mach5 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so only the rich should reproduce? absolutely disgusting mindset. nobody chooses a life of poverty, and the overwhelming inequality of our current society both perpetuates and exacerbates it.

If you can't care for your child, you shouldn't have one. The natural order is that children from unfit parents die. There are too many humans on this planet as it is. If you're impoverished in your thirties, it is probably the result of a long history of poor life choices. You can get dealt a horrible hand with lots of tragedy and disadvantages and still be able to make it on your own in your thirties, as long as yo…

Define "care"

I assure you kids can and do grow up just fine without an upper middle class amount of resources thrown at them.

I agree with your second paragraph though.

Post reply on HN