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

71–80 of 112 posts

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

#71

Post by ryanmercer »

dmitriid wrote: post #59
ryanmercer wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a phone 24/7/265. As far as cost, looks like land line service is 15-30$ a month with things like caller ID, call waiting and voicemail. That's generally much cheaper than any mobile phone with a data plan and doesn't require a phone that costs hundreds of dollars. Even MVNO solutions like Mint start at 45$ every three months before tax and sim shipping. You also don't need payphones to be abundant, Fr…

A person on the internet is arguing that a landline with caller ID, call waiting and voicemail is sufficient. > You also don't need payphones to be abundant, From 1990 to 1999 (ages 5-14) I used a payphone maybe a dozen times and nearly all of those were to have discussions with friends that I didn't want my parents to hear so I rode my bike 2 blocks to Little Caesars Ah yes. The needs of a child/teen are surely the…

>Ah yes. The needs of a child/teen are surely the needs of a grown person who will need to communicate with potential employers, banks, landlords, schools etc.

I've been working, taxable above the board income (google it, lots of conditions for this including paper delivery which is what I did), since I was 12 years old. I've had a bank account since I was 8.

There is no realistic condition where the majority of the population needs to be tethered to a phone number 24/7/365.

If you have a job that requires you to be on call, certainly, but in that case your employer should be providing the phone or reimbursing the cost. Generally people in these situations are paid rather well also.

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

#72

Post by wedn3sday »

hnaccy wrote: post #49
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.

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

For that gap to exist, people need access to comprehensive reproductive health services so they can make the choice of when to have kids. In the long run its much, much cheaper for the state to pay for condoms and pregnancy tests then it is to pay for day care, incarceration, and funeral services.

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

#73

Post by LUmBULtERA »

Miner49er wrote: post #63
LUmBULtERA wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, you're literally saying that families of 4 in King County earning less than $85,000 are dying. I don't think this is the case.

Seems right to me. If you don't have housing, food, or healthcare, you're gonna die a lot quicker then someone that does. Sure, you can survive for a while homeless, or without healthcare, or even without food, but your definitely dying faster then people with.

Median household income in 2015 in King County was $75,302.[0] A conclusion that half of King County's households have died off by 2017 or 2019 (or about to) seems nonsensical to me.

[0] https://www.kingcounty.gov/independent/forecasting/King%20Co...

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

#75

Post by FabHK »

amelius wrote: post #44
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.

Another article discussed here recently claimed that US median worker real wages have barely increased at all over the last 40 years. But, yes, you are right, there was plenty of progress and growth from the 1920s to the 1970s (when the spectre of communism was haunting the world, and the top marginal tax rate in the USA was between 70% and 90%).

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

#76

Post by FabHK »

Tsubasachan wrote: post #47
skrebbel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Per capita or per household?

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

#77

Post by chungleong »

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…

According to https://www.givingwhatwecan.org, an income of $85,000 in the US would put a household of four in the top 3.5% of the world's population.

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

#78

Post by wedn3sday »

taborj wrote: post #62
wedn3sday wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many places in the US having kids is actually not a choice but an obligation forced on women by lack of funding for reproductive service clinics by ignorant politicians and repeated attacks on the right to an abortion by right wing extremists. This is a very loaded conversation at the moment, but there are politicians who've said things like, if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant she should accept the gift that…

> This is a very loaded conversation at the moment And your choice of words to describe the situation certainly aren't helping. In fact, they're causing more harm than good, as you present one side as good and kind, and the other side as evil incarnate. In other words, this is a complex situation, and you're part of the problem.

That might be because one side is good and kind, and the other is evil. Sure, there's two sides of every argument, but we can sit here all day an no matter what you tell me the sky will still be blue.

The comment I responded to was saying, "having kids is a choice," to which I say, "many people are being forced to have kids they dont want." Forcing unwanted births is a specific policy objective pursued by a group of people pushing they're religious views on others.

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

#79

Post by FabHK »

weberc2 wrote: post #38
skrebbel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

51 million households , so almost half of the US. Even less believable. EDIT: Why is this downvoted? The article states "Nearly 51 million households..."

There are 128m households in the USA, but yeah, it's about 40%.

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

#80

Post by Miner49er »

LUmBULtERA wrote: post #73
Miner49er wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems right to me. If you don't have housing, food, or healthcare, you're gonna die a lot quicker then someone that does. Sure, you can survive for a while homeless, or without healthcare, or even without food, but your definitely dying faster then people with.

Median household income in 2015 in King County was $75,302.[0] A conclusion that half of King County's households have died off by 2017 or 2019 (or about to) seems nonsensical to me. [0] https://www.kingcounty.gov/independent/forecasting/King%20Co...

Well no, half aren't. The average household isn't a family of four. For the United States the average household consists of 2.53 people.

Additionally, this isn't just a family of four in the study. It's a family of four with two kids below public school age. Meaning that they need childcare. That's included. As they get older that $75k number would go down, probably.

Edit: looking at the study only 28% of people aren't "surviving" in King county. Keep in mind, they might have some stuff subsidized by the government or others.

Post reply on HN