Household Income Short of $68K? Welcome To the New Poverty

[upstatecajun]

Have you been laboring under the delusion that you’re still part of the tiny, rapidly vanishing Middle Class? Happy April Fools Day! A new study by ( DC-based nonprofit Wider Opportunities For Women) proves that a family of four needs $67,920 a year (pre-tax) to survive in America. And that’s basic: no vacations, no fancy dinners, no wine tastings, no fun-box deliveries from Amazon or Zappos or whatever every couple of months to break up the crushing monotony of work and eventual death.

You will, however, spend an average of $12,000 a year on car insurance and payments on your crappy mid-sized sedan, because we don’t have much in the way of public transportation in this country. And you’ll spend another $12,000 a year on child care, because we don’t like to provide socialism in these parts, ha ha. Freedom isn’t free, after all.
Not much left after $12,000 a year in rent and utilities, either. Don’t forget to pay $9,000 in taxes on that $67,920! Who do you think you are, General Electric?

http://www.tloforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=64

[doc03]

1. A study by who? n/t

[upstatecajun]

2. The DC-based nonprofit Wider Opportunities For Women

http://www.wowonline.org/usbest/

[Warpy]

4. And unlike the government, they're using the average of what things cost

instead of relying on a formula that hasn't been accurate since the early 60s and using a market basket of goods and services that was Greenspanned into total irrelevancy.

I'd trust their figures more than I'd trust government figures.

[RKP5637]

30. Same here! All I see are costs going up yet the gov. says inflation is under control. Total

BS.

[Beartracks]

194. How come everyone can pass along their costs...

... except the citizens? Should we all incorporate together? :think:

-----------------------

[vim876]

200. By Jove!

America Inc. might be the solution to the America Inc. problem!

[RKP5637]

203. That, is an excellent idea! We need to get this river flowing the other way!

[guyton]

3. Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW)

And here's a link to the original article in the wonkette ...

http://wonkette.com/442001/welcome-to-poverty-everyone-you-need-household-income-of-68k-to-live

[RKP5637]

5. And each year Americans settle for less and for many a lower standard of

living. Yet many Americans just don't get it and cry socialism for any public programs that help them. The propaganda and BS in this country runs wide and deep, how else could so many often vote in their own worst interest.

It will go down in history as the most propagandized country wherein many rage on about their freedom and wrap themselves in the flag and bible while voting away their rights and future. Simply amazing.

[coalition_unwilling]

117. "Don't let the government mess with my Medicare." OMG, the

appalling ignorance in that T-Bag-defining warcry. Don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Or both

[Beartracks]

214. ...............it burns!

Teh stoopid, it burns!



Click ^^ :patriot:



-------------------------

[TahitiNut]

175. Totalitarian regimes depend on behavior control to maintain power.

Republican regimes depend upon mind control, so the behavior isn't an issue. Thus, from cradle to grave, we're swimming in a sea of propaganda the efffect of which is to make us compliant ... from "some day my Prince will come" (Disney's 'ideal' of womanhood) to "I don't want to be a burden on my children."

It's appalling.

[iris27]

6. And yet so much public assistance is based on poverty levels that are unliveable.

I was just denied an economic hardship deferment on my federal student loans, as someone who earns $24,000/yr (gross) for a family of 2. Apparently that amount of money is above 150% of the poverty level for my family size, which is the cutoff for the deferment. Ridiculous. We have cut everything to the bone since losing my husband's income, but $1400/month after taxes and health insurance doesn't go real far.

[howaboutme]

7. A lot still depends on location

68K could still be considered middle class in many areas, but not in many other areas.

I remember my dad made about $100 a week in his small business in the 50s and we lived pretty well with 5 young kids in a small town in a low cost area, with a house, non-working mother, new car and took a vacation.

That was before our nation was hijacked by outside interests, and before the inflation brought on by the oil embargo of 72, absurd foreign policy that was not in US interests, before the foolish costly Vietnam War, before the Federal Reserve sank our dollar, before 40 years of Wall St / business control of Congress that led to the outsourcing of many of our good paying jobs. Most of us Americans are too busy working to make ends meet or immersed in foolish entertainment activities to really understand how badly we've been had all to benefit, as Dennis Kucinich says but a few. Sorry for the rant but it truly pisses me off seeing what has happened to most Americans and the USA over the last 40-50 years.

[donco]

10. Ten four

in the show me $68 K still goes pretty far.

[xmas74]

29. Yes and no.

It's not bad but if you're paying off tens of thousands of college loan debt it still sucks. I have a friend making 50 a year, single parent, commutes every day. She's complaining about the commute prices, the price of day care, gas prices, insurance prices, grocery prices, her mortgage (and she purchased an old bungalow, not a large home by any means), clothing for her job and for her child, along with all of her college debt. We sat down one day to work over her budget and she was correct-she's not doing well at all, considering she's not really spending on entertainment, dining out, or any luxuries.

If you have college debt to pay back and a family to support it doesn't go very far.

[howaboutme]

43. Agreed - Debt and location

Debt for education has become an unfortunate by-product of a college education today especially with the higher costs of tuition and expenses and reduced financial help. For those fortunate enough to have parents that can readily pay for their education, they may have a leg up on the others, but they lose out on the sacrifice and life long self respect that is gained by paying for one's own education.

If people can learn to save and live frugally without frivolous credit card debt it will make a huge difference in their lives down the road and how much it costs to live. Life goes by with much less stress without debt. Life goes by quickly and it will quickly become a way of life where you use the banks instead of having them use you.

Until we start taxing the rich and corporations fairly (meaning they pay their fair share) where billionaires and GE pay much more than average wage earners, so that opportunities can be provided for all such as educational aid for the long term gain of our country, politicians need a shake out.

[xmas74]

47. My friend's debt is from

student loans and an old medical bill that she is still paying off. No credit card debt for her-none for me, for that matter. I only have one friend in our "single mother's network" that has credit card debt. The rest of us cannot afford it.

We've talked about location before. I had thought of moving but couldn't find a job. She had considered a move closer to work but realized that, though the commute cost would be slashed, she would have to sell her house and pay a higher rent than her mortgage, her child care costs would be higher, her food costs could possibly go up too, and she would no longer have access to our little network. The network trades gently worn clothes and other items, works out babysitting deals when able, etc.

I could discuss the solution all night long but all I really know is what's staring everyone around me in the face: no matter what we do, there still isn't enough money to pay for everything.

[hfojvt]

185. I still don't understand that

Especially at 50K. Last year my AGI was $13,837.11 before I put $502 into my IRA, and I seem to have plenty of money. I'm not saving a lot of money, but I have money to spend on what I consider to be luxuries. I own three dogs, for god's sake. My house is already big enough for a family of three, although I am sure I would feel crowded if even one more person moved in.

I wonder if people just get luxuries that they don't even realize. Things like cable TV and cell phones are taken to be part of the bare necessities perhaps. I spend about $400 a year on pop, that is a long way from being necessary. Probably she has a much nicer car than my $3,500 paid-for car. If she's making payments and paying for full coverage, that can be costly as well. Might try increasing both deductibles to $500 - that seemed to reduce insurance costs by a fair amount when I had to have full coverage (back in 1996).

[xmas74]

197. She is making payments on a vehicle.

Up until last year she had a very old car that wouldn't have made a commute. When she landed the job she needed something that was actually reliable. She can't drop her coverage at this time.

And three dogs are no where near as expensive as one child who has a chronic illness. That's enough to bankrupt a family.

[vim876]

202. Do you live in Alabama?

Seriously. Because the cost of living in Auburn is a bit different than in DC or NYC.

[LooseWilly]

128. Uhhmm—"paying for one's own education"?... with education costs rising every year... doesn't happen.

The only way a student can pay for his/her own education is to

A) Have a family that's well insured die in a horrible accident.

B) Take out an assload of student loan debt (3 assloads for an out of state or private university).

C) Spend several years killing brown people overseas with the military.

(I'll leave out the "less savory" methods, like dealing drugs, working in Dad's Hedge Fund Shop for a few years, getting away with insurance fraud, winning the lottery, stumbling across an assload—literally— of blood diamonds, demonstrating that one is a pimp-prodigy, etc...)

The "life long self respect that is gained by paying for one's own education" which you mention is pretty much a myth left over from the '50s... just FYI. From the early '70s on I think it's pretty much either been financial aid or student loan debt... or family beneficence. Of course, killing brown people has recently been added back onto the list (realistically, killing Germans, Italians & Japanese was a huge portion of how it was financed even back in the '50s... the big difference being how "brown" one defines Germans and Italians as being...)

[raccoon]

139. Debt and location AND how if you lucky enough to have health care coverage,

how good it is.

Makes a big difference when you have to pay for all medical, dental, and vision expenses out of pocket.

Even if one has health care coverage, if they have a large deductible, they are still paying for all medical expenses out of pocket. Oh, in case of something catastrophic maybe their plan will help them.

[howaboutme]

150. Wealth and power is about luck and caste

A. Key factors of wealth and power:

-good luck
-good health
-parent lottery winner
-proper pedigree
-parents with networks and connections
-parents with the money to send you to an Ivy League University and more
-a degree of intellect but more about a need for greed



B. The USA is well on the way to becoming a caste society where serfdom for most will reign as the norm, while wealth and influence is expected and hard wired for the few. In case you haven't noticed that hard wired outcome for success for a few is becoming prevalent where it once was about the availability of opportunity for all. Success is unfairly becoming a right of birth. We must demand real diversity in those who make policy positions in government because that is how this can be changed.


C. Not being a poor and broke serf is about having health care.

[freshwest]

206. Yeah. They've been grooming us for this for years culturally.

[RKP5637]

And before the US got this notion that it had been elevated to run the world and

be the police force of the world. I agree so much with all of the things you've stated. The model we are following now is insane. I remember well many people in the 50's making out quite well. Also, of all my friends only one had a mother working. Most people were able to buy cars and houses on one income.

I'm not saying it was perfect for everyone, not in the least, but I just do not recall the hardships that the majority of Americans have today. IMO this is also a far more stressful country across the board than in the 50's. The way the system is rigged today, most Americans will have a struggle of it all their entire lives and then consider themselves lucky.

[raccoon]

140. Don't let it be forgotten that most houses then were a LOT smaller.

"Most people were able to buy cars and houses on one income"

I'm a boomer, and I never had a room of my own as a kid. I and most of my classmates had to share a room with one or more siblings.

[RKP5637]

149. Yep, definitely, "the houses then were a LOT smaller." I also think back then many

had a more realistic view of life and material possessions. Today, it's all gotten so ostentatious and gaudy ... pretty much over the top in many cases.

[femrap]

188. Materialism today is on steroids!

One nice pair of earrings used to be enough....today, you gotta have a dozen. And everyone wants their own car, own room, own bathroom, etc.

I shop twice a year....at the end of the winter season and the end of the summer season....and if it isn't at least 75% off, I don't buy it.

Just came from K-Mart....Joe Boxer long johns (not made in China)....originally $10. I got them for $2. As a result, I can lower the thermostat and save on heating costs. Got black, dark grey and light grey.

I'm a very blessed shopper.

[sarcasmo]

195. Right on, the mc mansions and over sized cars are prime examples of steroid materialism.

[RKP5637]

205. It's ridiculous, isn't it. Exactly as you said, "Materialism today is on steroids!" I can

see people wanting a little more, but this has gotten ridiculous. The size of some of these houses is ridiculous. I've been in some houses 10,000 sq. ft. for a couple and two kids, it goes on and on, the cars, boats, the paraphernalia.

And then the people that have all of this want to pay practically no taxes and want all the benefits of a society that some of us are struggling have to pay for. They corner the wealth, many corporations pay little in taxes and all claim they are in the sacrifice for the economic betterment of the country, meanwhile they game the system. And for insurance, they bought the government.

You're a very smart shopper!

:yourock:

[femrap]

215. I might go back

and get a couple more long johns....could be good bartering in the future.

This paradigm of greed and competition has to end. Soon people will realize that the only way to survive is to cooperate.

And Mother Nature will have the last word.

:yourock: as well!!!

[coalition_unwilling]

118. Small point, but the 'inflation' you reference was brought about

by LBJ's Vietnam War and Great Society programs and spending for both at the same time. The oil embargo of 1972 had very little to do with the inflation of the 70s that I think you are referring to.

[unblock]

159. the oil shocks of early 70's most definitely had a lot to do with the inflation later that decade

it's true that the fed could have addressed the problems by hiking interest rates much earlier than volker did, but they responded to the situation by lowering them instead, which made the problem worse. but this wasn't one of those fed-generated problems (as under greenspan), this was an exogenous shock that the fed simply didn't address properly. carter appointed paul volker eventually took over as fed chair and jacked interest rates sky high, solving the problem (painfully) and dashing carter's re-election hopes.

[upstatecajun]

168. What?

The Oil embargo caused hight inflation...before that gas was still around .35 cents per gallon and food did not cause you to go into debt. A family of 4 could make it on one parents income.

[coalition_unwilling]

184. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree about this. My

studies of American history and economics have all suggested that the inflation of the 70s grew out of combined spending for Vietnam and the Great Society programs that was not supported by higher taxes or by a sufficiently growing national economy but instead by a growing national debt. Inflation is a situation of too much money (from growing the national debt) chasing too few goods.

[femrap]

189. I look at it from the other side....

the purchasing power of the dollar has declined dramatically....and I think the Federal Reserve's constant printing of money is the reason.

[Evolve_Already]

134. Spot on rant.

Righteous as well.

[femrap]

186. The biggest 'tax' of all is.....

the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar. That's what kill us.

Plus globalization....so many decent jobs have gone overseas....never to return.

[Speck Tater]

8. I live quite comfortably on one fifth of that. Location matters a LOT. nt

[iris27]

9. as a family of four?

doubtful.

[Liberal_in_LA]

12. in Los angeles, a family of 4 might struggle. In Missouri they could live like royality

yes, location matters

[darkstar3]

15. Flat bullshit.

I grew up in a family of four in MO. Trust me when I tell you that in rural MO, where the cost of living is supposedly so much lower than elsewhere, 13,500 is NOT going to let you live like anything other than poor people, even if you go back to 1980's dollars.

[Liberal_in_LA]

18. not on 13.5K, on 68K

[darkstar3]

28. Read the other replies to your statement.

Living like royalty in MO requires roughly the same income you would need to live like royalty in any other state of the union. I live here, trust me.

[Liberal_in_LA]

31. Ok. I stand corrected. Folks from the middle states alway express surprise at $1300 rent for 1 bed

1 bedroom (going rate for apartments in average neighborhoods in Los Angeles). I based my statement on the cost of housing.

[darkstar3]

38. Housing is rough everywhere now, by what I've seen.

And, having done the math several times, the less you pay in rent, the more you pay in gas.

In fact, no matter where I've lived, the combination of housing, utilities, and fuel usually comes out close to the same. Homes farther away from nicer parts of the city, where rents and mortgages are down in the 5-600 range, usually have higher charges associated with their utilities, and require that you spend quite a bit more in gas to commute to your job.

[RKP5637]

40. Yeah, it's like squeezing a balloon. You save in one area, but costs expand in another area. The

net/net of it is you often end up about the same.

[Speck Tater]

95. YIKES!! A three bedroom house in the country on acerage goes for $800 here.

And one-bedroom places in town are readily available in the $300-$500 range. $1300 for one bedroom is just outrageous. I'm surprised anybody lives there at all!

[xmas74]

107. Where do you live?

I live in Missouri and I can't get a one bedroom in the 300-500 price range.

[iris27]

114. I'm guessing pretty rural.

Where my in-laws live you can rent a 3-bed house for $550. But even in the nearest small city to them, you can't get a one-bedroom for less than $600 if you don't want a meth lab in the unit next door.

[xmas74]

115. It has to be very rural.

I live in a rural county, about an hour outside of KC,and there is no way I could get a one bedroom for his rates. Most apartments around here run more than that.

Then again, I guess you could get a one bedroom for around $550, if you like the smell of the fumes from the stolen anhydrous cooking next door.

[Shandris]

153. $430, one-bedroom...

...two occupants (my roomie gets the bedroom, I have a mattress in the commons room (I guess that word fits best). All electric.

One of 3 buildings under the landlord. Yes, the one next to me was busted for a meth lab and I can judge the day of the week by the police presence and amount of ambulances. My car (which is shared) has been broken into 5 times in as many years, the antenna broken off, both mirrors shattered, keyed about 9 times, and on one particularly nice New Years Eve, had the entire frontleft quarterpanel smashed.

Welcome to the American Dream.

[Speck Tater]

123. OK. Prices are a little higher than last time I checked, but $600 is still enough

to get a 1 bdr, 2bdr, or even 3 bdr apartment or house here in Eugene, OR. Here are some samples:

http://eugene.craigslist.org/apa/2303478813.html
http://eugene.craigslist.org/apa/2303440581.html
http://eugene.craigslist.org/apa/2303409257.html
http://eugene.craigslist.org/apa/2303113942.html
http://eugene.craigslist.org/apa/2302991786.html
http://eugene.craigslist.org/apa/2302814385.html
http://eugene.craigslist.org/apa/2302726385.html
http://eugene.craigslist.org/apa/2302617149.html
http://eugene.craigslist.org/apa/2302340672.html
http://eugene.craigslist.org/apa/2302080794.html
http://eugene.craigslist.org/apa/2301361110.html

Of course the closer you get to the University of Oregon campus the less you get for your $600. And yes, you CAN spend $1500 or or more if you want ultra luxury, but who really needs that?

[neoralme]

178. Those ads are kind of interesting. Thanks.

[Raksha]

183. Wow, those rents in Eugene really are reasonable.

Where I live in San Bernardino, CA is cheaper than the rest of SoCal because of the depressed economy. It's definitely cheaper than L.A. (but what isn't, except for the SF Bay area) but it's still Southern California. Not easy to live here on a fixed income, even in San Bernardino.

[xmas74]

196. Wow.

My family lives in Oregon and I know they spend quite a bit more than that for something that isn't a shed. And I know they don't live in the lap of luxury.

[Liberal_in_LA]

172. $800 gets you a room in a house in LA, Shared room in West LA

[JuniperLea]

182. Or a 200 sq ft five floor walk up loft

Downtown that you have to share with rats and roaches.

I pay nearly $2000 for a townhouse in the ghetto... it wasn't a ghetto when I moved there, btw.

[femrap]

190. Salaries are much higher there.....

and salaries are lower in the fly-over states.

[NutmegYankee]

131. That sounds normal.

But hey, I live in ultra expensive New England.

[iris27]

19. A family of four could live like royalty on $13,600 in Missouri?

Prev. poster said zie lived just fine on a fifth of the number in the OP. I was asking if that fifth was including care for a family of four, or just for hir.

And please don't tell me what would or wouldn't be "royalty" wages in Missouri; I'm the one who's living here. Yes, it'd go further than LA. But "royalty", not a chance.

Obviously location matters; they used national averages to come up with the figures in the OP. I was never disputing that, just asking the prior poster for more details on how many people zie's supporting on 1/5 of $68k.

[Liberal_in_LA]

27. on the 68K, while struggling on that same amount in Los Angeles. 13.5K wouldn't allow

royality living in any state

[MadHound]

20. I live in Missouri,

A family of four, though slightly better off than in California, would still be living a bare bones existence on $68-69,000. Especially if they lived in the St. Louis or KC metro area.

Yes, they could afford a few more luxuries in live, but not many more, and they certainly wouldn't be living like royalty.

[iris27]

25. Exactly, thank you.

I am in STL and when we had two incomes, we were around $60k - it was enough to keep all the bills paid, pay ahead a little extra on the mortgage (on 900 sq. ft. in a bad neighborhood) and the car payment each month. Enough to take a vacation somewhere that didn't require airfare (maybe $2k total expense), and send about 10% to our retirement accounts. Didn't have cable or most of the stuff others have mentioned. And this is with NO kids. We weren't rolling in it.

[xmas74]

34. I'm on the other side of the state

and I have a friend who cannot make it for much longer on 50k. It's just her and her child. I posted above with the breakdown and when you think about it, she can't do all that much.

It's a shame that she worked so hard to finally get a degree only to find that quite a bit of her income is going to paying off students loans and commuting costs.

[iris27]

42. Yeah, I can't imagine trying to fit childcare in on that!

We're paying $500 a month in student loans between mine and my husband's. While I cannot consider my time in college wasted, I was the first in my family to go, and I really wish someone had been there to TELL me that Psychology is pretty much a useless degree unless you go to grad school. Cause the advisors and instructors sure didn't!

[xmas74]

48. Her degree is in business/finance.

The pay is considered to be a more than fair pay around here but trying to fit it all in isn't working. I know she's not the only friend who is hurting right now but I was surprised to see how bad it was for her.

[xmas74]

24. I live in Missouri.

I have a family of two. You don't live like royalty here.

Hell, you're lucky if you can even find a minimum wage job that gives you forty hours a week here.

I don't care where you live, the cost of living is still going up. Gas still goes up every day here, groceries are still going up all the time, utility prices have been going up. In my town, rents go up all the time because it's a college town and the landlords think they can raise them. (They know they can get college students to double and triple up in a rental and they don't give a damn about families.)

[blueamy66]

35. Don't have kids if you can't afford them.

We make about $100k before taxes and child support (one teenager who is the bomb). So $60k is about what we clear. But, we have a company car, insurance on that car, gas is paid for and so is my guy's mobile phone.

We do okay. We live in AZ.

We have CHOSEN to not have any more children because we CANNOT afford them.

[iris27]

45. Doesn't do much good for those who had kids in more affluent times and then had

their circumstances change. So if you lost your job, and you found yourself in financial difficulty, should people be able to sneer at you that you shouldn't have had your teenager? I have no kids myself and no plans for any, but even I find your admonishment overly smug.

[xmas74]

53. That is something that always gets on my nerves.

I hate the comment about not having children if you cannot afford them. Some of us had a child when finances were better and we were above water. I've noticed that the comment always comes from someone most would consider to be in decent financial shape.

Comments like that always feel like a slap in the face.

[blueamy66]

74. Not a slap in the face.

It's called planning for the future.

One never knows what is going to happen to them....or their finances....one reason why I never had any of my own.

[xmas74]

78. I had a decent job.

I lost it not of my own making. I'm not the only one.

I have friend who is supporting two children on less than twenty thousand a year. This happened because her husband, who was the breadwinner, left her and moved out of the country with his girlfriend, taking their entire savings with them. How could she have possibly planned for that?

[blueamy66]

82. Why did she have children?

She didn't work? No job?

Sorry, I guess I just don't have the maternal instinct. I think with my head, not my heart.

Well, not when it comes to the little ones in my life....but CHOSE to not have any of my own.

I know that I sound cold, but seriously, I never wanted kids, never wanted to pay for kids, never wanted to depend on someone ELSE to pay for my kids or my life expenses....

I'm sorry for your friend, really....

[xmas74]

90. She had two children.

She was married for twenty two years. It took them almost ten years to have their first child, since they wanted to be financially ready to support a child. Her husband made over 100 a year, so she didn't have to work. Instead, she put all of her time and effort into their household and into the children and their activities, which was a decision they both had made. She never expected that after twenty years of marriage she would go to the grocery store, use her debit card and have it declined because he had transferred everything from their accounts out of the country to an offshore account. And she'll never get child support because he now lives outside of the US with the girlfriend.

It's fine not to have maternal instincts. It's fine to not have children. I have always supported the childless by choice in their decision. What gets on my last nerve is when I log on to sites like this and have my choice thrown in my face as being a stupid, illogical choice.

[scorpiogirl]

102. Huh?

So my children, born in 2001 and 2004 respectively, should not have been conceived because we should have predicted my husband's two year bout of unemployment that began in 2008? Totally nonsensical.

[xmas74]

109. My child, born in 2000,

also should have not been conceived since I couldn't predict that I would have been in a lay off and never would make the same money I once did.

[scorpiogirl]

110. Must be nice to live in such a black and white world, eh? n/t

[xmas74]

112. Life would be ever so much easier on us all. nt

[iris27]

113. And I and my siblings shouldn't have been born, because my mom had no way of knowing that my father,

whom she put through mechanic school so he'd have some real job skill, would take off as soon as he had a decent amount of money squirreled away in a secret bank account. Leaving her as the sole breadwinner for 3 kids and kicking off many, many years of rotating what bills got paid what month to keep the bill collectors JUST at bay and keep the lights on. If I hadn't been *just* old enough to stay home with my younger sibs, we would've been completely screwed as affording childcare was totally out of the question.

[scorpiogirl]

116. That was a terrible thing to happen,

but I'm not sure how that translates into people knowing they would have hard times ahead and plan for that by not having kids.

[iris27]

122. No, I agree with you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Like I said in #92, if everyone who might have even the most remote possibility of hard times down the road were to avoid having kids, which is what blueamy66 seems to want, then only the generationally wealthy would have children. That's an incredibly screwed-up scenario.

[scorpiogirl]

170. My bad

I thought you were the other poster. It was late, sorry. We definitely agree!

[blueamy66]

142. Well, maybe

As I have stated numerous times....I CHOSE to not have children because I couldn't predict my future.

Sorry about what happened to you and your siblings.

[vim876]

207. NO ONE

can predict the future. No one. Are you a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement plant?

[raccoon]

145. How about it's called "Shit happens," when a person gets laid off from a good job, can't

find anything else but a crappy one, or develops a disability and can't do their job any more?

Yes, "One never knows what is going to happen to them"--and that it might be you that falls out of the middle class, due to circumstances beyond your control.

[greiner3]

161. "It's called planning for the future."

Words fail me.

[laundry_queen]

180. Yeah, I really planned for

my husband and partner of 13 years to up and leave me with our 4 kids for some bimbo. When I had our kids, we had a 6 figure income with plenty of disposable income. Now I make do with child and spousal support payments. I am in school full time, money is insanely tight. You cannot plan for every eventuality. I thought my husband would be the last person in the world who would do this. If I had any hint that he would have done this, I wouldn't have had kids with him. Unfortunately, you can't always read people's minds when you are planning for the future.

What bunk.

[JuniperLea]

181. It IS a slap in the face, and your redirection is just stupid...

How do you plan in advance for a global economic downturn?

[Pithlet]

198. So the what you really should have said was

No one should ever have kids, ever. Because what you actually said was illogical.

[Pithlet]

199. So the what you really should have said was

No one should ever have kids, ever. Because what you actually said was illogical.

[blueamy66]

I'm am sooo far from smug. If you only knew....

I knew that I couldn't take care of a kid, didn't want to take care of a kid and didn't want to PAY for a kid....no matter what job I had.

What is smug about that?

You only know me from a message board....

My nieces/nephew/great nieces and great nephews are my life. As is my stepson. I love kids. Just NEVER wanted the responsibility of my OWN.

Nothing wrong with that.....

[iris27]

65. The smug is you telling people who had kids in better financial times who are now

having trouble that they should've never had children in the first place. Seriously, as I said before (now with edits since I know he's your stepson) - if your family found itself with a huge drop in income, should people then be able to judge from afar and say your spouse never should've had that kid?

[blueamy66]

68. Um, we've been through hell with the child support.

We cannot afford a lawyer...Mom can. I did everything myself. I typed paperwork until my fingers bled. We finally got it reduced this past year.

I talk to my stepson more often than his Dad does. Love him.

I guess I should apologize. Sometimes I am too blunt.

Love kids...just never wanted my own. Guess that is where I am coming from.

[iris27]

79. Not sure what that has to do with telling anyone else how many kids they

should or shouldn't have, but ok.

[blueamy66]

84. Because people bitch about paying for their kids

Don't have them if you can't pay for them.

How hard is that???????

[iris27]

92. That's not what you're saying, though.

You're saying don't have them if there is any remote possibility in the future that you will encounter circumstances that will make it hard for you to pay for them. Which would basically take children off the table for everyone but the Bushes and Waltons of the world.

[scorpiogirl]

104. Thank you.

I find her comments insensitive.

[LooseWilly]

129. Obviously, if your circumstances change, you should consider doing away with your child...

Euthanizing, murder if you can work out the details so as to avoid prosecution, or perhaps just giving your teenager up for adoption (I'm sure, if you phrase it well, he/she will understand that the economy has simply changed and they'd be better off if you split ways...) — the important thing is that your child-raising should be, always, limited and maintained within a financially congruent alignment with your income revenue streams...

People need to plan for the financial burden of raising children, and when the financial underpinnings of those plans change, then society needs to understand that the plans themselves need to change. I'm sure, with that in mind, Obama will be pushing for a bill in Congress to allow parents to kill children, if their financial situation changes. I'm sure that a form, perhaps to be evaluated by the IRS, can be readily developed by the House Ways and Means Committee...

After all... personal responsibility has to take into account the vaguearies of an uncertain future... or else references to said personal responsibility are little more than self-righteous personal attacks signifying nothing... right? :+

[neoralme]

166. I actually think that's right. When my wife and I got married in

1975, we decided to base our having children on our earnings. My wife wanted a big family. I did not. We had one daughter but then never had anymore. There was enough money but we kept putting it off. Then Reagan came along and we both looked at how things were evolving and decided we would not have any more children. Our best friends at the time did the same. I am thankful we made that decision. Decisions like this are purely personal. But after Reagan, my wife and I felt that the vector this nation was on would eventually lead to disaster. Now, are daughter is forty. She decided long ago that she would have no children. The vector she is looking at is far more vicious than was our. I just wonder who will be having children in the next century, should the earth still be inhabitable, which I doubt.

[Juche]

193. What if you become divorced, widowed, or unemployed

It happens all the time. Tons of people had kids thinking they did it the responsible way only to end up divorced or widowed. Or even if they stay together, one may lose the job.

[w8liftinglady]

201. i had a lesion on my brain,and lost everything when I went on disability

Should I shove the three boys back up,or kick them to the curb?

I'm working again,But I know how it feels to not know if you'll be living in a box the next day.

Thanks for your compassion.

[Speck Tater]

94. OK. A technicality. If you're going to go and spoil my bragging...

I confess.

I live alone and own my property and house. And grow a lot of my own food, and have a free senior bus pass and a 110 MPG moped for trips to the store (Although I haven't been grocery shopping yet this year. I probably won't need to go until mid May or so. The freezer is still well stocked from last summer's garden.)

[iris27]

108. So, yeah, you've definitely made some smart choices, but certainly you can agree adding three

more people and a home that's not paid off yet would increase those costs significantly? That's what most American families are facing. The moped doesn't work when you have to get two kids to school, for example.

But WTG on getting your costs down that much! And I really think the government should be promoting the Victory Garden idea again - do you know we grew fully HALF of our own produce needs during the war years that way? Time for a comeback!

[Hannah Bell]

127. you live alone, own your property, & are retired (so no work-related costs, including

daily transportation).

well gee, give me a paid-off property, retirement income & medicare & i can live on on $13K too. in fact, i have lived on that as a single in a big city (though without a car or medical insurance).

i don't see the relevance to the op.

[Speck Tater]

179. " i don't see the relevance to the op."

You're right. I was just bragging.

My apologies to those families who ARE struggling to feed and house their families.

[tech9413]

96. Having dropped out in 02, I've gotten by on about $11K a year

I'll admit I live frugally. No cable, get my clothes from Goodwill, fix everything that breaks myself, and grow my own food.
I consider myself lucky. My trade had become a joke and I'm old enough that getting another job is hopeless. I'd love to get back to gainful employment but my job these days is caring for my 90 y/o parents. I don't think anyone would be willing to pay me enough to change jobs.

[doc03]

11. I guess so if you have to have a new car and your average

2300 square foot home with 3 bedrooms and 4 baths. Fifty years ago the middle class lived in a house of about 1/2 the size a family does today. We survived without a $300 a month cell phone bill and survived with a handful of TV channels you can still get free instead of paying over $100 for 300 channels with movie and sports packages. The middle class today has a entirely different standard than fifty years ago. That figure could very tremendously depending where you live, if you make that kind of income in these parts you would be in the upper 5% at least.

[upstatecajun]

13. so WOW is wrong?

:shrug:

[doc03]

16. They may be right in certain areas of the country. Can you

at least admit what people consider middle class today is much more affluent than what we were in the 60s.

[upstatecajun]

21. As to how?

In the 1960's, at least for my family, one parent worked....the $68,000 is two working. we lived good and my parents still live in the same house they built when they were married in the 1950's. also we had no Credit Card debt. I agree it is a different world now as to cell phones, computers, and tv's . but look at the price of gas, food, health care and education today.

[doc03]

32. Why does a family today need a home

twice the size they had back then? We survived without a cell phone or 300 TV channels. It was rare for a family to have even a 14' fishing boat. The middle class today have a ski boat or pontoon boat, maybe a camper or motor home, a 4 wheeler, a 4x4 SUV or pickup, a car and a Harley in the garage? Me and two brothers grew up in a 3 bedroom house of about 1200 square feet we had a garden and most of our meat we shot ourselves we had an old junk car my dad drove to work and a newer car. No boat, camper, 4x4, SUV, cell phone, cable TV, we never once went on a vacation outside of OH PA or WV. My dad had a good paying union job and we were more fortunate than most families.


on edit: If I am wrong please explain why I am in about the most depressed area in the state of Ohio and I am surrounded by these new middle class homes that have two floors and a 3 car garage on a five acre lot.

[upstatecajun]

36. I think the point

of the study by WOW was to show that for a family or 4 it takes two people working making a total household income of $68K to meet the basics of housing, (rent too) food, Healthcare, child care, transportation, education and utilities.They did not include all the stuff in your post above.

[HughBeaumont]

54. I asked that in this thread . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3187335

And of course, DU's Most Infamous MarbleRow Denizen Of All Time came in like a dumb dog and pissed and crapped all over it.

[doc03]

73. Wow looks like you struck a nerve, don't have two days to read

them all.

[xmas74]

60. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Most of the people I know do not have pontoons, motor homes, 4 wheelers or Harleys. I do know a number who have 4x4s but this is Missouri and rural roads can get nasty. (The person with the 4x4 is the one who drives the carpool during the winter around here.)

Most of the newer homes around here seem to be for those moving here from out of state and not for the residents.

Cell phones-we have a number of employers around here who require them for employment, even for lower paying jobs. (Delivery drivers are a good example.) A cell bill can be cheaper than some of the telephone company bills, at least for some.

Cable-I lived in a town that was in a valley. We had no reception whatsoever with an antenna. If you wanted to watch NBC or PBS you had to have cable.

Campers-I do know quite a few with them. Most of the campers are usually used and need work. People get the campers for under a grand, fix them up, and then rent a lot really cheap ($300 for the season) at the lake. They park the campers at the spot and use it to take the family to nearly every weekend. In the end, it's actually cheaper than a day at Six Flags or Worlds of Fun.

[doc03]

87. I live in appalachia and the place you describe sounds

like a third world country compared to what I see.

[xmas74]

93. Not a third world country.

Just a military town in a rural area. The people who spend their money in that manner are the enlisted guys with no families-they buy lots of toys. Otherwise, most of us just don't have the money to spend on crap.

[iris27]

103. Sounds exactly like where my in-laws live.

Rural MO, between Rolla and Ft. Wood. Also sounds exactly like where my supervisor grew up - Quincy, IL. She and her family do the EXACT campout thing mentioned every summer; her vacation is a week at the camper that her parents rent for the whole summer.

[xmas74]

111. I know that area.

We usually rent our land closer to Truman Dam, though we might take a float trip down the Niangua if we can save a bit more. Renting the land for around $300 for the summer is still much cheaper than any other vacation we could take. And if you look around you can find a fixer-upper camper for under a grand.

[Dappleganger]

66. Those aren't real middle class, those are pretend middle class.

Access to easy credit and home equity ATM accounts made it so people could be pretend middle class. Take away the credit and plunge the housing equity, and you've removed the mask to reveal the actual status of people's lives.

[doc03]

81. I have to agree with that most of those people are in debt

up to their ears. But that seems to be the norm anymore, a few decades ago people got married and maybe rented a while and then bought a fixer upper and maybe later in life they built a new home in the 1200 square foot range. Today they get a job then the next week they show up with a new car and start building a two story house with 2500 square feet.

[LiberalCatholic]

208. I did that.

My husband and I got married and rented a TINY basement apartment for two years (great memories of that time). We paid off some bills and then bought a small three bedroom ranch built in the 1950's. We waited two years to start our family (we have three sons). We tent camped for vacations, skipped gifts and started building upon our life. And then came W... My husband is a recruiter and I saw first-hand the total and complete halt to the American economy. Make no mistake- these problems are the result of 30 years of trickle down economics- not cell phones and cable like some people on this website have claimed. We need the pendulum to shift to the left. I think we will start to see that in 2012.

[spinbaby]

133. Whose house is twice the size?

Not everyone lives in a McMansion. My house is much smaller--and older--than the one I grew up in in the 60s. Back then, only my father worked; my mother stayed home with four kids. Now both my husband and I work, we have two kids, and we live in a smaller, crappier house.

[iris27]

22. I would encourage you to read the original study; it didn't include any of that (cells, cable, etc.)

in the calculations used to get to that figure. Here's the quote: "The DC-based nonprofit Wider Opportunities For Women has been compiling the numbers for exactly what it takes to have basic economic security in this country — housing, food, transportation, child care if you have little kids, utilities, and a tiny contribution to savings for your old age." That's it. Not large homes, not cable, not new vehicles all the times. Just the basics.

[upstatecajun]

23. Key word

Basic.

[iris27]

26. Right. And that basic costs an average of $68k for a family of four, using a nationwide

average, according to that study.

[doc03]

101. That's impossible how would you determine what it costs

for a family of four to live without taking into consideration their life style. It would be the difference of night and day if they lived in a 1000 square foot house or a 2500 square foot house. They could have a 10 year old used car or a $60000 SUV, that would make a huge difference. If they lived in DC the cost of living is 40% higher than Pittsburgh. My brother lives on a less than $30000
a year and has a teenage daughter with him and one with his x he pays child support for. He has an old truck to haul wood an old SUV and just bought his daughter an old car with his tax refund. They have all the computers, cell phones but they don't live in a 2500 square foot McMansion.

[iris27]

105. The cost is for a basic lifestyle. Anything over that (larger houses, etc.) would be extra. And as

far as regional differences, that's why it's an average. They looked at costs across the nation for a single family size, and came up with an average.

[bobbolink]

14. This is precisely why poor people don't take middleclass people seriously about this

"Solidarity" stuff.

Take, for example, people on SSI disability, living on $674 a month, and no COLA for two years now and probably more.

That is nowhere near what middleclass people are dealing with, yet the claim is that everyone below millionaires is now "poor".

:nuke:

[iris27]

33. I agree that "poverty" was the wrong word for them to use. To me it looks like the study

was trying to determine what level of income would be needed to stay afloat on your own with a family of four (as a national average), without starting the slide outlined in the "stuff" post (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x789743).

Obviously there are a lot of people living on a lot less, and are all somewhere on that downward spiral. $674 a month clearly will not let anyone live somewhere on their own.

[bobbolink]

41. It all depends on what "stay afloat" means. A big house, rather than adequate one?

Driving a Hummer?

Going to Ivy League schools rather than state or local colleges?

Clothes from Penneys and some from thrift stores, rather than Saks?

A lot of middleclass people also tried to live beyond their means, and got into huge debt. Because they can't keep that going now doesn't mean they are "poor".

Again, this is why so many poor people don't buy this stuff about "the disappearing middleclass".

That, and that they are protesting for THEMSELVES, not for ALL of us.. as in "We Are One" nonsense... we are invisible to them.

Honesty. Really, we are poor but we aren't DUMB. We know dishonesty when we see it.

[iris27]

44. See post #22.

For a nationwide average, for the basics, that's the figure they found. No Hummers or McMansions or name brand clothes. And actually no college costs of any kind included, not even state or community.

Outside of the study, sure, I agree with you. There are a lot of people who lived large with credit cards and can't keep it going, and whine about being "poor" in comparison. But that's not what the OP was about.

[bobbolink]

46. Then middleclass people need to UNDERSTAND what it means to live on disability

or minimum wage, don't they?

What do you suppose it will take to bridge that understanding and compassion gap?

[darkstar3]

49. A bit more understanding from you about the fact that not all in the middle class want a Hummer

wouldn't be a bad start.

[bobbolink]

55. Oh right. I'm giving you a clue... the anger level among poor people is building.

You can reach out and care and include us in your protests, or you can blast me.

As you wish.

If you decide that the solution is to blast me, then don't complain when next November you don't get all the votes you think you deserve.

Politics 101.

[darkstar3]

63. Take a piece of your own advice.

I'm pissed off, too, and maybe unfocused anger is part of the problem.

[bobbolink]

64. Dear,, I already know that the election next year is up for grabs. I don't have to "take my own

advice". I am well aware of the reality. It would help if middleclass people would climb out of the denial and lack of concern for those they think are beneath them.

I. SEE. REALITY. That's the advice. Its free.

[darkstar3]

70. You are filled with blind hatred, so much so that you burn those who would agree with you.

That was my point about Hummers, and that's my point about you taking your own advice from post #55. There are plenty of middle class people who either never suffered from your claimed denial and lack of concern, or are far past the point of leaving it behind.

Check your fire.

[bobbolink]

158. And next November when you don't get the votes you want, you will scream and shout about

"those stupid poor people".

The information is here for you, if you chose to see it rather than denigrate and vilify the messenger.

Your choice.

[iris27]

51. Fuck if I know. I've gone rounds with my RW brother and SIL, and it's like talking to a brick wall.

They're starting to have problems themselves -- my mother just moved in with them, because they were going to lose both their houses otherwise and this way they can save one between the 3 of them. But they still cling to the rhetoric of "bootstraps" and "handouts" and are convinced that everyone on SSI or unemployment is a cheat stealing THEIR tax money. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[bobbolink]

57. Yes, there are about 25% of the population that is beyond any reason. Sad, but the fact.

What I am trying to get across is LIBERALS who ignore us.

It is at their own peril.

[iris27]

58. Agreed. I don't have access to many liberals in real life, sadly.

But it is sad to see so many here who dismiss and ignore any frank discussion of income distribution in the US as "eat the rich" rhetoric.

[bobbolink]

61. Thank you. I am glad that at least one person on this thread can get what it happening here.

It is the middleclass LIBERALS who are allowing the divide and conquer tactics of the RW to succeed.

[themadstork]

120. They do that here?

Have to admit I haven't really noticed it.

[iris27]

124. Yeah. It was worse back when the extension of the Bush tax cuts was being debated in Congress.

Many here were understandably pissed that they still extended it for the top 2%. So then there were some huffy posts to the effect of, "Hey, some of us liberals are rich, too, and we work hard for what we have, you all see anyone who makes over X amount as evil, etc., etc."

Or to go earlier, there was another round when health care was being debated, as the details of what small business would have to pay were being worked out. Suggestions that maybe people who work for small businesses deserve health coverage too were met with stuff like, "how many jobs have you created? really? none? that's what I thought."

[themadstork]

173. Ugh.

What's the point of endorsing liberalism if one disagrees on an issue as central as to whether to fairly tax the rich?

I frequent some other more conservative non-politics forums where members of the working- or middle-class reflexively defend the rich. It's like they see themselves as one of the rich, somehow, or future members of the rich.

I hate feeling like I'm committing blasphemy whenever I criticize the financial habits/attitudes of the rich. What is it that makes them supposedly above approach? Bleh.

[upstatecajun]

56. Some of us

understand. I have family that lost everything in Katrina and the insurance company would not pay. Other family stepped in to help. I think in the not to distant future both the middle class and the poor will be working together to make life better for both but right now the GOP is working its ass off to pit us against one another with their attacks on public service workers. Think about that for a min. if the GOP can pit us against each other they win.

[bobbolink]

59. Its funny... I'm trying to point out what should be obvious... suddenly "the poor" are middleclass

people who have "fallen".

That is the focus.

Those who have been poor waaaay before that... it just doesn't matter.

I get that you think people will wake up, but it isn't happening. It isn't the same thing.

The reasons why middleclass people are falling isn't the same as the reasons why poor people are poor.

The solutions won't be the same.

So, what happens is we are IGNORED.

We poor people see this.

Middleclass people can't see it.

There is NO "SOLIDARITY" until you are willing to see this.

Its like telling women to "be one" with men, so there will be "solidarity".

Its like telling gay people to "be one" with straights, so there will be "solidarity".

Can anyone understand this basic fact?

[iris27]

75. Maybe somebody needs to retool that "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" essay so it applies to

class privilege instead of race. I wonder if that would help anyone get it or just make people entrench further into defensiveness?

Hell, actually, I just went to Google it and several of its axioms can be applied wholesale! Especially the last -- "I will feel welcomed and 'normal' in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social."

[bobbolink]

155. "I will feel welcomed and 'normal' in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social."

Thank you!

I appreciate you posting the "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack", and went to look it up. The truth of this, of course, is that all oppression follows the same path. As liberals and progressives, we should ALL be very conversant in this by now. I mean, really, how many "liberations" do we need to experience before we realize this, and can apply it across the board?

Yet, I keep getting told that "until people experience it for themselves, they can't get it".

When people are totally wrapped up in themselves, yes, that is true.

But if people have hearts, and compassion (which means to "feel with"), then no, they can see and feel the suffering of others, and be moved to take action.

What I really can't grasp from these ME generation people is, since they aren't expected to care about people other than themselves and defend that, why do they then make the leap that others should care about *them*? How in the world does that compute?

You are bringing in some very astute observations, Iris, and I appreciate it very much! Would that your understanding be in the mainstream. sigh....

:yourock:

[upstatecajun]

80. Guess I am totally missing

your point. What you are saying is liberals have turned their back on the poor and the GOP can care less so you feel anyone that makes a so called middle class wages do not care about what happens to the poor? I have learned over the years that a high % of people do not care about about the suffering of others until it affects them or an issue until it hits their pocket book. I was at the Ohio State capital last week and saw the people who were protesting SB5. as an activist for homeless veterans I have seen a few protest in my day and 80% of those people there have never expressed themselves like that for other issues in the past because they have not been affected by the issues you and I are activist for. I think we are on the same team here.

[bobbolink]

154. So self-centered-ness is OK. Got it. Its OK now for straights not to care about gay rights,

because it doesn't affect them.

It is OK for whites not to care about people of color, because it doesn't affect them.

It is OK for middleclass people not to care about poor people, because it doesn't affect them.

OK... Ok... I got it now.

Just remember the next election when you EXPECT votes from these groups, that you are likely to be disappointed.

You see, its more than the selfish ME Generation.. it is Politics 101.

[upstatecajun]

167. wow you lost me

I never said I did not care for others....I am not homeless but I advocate for the homeless....I am not poor but I speak up for the poor....I am not gay but I speak up for gay rights. I am just pointing out that most people do not care about an issues until it affects them. I am not saying that is right, I am just pointing that fact out.

[bobbolink]

169. Well, it sounded that way. Working to advance other causes IS the tradition of the party.

Excusing it now is not only disloyal to the party, but is defeating the party as well.

The point I made, which then gets lost in all this intellectualizing, is that the party as a whole has thrown poverty under the bus.

The question is, what are "progressives" going to do about that?

I turn on "progressive" radio and hear a lot of "causes", but mostly for the middleclass, or the environment or against the no fly zone.

Poverty? Hah. Since you believe in working for causes that don't necessarily affect you, it would be much appreciated if you would remind these "hosts" that we exist, and we are suffering, and we need support. I would thank you for doing that.

[Dappleganger]

67. Sorry, but that is untrue.

And making more enemies of the poor isn't going to help your causes.

[bobbolink]

157. And you say this because you have been listening to so many poor people?

Making enemies? Yes, why is the middleclass ignoring so many, and creating enemies by doing so?

[Dappleganger]

171. You have absolutely no grounds for making a judgement

of how many poor people I listen to.

ZERO.

[bobbolink]

174. I *asked*. So don't make the claim. Simple.

[HuckleB]

71. Well, that's part of Faux News' double speak.

I don't think that's really what this is about. Although this report is complete crap, as I stated below.

[TheKentuckian]

191. $674 a month is hardcore poverty.

That isn't going to cut it for housing, utilities, basic transportation, food, or any kind of health care.

In some areas it is literally too broke to even be homeless much less poor but functioning. The poverty line is far too low to be of any use.

Soon enough that 68k will be poor and the SSI will be an effective death sentence as hanging.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. Don't forget AT LEAST $12,000 a year for health insurance (for 2 people)

it's way more for a family of 4. For just myself and my son...private insurance BC/BS is $1000.00 a month and that's with a $1000 deductible. FUCKING RIDICULOUS. :grr: I hope to get a job soon (WITH BENEFITS) and will relish the day I can tell BC/BS to fuck off.

[Shagbark Hickory]

39. That's a steal if that's for TWO people.

[in_cog_ni_to]

88. NOT FOR US, it isn't.

That's a LOT of freakin' money. If it goes any higher, I'm REALLY considering just dropping fucking health care coverage. We NEVER go to the doctor because we're never sick...it's fucking highway robbery, IMCPO. I'm hoping to get a job with group benefits at $165.00 a MONTH with DENTAL! We'll save $835.00 a month and have DENTAL coverage too. $1000.00.... It's a fucking rip off.

That $1000 a month also doesn't cover ANY gynecological yearly check-ups. No paps, no mammograms, no bone scans.....NADA, ZIP, ZILCH. That's out-of-pocket. No physicals/wellness checks are covered.....you know? PREVENTATIVE CARE? Fucking RIDICULOUS. I detest health insurance companies. They also wouldn't cover a colonoscopy AFTER I CALLED BC/BS to verify the doctor/clinic was a provider! Know WHY they wouldn't cover it? Because he did it in his clinic and not at the fucking hospital. Bastards.

And with our deductible, it's actually $13,000 a year. A rip off. IMO

[Shagbark Hickory]

137. It's all a ripoff. The only thing it's good for is an annual checkup and catostraphic (if you ..

actually believe they'll pay your claim)

I was being facetious about it being a "steal" but I commonly hear about it costing individual policies $1000/mo and the last time I got a quote that covered anything it was around $700+ for individual.

I don't have health insurance on principle alone. Dental insurance is pretty notorious for never covering anything so don't get too excited over that.

[in_cog_ni_to]

163. I see.

A "sarcasm" tag would have prevented my rant. :evilgrin: So sorry. I thought you were serious. I understand the dental insurance thing too, but I figure something paid will be better than us paying 100% all the time.

[Shagbark Hickory]

164. RE: dental

When I go to the dentist (or doctor) I put on my best puppy dog sad face and say "please help me, I don't have insurance." They cut the price way down. LAst dental visit was only about $150 and I was there for quite a while getting tortured. Last year I went to the doctor for a checkup and some basic blood test. The bill started out around $550. One puppydog face and sympathetic office manager later and it was cut in half. I've been fortunate not to need any majorly expensive anything though. I just hope that come 2014, I'll be able to get some kind of insurance that I have confidence in.

[BobbyBoring]

187. And that ladies and germs tells the whole story about health care

Years Ago, I had health insurance and felt I didn't need it as I was never sick. I got pissed after it went up to $125.00 a month so i dropped it. 2 months later, the chest pains start. Now, NO insurance company will touch me. what I found is this. Most DRs will only charge an uninsured person about 1/2 of what the bill would normally be. Why? Because the "Normal" price is what the insurance company will pay. Yes, the insurance company tells the nice DR how much his services should cost. That's why health care is so outrageous.

If we got insurance companies and lawyers out of health care, we might be able to make it on 66K!

[Shagbark Hickory]

210. On the plus side they also seem to like being paid on the spot without having to deal with submittin

forms to the health insurance cartels.

[blueamy66]

143. I have a job, with bennies

and still pay over $200 for SINGLE BCBS coverage.

And every year my payment goes up.

And I dropped my dental, cause it's freaking fraud. $1000 is the most they'll pay...and my premiums would be approx. $450 per year. I'd rather go to the 1st cleaning/xrays/exam free dentists and hope that nothing major occurs.

[midnight]

37. Your better not brag that you can afford car insurance, child care,

or rent and utilities.. When they are done,,, those will be the luxuries... I wonder what the next presidential election talking points will be about?

[HuckleB]

50. Uh, $12,000 a year on car payments and insurance?

Only if you need to have a new care every three years or so. That's quite a vehicle budget, actually.

And child care expenses might reach that before the kids reach school age, but not every year, year after year.

This is a crap report.

[Dappleganger]

69. We haven't bought a new car since 1996...

and we are middle class, but just barely hanging on to that. Medical bills, college costs, utility costs, food and gas costs are killing us.

[high density]

52. So... use condoms

You don't need to pump out four kids.

[iris27]

62. Family of four means TWO kids. As for the rest of your incredibly condescending, demeaning post,

see #45.

[high density]

72. OK, so don't pump out two kids

Same logic remains. I don't understand why every family has to have a family tree that grows to infinity.

[darkstar3]

76. Now, I'm childless by choice, but where the fuck do you get off

telling people whether they should reproduce? Isn't that exactly what anti-choice activists do?

[blueamy66]

77. like your style

DON'T HAVE TO BEAR CHILDREN!!!!

[iris27]

83. and you wonder why I called your post smug?

???

praising somebody who calls it "pumping out" kids?

[blueamy66]

85. Isn't that what is having kids is?

How else do you have kids?

Unless the stork is bringing them around again.

[iris27]

89. I'm not aware of any hydraulics involved, no.

Seriously, no wonder people look at me like some evil harridan when I mention that I don't plan on having kids, if the CF folks that they have encountered are anything like the posters here!

[Liquorice]

86. Pump out kids? That's so vulgar and frankly sounds sexist. Did your mom pump you out? nt

[xmas74]

97. I had one

and I certainly didn't "pump" her out. It makes me think of an old water pump I had in my backyard years ago.

[Liquorice]

100. Yep, an old water pump... I think that phrase is a way to dehumanize women. nt

[xmas74]

106. It is.

I felt dirty just thinking about it.

[Hannah Bell]

119. two kids is replacement level. your knowledge of demographics is on par with

your manners.

[iris27]

125. Thank you.

:applause:

[Wednesdays]

146. And all this, on a "liberal" (???) forum

Could you imagine the reaction, if similar rhetoric (in reverse) were posted on a rightwing site?

[darkstar3]

91. For those who say this study is crap.

I am a member of a family of 2. We have made specific choices to live below our means. We bought a house worth 40% less than what the bank pre-approved us for. We bought the best value car for fuel efficiency we could find. We make calculations for every financial decision that include the LONG term.

I have been keeping a FULL record of our expenses for 4 years now. It shows that our average yearly expenses total 44k. These are expenses paid for out of pocket. So let's do some math.

68k - 9k for taxes = 59k
Of course, those are just federal taxes. Adding state, SSI, and medicaid, the number comes closer to 12k.
59k - 3k for other taxes = 56k
56k - 44k for expenses = 12k

We are a family of two. We have no children. If you add children into the mix, it gets interesting. According to this website, the monthly cost for a child under the age of two totals at approx. $914.00. Now I've always heard that children cost $800 a month, so I'll use that as a conservative estimate.

800/month * 12 = 9.6k

12k - 9.6k = 2.4k

And that's with one infant. As I said above, my expense numbers are only for what is paid for out of pocket. What about retirement and health insurance? Going by one of my previous jobs...

200/month for HI * 12 = 2.4k

Now I have $0 left of that 68k, and that's with only one kid and using conservative estimates where I don't have hard numbers. What about saving for the future? What about unexpected medical care? What about unexpected termination of employment? What about unexpected housing expenses like replacing HVAC systems, or unexpected car expense like replacing a blown head gasket?

This study isn't crap. Not by any stretch.

Edit: Forgot that, on my health insurance line, I was only counting myself, and not my spouse.

[iris27]

98. And that would still be extraordinarily inexpensive health insurance for one person,

UNHEARD of for a "family" rate.

[darkstar3]

99. True, but then again, I was out of money at that point, so I didn't push the issue.

Even at that job that had the extraordinarily inexpensive health insurance, the "family" rate was in the $4xx range.

[Pithlet]

211. Well, now, that can't be. You're doing something wrong.

I'm raising 12 kids on 10,000 a year. And we're buying a new house next week. Then we go on our yearly vacation to St Tropez. We almost have enough for that villa we've been eyeballing there. We're just frugal, what can I say! Americans are just too much into their credit cards and McMcmansions. Tsk Tsk. People could learn from those of us who scrimp and save and stay away from that debt. That's all you have to do, you see. :sarcasm:

[Gormy Cuss]

212. For those who say the study is crap, I suggest reading the methodology report.

Link:
http://www.wowonline.org/documents/USBESTMethodologyReport.pdf

It details the sources of each input used to arrive at this national estimate (i.e. national, as in some areas require quite a bit less for the same standard of living and some will require quite a bit more.)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

121. The working poor. Not a lie.

It's the 'new' standard brought about by apathy, propaganda and poor schooling. Guess what's under attack...

[FloridaJudy]

126. No one is saying a family making $50,000 is worse off than someone on welfare

Just that it takes a lot more to purchase the "good life" than most people think. I don't know of anyone making less than six figures who is living in an over-sized house or driving a Hummer. Most working folks I know are lucky if they've got a two-bedroom condo, or driving a car less than ten years old. And they're terrified they could lose even that: a lot of us already have.

Add to that that most people graduating from college these days are doing so with a mound of debt; the days of cheap tuition are over. And I know of few jobs with a starting salary of over $60,000, assuming one can find a job at all. I recently read of a young woman who just graduated with over $75,000 in student loans. Her starting salary was $28,000. IN SAN FRANCISCO (shouting intentional). At this rate she'll be able to afford a house and a family - when? At age 50? If ever? At this point she probably can't afford a cup of Starbucks coffee, let alone a fancy car. Like me, she probably brushes her teeth ten times a day because she sure as hell can't afford a dentist.

The price of everything has skyrocketed, while wages have fallen or remained stagnant. My parents managed to put two kids through college, buy a nice house and save enough for a comfortable retirement on two school teacher's salaries. That's a pipe dream for today's working families.

[Keith Bee]

130. K&R

This needs to be on the front page.

[ipaint]

132. The new poverty?

These people have no clue how far they still have to fall.

[bobbolink]

156. Exactly. Its the "ME Generation" at work.

Words fail. :nuke:

[cali]

135. so is there a law that if you earn 68 grand you have to buy a new car?

[blueamy66]

147. I caught that as well.

When I totaled my inherited Camry.....I got a nice insurance pay-off and bought a $3k used Cavalier and socked the rest away. It's JUST A CAR. It goes from Point A to Point B.

I love to see expensive cars with new license plates...and think about what their payment is...or if they're just leasing the car.

But, on the other hand, my guy has a company car that is pretty nice....a Dodge Avenger...which we would NEVER have if we had to make the payment.

[Bluerthanblue]

136. that's hardly "poverty" and does a dis-service to those who

actually struggle with REAL poverty.

:shrug:

[canoeist52]

138. Elizabeth Warren "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A&feature=player_embedded

If you have an hour to spend she explains it fully.

Also what needs to be included is the cost of replacing appliances that break dow after only a few years of use.

Please everyone, point your anger at the billionaires who deserve it.

[Xenotime]

162. The rich has crippled this country and erased the middle class.

[canoeist52]

141. Never forget that these are the people responsible for this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A&feature=player_embedded

America’s Billion-Dollar-a-Year Men

[LuckyLib]

165. This needs to be filed under "obscenity."

[Codeine]

144. So stop buying new cars and rent an apartment.

My car cost four grand cash. The car before that cost three grand and lasted 10 years -- hell, it still runs fine I just got sick of it. My two-bedroom costs $850 a month.

[blueamy66]

148. But one must keep up with the Joneses.

Dontcha know?

Why does anyone need a BMW or a Lexus or whatever?

And this new Mercedes' option...the car that will wake you up if you fall asleep or swerve into another lane? If you need that kind of help from your car - you shouldn't be freaking driving!!!!

[Fearless]

151. Absolutely disgusting and completely, sadly, unsurprising.

[Luciferous]

152. My family of 4 lives on 36,000 a year. We just bought a house,

we have some savings, and we went on vacation last year. I stay at home with our son, so we don't have to pay for daycare or a second car. I think that location really does matter to a certain degree, but a lot it is just having common sense, living within your means, and sticking to a budget.

[SOS]

160. Perhaps not poverty

But if you earn significantly less than $68K in a place like NYC, you are certainly not doing well.

Example:

$48K household income, no kids no car.
100% of earnings go to bills: housing, taxes, insurance, transportation etc.
Not a penny left over.

There are no "middle class" little luxuries like a vacation, a dinner out or even a pair of shoes bought on a whim.

It's not poverty, but it's bills and nothing else.

Speaking from experience.

[Roland99]

176. I'm not much above that and I have a family of *6* and just bought a new home last year

and we vacation (just got back from Mexico) and are doing home improvements and adding a pool next year.

I guess if one lives in Manhattan, Seattle, or around D.C., sure...but otherwise, one can live VERY comfortably for that amount!

Helps that we have no car payments (only debt is the mortgage and the low-interest rate payments on the home improvement projects)

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Juche]

192. Their numbers are pretty messed up IMO

I got my truck for $6000 10 years ago and it still runs, insurance is about $30 and fuel is about $150. Maintenance is hit or miss, but over the years probably less than $1000-1500, and it has depreciated about 3k in that period. They predict about ~$500 per car per month, mine was about $250/month. But I don't have to pay for parking and drive a basic model (a model which gets shitty gas mileage btw).

Look at their report, then scroll down to table 1.

http://www.wowonline.org/documents/BESTIndexforTheUnitedStates2010.pdf

They say a household with 2 workers needs $977 for transportation but only $307 for health care a month. THose numbers are messed up. Transportation is (generally) cheaper than that and health care more expensive. In fact things like transportation going up in quality and down in price are one of the things saving the middle class from total collapse according to people like Elizabeth Warren. She has done studies showing the rise in quality and decline in cost of clothing, food, transportation, electronics, etc. is helping offset the radical jump in cost for education, child care, housing and health care. ie, having to budget an extra 25% of your gross pay for health care, education, child care, etc. is easier when you can remove 5-10% from expenses like transportation, food or clothing.

I didn't read it too in depth, but I didn't see anything about student loan payments either which for most people are $200/month or so.

Housing is a wild card and varies where you live. You can get a nice place for $500 in the midwest, but in a large city the $821 they budget probably wouldn't give you anything good for a family.

All in all I have some problems with those numbers. I'm not an economist, and didn't read the report too in depth. I don't deny the middle class is collapsing, but I think it is due to expenses like housing, education, health care and child care (as well as a lack of jobs and stagnant wages). The numbers in that report don't really reflect that. I didn't see numbers for student loan repayment, health care is far more expensive than they report, housing can be (it can also be cheaper, but $800 may not get a family much in a larger city).

[blackspade]

204. K&R for the tragedy of it all.

:grr:

[killbotfactory]

209. So how do we, as a society, justify the minimum wage?

Pretends it's all teenagers doing that work? Pretend those people are stupid and deserve to be shat on because they have little bargaining power vs. their employer? Pretend those jobs don't exist while our lifestyles are subsidized by their exploited labor?

[bhikkhu]

213. That sounds about right, though "poverty" is what you make it

at those levels, at least.

I make about 28k a year and support our family of four reasonably comfortably. About 30k in the list given above we simply don't pay because we can't afford it - I bicycle rather than drive to work (and its certainly no sacrifice - its one of the nicer parts of my day), my wife takes care of the kids, and taxes in our bracket aren't exactly a burden. We keep a big garden that helps with the food bills, and we conserve energy, shop wisely, and generally live within our means. No complaints.

The only thing that is a burden I might complain about, and something that makes us feel poor, is not being able to afford healthcare. For general issues, we just hope for the best as we can't afford a doctor. For dental things I try to do the best I can for the kids, but its a stretch just affording checkups. I've had three teeth pulled in the last two years, as its much cheaper than fillings and all the rest...

[IndyPragmatist]

216. impossible....

You do not have a car, thus you are in poverty.
You did not go on vacation this year, thus you are in poverty.
You don't have a new macbook, thus you are in poverty.

I'm kidding, but you make a good point. We are a nation of consumers and credit. We buy all the new toys and gadgets and claim they are necessary. I was told by someone recently that a cell phone is a necessity, and that costs $60/month. I disagree that it is a necessity (unless it is your only telephone line), and I only pay $25/month with unlimited text and data.

I've been told that it costs at least $100/week to feed one person. Bull shit. I eat 5 lunches a week out that add up to less than $20. I spend less than $40/week at the grocery store.

Many people seem to act as if cable television is a necessity. I haven't had cable in 3 years and have yet to miss a single show or sporting event that I am interested in. But many people I know spend $100/month for their cable and internet. I pay $25 for internet, and no cable.

As bhikkhu pointed out, many people can ride a bike to work but refuse to because they enjoy their vehicle. I'm able to walk to work every day, only filling my tank up once every 2-3 weeks, and because of the lack of miles put on my vehicle, Progressive insurance dropped my rate to $20/month for full coverage.

There is $200/month that I save over most people. And by no means am I in poverty. I make $25,000/year, live downtown in a major US city and enjoy my life very much. I'm not trying to preach about wasting money here, but it seems that a lot of people get confused about what is a necessity and what is a luxury.