Poverty level is $140,000 for a family. Really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you read the article, he's gotten criticism for starting with a poverty measure and modifying it into the minimum income to be middle class. That makes more sense as an HHI below $140k is going to seriously impact budgeting expenses in the DC area, but it's pretty ludicrous to imply that you'll struggle to meet basic needs like food or clothing at this level. It does make sense as a threshold for getting some type of housing assistance as becoming a homeowner at this income in DC is going to be close to impossible.

You can absolutely struggle to meet the basic need of safe and adequate housing once you factor in all other expenses.

I'm curious- how much do you think is needed per month for "safe and adequate" housing for a family of four per month?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High cost of housing, healthcare, and transportation folks.

Child care was the biggest one. And the one most frequently ignored.

Childcare is temporary. The others are not. People like to pretend they’re not becoming absurdly expensive but they absolutely are.

It's not that temporary. You're not likely to be able to leave kids alone before/after school until age 10 or so. Before and after care is still quite expensive. People in these situations probably don't have cushy jobs that let them work from home or shift their hours.

NP. It can be expensive, but it's not daycare expensive. He calculates the cost of childcare for two at $32,000 a year, which is more than you're paying for aftercare plus camps if you're focusing on keeping costs down.

No, not $32,000, although even daycare isn't going to be that expensive if you're very price conscious.

But before and after care, and summer camp, can get quite expensive even for basic programs. Two kids going to basic Bar-T programs at a local school will run about $20k per year. It still ends up being one of your most expensive costs well after the daycare years.

[Anonymous]

Do we still understand what poverty is? Or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do we still understand what poverty is? Or no?

Its definition varies by time and place.

[Anonymous]

Yes really in Piggy's inflationary economy heading to the Great Depression ie Project 2025 yes REALLY

[Anonymous]

I live in the Midwest and that number sounds crazy high for the poverty line. We live in a wealthy town. We have neighbors with SAHPs who make about that much. They’re not remotely close to the poverty line with their big families, big houses in good school districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in the Midwest and that number sounds crazy high for the poverty line. We live in a wealthy town. We have neighbors with SAHPs who make about that much. They’re not remotely close to the poverty line with their big families, big houses in good school districts.

You have to make a lot more with two working parents to have the same quality of life. In metro areas, you probably need another $30-45k if you both work with two kids. In rural areas, it is probably more like needing another $20-30k.

At lower income levels, you need even more, since the income of the other parent would also need to offset the loss of government programs.

[Anonymous]

I'm a fed. I always think it is sad that the admins have to stop working when they have kids. At least if they have two. They don't make enough money to afford child care. Sometimes we see them back 5-10 years later, working part time so they can still do school drop-off and pick-up. Some like it that way, but not everyone.

We're not going to see it as much in the current fed environment, but a fair number of professional staff would do the same until the kids got be around 10. The DMV is pretty unfriendly to working parents. Telework had previously started to change that for professional workers, but obviously that doesn't help wage workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The cost of child care should be fully tax deductible and should similarly deduct from income for government assistance programs. Why does this country hate working parents so much (and let's face it-- mostly working mothers)?

+100, as a society we just totally abandon families during critical early years (before school starts). So then every family has to figure it out in their own, and so many wind up giving up an income because of the cost of childcare. For middle class families it's not a lifestyle choice. It's literally the only option available.

For those earning more, it's more of a lifestyle choice, but still a hard one. For instance, when we were looking for childcare, we got stuck on what we could afford. It wasn't good. We were priced out of the higher quality centers and stuck looking at home daycares of varying quality (and of course due to childcare shortages in our area, we couldn't get spots at even the best of these). So yes it was a choice for me to stay home, but it wasn't out if some passion for homemaking on my part or an adherence to traditional gender roles. It's because we wanted high quality childcare for our kid and it was clear I could provide that more economically by staying home than any daycare center we looked at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in the Midwest and that number sounds crazy high for the poverty line. We live in a wealthy town. We have neighbors with SAHPs who make about that much. They’re not remotely close to the poverty line with their big families, big houses in good school districts.

You have to make a lot more with two working parents to have the same quality of life. In metro areas, you probably need another $30-45k if you both work with two kids. In rural areas, it is probably more like needing another $20-30k.

At lower income levels, you need even more, since the income of the other parent would also need to offset the loss of government programs.

This why they have one working parent instead of two.

We’re dual income with each of us making more than them. Yet they live next door and have nicer cars. No family money. I’d hate to see their retirement accounts though.

The point is that $140k isn’t poverty level throughout the country. Only in HCOL spots and only for certain stages in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you read the article, he's gotten criticism for starting with a poverty measure and modifying it into the minimum income to be middle class. That makes more sense as an HHI below $140k is going to seriously impact budgeting expenses in the DC area, but it's pretty ludicrous to imply that you'll struggle to meet basic needs like food or clothing at this level. It does make sense as a threshold for getting some type of housing assistance as becoming a homeowner at this income in DC is going to be close to impossible.

You can absolutely struggle to meet the basic need of safe and adequate housing once you factor in all other expenses.

I'm curious- how much do you think is needed per month for "safe and adequate" housing for a family of four per month?

Depends on where they work and live. For a very basic two bedroom apartment in Baltimore, $1200/month minimum, plus utilities. Closer to $1400 for water, electric, gas, sewer, and trash.
Apartments that are less than this typically are income restricted, so that eliminates most working middle class.
I remember trying to find an apartment in 1998. I made roughly $30,000 a year. I had just graduated college. I could not find an apartment in my price range that wasn’t income restricted, but I made too much to rent from them. Ultimately, I ended up going in with two other people to rent a townhome. That’s not an issue for a single person, for a couple with children, they should be able to find a safe and affordable place without needing to take in additional people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in the Midwest and that number sounds crazy high for the poverty line. We live in a wealthy town. We have neighbors with SAHPs who make about that much. They’re not remotely close to the poverty line with their big families, big houses in good school districts.

You have to make a lot more with two working parents to have the same quality of life. In metro areas, you probably need another $30-45k if you both work with two kids. In rural areas, it is probably more like needing another $20-30k.

At lower income levels, you need even more, since the income of the other parent would also need to offset the loss of government programs.

This why they have one working parent instead of two.

We’re dual income with each of us making more than them. Yet they live next door and have nicer cars. No family money. I’d hate to see their retirement accounts though.

The point is that $140k isn’t poverty level throughout the country. Only in HCOL spots and only for certain stages in life.

You’re super dumb. The POINT is that a family with ONE earner making 140k is better off than a family with TWO earners who EACH make 70k.

Two earners making more than 140k is utterly irrelevant to this particular thread. Your neighbor’s choice of vehicle is irrelevant. FFS use the brain God gave you before you comment again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in the Midwest and that number sounds crazy high for the poverty line. We live in a wealthy town. We have neighbors with SAHPs who make about that much. They’re not remotely close to the poverty line with their big families, big houses in good school districts.

You have to make a lot more with two working parents to have the same quality of life. In metro areas, you probably need another $30-45k if you both work with two kids. In rural areas, it is probably more like needing another $20-30k.

At lower income levels, you need even more, since the income of the other parent would also need to offset the loss of government programs.

This why they have one working parent instead of two.

We’re dual income with each of us making more than them. Yet they live next door and have nicer cars. No family money. I’d hate to see their retirement accounts though.

The point is that $140k isn’t poverty level throughout the country. Only in HCOL spots and only for certain stages in life.

It isn't really poverty-level anywhere. You can get by on that in the DMV, at least assuming no student loans.

The point is, as you noted, circumstance matters. COL and SAHP vs no-SAHP being two big ones. And it wouldn't be that hard to adjust for them. But as a society we choose not to, probably in part because there's a sizable number of people that think mothers should stay home (in addition to the large number that just don't care about anyone else).

[Anonymous]

Interesting concept. I'm a single who makes 140k. On that income, I max 401k/IRA/HSA, have a cheap mortgage at 1500 a month (bought in mid-size city market before real estate exploded post 2020, also refinanced to 2.7). After that I get to take home 4500 a month. Just to live (food, car expenses, utilities, internet, phone, gym pet needs, etc) seems to add up to 3,000 a month. That leaves me with 1,500, which I put aside into long term savings to cover emergency home repairs, eventual car replacement, one international trip a year, etc).

You can see I live comfortably but not extravagantly. I still budget and worry a bit about money, mainly to keep me from splurging too much. Other than my retirement accounts, I do also have 250k in a mutual funds account that is the result of 20 years of careful saving. I am on track for a comfortable retirement.

But it’s still not a fancy life. It's not what I'd call a UMC lifestyle with a bigger house and nicer cars than my Honda. I'm thankful for what I have. But I must also wonder how families survive on less than what I make. They must not save a penny or contribute much to retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you read the article, he's gotten criticism for starting with a poverty measure and modifying it into the minimum income to be middle class. That makes more sense as an HHI below $140k is going to seriously impact budgeting expenses in the DC area, but it's pretty ludicrous to imply that you'll struggle to meet basic needs like food or clothing at this level. It does make sense as a threshold for getting some type of housing assistance as becoming a homeowner at this income in DC is going to be close to impossible.

You can absolutely struggle to meet the basic need of safe and adequate housing once you factor in all other expenses.

I'm curious- how much do you think is needed per month for "safe and adequate" housing for a family of four per month?

i. ll
Depends on where they work and live. For a very basic two bedroom apartment in Baltimore, $1200/month minimum, plus utilities. Closer to $1400 for water, electric, gas, sewer, and trash.
Apartments that are less than this typically are income restricted, so that eliminates most working middle class.
I remember trying to find an apartment in 1998. I made roughly $30,000 a year. I had just graduated college. I could not find an apartment in my price range that wasn’t income restricted, but I made too much to rent from them. Ultimately, I ended up going in with two other people to rent a townhome. That’s not an issue for a single person, for a couple with children, they should be able to find a safe and affordable place without needing to take in additional people.

OK. Then I'm surprised that you think it would be hard to find safe and adequate housing on $140k, even looking at the DC (suburbs, likely) instead of Baltimore. It wouldn't be the most desirable situation- a cramped 3 bedroom apartment, or maybe a townhome, with a longish commute- but it wouldn't be poverty.