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

[Anonymous]

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

Having lived in real (deep south) poverty, I know what poverty is. 140K/yr is not it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:140K can be rich in DC depending on your situation.

For example my kid lives in a rent controlled apt in Adam Morgan.

The women who is on site manager has two kids and is married. She does the apt showings, makes sure work is done by porter and staff. But the building is old and runs like clockwork so not really a full time job. Just has to be around for stuff like when an apt is is free to be shown and check work is actually done.

She does it for free and in return she gets a free two bedroom apartment, utilities and parking included. Kids school is up the block she walks them to and from school.

If her husband made 140K she be in my opinion rich.

A dual income couple both in the office with childcare and a mortgage at 140K would be poor.

That is exactly his point. In his article, he says the poverty line for a dual-income couple with 2 kids who need childcare and a mortgage. This is pasted from his article:

"Using conservative, national-average data:

Childcare: $32,773
Housing: $23,267
Food: $14,717
Transportation: $14,828
Healthcare: $10,567
Other essentials: $21,857
Required net income: $118,009

Add federal, state, and FICA taxes of roughly $18,500, and you arrive at a required gross income of $136,500."

That’s not poverty. That’s living an honest life with two cars and an apartment with healthcare and food. Trips to Va wine country and Major cities are cheap ways to have ‘vacations’ like camping. Amazing that poverty is now considered having all those things.

100%. This thread was shocking to read. Since when is summer camp or expensive kid activities an essential? People look at how the UMC lives and assumes that means the MC gets those things too and if not, that means they’re poverty level.

Summer camp is 100% a necessity when both parents work outside the house. What else would you do with the kids during the summer if you are at the office?

That’s a great question, have you ever looked into it yourself? Or did you assume because everyone else does it, it’s a necessity? There’s options that aren’t summer camp and aren’t prohibitively expensive.

The problem with this area is we’ve got a lot of $$ floating around which skews what the working class and middle class view as normal. Summer camp for the entire summer has ALWAYS been an UMC and wealthy luxury.

The normal MC kids get maybe a week here or there and that’s it. The rest of the summer is a patchwork of time with grandparents (if they’re around / involved), spending time on their own if old enough, daycare, or paying a local family with a SAHP to watch your kids too.

Seriously. Summer camps at public schools are really cheap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Having lived in real (deep south) poverty, I know what poverty is. 140K/yr is not it.

*100

People are dangerously out of touch in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the backlash to this article. Supporting a family of four on $140k is nearly impossible

They're not thinking of living in a metro area and having two working parents (meaning higher income, but also high daycare expenses).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He really wasn't calculating it as a poverty level. More of a solid middle class level in a metro area.

I don't agree with the number, but I think the high cost of child care really screws up other poverty level numbers.

True, and the real story here is that in 1963 government assistance was given to families in the lower middle class. Whereas today only the desperately poor get any help.

Back then we had a real social safety net to give people a hand up, whereas today we are every family for themself.

Don't focus on how what they counted in 1963 really wasn't poverty in today's lingo. Ask instead why we have lowered the bar so much that no one but the absolute poorest can get any help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We (fam of 4) live outside of DC and our HHI is 160.

Live outside of DC as in the suburbs, or outside the DC area? When did you buy your house? Because this is a key difference - even the lower priced DC suburbs are prohibitively expensive, unless you bought a lower priced house or townhouse when rates were very low and are paying $2000 a month for housing.

In the suburbs. Our mortgage is 2500. Single family home. Kids are in public school so no child care costs. I didn’t realize his criteria for poverty- he assumes a 2k mortgage, full time daycare paid out of pocket for 2 kids, over a thousand dollars a month for food, another thousand a month for transportation, and then a nebulous 2k a month for “other essentials”. I don’t know what kind of other essentials cost 2k a month. Sounds like the article is saying “if you live this very reasonable UMC lifestyle of daycare and shopping at WholeFoods and driving 2 new cars, and having thousands of discretionary income each month, you’re in poverty when you look at what’s leftover! What a ridiculous position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:140K can be rich in DC depending on your situation.

For example my kid lives in a rent controlled apt in Adam Morgan.

The women who is on site manager has two kids and is married. She does the apt showings, makes sure work is done by porter and staff. But the building is old and runs like clockwork so not really a full time job. Just has to be around for stuff like when an apt is is free to be shown and check work is actually done.

She does it for free and in return she gets a free two bedroom apartment, utilities and parking included. Kids school is up the block she walks them to and from school.

If her husband made 140K she be in my opinion rich.

A dual income couple both in the office with childcare and a mortgage at 140K would be poor.

That is exactly his point. In his article, he says the poverty line for a dual-income couple with 2 kids who need childcare and a mortgage. This is pasted from his article:

"Using conservative, national-average data:

Childcare: $32,773
Housing: $23,267
Food: $14,717
Transportation: $14,828
Healthcare: $10,567
Other essentials: $21,857
Required net income: $118,009

Add federal, state, and FICA taxes of roughly $18,500, and you arrive at a required gross income of $136,500."

So you need 140k a year to be comfortably middle class. That’s a lot more believable than you need 140k a year to not be in poverty. I couldn’t spend over a thousand dollars a month on groceries if I tried. Where does this author assume everyone shops? All organic from Sprouts? And how does transportation cost over a thousand a month? Does the author expect both adults to be paying 500 a month in car payments, plus 2 tanks of gas a month? Because that’s ridiculous. Buy a cheaper car. This is insulting to try to convince me that this is living in poverty. 23k a year on discretionary things??? Like, not food or health care or housing or transportation or child care. So on what then? Clothes? Eating out? Toys? Vacations? New furniture? great- you have 2k a month for that stuff!!! Don’t tell me you’re in poverty because you spent all your money. Being in poverty means not having the money to spend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:140K can be rich in DC depending on your situation.

For example my kid lives in a rent controlled apt in Adam Morgan.

The women who is on site manager has two kids and is married. She does the apt showings, makes sure work is done by porter and staff. But the building is old and runs like clockwork so not really a full time job. Just has to be around for stuff like when an apt is is free to be shown and check work is actually done.

She does it for free and in return she gets a free two bedroom apartment, utilities and parking included. Kids school is up the block she walks them to and from school.

If her husband made 140K she be in my opinion rich.

A dual income couple both in the office with childcare and a mortgage at 140K would be poor.

That is exactly his point. In his article, he says the poverty line for a dual-income couple with 2 kids who need childcare and a mortgage. This is pasted from his article:

"Using conservative, national-average data:

Childcare: $32,773
Housing: $23,267
Food: $14,717
Transportation: $14,828
Healthcare: $10,567
Other essentials: $21,857
Required net income: $118,009

Add federal, state, and FICA taxes of roughly $18,500, and you arrive at a required gross income of $136,500."

After childcare, housing, healthcare and taxes this family still has $78k to spend. Not poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:140K can be rich in DC depending on your situation.

For example my kid lives in a rent controlled apt in Adam Morgan.

The women who is on site manager has two kids and is married. She does the apt showings, makes sure work is done by porter and staff. But the building is old and runs like clockwork so not really a full time job. Just has to be around for stuff like when an apt is is free to be shown and check work is actually done.

She does it for free and in return she gets a free two bedroom apartment, utilities and parking included. Kids school is up the block she walks them to and from school.

If her husband made 140K she be in my opinion rich.

A dual income couple both in the office with childcare and a mortgage at 140K would be poor.

That is exactly his point. In his article, he says the poverty line for a dual-income couple with 2 kids who need childcare and a mortgage. This is pasted from his article:

"Using conservative, national-average data:

Childcare: $32,773
Housing: $23,267
Food: $14,717
Transportation: $14,828
Healthcare: $10,567
Other essentials: $21,857
Required net income: $118,009

Add federal, state, and FICA taxes of roughly $18,500, and you arrive at a required gross income of $136,500."

That’s not poverty. That’s living an honest life with two cars and an apartment with healthcare and food. Trips to Va wine country and Major cities are cheap ways to have ‘vacations’ like camping. Amazing that poverty is now considered having all those things.

100%. This thread was shocking to read. Since when is summer camp or expensive kid activities an essential? People look at how the UMC lives and assumes that means the MC gets those things too and if not, that means they’re poverty level.

I lived in "secret poverty" growing up. My dad was in an out of work and my mom did part time stuff. They didnt own a home so we moved a few times so they could find better rent. We weren't starving by any means but we had a strict budget and by the end of the week there was usually only bread and peanut butter left. Me and my siblings never got money for yearbooks or book fair or extras. We didnt go to the movies or the mall or anywhere that had an entrance fee. We did sometimes play sports so i guess they budgeted that in or got a deal or something. We spent a lot of time at parks and playgrounds. We wore hand me downs. I never had a car. We went camping or to visit grandparents for vacation. We did not go to the doctor or dentist.

I was fed and cared for and life was mostly fine. I was smart and had friends. I played outside and went to the library on weekends.

But in retrospect we were really poor and i missed out on a lot. I dont know their actual income but it wasn't enough to happily raise a family. Im thinking this $140K number is kind of similar to that for today. I am so glad I can raise my kids differently.

This is considered a good life in the majority of countries around the world though. You don’t need all that extraneous s***. Americans are so spoiled

This is why I roll my eyes whenever someone talks about poverty in the US. You only feel poor because you’re comparing yourself to others who have more, but you’re not objectively poor. If 90% of the country lived like this you would have a completely different outlook. It’s all relative

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:140K can be rich in DC depending on your situation.

For example my kid lives in a rent controlled apt in Adam Morgan.

The women who is on site manager has two kids and is married. She does the apt showings, makes sure work is done by porter and staff. But the building is old and runs like clockwork so not really a full time job. Just has to be around for stuff like when an apt is is free to be shown and check work is actually done.

She does it for free and in return she gets a free two bedroom apartment, utilities and parking included. Kids school is up the block she walks them to and from school.

If her husband made 140K she be in my opinion rich.

A dual income couple both in the office with childcare and a mortgage at 140K would be poor.

That is exactly his point. In his article, he says the poverty line for a dual-income couple with 2 kids who need childcare and a mortgage. This is pasted from his article:

"Using conservative, national-average data:

Childcare: $32,773
Housing: $23,267
Food: $14,717
Transportation: $14,828
Healthcare: $10,567
Other essentials: $21,857
Required net income: $118,009

Add federal, state, and FICA taxes of roughly $18,500, and you arrive at a required gross income of $136,500."

That’s not poverty. That’s living an honest life with two cars and an apartment with healthcare and food. Trips to Va wine country and Major cities are cheap ways to have ‘vacations’ like camping. Amazing that poverty is now considered having all those things.

100%. This thread was shocking to read. Since when is summer camp or expensive kid activities an essential? People look at how the UMC lives and assumes that means the MC gets those things too and if not, that means they’re poverty level.

I lived in "secret poverty" growing up. My dad was in an out of work and my mom did part time stuff. They didnt own a home so we moved a few times so they could find better rent. We weren't starving by any means but we had a strict budget and by the end of the week there was usually only bread and peanut butter left. Me and my siblings never got money for yearbooks or book fair or extras. We didnt go to the movies or the mall or anywhere that had an entrance fee. We did sometimes play sports so i guess they budgeted that in or got a deal or something. We spent a lot of time at parks and playgrounds. We wore hand me downs. I never had a car. We went camping or to visit grandparents for vacation. We did not go to the doctor or dentist.

I was fed and cared for and life was mostly fine. I was smart and had friends. I played outside and went to the library on weekends.

But in retrospect we were really poor and i missed out on a lot. I dont know their actual income but it wasn't enough to happily raise a family. Im thinking this $140K number is kind of similar to that for today. I am so glad I can raise my kids differently.

This is considered a good life in the majority of countries around the world though. You don’t need all that extraneous s***. Americans are so spoiled

This is why I roll my eyes whenever someone talks about poverty in the US. You only feel poor because you’re comparing yourself to others who have more, but you’re not objectively poor. If 90% of the country lived like this you would have a completely different outlook. It’s all relative

I raised the whole relativity thing too a few pages back and was told to pound sand because apparently fancy summer camp is a basic need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:140K can be rich in DC depending on your situation.

For example my kid lives in a rent controlled apt in Adam Morgan.

The women who is on site manager has two kids and is married. She does the apt showings, makes sure work is done by porter and staff. But the building is old and runs like clockwork so not really a full time job. Just has to be around for stuff like when an apt is is free to be shown and check work is actually done.

She does it for free and in return she gets a free two bedroom apartment, utilities and parking included. Kids school is up the block she walks them to and from school.

If her husband made 140K she be in my opinion rich.

A dual income couple both in the office with childcare and a mortgage at 140K would be poor.

That is exactly his point. In his article, he says the poverty line for a dual-income couple with 2 kids who need childcare and a mortgage. This is pasted from his article:

"Using conservative, national-average data:

Childcare: $32,773
Housing: $23,267
Food: $14,717
Transportation: $14,828
Healthcare: $10,567
Other essentials: $21,857
Required net income: $118,009

Add federal, state, and FICA taxes of roughly $18,500, and you arrive at a required gross income of $136,500."

After childcare, housing, healthcare and taxes this family still has $78k to spend. Not poor.

... on frivolous stuff like food, transportation, and taxes. But notably no money to save.

Economists will quibble forever over the best way to calculate a "poverty level", while missing the point entirely. In the 1960s the government helped people who were treading water get a hand up. But today we only help people who are starving with handouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://wapo.st/4pySw6b

This makes a lot of sense. DCUM would probably say more like 250K, but the world is catching up with DCUM.

Anyone who cannot raise a family on 50K a year is just wasting money.

???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What? We (fam of 4) live outside of DC and our HHI is 160. We have no debt other than mortgage, own two Subarus, never feel stretched too thin to buy any expensive groceries or toys or kitchen gadgets we might want or need, and travel to Europe every summer. I highly doubt that we are just barely over the poverty line.

We are in the same boat. Not living in poverty. That article reeked of entitlement. It's fine to decide not to have kids, but don't blame it on the economy.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's absurd that in such a wealthy country we do not have guaranteed healthcare, and the tax rate is highly imbalanced, not to mention executive pay is absurd. Things should be different.

But the level of lifestyle people seem to feel entitled to is also absurd. Buying a home has always meant making sacrifices, as long as I've been an adult. It's never been something you just waltz into with no belt tightening.

[Anonymous]

Reputable economists disagree with this. It is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reputable economists disagree with this. It is stupid.

That's because they are missing the point.

Greene started with a family of four that got government assistance in 1965, and asked which families today would get government assistance if we used the same standard. It came to families earning $140k.

The point is that the definition of poverty level has changed. Read it here.

https://www.yesigiveafig.com/p/part-1-my-life-is-a-lie