Percent of Americans below the age of 18=23.1% so 40% of Americans not being employed, (full time students, below min work age requirement, being retired, just can't find or want jobs or being disabled) is not at all surprising. per capita money income for last census reporting period (2013) was $28,155. Median family houshold income was $53,046.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 10-26-2015).]
What do you expect after one of the longest economic "recoveries" in US history? Those who managed to stay employed likely saw their earnings continue to rise. Those who lost their jobs had to take pay cuts to find work in many cases.
Those can be some very meningless stats without detail.
Less than 30k. I assume we are talking gross. Full time?
What is their job? Where is their job? Are they good at their job?
What is the age of this 40%?
51 percent of working Americans, how many would one think are full time? People losing full time jobs has forced them to take part time to bring some income. This isn't easily dismissed. Doesn't really matter, 51 percent of workers are broke. Again doesn't really matter, its almost half the working population is supporting the other half, retired, children, disable etc. its a high number.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-26-2015).]
What do you expect after one of the longest economic "recoveries" in US history? Those who managed to stay employed likely saw their earnings continue to rise. Those who lost their jobs had to take pay cuts to find work in many cases.
I went from making $23.96 per hour in 2008 to $10 per hour after three months of unemployment. I then worked at 2 jobs both making roughly $10-11 per hour for about two years. After that I got a job making $15 per hour and working 90-100 hours per week. Then $18.50-19.45 at my next job for 2.5 years.
I'm doing far better now though, but it took over 5 years to get back into a good job.
As is the unsustainable 'standard of living' that Americans adopted back in the day when our economy and manufacturing base was the the only one left viable--the few decades right after ww2. Completely unsustainable standard of living, but that is the time period everyone looks back on as "the good old days". fools.
Cost of living is a factor, a house in Mexico is a lot cheaper than in the states. At least outside Mexico City.
It sure is. The poverty level for an individual is about $11k a year. $20k for a family of 3. Have a large enough family to support and anything you make is "poverty." Raising 6 kids in Silicon Valley, little Sally needs shoes and tattoo removal, little Johnny has his rehab expenses, and everyone needs their own big screen TV and new iPhone ever year... $30k just doesn't buy what it once did. They might not even be able to afford pay channels on their cable TV contract.
Somebody needs to PAY! $30k a year won't be enough.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
As is the unsustainable 'standard of living' that Americans adopted back in the day when our economy and manufacturing base was the the only one left viable--the few decades right after ww2. Completely unsustainable standard of living, but that is the time period everyone looks back on as "the good old days". fools.
Good point, but even back then the average house was smaller. Families had 1 TV if any. Having more than 1 car was rare if you weren't "well to do." The actual standard of living back then is a lot more affordable than the current standard of living. Our standards have risen considerably in the ensuing decades.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-26-2015).]
51% of working American individuals may make that, which the article relays as "just over the federal poverty level for a family of five." But the median household income is much higher than individual workers, and the average family isn't a family of five... so that comparison shouldn't have even been brought in.
Yep, that $18, 561 breaks down to $1547/mo base pay, but an e1 back in the day, with dependents in base housing was a very rare thing unless drafted, and even if drafted, would be last in line for housing..
51% of working American individuals may make that, which the article relays as "just over the federal poverty level for a family of five." But the median household income is much higher than individual workers, and the average family isn't a family of five... so that comparison shouldn't have even been brought in.
Yes, two people working make greater than 30k, even if they make 18k a piece. Now, let one of them get pregnant and drop out of the workforce. Cost of living vs income, is at a point where people can be hopelessly broke, or give up on having kids. Of those 51% making less than 30k, I believe it was 40 percent making 24k or less. I can attest to the fact, that government jobs in certain areas of the Midwest put you at the 24k or less a year level, for full time.
I remember the days when the family had one car, no boat, no atv's or toys, no big truck, one TV (in color if you were lucky), the house was small with one bathroom, the house had no central heat or a/c but it did have high ceilings and windows with screens, us kids stayed outside all day in the summer and played and my Dad had to whistle us home for dinner, we collected soda pop bottles and turned them in for the deposit money which we used to buy candy like root beer barrels and life savers, we rode our bikes all over and none of us kids were overweight, my parents didn't have any credit card debt because there were no credit cards, often on a Saturday night the whole family would play monopoly together, when I was big enough for a full size bike my Dad bought me 1 that had to last me my entire childhood, my Mom never worked outside the home except for a few weeks at McCorey's five and dime store one time, I started mowing yards in the neighborhood for money when I was 11 years old, at Christmas time I would get 1 major present that cost maybe $25 and that was it. I guess we were poor.
Not understanding the TV basis of wealth, In the 60's tv's were expensive, now they can be found on craigslist, for fairly cheap, and often are given by family and friends who upgrade to a larger or newer model. Same thing with computers, something that would have cost 10k, can now be had for 25 bucks used at times. Sometimes free. Not a real good indicator of wealth. Cars, are they 30k vehicles or 500 dollar beaters? Huge difference. Having two beaters, isn't sign of wealth, its a sign one is broke down, and as soon as it is fixed the other will be broke down.
I remember the days when the family had one car, no boat, no atv's or toys, no big truck, one TV (in color if you were lucky), the house was small with one bathroom, the house had no central heat or a/c but it did have high ceilings and windows with screens, us kids stayed outside all day in the summer and played and my Dad had to whistle us home for dinner, we collected soda pop bottles and turned them in for the deposit money which we used to buy candy like root beer barrels and life savers, we rode our bikes all over and none of us kids were overweight, my parents didn't have any credit card debt because there were no credit cards, often on a Saturday night the whole family would play monopoly together, when I was big enough for a full size bike my Dad bought me 1 that had to last me my entire childhood, my Mom never worked outside the home except for a few weeks at McCorey's five and dime store one time, I started mowing yards in the neighborhood for money when I was 11 years old, at Christmas time I would get 1 major present that cost maybe $25 and that was it. I guess we were poor.
But that was back in the 1950s, now figure out with inflation how much 25 bucks in the 50s would be today?
And we can blame it all on the bankers and stock brokers.
Steve
Really? Bankers and stock brokers? Monetary policy had nothing to do with it? As much fun as it is to demonize the evil rich, bankers and stock brokers don't control the money supply. The only exception to that is the very specific segment of bankers that are the Federal Reserve. I get the feeling you mean bankers in general and not specifically the Fed.
I'm not saying there aren't abuses by bankers and brokers. I'm saying they not responsible for the increase in the money supply that has caused much of our inflation. Monetizing debt and fiat currency played a far larger role in that problem.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-27-2015).]
51% of working American individuals may make that, which the article relays as "just over the federal poverty level for a family of five." But the median household income is much higher than individual workers, and the average family isn't a family of five... so that comparison shouldn't have even been brought in.
Some thoughts and examples see if you agree. If you recieve any money or breaks because you are poor and you: go to or rent movies, buy Soda, eat restaraunt food, work (under the table), have cable TV, ..you are scamming the system.
Some thoughts and examples see if you agree. If you recieve any money or breaks because you are poor and you: go to or rent movies, buy Soda, eat restaraunt food, work (under the table), have cable TV, ..you are scamming the system.
Money or breaks? What is the money ear-marked for? Food, clothing, shelter??
How about these things also...
house larger than 900 sq. land line phone (or any phone) more than 2 pair of shoes more than 2 par of socks name-brand products
How many people are "scamming the system" vs those who are trying to do their best and use what is given to them. In my neck of the woods, there are some really, really poor families. Their kids don't have winter coats, vehicle is falling apart, school supplies are limited, etc... Most parents are working, but the jobs just don't pay well.
I guess I would like to see programs to get people working, vs just a blank check. The system is screwed up and has been for quite some time, but we also need better jobs (higher pay, long-term... ie... middle class jobs).
house larger than 900 sq. land line phone (or any phone) more than 2 pair of shoes more than 2 par of socks name-brand products
Well, that mauy be too picky IMO. Laundry bill goes up when you only have 4 socks and some socks are cheap! Phone helps you find jobs, and is helpful in an emergency. Maybe you need special shoes for a job / temperture changes. There are cheap big houses. Name brand products can last longer meaning value for money is better.
Anyway not wanting to get too nit picky. My point is things like entertainment and empty calories/sugar, paying for prepared meals, arent necessities.
Anyway not wanting to get too nit picky. My point is things like entertainment and empty calories/sugar, paying for prepared meals, arent necessities.
I guess that was my point... 10 pairs of pants are not necessary either. Who decides?
As for eating out... some times it is cheaper than owning a car, to drive to the store, to buy food, return home and prepare it. A $5 Hot and ready from Little Ceasars is pretty cheap. A $1 burger and $1 fries are cheap. Meat prices have increased a lot.
Heating bills in my neck of the woods is an issue. Poor people generally get old houses, which means old furnances, little insulation, old windows, etc. People can spend $500+ just to heat their house for a month. That isn't 70F either... Lots of factors.
Anyway, I see your point, but I guess trying to pick out what are necessities and what are not isn't going to solve the problem. Good jobs are the answer.... in the long run.
Soooo, 49% of working Americans make over $30k a year. Awesome! I thought only 1% of the Americans were well to do, leaving 99% that were in the crapper. Who keeps playing with the numbers? How many make over 100k, 200k, 300k? Where is everyone SUPPOSED to be in the percentage game? Everybody can't be in first place.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: Anyway, I see your point, but I guess trying to pick out what are necessities and what are not isn't going to solve the problem. Good jobs are the answer.... in the long run.
Sure but you cant just make good jobs, the market does.
Anyway I was looking at Welfare, EBT cards, food stamps, whatever else is out there, there should be good limits on what they are used for. Some people make more scamming them than a working person does, and I dont think its counted as income.
“..remember that welfare benefits aren’t taxed, while wages are. So someone in New York would have to earn more than $21 per hour to be better off than they would be on welfare.
.. in Connecticut, where benefits are worth $38,761; a person leaving welfare for work would have to earn $21.33 per hour to be better off. And in New Jersey, a worker would have to make $20.89 to beat welfare.
Nationwide, our study found that the wage-equivalent value of benefits for a mother and two children ranged from a high of $60,590 in Hawaii to a low of $11,150 in Idaho. In 33 states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than an $8-an-hour job. In 12 states and DC, the welfare package is more generous than a $15-an-hour job.
Plus, going to work means added costs such as paying for child care, transportation and clothing. Not to mention that, even if it’s not a money-loser, a person moving from welfare to work will see some form of loss — namely, less time for leisure as opposed to work.
To be clear: There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy. Indeed, surveys of them consistently show their desire for a job. But they’re also not stupid. If you pay them more not to work than they can earn by working, many will choose not to work.
While this makes sense for them in the short term, it may actually hurt them over the long term. One of the most important steps toward avoiding or getting out of poverty is a job. Only 2.6 percent of full-time workers are poor, vs. 23.9 percent of adults who don’t work.
And, while many anti-poverty activists decry low-wage jobs, even starting at a minimum-wage job can be a springboard out of poverty.
Thus, by providing such generous welfare payments, we may actually not be helping recipients.”
Somebody needs to PAY! $30k a year won't be enough.
Unfortunately, we have these types in Canada too. She never says “somebody needs to HELP ME, so I can afford to pay for my kids”. It’s just “gimme money". If Social Services had stepped in sooner, she might not have a litter of kids.
Would those not considered poor, be considered poor if they were on their own, and not a household income? How far are they above the poverty level? Most people also don't understand, welfare is cut depending on any source of income, cost of certain bills. Owing a friend and making payments to him don't count, etc. Some people have food stamps or snap, but don't have any other benefits, some people just have medical. Most people I know on welfare, don't live in a discounted or free house/apartment, don't have their bills paid, they just have stamps or medical. They also work full time, and everyone is paying them more, because their employer doesn't want to. That is the flip side of the coin, it is a employers market right now, and the pay can be abysmal, don't like get in the unemployment line. As I said before, where I lived EMS started at 8.50 a hour, and PD started at 9. For full time positions.
I know there are alot of generalzations and that makes it hard talk about.
I dont blame employers much though. They dont raise pay on demand because someone might want or need it, they cant, they raise pay because the market for what they do supports it and can sustain more pay. If pay is forced up then you get layoffs so the company can pay less people more.
Yes, two people working make greater than 30k, even if they make 18k a piece. Now, let one of them get pregnant and drop out of the workforce. Cost of living vs income, is at a point where people can be hopelessly broke, or give up on having kids. Of those 51% making less than 30k, I believe it was 40 percent making 24k or less. I can attest to the fact, that government jobs in certain areas of the Midwest put you at the 24k or less a year level, for full time.
That would put it in line with each person making less than 50k. The age of a mother raising her kids is over, impossible to survive. Now both parents work for what one used to make.
That would put it in line with each person making less than 50k. The age of a mother raising her kids is over, impossible to survive. Now both parents work for what one used to make.
My point is, the vast majority of America is not one paycheck away from losing everything.
The median individual income may be around 30k a year. Great, that includes a **** ton of single people that are just fine living off of that. They aren't near poverty. Households have multiple incomes, and the median household income is around 50k a year. So again, not near poverty.
The article you posted said individual median income is around 30k then went on to say that's right above poverty for a family of 5. That is dishonest journalism. To compare income to a family of 5, they should be comparing median household income as it's now considering a full household. They should't be separating it.
My point is, the vast majority of America is not one paycheck away from losing everything.
The median individual income may be around 30k a year. Great, that includes a **** ton of single people that are just fine living off of that. They aren't near poverty. Households have multiple incomes, and the median household income is around 50k a year. So again, not near poverty.
The article you posted said individual median income is around 30k then went on to say that's right above poverty for a family of 5. That is dishonest journalism. To compare income to a family of 5, they should be comparing median household income as it's now considering a full household. They should't be separating it.
hahahahahahaha, you are in cali, cost of living is just as high there as here, 50k gross, is spit, a studio apartment around here is a grand or more, 2-3 bed room for a family is 1800.00-2100.oo ya, just because the government numbers say you're are not near the poverty level.. reality is the bills come in faster than the paychecks, most familys are paying 800-1200 or more a month for health insurance..
30k is 21760.00 take home,, rent, 12k a year, so, you are now at 9760.00 health insurance will eat almost all of that, so bread and water diet..
I'm glad you have it all figured out. What deductions did you use for that net income? How many dependents? Was there a health insurance subsidy involved? And since that $30k is so little, did you also include food stamps, rent assistance, heating fuel assistance, child care tax credits (if applicable), etc?
Here's one example: Depending on the individual situation, many people making "only" $30k "take home" far more than that measly $30k. A single mom in this scenario would be FAR better off financially taking a $1000 pay cut to $29k per year after taking on all the benefits.
