• jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    “a family of four needs $136,500 a year”

    I could see that, more likely in more expensive areas. You aren’t getting anywhere in New York or San Francisco on $140K.

    • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      The poverty line is for the nation overall. Using some of the highest cost of living areas to set it doesn’t make sense. Why would you say a family making considerably more than most of their peers is poor because they would struggle to afford living somewhere else entirely?

      • czech@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        It should be localized. it cuts both ways. Why would we say a family struggling to make ends meet is not really poor because they could live comfortably on that salary in a different region?

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I mean, we’re poor but we make less than half that just outside San Francisco. Honestly we’re doing okay. We don’t get any of the luxuries my parents had at our age, but we have smartphones so we can never get away from anything!

  • Baguette@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 months ago

    Like always, how far your money goes depends on multiple factors. 140k in the Midwest alone means you’re living comfortably. Like all bills paid off, a lot of extra money for leisure, etc.

    If you have a family and live in the bay area, then it’s not that much. I personally wouldn’t put it at poverty, but it’d be somewhat close to being paycheck to paycheck (assuming you still need to pay mortgage and whatnot)

  • ChokingHazard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yes. The people saying no are no longer temporarily embarrassed millionaires but temporarily embarrassed middle class. Have or have not, and 140k is have not given inflation, healthcare, education, food, rent/mortgage, energy etc.

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      140K is more 85% of the USA population.

      It’s upper middle class. it’s about 5 grand a month in disposable income. assuming a 1/3 tax rate and 3K in rent/mortage

      it’s also what I make, and yeah i have that much disposable income per month.

  • gustofwind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    uh huh, thank you vice and mr wallstreet substack poster for spreading such awareness, but where does that leave people in actual poverty?

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      vast majority people in actual poverty spend their lifetime in poverty. about 10% make it out, mostly via education for gifted kids.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yes. That as a household income is not actually that far from two median individual incomes. As someone in a high cost of living area, I can see you’d be very restricted on less than that, and it’s tough to see how you’d ever afford to own a home.

  • Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    “laughable,” arguing that you can’t declare the majority of Americans impoverished because the suburbs they choose to live in are expensive, which is what Green did when he used the middle class suburb of Caldwell, New Jersey, as his median.

    “My plastic surgeon said smiling is a waste of Botox, but I can’t help but let out a boisterous ha cha fucking cha at the absurdity. If poor people don’t want to spend so much money on cost of living they should just go live in the places nobody lives because there are no jobs or resources.”

    “Poor people are just so bad at managing money. That’s why they have to blindly trust everything we say. We know how to spend money wisely, and we know what’s best for the economy and them.”

    “Get out of the way Plebs! We’re betting it all on AI!”

    “Oh my! Well, that was unfortunate but also completely unforeseeable. I guess the only thing left to do is brush ourselves off, pat ourselves on the back for being such altruistic utilitarians, ignore the screams from the plebs and go again.”

    “So where’s our bailout? Time is money.”

    • skisnow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      “laughable,” arguing that you can’t declare the majority of Americans impoverished because the suburbs they choose to live in are expensive, which is what Green did when he used the middle class suburb of Caldwell, New Jersey, as his median.

      Yeah you’re right, this is verging on dishonest. The whole point of him picking Caldwell, NJ was to find an extremely median place to live and avoid accusations of cherry-picking San Francisco or Manhattan prices. Essex county is 13th out of 21 counties in NJ for income, NJ is the 11th largest state by population. I’m sure you could find something more mundane, but not that would affect the final numbers to any significant degree unless you were cherry-picking in the other direction.

      Sure there’s lots of states with much lower property values, but you have to weight it based on where people actually live. Telling poor people to move to Buttfuck, ID and get a job there instead doesn’t work.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Maybe. Depends on where you live. If you live somewhere relatively inexpensive it’s not bad. However, I’d have to caution that this sounds like gross income (I did a search and the article didn’t say), and if it is, this isn’t great. Taxes, medical, any union dues, and hopefully a significant chunk going into a retirement fund will eat this up quickly. This is in the 24% fed tax bracket - not including child credit or any pre-tax deductions for something like a 401k, and no State tax taken. 140k take-home would be pretty good.

    • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      This calculation is for a family of four. If you live alone on a single income then you’re probably right about at the line

  • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    No, it’s not. Having to use a budget and not spending whatever you want on anything you want at any time is not poverty. Fuck off with this.