Unless I am mistaken poverty lines are usually for families not individuals.
I think 140k median us wide for a family seems reasonable. Sure it’s pretty high for some Low Cost of Living areas, but many of those areas lack local social services, public transit, etc.
Sure. But the issue is the sample size is naturally large to the Central Limit Theorem applies.
As such, the population of the US as a whole is likely normally distributed. This the outliers are normalized and this should not skew anything.
This, 140k/4 is about 35k a person. Since a household of 4 assume 2 kids and kids consume a median of 30k a year not including housing you are limiting each adult to about 40k a year pre tax. Tax is going to consume about 50k so thats 30k for 2 adults for the year. Housing costs at 1800 a month for a 2 bedroom eat up about another 20k.
This leaves 10k for food, clothes, etc.
Assuming I didn’t jack up my math (bad assumption even if I teach finance as a living), there is simply not enough money to really enjoy life. At 80k you are living on a 60k deficit, which means you rely heavily on the good grace of others to function.
I think the most achievable method to get this standard of living to everyone in short term is to properly define the limit as it applies to everyone. Giving everyone a guaranteed $140k, $35k per adult and child, would be exhorbitant in many places, though slightly more understandable if you’re limiting to the USA alone, and still not cover the highest cost areas at all. Giving the majority of people $20k per person and child, is doable and could more easily gain public support, and is sufficient.
Muddying the definitions and pushing an ever higher number like this author is doing doesn’t seem beneficial for the goal of getting people out of poverty.
lemmyseikai@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Unless I am mistaken poverty lines are usually for families not individuals.
I think 140k median us wide for a family seems reasonable. Sure it’s pretty high for some Low Cost of Living areas, but many of those areas lack local social services, public transit, etc.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Would that not then be letting the high cost outliers dictate the number for the vast majority?
lemmyseikai@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Sure. But the issue is the sample size is naturally large to the Central Limit Theorem applies.
As such, the population of the US as a whole is likely normally distributed. This the outliers are normalized and this should not skew anything.
This, 140k/4 is about 35k a person. Since a household of 4 assume 2 kids and kids consume a median of 30k a year not including housing you are limiting each adult to about 40k a year pre tax. Tax is going to consume about 50k so thats 30k for 2 adults for the year. Housing costs at 1800 a month for a 2 bedroom eat up about another 20k.
This leaves 10k for food, clothes, etc.
Assuming I didn’t jack up my math (bad assumption even if I teach finance as a living), there is simply not enough money to really enjoy life. At 80k you are living on a 60k deficit, which means you rely heavily on the good grace of others to function.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I think the most achievable method to get this standard of living to everyone in short term is to properly define the limit as it applies to everyone. Giving everyone a guaranteed $140k, $35k per adult and child, would be exhorbitant in many places, though slightly more understandable if you’re limiting to the USA alone, and still not cover the highest cost areas at all. Giving the majority of people $20k per person and child, is doable and could more easily gain public support, and is sufficient.
Muddying the definitions and pushing an ever higher number like this author is doing doesn’t seem beneficial for the goal of getting people out of poverty.