Agreed, this was an example of a similar phenomenon as to why you can’t trust self-id economic situation surveys. FWIW, we see similar effects in food security surveys with six-figure households being classified as food insecure.
I can definitely see a situation where a renting single-earner six-figure household in a place like SF may require assistance. It's all about the relative cost of living and financial situation, you can't really make ground pronouncements like this without ignoring the data.
> Single-person households making under $105,000 a year are classified as “low income” in three Bay Area counties by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development.
Are you saying that based on the semantics of "poor" vs "may require assistance"
vs "low income", or...? My comment has a link that's backed up by a government website.
If we look at $105k in San Francisco, minus federal, state, and local taxes, you're looking at roughly $6,400/month take home pay. If you make a budget out of that, you get $3,000 for rent, $800 for groceries, $250 for transit, $250 for medical, $150 for Internet, $600 for entertainment, $900 to retirement, and then finally $400 towards an emergency fund. If you do not have all those things in your monthly, you are poor. Now, there are certainly people who have less than that, and we could argue the semantics of being destitute, vs simply poor as colloquially defined terms, but the brackets that California’s Department of Housing and Community Development has are: acutely low, extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income.
We can use https://saul.pw/mag/wealth/ and say that even with a $105k/yr salary in SF, you're sitting at ↑3 or ↑4 or so, instead of using the emotionally loaded term poor if it would contribute to having a more thoughtful and substantive discussion.
don't they choose to live in SF because that's where they got the job? if they would move they would lose the job, because you generally can't take your job with you. (remote work being the exception)
if life in a place is expensive, and jobs in the same area do not pay enough to cover those expenses, then a person with that job in that area is poor.
I don't know whether you've been to San Francisco, but most (about all?) people who can get a 100k job in SF has quite a bit of mobility w.r.t. where they could live or who they work for.
I would love to see a sample of a handful of cases of these 100k earners who we should consider poor and in need of assistance to make ends meet.
how long would the commute be though. if you have to spend more than two hours commuting each day in order to afford living with the money you earn in SF then i'd see that as a problem.
Do you really believe there are a million destitute starving wet and unclothed children wandering around outside in the UK? Obviously there is some gross exaggeration going on, like most of those million are "cold" because they have worn out hand-me-down jackets and maybe go without dinner sometimes, mostly because their parents are junky pieces of shit who can't be bothered to open a box of slop for the kid even though they're on government programs to pay for the food.
That's funny. Because I lived in Peckham for a decade, and it's obvious to me that money is fucking fucking tight for a lot of working families.
It's obvious to me that zero-hour contracts have massively reduced labour power.
It's obvious to me that energy bills are crippling.
It's obvious to me that there has been galloping inflation over the last decade.
It's obvious to me that all food has become more expensive since Brexit, notably including fresh fruit and veg.
It's obvious to me that rent is increasing faster than wages, and that it's well over 50% of income for millions of households.
It's obvious to me that benefits can be speciously cut at any moment, by policy of "climate of hostility", leaving a recipient unable to cover bills for a month while they take time off work and chid care to bang their heads on the bureaucracy.
When I say "obvious", I mean it literally: these things are in plain sight. When you say it, what I understand you to mean is that you have strong preconceptions making your blind. Could you kindly not Marie Antoinette in my country, thanks ever so.
So? One million kids going without food, shelter or warmth is scandalous. It's scandalous if it's because welfare payments are too low. It's scandalous if it's because we're failing to identify neglect. Scandalous either way.
Why would a story about parental neglect be framed with discussion about Britain being one of the wealthiest countries, if not to deflect blame from neglectful parents onto society as a whole by insinuating that not enough money is spent?
I mean I agree that that's not the perceived thrust of the article. However, parental neglect is largely a product of the environment. Parents rarely just naturally don't care for their children. There's usually other factors; stress, debt, addiction, mental health issues etc... . These are things that a state can provide support with. It's very challenging to access good quality talking therapy, for example. And a well-funded welfare system could do more to identify children in neglected situations, and to work with the families to bring them out of it.
You cannot trust self-survey data, I don’t know how many times this has to be hammered in.
“One-Third of Americans Making $250,000 Live Paycheck-to-Paycheck, Survey Finds” [0]
[0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-01/a-third-o...
One-Third of Americans they surveyed, or did they survey all Americans?
of Americans surveyed
Living paycheck to paycheck is not the same thing as being in poverty
Agreed, this was an example of a similar phenomenon as to why you can’t trust self-id economic situation surveys. FWIW, we see similar effects in food security surveys with six-figure households being classified as food insecure.
I can definitely see a situation where a renting single-earner six-figure household in a place like SF may require assistance. It's all about the relative cost of living and financial situation, you can't really make ground pronouncements like this without ignoring the data.
> may require assistance
Yes, depending on their family size.
But that is very different from ‘food insecure’ after receiving federal/state benefits and I do not believe that is a thing that really happens.
> a situation where a renting single-earner six-figure household in a place like SF may require assistance.
You think someone in SF earning six figures should be considered poor?
It made the news a few years back:
> Single-person households making under $105,000 a year are classified as “low income” in three Bay Area counties by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development.
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/under-100k-low-income-s...
Ok I’ll answer. They are not poor.
Are you saying that based on the semantics of "poor" vs "may require assistance" vs "low income", or...? My comment has a link that's backed up by a government website.
If we look at $105k in San Francisco, minus federal, state, and local taxes, you're looking at roughly $6,400/month take home pay. If you make a budget out of that, you get $3,000 for rent, $800 for groceries, $250 for transit, $250 for medical, $150 for Internet, $600 for entertainment, $900 to retirement, and then finally $400 towards an emergency fund. If you do not have all those things in your monthly, you are poor. Now, there are certainly people who have less than that, and we could argue the semantics of being destitute, vs simply poor as colloquially defined terms, but the brackets that California’s Department of Housing and Community Development has are: acutely low, extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income.
We can use https://saul.pw/mag/wealth/ and say that even with a $105k/yr salary in SF, you're sitting at ↑3 or ↑4 or so, instead of using the emotionally loaded term poor if it would contribute to having a more thoughtful and substantive discussion.
Do you think someone earning 100,000 and who chooses to live in SF should be considered poor?
don't they choose to live in SF because that's where they got the job? if they would move they would lose the job, because you generally can't take your job with you. (remote work being the exception)
if life in a place is expensive, and jobs in the same area do not pay enough to cover those expenses, then a person with that job in that area is poor.
I don't know whether you've been to San Francisco, but most (about all?) people who can get a 100k job in SF has quite a bit of mobility w.r.t. where they could live or who they work for.
I would love to see a sample of a handful of cases of these 100k earners who we should consider poor and in need of assistance to make ends meet.
how long would the commute be though. if you have to spend more than two hours commuting each day in order to afford living with the money you earn in SF then i'd see that as a problem.
Within 1 hour commute that you could live comfortably on 100k:
- East Bay (El Cerrito, Richmond, Concord, Walnut Creek, Martinez)
- North Bay (Petaluma, Novato, Vallejo, Santa Rosa)
Within 90mins:
- South Bay (Milpitas, South San Jose, Morgan Hill, Gilroy)
What word do you want to use? The word poor has a lot of emotional baggage. What does it mean to you for someone to be considered poor?
They’re uncomfortable, but not poor.
Thank you for that. That was a lot of back and forth to get there though.
Do you really believe there are a million destitute starving wet and unclothed children wandering around outside in the UK? Obviously there is some gross exaggeration going on, like most of those million are "cold" because they have worn out hand-me-down jackets and maybe go without dinner sometimes, mostly because their parents are junky pieces of shit who can't be bothered to open a box of slop for the kid even though they're on government programs to pay for the food.
> Obviously
That's funny. Because I lived in Peckham for a decade, and it's obvious to me that money is fucking fucking tight for a lot of working families.
It's obvious to me that zero-hour contracts have massively reduced labour power.
It's obvious to me that energy bills are crippling.
It's obvious to me that there has been galloping inflation over the last decade.
It's obvious to me that all food has become more expensive since Brexit, notably including fresh fruit and veg.
It's obvious to me that rent is increasing faster than wages, and that it's well over 50% of income for millions of households.
It's obvious to me that benefits can be speciously cut at any moment, by policy of "climate of hostility", leaving a recipient unable to cover bills for a month while they take time off work and chid care to bang their heads on the bureaucracy.
When I say "obvious", I mean it literally: these things are in plain sight. When you say it, what I understand you to mean is that you have strong preconceptions making your blind. Could you kindly not Marie Antoinette in my country, thanks ever so.
I don't see why parental neglect suddenly makes it okay.
Nobody said it's okay, but it's not the same thing as poverty making kids go hungry.
So? One million kids going without food, shelter or warmth is scandalous. It's scandalous if it's because welfare payments are too low. It's scandalous if it's because we're failing to identify neglect. Scandalous either way.
Why would a story about parental neglect be framed with discussion about Britain being one of the wealthiest countries, if not to deflect blame from neglectful parents onto society as a whole by insinuating that not enough money is spent?
I mean I agree that that's not the perceived thrust of the article. However, parental neglect is largely a product of the environment. Parents rarely just naturally don't care for their children. There's usually other factors; stress, debt, addiction, mental health issues etc... . These are things that a state can provide support with. It's very challenging to access good quality talking therapy, for example. And a well-funded welfare system could do more to identify children in neglected situations, and to work with the families to bring them out of it.