|
Post by satiev1 on Mar 11, 2007 22:12:08 GMT -5
In los angeles and san francisco, an income of 100,000 for a family of 4 is on the border of poverty.
|
|
contini
AA
The Great Contini
Posts: 650
|
Post by contini on Mar 12, 2007 0:14:02 GMT -5
That's not a percent! It says 37 million, not 37%!!!
|
|
contini
AA
The Great Contini
Posts: 650
|
Post by contini on Mar 12, 2007 0:18:30 GMT -5
In los angeles and san francisco, an income of 100,000 for a family of 4 is on the border of poverty. This sounds like another one of your made-up stastistics. I've lived in both places, and certainly $100,000 is not a lot there, it is by no means near the poverty level.
|
|
|
Post by satiev1 on Mar 12, 2007 0:54:34 GMT -5
If you're living with a family of 4 then it is. I'm in a similar situation right now. My parents are making about that much and it's me and my brother. We barely spend any money on anything except for rent, car insurance, and we're right at the border. Maybe if you're single, it's good money, but not if you support a family. I misread that link. It does say millions. I heard the 35 percent on a newscast. I'll post it when i find it.
|
|
|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 12, 2007 11:40:29 GMT -5
"I heard the 35 percent on a newscast. I'll post it when i find it. "
You should start watching more factual newscasts.
I'm surprised that you and Big have such a low bar for poverty, given how much you guys both know about the Soviet Union.
Regarding your case, I also live very near San Francisco (30 miles away), so I have a good idea of how expensive it is out here. People who can't afford to live in SF shouldn't live in SF, or any other expensive city. It's not a birthright to live wherever the hell you want to live. I'd love to live in Beverly Hills, but I can't afford it. If I moved there and went into huge debt, would I be living in poverty?
|
|
|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 12, 2007 11:46:01 GMT -5
That's good for business. Now that these people are starving, we can hire them for lower wages. They are just lazy, that is why they are poor. Either that or they are doing drugs. If they want to make real money they can. This is the land of opportunity. I know you're being sarcastic, but some of what you say is true. This is the land of opportunity, what other county provides more opportunity? Many of the people who live in poverty are lazy, no question about it. Some of them are mentally ill. Some of them dicked around in grade school and high school while others worked their asses off. Tough luck for them, they made their choice in life, it was't made for them. The government should step in big time to help people who are in bankruptcy because of medical bills, a catastrophic incident in their lives, or other circumstances. But don't kid yourself thinking that everyone who lives in poverty somehow just caught a string of bad luck, and it's somehow Bush's fault.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 12, 2007 14:45:48 GMT -5
Flop,
There was no poverty in Soviet Union. Rent for apartments was no more than 20% even for those lowest paid. Necessities such as food and native made clothing were cheap and public transportation lets say in Leningrad far exceeded the one in New York.
If you had 3 or more kids in Soviet Union, your family was getting government assistance. The same for single mothers.
The problem that many people disliked was lack of opportunity to live in luxury. For example, I consider an ability to change cars every 2-3 years a luxury. I consider an ability to have 5 TVs in a house a luxury and so on.
In America there is freedom to achieve living in luxury but many people can't actually get there. Not all of them are lazy. For example, many people don't like the idea to live their lives by spending 14 hours per day on commutes and work. Some people like to balance their lives and prefer some careers that don't pay very well, e.g teachers in high schools, firefighters.
For these people paying high rents or mortgages and a NECESSITY in some cases to have a car due to very poor public transportation system in many places takes away a large chunk of their income. If they have a couple of kids, that can easily put them in poverty.
|
|
|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 12, 2007 15:02:20 GMT -5
Big, you know more about the Soviet Union that I, so I'll have to go with what you say.
I agree that changing cars every 2-3 years is a luxury, as is 5 TVs. People don't have to spend 14 hours per day on commutes and work, there are thousands of places to live in the US where the commute in minimal and the lifestyle is great. I grew up in rural Pennsylvania in a town of about 8,000, and I loved it. I'd move back there in a second. The cost of living in the SF bay area sucks, and the quality of life is no better than living in a small rural town anywhere in the US.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 12, 2007 15:15:46 GMT -5
That's all good but some careers require people to live in expensive areas. My mother is a psychotherapist, for example, and works for a government program that exists only in a large city where she works with mentally disabled and old patients.
|
|
|
Post by satiev1 on Mar 12, 2007 15:58:28 GMT -5
"I heard the 35 percent on a newscast. I'll post it when i find it. " You should start watching more factual newscasts. I'm surprised that you and Big have such a low bar for poverty, given how much you guys both know about the Soviet Union. Regarding your case, I also live very near San Francisco (30 miles away), so I have a good idea of how expensive it is out here. People who can't afford to live in SF shouldn't live in SF, or any other expensive city. It's not a birthright to live wherever the hell you want to live. I'd love to live in Beverly Hills, but I can't afford it. If I moved there and went into huge debt, would I be living in poverty? Well, I can afford to live there. But If i do i'm on the border of poverty. Some people would rather live in an expensive city instead of in the middle of nowhere. I was stating the facts, that an income of 100,000 in sf is close to poverty. Now whether people should or should not live there based on a certain income is your own personal opinion. There are a lot of factors involved when someone chooses a location to live in.
|
|
contini
AA
The Great Contini
Posts: 650
|
Post by contini on Mar 12, 2007 22:00:28 GMT -5
Satiev, there is actually a point behind what you're trying to say, despite that fact that you butcher the statistics (which may cause more harm than good because you lose all credibility). Given that unemployment is at the lowest level in 7 years and corporations are making records profits (most notably, the oil companies are making a killing, but in general the DOW Jones reflects that most corporations are doing quite well), why is it that poverty continues to increase? What does that say about Bush's trickle down theory? What does that say about the wealth gap? Republicans have not always been as economically extreme as they are today: this started with Reagan, and the results have been the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
|
|
|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 13, 2007 10:11:59 GMT -5
That's all good but some careers require people to live in expensive areas. My mother is a psychotherapist, for example, and works for a government program that exists only in a large city where she works with mentally disabled and old patients. Does your mother live in poverty? I agree with Satiev that people can live wherever they want, but don't cry about a lack of money if you choose to live on the poverty line.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 13, 2007 13:21:16 GMT -5
My mother is living comfortably (financially) right now BUT between her home visits, office appointments and writing documents at home, she probably works at least 70 hours per week.
Plus, my parents are paying 1/3 for the mortgage as opposed to what the same house costs today. They were able to get it 7 years ago before prices jumped.
Plus, my father works a lot as well.
|
|