So I was sitting in my statistics class ( ) when we were asked to pair up and discuss how much we think the government standard for yearly income of a family of 4 is to be in poverty.
We had to break down monthly expenses to come up with our yearly income. What would the fine individuals define as poverty here on the ole dakka dakka?
My class being made up of almost entirely upper middle class to upper upper class and being 18 - 21 years old believed that 12-15k a year is what the government should consider poverty. They felt that meat everyday was a privilege and that you can buy ramen and mac n cheese for cheap. That they shouldn't have a vehicle or use almost no income on clothing as those are privileges.
They agreed that food for 4 should only cost $250 a month at most. Rent and utilities should be only $500 a month. No other expenses were considered because poor people don't need them.
Now having grown up on the bad side of poor I thought their concept of poor was hilarious. Maybe I am biased though as I've experienced how expensive poor can be.
So what do you all think? Or at what point should the government give out aide assuming you believe that governments should provide some assistance naturally.
They agreed that food for 4 should only cost $250 a month at most. Rent and utilities should be only $500 a month. No other expenses were considered because poor people don't need them.
Food for 4, $250 a month? Rent plus utilities $500?
Your classmates don't know anything about how the world operates.
At any rate, the federal poverty level is something like $28,000 (or maybe $32k?) per year for a family of 4 and TRUST ME....that threshold is set way way too low.
BrotherGecko wrote: So I was sitting in my statistics class ( ) when we were asked to pair up and discuss how much we think the government standard for yearly income of a family of 4 is to be in poverty.
We had to break down monthly expenses to come up with our yearly income. What would the fine individuals define as poverty here on the ole dakka dakka?
My class being made up of almost entirely upper middle class to upper upper class and being 18 - 21 years old believed that 12-15k a year is what the government should consider poverty. They felt that meat everyday was a privilege and that you can buy ramen and mac n cheese for cheap. That they shouldn't have a vehicle or use almost no income on clothing as those are privileges.
They agreed that food for 4 should only cost $250 a month at most. Rent and utilities should be only $500 a month. No other expenses were considered because poor people don't need them.
Now having grown up on the bad side of poor I thought their concept of poor was hilarious. Maybe I am biased though as I've experienced how expensive poor can be.
So what do you all think? Or at what point should the government give out aide assuming you believe that governments should provide some assistance naturally.
.....wow.
my cousin has a family of 6. 2 more thant for and food costs her 800$ a month. My mom pays 500$ in "Rent" a month and she owns the house.
Im sure I would love my kids to subsist on Ramen & Cheese. Its not like Ruffage is needed.
my guess is these kids are "College Poor" Where they can still get all the food from the cafeteria, but not enough to get the Iphone 10000 that just came out.
Those prices are at least 20% lower than basic foodstuff prices where I'm at, and I live in a high production agricultural and dairy region. The only thing on that list that I can find at those prices is the lunch meat. Even then it would be from the "end of its shelf life" store....which is a terrible idea when purchasing meat.
Ex: non-organic fresh chicken (meaning it hasn't been pumped full of saline and then frozen to sell at higher weight) runs at least $5.50 per pound here. Thats deboned thigh meat, not breast. A pound of mid grade cheese (on sale) is $12. A loaf of wheat bread is $4-$7. Non-organic broccoli is $4 or more per pound. Apples aren't even in the ball park of $1.33 per pound.
Thats in urbanized & suburban Northern California. You don't even want to know how much basic stuff costs in a place like Alaska, where most things have to be flown in from elesewhere.
#Realtalk If you buy 6 lbs of chicken for $15 its probably going to cook down to less than 3 lbs due to being pumped full of weight adding saline.
Food for 4 at 250$ / month is only possible if you strike a deal with food producers and can buy stuff at a much lower price. Else 60$ per week for 4 or about 8$ per DAY for 4 people or 2$ per DAY for ONE person is...what? Your classmates have zero idea on how the world works.
BrotherGecko wrote: So I was sitting in my statistics class ( ) when we were asked to pair up and discuss how much we think the government standard for yearly income of a family of 4 is to be in poverty.
We had to break down monthly expenses to come up with our yearly income. What would the fine individuals define as poverty here on the ole dakka dakka?
My class being made up of almost entirely upper middle class to upper upper class and being 18 - 21 years old believed that 12-15k a year is what the government should consider poverty. They felt that meat everyday was a privilege and that you can buy ramen and mac n cheese for cheap. That they shouldn't have a vehicle or use almost no income on clothing as those are privileges.
They agreed that food for 4 should only cost $250 a month at most. Rent and utilities should be only $500 a month. No other expenses were considered because poor people don't need them.
Now having grown up on the bad side of poor I thought their concept of poor was hilarious. Maybe I am biased though as I've experienced how expensive poor can be.
So what do you all think? Or at what point should the government give out aide assuming you believe that governments should provide some assistance naturally.
I think your class has yet to actually live in the real world.... Disturbingly.
First off, make sure to tell everyone in your class about this. You might not die of starvation, but you will die long before your should if you live off nothing but packaged noodles because there is virtually nothing in those things to keep you healthy and any parent who feeds their kids nothing but Ramen, probably needs to have Child Services called on them. That's fething neglect/abuse.
And yes, your class is hilariously out of touch with anything approaching reality.
I'm single with no kids, and I need $200 minimum if I want to eat food that will kill me in 60 years. Closer to $300 if I actually want to, you know, eat vegetables, fruit, and meat, regularly (I hear those things are like, totally important for a healthy diet). And that's just me! Multiple me by 4 and you get $1200 and honestly I live pretty sparingly when it comes to food. I usually skip lunch.
I would love to know where I could live only $500 rent. I live in one of the lowest cost of living parts of the country, and I still pay just under $700. Given that there are only a few places in the US with public transportation, I'd love to know how your class expects these hypothetical family to make any income at all, because walking distance is going to produce extremely limited job opportunities most places and the places where you can get public transport or walk to work have rent a hell of a lot higher than $500. And what about phones? Most employers will want you accessible by phone.
Also, by not needing other expenses, do you mean your class expects people to live with no electricity, no running water, and to never pay local utility fees?Depending on location those things will run you anywhere from $150-#300 a month. I'd really love to know how we're even cooking those ramen noodles without electricity. Or are we just eating that crap out of the package? And what if my rotten diet of Ramen noodles ends up sending me to the hospital?
Bare minimum, I need $2400 a month to survive and pay all my expenses (rent, bills, car payments, insurance, food that won't kill me) and i am a single guy with no kids. I really, really hope your teacher gave these kids an F. I expect a degree of 'just not getting' from people, but this defies even common sense.
Rent + Utilities @ 500 month is doable, in a shared living space. The rent at my old apartment was $400 per person for 3 people in a 3 bedroom, with utilities being about 60 per person average month twice that in winter. Granted it was kind of crummy apartment but certainly livable. I know there were some families living in the same building cramming more payers into comparable spaces at the same rents, albeit in violation of housing laws. It wouldn't be unthinkable that some folks are able to drive their rent share down to sub-$300/month levels even in relatively expensive areas.
Last year I did an experiment to see how low I could get my food costs while meeting a reasonable nutirtion standard and that was at about $3.50/day , though that figure was tainted by the fact I already had lots of spices, dishes/pans and other accessory items on-hand.
I think the question should be less be "What's the bare minimum someone can survive on", as you can drive that pretty low. The question should really be more how much does a person need to live with dignity, with security and stability.
I dont know American prices, but food itesm should have a fairly consistent relative price.
Poorer people eat less meat, a lot of people eat Italian in the US, I know this much. But did you know that a proper Italian pizza or spaghetti dish should have very little meat and a lot of tomato to make up.
Most actual Indian and chinese curry dishes go easy on the sauce and what is in it, and long on the rice.
Now I am a gross hypocrite because I ate two pieces of fried chicken and chips tonight, and a 7UP for £2.20, and had the same again with a Tango as I was still hungry. Thats cheap eating for the UK, and anything but healthy and meat heavy, but I could and should eat better for less.
Between rice, corn, bread, noodles and pasta as bulk staples you can eat heartily for very little money. It is what most people on this planet do.
BrotherGecko wrote: upper middle class to upper upper class and being 18 - 21 years old
believed that 12-15k a year is what the government should consider poverty.
That they shouldn't have a vehicle or use almost no income on clothing as those are privileges.
They agreed that food for 4 should only cost $250 a month at most. Rent and utilities should be only $500 a month.
No other expenses were considered because poor people don't need them.
So woefully out of touch is almost sad. Remind me again why 18 year old kids are allowed to vote?
Anyway, my family of four spends at least $150 a week at the grocery store (and we don't buy expensive stuff either). The mortgage alone for my tiny townhouse is more than three times what these kids think rent and utilities should cost. Having some kind of vehicle is a must for anyone to hold a job, especially if you live in an area without reliable mass transportation. Oh, and you still need money to buy clothes, which is not a 'privilege' at all.
Most disgusting of all is the tired trope of "poor people shouldn't be able to enjoy anything because they are poor."
Well yeah, shared living spaces can knock your rent down A LOT. In the Bay my shared living space rent was $650 per month, with the cheapest deal in town being $400 per month in the shared warehouse buildouts....which were in no way set to building code and many times meant living in a polluted ex-industrial building. Since moving for school my shared space rent has gone down to $320 per month, but thats an INSANELY good deal. Most rent in my town is $700-$900 for a room.
At any rate its important to keep the focus not on our individual costs as single folks, but on the costs for a family of 4. In a discussion of economics or price points, the family is the structural unit in question.
In either a single or dual wage earning household, parents are not going to be a position to reduce rent via shared space in the same way that single folks can. As stated by several folks, you can't just feed kids pasta and ramen noodles. Talk to some single mom's about what its like trying to get kids to school, doctors, appointments, etc without a car. Etc etc.
Most actual Indian and chinese curry dishes go easy on the sauce and what is in it, and long on the rice.
Between rice, corn, bread, noodles and pasta as bulk staples you can eat heartily for very little money. It is what most people on this planet do.
A good pot of curry is absolutely the cheapest way to eat healthy, you'll get no argument there.
On the second note, I think you are bypassing the fact that most poor folks in the world who exist on staple food purchases also have subsistence farming or hunting to suppliment their caloric intake. I'm kinda talking specifically about life in post-industrial Western society.
Those prices are at least 20% lower than basic foodstuff prices where I'm at, and I live in a high production agricultural and dairy region. The only thing on that list that I can find at those prices is the lunch meat. Even then it would be from the "end of its shelf life" store....which is a terrible idea when purchasing meat.
Ex: non-organic fresh chicken (meaning it hasn't been pumped full of saline and then frozen to sell at higher weight) runs at least $5.50 per pound here. Thats deboned thigh meat, not breast. A pound of mid grade cheese (on sale) is $12. A loaf of wheat bread is $4-$7. Non-organic broccoli is $4 or more per pound. Apples aren't even in the ball park of $1.33 per pound.
Thats in urbanized & suburban Northern California. You don't even want to know how much basic stuff costs in a place like Alaska, where most things have to be flown in from elesewhere.
#Realtalk If you buy 6 lbs of chicken for $15 its probably going to cook down to less than 3 lbs due to being pumped full of weight adding saline.
I live in the Boston area and I've found his estimates to be mostly reflective I've what seen at the stores with better prices. The prices you're quoting are what I'd expect to pay if I walked into whole foods or something, buy I can regularly find apples for $0.89-$0.99 a lbs. This is the weekly flyer from where I usually take my mom to get groceries:
Looks like chicken fresh chicken thighs are $1.99/lb this week. If somebody wanted to charge me $5.50/lb for chicken it better still be alive and laying golden eggs. I don't envy your pricing.
EDIT: Which isn't to say I'm advocating for the position that would put the poverty bar so low. I'm firmly in the camp of people being entitled to a higher standard of living than that, it's just your food seems really expensive and that's interesting to talk about.
There are 2 of us, my lizard, 2 cats, the fish and the big bird. The animals get their food which consists of various different bits and bobs but we eat egg noodles with vegetables and a little meat, Potatoes with vegetables and maybe a sausage, Pasta with vegetables, rice with vegetables and sometimes meat.
We used to eat a lot of meat and as a result meat would make up most of our food costs. Now I love meat but when 2 dollars of pasta can last for days or a bag of rice for weeks it's definitely the way to go when you are poor/saving money/wanna try something different. Just add meat here and there (because we do need meat).
We spent about 60NZD this week on food and it will last 8 days with 3 meals a day.
We always eat oats in the morning with half a banana each (cheapest breakfast we could come up with).
Lunch is home made bread with lettuce, carrot, sometimes a little fish or leftovers in it with some fruit.
Dinner is a pasta, egg pasta or rice dish with vegetables (spinach if we can afford it, corn, peas, carrot, onion etc) and a little meat.
Honestly id say I have never felt better overall. Without pets our food costs would go down a lot more (I think to less than 50NZD a week). If someone has a crock pot with a small startup cost in the week you can make some delicious loafs of bread for low cost. The bread is incredibly filling too.
I think a family of 4 could comfortably live healthily off 125NZD a week here well before all the non food related costs come in anyway...
Those prices are at least 20% lower than basic foodstuff prices where I'm at, and I live in a high production agricultural and dairy region. The only thing on that list that I can find at those prices is the lunch meat. Even then it would be from the "end of its shelf life" store....which is a terrible idea when purchasing meat.
Ex: non-organic fresh chicken (meaning it hasn't been pumped full of saline and then frozen to sell at higher weight) runs at least $5.50 per pound here. Thats deboned thigh meat, not breast. A pound of mid grade cheese (on sale) is $12. A loaf of wheat bread is $4-$7. Non-organic broccoli is $4 or more per pound. Apples aren't even in the ball park of $1.33 per pound.
Thats in urbanized & suburban Northern California. You don't even want to know how much basic stuff costs in a place like Alaska, where most things have to be flown in from elesewhere.
#Realtalk If you buy 6 lbs of chicken for $15 its probably going to cook down to less than 3 lbs due to being pumped full of weight adding saline.
I live in the Boston area and I've found his estimates to be mostly reflective I've what seen at the stores with better prices. The prices you're quoting are what I'd expect to pay if I walked into whole foods or something, buy I can regularly find apples for $0.89-$0.99 a lbs. This is the weekly flyer from where I usually take my mom to get groceries:
Looks like chicken fresh chicken thighs are $1.99/lb this week. If somebody wanted to charge me $5.50/lb for chicken it better still be alive and laying golden eggs. I don't envy your pricing.
EDIT: Which isn't to say I'm advocating for the position that would put the poverty bar so low. I'm firmly in the camp of people being entitled to a higher standard of living than that, it's just your food seems really expensive and that's interesting to talk about.
That $5.50 is actually lower than a lot of the stores here. You should see the Whole Foods and Co-op prices on meat....
And yeah, its totally true that I don't eat the absolute bottom of the barrel price point stuff. Most of my calories come from grains, dried fruit, and vegetables....and candy. I'll admit that part, lol. When I buy a protein source I pay a bit more because its worth it to me. I also grow my own basil, chard, carrots, potatoes, bell peppers, tobasco peppers, meyer lemons, strawberries, and mint. Soon I'll be trading for eggs from my neighbors up the street who keep 6 laying hens.
Hoping to grow a few tobacco plants this year too!
Chongara wrote: Rent + Utilities @ 500 month is doable, in a shared living space. The rent at my old apartment was $400 per person for 3 people in a 3 bedroom, with utilities being about 60 per person average month twice that in winter. Granted it was kind of crummy apartment but certainly livable. I know there were some families living in the same building cramming more payers into comparable spaces at the same rents, albeit in violation of housing laws. It wouldn't be unthinkable that some folks are able to drive their rent share down to sub-$300/month levels even in relatively expensive areas.
Last year I did an experiment to see how low I could get my food costs while meeting a reasonable nutirtion standard and that was at about $3.50/day , though that figure was tainted by the fact I already had lots of spices, dishes/pans and other accessory items on-hand.
I think the question should be less be "What's the bare minimum someone can survive on", as you can drive that pretty low. The question should really be more how much does a person need to live with dignity, with security and stability.
A 3br house where I live is $1500+ a month, plus utilities, and that's going to be an older home (as in: built 1900-1925), with a 50/50 chance of having only 2-prong plugs in the walls.... so you either don't own anything that requires an outlet, or you have to buy an adapter.
Most disgusting of all is the tired trope of "poor people shouldn't be able to enjoy anything because they are poor."
Hey, that's standard for the course. These people are poor since they don't deserve better, either as punishment for past sins or because they're just plain dumb. Help a beggar find a job and he'll no longer need your help. Give him money for food today and you can give him money tomorrow and the day after too, which means you look good every day.
Not US prices ofc, but my living arrangements come to about 400 a month on loan payments and about, hmm, 300? on utilities like electricity, water, heating and internet/TV. I also need to keep my car fueled and serviced, and clothes aren't just a luxury unless I want to look like some bandit from a cheap near-future scifi dystopia film.
Chongara wrote: I'm firmly in the camp of people being entitled to a higher standard of living than that, it's just your food seems really expensive and that's interesting to talk about.
Nah, I get it. There's a big convo to be had about the higher price point for locally produced goods as opposed to industrial scale farming and then shipped halfway across the world. In general, pricing in California is higher than other places. I could find cheaper meat/cheese if I want to other stores....but I have comparison shopped those items and I'd rather eat humus than bargain basement meat.
As an individual, I spend about $30-$40 per week on groceries and another $20 on food from the cafeteria or cheap restaurants around town. Its not the cheapest possible route, but its damn sure cheaper than most.
I watched some fool spend $100 on bottled water at the Co-op the other day. Yep, $100 on bottled water....like we were living somewhere without a functional sewage & H20 delivery infrastructure. /sigh
Chongara wrote: Rent + Utilities @ 500 month is doable, in a shared living space. The rent at my old apartment was $400 per person for 3 people in a 3 bedroom, with utilities being about 60 per person average month twice that in winter. Granted it was kind of crummy apartment but certainly livable. I know there were some families living in the same building cramming more payers into comparable spaces at the same rents, albeit in violation of housing laws. It wouldn't be unthinkable that some folks are able to drive their rent share down to sub-$300/month levels even in relatively expensive areas.
Last year I did an experiment to see how low I could get my food costs while meeting a reasonable nutirtion standard and that was at about $3.50/day , though that figure was tainted by the fact I already had lots of spices, dishes/pans and other accessory items on-hand.
I think the question should be less be "What's the bare minimum someone can survive on", as you can drive that pretty low. The question should really be more how much does a person need to live with dignity, with security and stability.
A 3br house where I live is $1500+ a month, plus utilities, and that's going to be an older home (as in: built 1900-1925), with a 50/50 chance of having only 2-prong plugs in the walls.... so you either don't own anything that requires an outlet, or you have to buy an adapter.
Well yeah, prices are different everywhere. I guess what I was trying to say is that without more context for where OP lives it's perhaps a bit premature to call a guess of $500 month for low-end guess on as "rent totally out touch with reality". Just because up until last year, I was paying about that much out in actual reality. Sure some of the doors may have been in disrepair, the carpet was a bit old and the water in the downstairs bathroom was a bit spotty but the living conditions were hardly squalid.
EDIT: Though their other claims are pretty wrong-headed, guess I'm just trying to give these kids the benefit of the doubt where I can.
Even in the US, cost of living can vary pretty wildly. There are places where 500 a month in rent for an apartment wouldn't be that unreasonable. In others, you couldn't get a tiny studio for twice that. It all depends extremely heavily on where you live.
A better question would be to ask, why are there poor people? Bill Gates makes billions per year but people have to work two jobs to make it. Teachers qualify for public assistance while corporate CEOs own private islands. It's about priorities. The CEO of Sony Corp. makes $1.8 million per year so that the company can pay a living wage to all workers in facilities in Japan. .Meanwhile Sony Pictures (US) pays 17 execs over $1 million and the CEO makes $3 million, $1.2 million more than the CEO of the parent company. We have messed up priorities in the US.
Wealthy people and those sheltered from realities of living on small amounts always greatly underestimate how little you can survive on because they never have to face the reality of it. They do some sums and assume it's as straight forward as they think and are quite casual about how easy it is for poor people not to be allowed 'luxuries' like a TV or books, which you even get given in prison. But when you've never had to go without, it's very easy not to have empathy and just tell others how easy it should be and how they don't deserve better.
TV isn't a luxury, that always makes me laugh. As things go for hours of entertainment related to the investment, it's about the cheapest thing you can possibly have. And people should have a reasonable expectation of affording such an ubiquitous item for the home which for most is the primary source of news, weather information and education as well as entertainment. People bored out of their skull living in a house fitted out like a cell will do nothing to increase productivity or wellbeing, despite how some believe that being poor automatically means you should have nothing more than the barest food and a bed.
As a slightly younger than 25 year old, I want to meet the people in your group who said that and punch them all in the face.
When it was me and the gf, we would spend at least thirty quid on food a week, and we weren't able to afford extremely nice things. We used to buy reduced bread then freeze it. And freeze anything that was cheap. We managed to survive but it was rather hard.
But the only way to get better off people to understand this is to make them poor. Give them three people dependent on them and send them into the really world trying to feed a family on that much. See if they can last the month.
agnosto wrote: A better question would be to ask, why are there poor people?
Because in ANY society there are haves and have nots. Even if you remove all material possessions, currency, and types of wealth some people are left with more "human capital" in the form of their mental or physical ability.
Read Edmund Burke's commentary on the "leveling of society" if you'd like to ponder the social aspects of what a truly equalized mass society actually brings about.
If that's your take-away,either we're reading two different Burkes or coming to completely different conclusions. Burke proposes that society, in general, is best-functional, and happiest, when the happiness and security of its constituent members is highest and best assured. In essence, a society is greater than the total sum of its parts. He was also an old-school, one might even say "original", Conservative thinker, of the sort from a time when being in a position of power placed upon one the responsibility of ensuring equality, security, safety, and other such things as we have now enshrined in the Bill of Rights, to those of lower social standings.
agnosto wrote: A better question would be to ask, why are there poor people?
Because in ANY society there are haves and have nots. Even if you remove all material possessions, currency, and types of wealth some people are left with more "human capital" in the form of their mental or physical ability.
Read Edmund Burke's commentary on the "leveling of society" if you'd like to ponder the social aspects of what a truly equalized mass society actually brings about.
Or just look at countries like Sweden who do a fair job of it. I'm not advocating stripping the rich and throwing them out on their silken knickers. I'm saying that,as a society, the US is fairly morally bankrupt when it comes to equality of living standards. You can't just throw the poor into slums, throw them some food and forget about them. At some level we have expect more than "you get what we give you." not what your dad or grandfather worked for and you inherited.
I went from sometimes being homeless and sleeping in a car when I was a child to being comfortably upper middle-class through hard work and perseverance. That doesn't mean that I'm blind to what people struggle with because we, as a society, seem to value the work of people at the top more than the people who make their work possible. How far would they have gotten without that underpaid cop protecting their property or that underpaid teacher guiding their early steps ?
I should note that the professor laughed at what they thought poor was.
My house is a very comfortable and sometimes too big 3200 sq. ft, the next house over is 36,000 sq ft. A half mile from me is an actual scale replica of a castle complete with period appropriate furnishings and has a helipad on the roof. Actually helipads seem to be relatively common around where I live.
I drove past the highschool near my house and was sad when all the cars in the parking lot were worth 60-80k.
So yah these kids mostly have no idea what most of America looks like lol.
Many of the kids in my school district drive nicer cars than the teachers and even some administrators.
A principal in my state makes about $50k-$60k per year and teachers start at around $30 and cap at near $50k.
Police officers make about $40k and the CEOs of oil companies make 10s of millions, one of them paid off an ex-wife recently with several million. This is the land of milk and honey according to many conservative pundits as the state hands out tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations while state employees haven't gotten a legislated raise in about 8 years. Funny how they took the tax breaks and these supposed "job creators" cut thousands of jobs.
Personal finances and budgeting is one of those things where reasoned guesses just suck, almost every time. You have to actually live it, try and survive on a small amount every week, and learn what is and isn't absolutely needed to just get by. And even then most people have little idea where their money really goes. So getting college kids to estimate a hypothetical family's finances is just being mean to the kids, just setting them up to look foolish.
I suspect that these people actually subsist on ramen noodles and coca cola and their brains stopped working correctly due to malnutrition.
In my case, my nutrition needs are something like this per day:
-10 eggs a day (4 yolks a day for normal functioning without depression, 6 more to avoid anxiety, panic attacks and attacks of rage - yolks were proven to be very important for correct functioning of brain)
-A few cups of cocoa with cream (about 200 gram of 30% cream a day - I don't know why I feel noticeably worse without it)
-About 100g of meat.
-About 100g of cheese.
-About 400g of vegetables (to avoid stomach problems)
-About 4000 i.u. of Vitamin D to avoid depression from insufficient light.
-Generally, about 3000-3400kcal to maintain caloric balance. Delivered mostly in form of fat.
If I don't fulfil these requirements my mental state deteriorates quickly, same with physical state.
When I was a kid and was very poor and didn't get correct nutrition and supplementation, I developed scoliosis, had ADHD, anti-social tendencies, depression during autumns and winters, and severe neurosis.
Those prices are at least 20% lower than basic foodstuff prices where I'm at, and I live in a high production agricultural and dairy region. The only thing on that list that I can find at those prices is the lunch meat. Even then it would be from the "end of its shelf life" store....which is a terrible idea when purchasing meat.
Ex: non-organic fresh chicken (meaning it hasn't been pumped full of saline and then frozen to sell at higher weight) runs at least $5.50 per pound here. Thats deboned thigh meat, not breast. A pound of mid grade cheese (on sale) is $12. A loaf of wheat bread is $4-$7. Non-organic broccoli is $4 or more per pound. Apples aren't even in the ball park of $1.33 per pound.
Besides the lunch meat, those prices seem fairly close to typical around here. Prepackaged stuff like lunch meat is on the expensive side typically as well, so if you're really on a tight budget you should be avoiding that stuff anyway.
You can also save a lot of money on poultry by buying whole birds, which are usually between $1-2 a pound, and butchering them yourself. Buying cuts individually drives the prices way up. If you only want to eat white meat, buying a whole bird, cutting off the breasts and throwing the rest away is cheaper than buying breasts individually. So you are essentially getting everything else effectively for free. A single chicken is usually around $5-6 and is enough meat for one person for 4ish meals, more if you make soup with the bones(or just soup in general).
Food is dirt dirt cheap if you are buying smartly. And you actually get some efficiency if you are feeding enough people to make bulk purchases more viable, as an example it cheapest to buy those giant bags of rice but you'd really need 3-4 people to fully capitalize on it.
I think one of the biggest issues is that lots of people just aren't educated enough to see or make those choices, or just don't bother with the little extra effort.
The people who came up with your example did miss the mark, but they're not as far off as many people here would have you think. Naturally this is a very complicated issue and no classwork example is going to be close to reality because poverty in one area is not the same as poverty in the area right next to it.
Those prices are at least 20% lower than basic foodstuff prices where I'm at, and I live in a high production agricultural and dairy region. The only thing on that list that I can find at those prices is the lunch meat. Even then it would be from the "end of its shelf life" store....which is a terrible idea when purchasing meat.
Ex: non-organic fresh chicken (meaning it hasn't been pumped full of saline and then frozen to sell at higher weight) runs at least $5.50 per pound here. Thats deboned thigh meat, not breast. A pound of mid grade cheese (on sale) is $12. A loaf of wheat bread is $4-$7. Non-organic broccoli is $4 or more per pound. Apples aren't even in the ball park of $1.33 per pound.
Thats in urbanized & suburban Northern California. You don't even want to know how much basic stuff costs in a place like Alaska, where most things have to be flown in from elesewhere.
#Realtalk If you buy 6 lbs of chicken for $15 its probably going to cook down to less than 3 lbs due to being pumped full of weight adding saline.
Well there you go. You live in California. I live in Ohio.
When we buy lunch meat, it's almost exclusively Boar's Head. Chicken and turkey are typically $7.99 a lb.
We do our grocery shopping, nearly always, at Findlay Market, a local market with local farmers and small grocers.
We usually pay around $3.49 a lb for boneless skinless Amish chicken breast. I can get bone in for $2.29 a lb, which ends up really being around $3.00 a lb post bone.
Fruits and veggies are all from local farmers. Apples are usually $1.29-2.39 a lb, depending on how much I want organic. If they're for me I don't care. If they're going to my kid they're organic. We always get organic bananas at .49 a lb.
Yet another reason ill never move to California ;-)
If you aren't afraid of knives, you should never buy prepackaged chicken. Buy it whole and cut it apart yourself. You'll save an obscene amount of money.
Instead of paying ~$4 a pound for breasts you'll pay $1.50 a pound for two breasts, two tenders, and get some free thighs with it.
I couldn't live on $250/month for food on my own, never mind 4 people. I have ridiculous food requirements to keep my mass and to stay lean - I spend about $140/week on meat and vegetables alone.
You class room is full of dependents who have no idea how much living actually costs, so their viewpoints are inherently inaccurate at this point in their lives.
Grey Templar wrote: I think one of the biggest issues is that lots of people just aren't educated enough to see or make those choices, or just don't bother with the little extra effort.
Nah, the issue is that people like to second guess how other people's finances should work, and they almost always have no idea what they're talking about. I mean, you were talking about bulk buying rice. Rice. Buy the standard bags or the large ones, and while there's a saving it's utterly trivial to a family's finances. No family on earth has ever missed a rent payment because they paid too much for their rice.
That kind of failure to understand what are the significant budget items and what aren't is why people have such a poor idea about their own finances, let alone enough knowledge to tell someone else what they should be able to live on.
Grey Templar wrote: I think one of the biggest issues is that lots of people just aren't educated enough to see or make those choices, or just don't bother with the little extra effort.
Nah, the issue is that people like to second guess how other people's finances should work, and they almost always have no idea what they're talking about. I mean, you were talking about bulk buying rice. Rice. Buy the standard bags or the large ones, and while there's a saving it's utterly trivial to a family's finances. No family on earth has ever missed a rent payment because they paid too much for their rice.
That kind of failure to understand what are the significant budget items and what aren't is why people have such a poor idea about their own finances, let alone enough knowledge to tell someone else what they should be able to live on.
To compound on this many urban or rural poor in america live in "Food Deserts" where there simply aren't any proper grocery stores selling proper produce and dry goods at reasonable prices, nearby. I take my fantastic grocery store with variety and good prices for granted, where the best some people have access to is a corner store filled with pre-packaged foods, maybe a couple bins of old bruised fruit and some frozen dinners.
sebster wrote: No family on earth has ever missed a rent payment because they paid too much for their rice.
It also doesn't do to buy things like rice and flour in too much bulk, as it can easily end up infested with weevil and other little varmints if it's shelved for too long. There is no saving if you end up having to throw half of it away.
I think I've been about as poor as it is possible to be in the UK, without being homeless. My mom died when I was very young, so I spent my early childhood living with her parents. They were very nice, and it was all very middle class. But when I was 10 I had to go an live with my dad in social housing. He wasn't a bad person, he'd been 12 years in the air force, but he was terrible with money, and had quite a severe drinking problem.
We basically lived in the ghetto. It was the most gakky depressing place this side of the soviet union, with stabbings, burned out cars etc... My next door neighbour was some weird crack dealer who owned a pit-bull (this place really hit all the clichés).
Clothes were one of the most expensive things, especially for someone growing. My early teens were pretty much just one long embarrassment, wearing hand-me-downs, and stuff that was too small. I had the same pair of trainers for about 3 years, which were falling apart, with my toes sticking out the front.
I don't remember food ever being an issue, but keeping food was. My dad had a fridge which was about 20 years old, eventually it broke. The government didn't consider a fridge to be an "essential", so we just had no fridge. It was really heartbreaking waking up and just wanting to have a bowl of cereal, but finding out yesterdays milk had gone off overnight. During the winter we would just keep food outside in a box to keep it cool.
I did without lots of things, didn't have a telephone in the house, didn't have any of the computer games my friends played, didn't have a car, didn't have carpets (I still walk on my tip toes to this day when in bare feet, because I was conditioned to avoid nails). Didn't have a washing machine, I could never get my dad to pay for things like haircuts either... It was just the most abysmal existence, and I couldn't wait to be old enough so I could leave.
One of the things people don't realise is just how much longer everything takes when you don't have any of life's luxuries, and how that can mount up. Having to go to the laundrette, living in a cheap area out of town, and having to wait to get the bus in all the time, having to walk down the street to make phone calls, or to top up the electricity meter, not having things like the internet to do homework, or to look things up (even to search for a job).
On their own, these little "inconveniences" don't seem like a big deal, and people get angry and throw around words like "lazy" when poor people complain about them, but the truth is, when you have lots of little inconveniences like that in your life because you are trying to spare money, it can make life just impossible. You have to work so much harder just to get the simplest things done. Anyone who says people on benefits don't have it hard enough can feth off!
Smacks wrote: On their own, these little "inconveniences" don't seem like a big deal, and people get angry and throw around words like "lazy" when poor people complain about them, but the truth is, when you have lots of little inconveniences like that in your life because you are trying to spare money, it can make life just impossible. You have to work so much harder just to get the simplest things done. Anyone who says people on benefits don't have it hard enough can feth off!
Thankyou for posting that. It was very enlightening.
They agreed that food for 4 should only cost $250 a month at most. Rent and utilities should be only $500 a month. No other expenses were considered because poor people don't need them.
No other expenses were considered? that's incredibly stupid, medical is a huge expense it may not be a monthly regularity but anybody with kids is going to have some medical bills even if you get state coverage it doesn't cover 100% of everything and you still have small out of pocket expenses. Glasses or dental visits who needs those? them poor people can be blind as a bat while they gum them mac and cheese ramen because you don't need teeth to slurp noodles nor will those noodles provide enough nutrition to keep those teeth anyways.
Families with kids also have this thing called school which has all sorts of registration fees and text book costs and they demand stupid stuff like health screening and vacinations, what a crock. Keep those poor kids at home, only rich kids should be able to learn something and better themselves.
Clothes and shoes are clearly a luxury when you live in a warm So Cal climate, see how long that lasts anywhere that has weather below 70 degrees, it's also nice to not be arrested for walking around nude in public. Sure somebody shouldn't break bank on clothes but there's always some requirement for clothing expenses especially if you are part of the working world. Not much opportunity to get a job when you are wearing thread bare clothes ragged with holes. Oh wait poor people all get jobs at Mc D's and they can live 24/7 in their free wage slave uniforms. Pay to use a laundry mat? no need poor people and unwashed stank ass from living in filth is like peas in a pod.
Need water to drink or gas to heat your place during the winter? Nah never heard of it they can cuddle for warmth when it's 10 below outside or better yet sleep at the public library and bathe in the fountain out front.
Rent around here doesn't start for under $700 before utlities and that's a one room bare bones studio, might be able to rent a single room as a private sublease for $300-$400 but that's one person not a family of four. If it were $500 a month per person, meaning a budget of $2k for the whole family that's approaching a realistic figure, but no they are assuming $500 will cover the whole family which is absurd.
Grah, Get off my lawn you stupid kids!!!!
I've officially descended into grumpy old man mode.
One thing about students is that they tend to have seriously degenerate lifestyles. Everything about them is pathological. Drug use, loud partying, lack of proper nutrition, lack of proper sleep, nestling together like rats.
They believe that everyone should wallow in pathology like them.
I remember reading students in Poland exchanging tips on how to buy food for 5pln (that's how much 10 eggs cost here) per day. It was insane.
Smacks wrote: The government didn't consider a fridge to be an "essential", so we just had no fridge.
That's insane.
Smacks wrote: We basically lived in the ghetto. It was the most gakky depressing place this side of the soviet union, with stabbings, burned out cars etc... My next door neighbour was some weird crack dealer who owned a pit-bull (this place really hit all the clichés).
That's worse than soviet union.
Smacks wrote: One of the things people don't realise is just how much longer everything takes when you don't have any of life's luxuries, and how that can mount up. Having to go to the laundrette, living in a cheap area out of town, and having to wait to get the bus in all the time, having to walk down the street to make phone calls, or to top up the electricity meter, not having things like the internet to do homework, or to look things up (even to search for a job).
Not to mention the therapeutic value of the Internet and ability to find decent people to talk to.
Smacks wrote: On their own, these little "inconveniences" don't seem like a big deal, and people get angry and throw around words like "lazy" when poor people complain about them, but the truth is, when you have lots of little inconveniences like that in your life because you are trying to spare money, it can make life just impossible. You have to work so much harder just to get the simplest things done. Anyone who says people on benefits don't have it hard enough can feth off!
That's disgusting. What's wrong with these people? Is it foetal alcohol syndrome? Malnutrition damaging the parts of their brains responsible for humanity? Lead in pipes?
In my school, there are tips on how to get into the dining hall for free.
Heck, when I go to get my one meal a day from the cafeteria, I bring tub aware with me so I can get food for me at night.
If you live on campus you are mandated a meal plan so you die of starvation.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: One thing about students is that they tend to have seriously degenerate lifestyles. Everything about them is pathological. Drug use, loud partying, lack of proper nutrition, lack of proper sleep, nestling together like rats.
They believe that everyone should wallow in pathology like them.
I remember reading students in Poland exchanging tips on how to buy food for 5pln (that's how much 10 eggs cost here) per day. It was insane.
Smacks wrote: The government didn't consider a fridge to be an "essential", so we just had no fridge.
That's insane.
Smacks wrote: We basically lived in the ghetto. It was the most gakky depressing place this side of the soviet union, with stabbings, burned out cars etc... My next door neighbour was some weird crack dealer who owned a pit-bull (this place really hit all the clichés).
That's worse than soviet union.
Smacks wrote: One of the things people don't realise is just how much longer everything takes when you don't have any of life's luxuries, and how that can mount up. Having to go to the laundrette, living in a cheap area out of town, and having to wait to get the bus in all the time, having to walk down the street to make phone calls, or to top up the electricity meter, not having things like the internet to do homework, or to look things up (even to search for a job).
Not to mention the therapeutic value of the Internet and ability to find decent people to talk to.
sebster wrote: On their own, these little "inconveniences" don't seem like a big deal, and people get angry and throw around words like "lazy" when poor people complain about them, but the truth is, when you have lots of little inconveniences like that in your life because you are trying to spare money, it can make life just impossible. You have to work so much harder just to get the simplest things done. Anyone who says people on benefits don't have it hard enough can feth off!
That's disgusting. What's wrong with these people? Is it foetal alcohol syndrome? Malnutrition damaging the parts of their brains responsible for humanity? Lead in pipes?
What strikes me is there's a lack of understanding that just because you can live like that for a month, doesn't mean you can continue living that way and stay healthy/capable of working.
There have been months that I've gone 2-3 weeks without eating more than one meal every second evening due to being cut off. Maybe once or at most twice a year. If I did that regularly I'd be extremely unwell. Long term, you just run out of energy.
At the time I had things like a phone line, a few gadgets mostly small luxuries like presents I'd been given in the past. I fought with the idea of whether or not I was truly poor when I balked at selling an old part broken Xbox 360 and leaving myself without any way of watching television. I could be hungry but still watch an old DVD, it was very hard to fathom.
It's very hard to put a pin in poor, or accepting you are poor, when things like Internet and phones are cheaper than food.
There's also the fact we are sentimental beings and just need to feel human now and then. I could raise a month's rent selling some of the things I've inherited. Yet I, and I know many others, would often let that rent lapse and never consider selling Grandma's favourite ornament, or old necklace. Where's the right or wrong there? Poor people don't need jewellery if we go off what those kids say.
Little things. When I was at rock bottom, I went out with my partner and we visited a bakery. I bought this tiny beautiful cake, went home alone after, and just stared at this thing that was 1/5 of my week's food budget. I had just wanted to feel normal. I wouldn't have bought a watch or a DVD, but it seemed so normal to buy nice food.
I'll admit I cried and went to bed feeling so stupid to have both bought it's, and let it bother me. Probably the tipping point of a larger situation.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: One thing about students is that they tend to have seriously degenerate lifestyles. Everything about them is pathological. Drug use, loud partying, lack of proper nutrition, lack of proper sleep, nestling together like rats.
They believe that everyone should wallow in pathology like them.
Not that you're one to generalise or anything.
Anyhow, can you fix the quote tags on your last comment, it looks like Smacks or I wrote your last comment about foetal alcohol syndrome, and I'm not sure that's an impression either of us want to give.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Buttery Commissar wrote: I'll admit I cried and went to bed feeling so stupid to have both bought it's, and let it bother me. Probably the tipping point of a larger situation.
Thankyou for posting that. Insightful and genuinely moving.
That's two posts now giving us an excellent insight in how poverty really works. I never expected that.
It possibly says something that both posts are from the UK. Not that we have it particularly worse than any other country, but that we as a culture just feel so ground down by this government that hands out a little benefit with one hand and points at us with the other. There is little to feel but tired and resigned to it rather than ashamed.
There is a massive social stigma about being on benefits here. Partly driven by politics, partly driven by press. It is legal to refuse to rent to people who're recieving that aid. Most housing ads you will see say "No DHS" which is an outdated term to basically say "no low income", as DHS is/was a low income supplement from the council.
There's a now a food-bank donation bin in every major supermarket in the country now. And ironically the town halls of most towns. Some papers even briefly tried to shame those who used the banks. That they include things like sweet yoghurt and cake if it's been gifted. Thankfully that blew up rather spectacularly in the press's faces, and raised funds and awareness for the banks.
That day I mentioned was an extreme example, but you do find yourself having to justify nearly everything to yourself and to others. I've had friends who've kindly spotted me lunch ask why I don't give up my book collection from college. I own artwork personally gifted to me by a few industry names, "...surely you could get something for that?"
Like the small existence I do have can be broken down into things other people might buy, and things I deserve to keep. I can't get mad because it comes from a sincere place of trying to help.
To stay sane... I have to segregate my budget - I have rent and food money, and in five years I've never been late on bills or rent. But I also have hobby money that I make and spend independently of that. If I want a kit, I have to sell and save up from things I already own. Not from my wages or my benefit. It allows me to feel normal.
But it can be hard to explain, when a friend says, "I thought you were poor, why did you buy [x]?" and X is a £15 model or a replacement aquarium valve. Answering to yourself, that's often harder.
Buttery Commissar wrote: To stay sane... I have to segregate my budget - I have rent and food money, and in five years I've never been late on bills or rent. But I also have hobby money that I make and spend independently of that. If I want a kit, I have to sell and save up from things I already own. Not from my wages or my benefit. It allows me to feel normal.
But it can be hard to explain, when a friend says, "I thought you were poor, why did you buy [x]?" and X is a £15 model or a replacement aquarium valve. Answering to yourself, that's often harder.
Tell them boredom is not a natural state for the human condition. Eventually, without interests and hobbies, or at the bare minimum, keeping your brain occupied, you either have a mental breakdown, or get dangerously depressed. You can keep a chicken penned up all day, and it would stay in its cage being fine until it dies from muscle atrophy. You can do the same for a dog, for a day, before you start seeing effects. Humans get bored really fast. Symptoms of boredom start kicking in from half an hour to several hours. Its one of the disadvantages of having heightened intelligence compared to other Earthen organisms. If you ask me though, the benefits are worth it.
I was born in Britain, but moved out to Zimbabwe when I was seven, as my father was Rhodesian, and wanted to go home. After five years there, we had to flee the country. There was one particular day when we heard that Mugabe's war vets were coming to shoot all the white people in our community. We literally packed our things, and fled the country. My dad stayed behind in a hotel for a few months to sort out the pets and raise whatever small funds he could for flogging our worldly goods, and then joined us.
When we got back to England, we were flat-arse broke refugees. My father's mother took us in after my mother's mother refused, and me and all my siblings crammed into a tiny room in Staines. M,y parents went through some serious marital strife at the time though, and our family hit some real financial issues.
My parents did the best they could to shield the children from the fact that they were having to count out every last penny from the dole money, and stretch it. My mum would desperately try and find us things to do that didn't involve money, like taking walks by the riverside to the kids playpark, going windowshopping, or to the library.
Depsite that though, you can only hide so much, and kids are surprisingly aware. I remember the arguments borderline poverty would cause, the tears my mother would try and hide in the evenings, the somewhat grim way they'd cheerily refuse to buy a 50p ice cream because the week's dole money wouldn't stretch.
I'm a bit older now, but as a self-funded PhD student, not much wealthier! My parents meanwhile, have scraped along in reasonable borderline poorness. They earn enough from fostering kids for the state to pay the bills and keep the lights on, but being poor still causes problems. My mother has troubles with her teeth falling out, and the NHS dentists only do horrible metal fillings. White enamel ones are for people who can afford them. So now she's paranoid to go out and see anyone or talk to them for fear of them glimpsing a mouthful of shiny metal. She actually talks in such a way now to try and hide her teeth.
Luckily, in turned out a few months ago that my father had a few thousand hidden away in a long since forgotten about pension pot from the 1970's. Even though he's not retirement age, Osborne's new pension rules means he can get it now. So that'll cover their extraction and replacement with the less obtrusive ones. That was a lucky fix though. I've spent many sleepless nights over the last year wishing I had some way of raising the income to pay for it myself, as seeing those you love in distress for lack of a few thousand pounds is horrid. Unfortunately, I break my back doing three jobs and holding down a PhD as it is, and I'm still broke and unable to help. I desperately look forward to the day though, where I can help my parents in situations like the above.
TL;DR You don't have to be starving in a gutter for poverty to affect you.
You can also save a lot of money on poultry by buying whole birds, which are usually between $1-2 a pound, and butchering them yourself. Buying cuts individually drives the prices way up. If you only want to eat white meat, buying a whole bird, cutting off the breasts and throwing the rest away is cheaper than buying breasts individually.
Yeah, that's not true. A small, whole chicken usually comes in at around 2.5 pounds. If we assume that chicken costs 1.5 USD per pound, then its total cost will be 3.75 USD. Chicken breast (whether boneless or bone-in) is usually about 3.5 USD per pound. If you are throwing away everything but the breast meat from our example whole chicken you are paying more in total and getting significantly less than a pound of breast meat, meaning your effective cost per pound is going to be higher than 3.5 USD per pound.
Do we really need to quibble of the exacting price of chicken (which will no doubt vary by location?). At the end of the day, I think it patently obvious that a $250 budget for feeding a family of 4 for 31 days (and expecting not to run into health issues sooner rather than later) is beyond absurd
Besides. Everyone knows Turkey is the superior white meat
LordofHats wrote: Do we really need to quibble of the exacting price of chicken (which will no doubt vary by location?). At the end of the day, I think it patently obvious that a $250 budget for feeding a family of 4 for 31 days (and expecting not to run into health issues sooner rather than later) is beyond absurd
Besides. Everyone knows Turkey is the superior white meat
hotsauceman1 wrote: Dont forget internet. That is pretty much a neccesity. Want to find a better Job? Go on monster or Craigslist. Ya gotta be near an email.
Facebook keeps telling me that's what the Public Library is for.
Yeah........No. Unless you make it to the Library every couple of hours. I have been applying to jobs non-stop, online, and they only contact me Via email
And feth you if you live in a rural area, cause lots of those don't have public libraries, and even when they do how are you going to get there without the 'luxury' of a car?
agnosto wrote: A better question would be to ask, why are there poor people?
Because in ANY society there are haves and have nots. Even if you remove all material possessions, currency, and types of wealth some people are left with more "human capital" in the form of their mental or physical ability.
Read Edmund Burke's commentary on the "leveling of society" if you'd like to ponder the social aspects of what a truly equalized mass society actually brings about.
If nothing else, I know quite a few poor people who are poor because they make bad choices. Heck, my roommate had a solid job that paid well over minimum wage with plenty of hours. Not enough to be rich, but enough that he should have been able to build up decent saving, put money towards college or a trade school or something, etc. Instead, he blows all his money on video games, oversized TV and speakers, a motorcycle, cosplay costumes, this, that, there's always something he's wasting money on. Without knowing every detail of his bank account, I can think of at least ~$4000 of unnecessary expenses over the last 6 months, and I'm certain there's more there. It's almost silly, how terrible he is with money. He's been working a few years, by now he should have plenty of savings to be able to look around for a better job. Instead, he has trouble making rent whenever life throws him a curveball.
agnosto wrote: A better question would be to ask, why are there poor people?
Because in ANY society there are haves and have nots. Even if you remove all material possessions, currency, and types of wealth some people are left with more "human capital" in the form of their mental or physical ability.
Read Edmund Burke's commentary on the "leveling of society" if you'd like to ponder the social aspects of what a truly equalized mass society actually brings about.
If nothing else, I know quite a few poor people who are poor because they make bad choices. Heck, my roommate had a solid job that paid well over minimum wage with plenty of hours. Not enough to be rich, but enough that he should have been able to build up decent saving, put money towards college or a trade school or something, etc. Instead, he blows all his money on video games, oversized TV and speakers, a motorcycle, cosplay costumes, this, that, there's always something he's wasting money on. Without knowing every detail of his bank account, I can think of at least ~$4000 of unnecessary expenses over the last 6 months, and I'm certain there's more there. It's almost silly, how terrible he is with money. He's been working a few years, by now he should have plenty of savings to be able to look around for a better job. Instead, he has trouble making rent whenever life throws him a curveball.
Well, yeah, that's part of it. People who come from generational poverty generally don't have experience with such concepts as long-term planning or possess budgeting skills. They generally live in the "now" and instant gratification, if they have the ability/resources to make it happen, takes precedent. All of this combined creates a cycle of debt that is unfortunately supported by society as a whole with predatory lending through such places as paycheck loan companies and organizations that give out "free" phones, weekly rental centers, etc. These people wind up paying 3x the MSRP or more on what most people consider to be fairly standard household items like sofas or beds because they lack credit to "put it on a card", the income to buy it outright or the training/experience to budget for it and save.
You can also save a lot of money on poultry by buying whole birds, which are usually between $1-2 a pound, and butchering them yourself. Buying cuts individually drives the prices way up. If you only want to eat white meat, buying a whole bird, cutting off the breasts and throwing the rest away is cheaper than buying breasts individually.
Yeah, that's not true. A small, whole chicken usually comes in at around 2.5 pounds. If we assume that chicken costs 1.5 USD per pound, then its total cost will be 3.75 USD. Chicken breast (whether boneless or bone-in) is usually about 3.5 USD per pound. If you are throwing away everything but the breast meat from our example whole chicken you are paying more in total and getting significantly less than a pound of breast meat, meaning your effective cost per pound is going to be higher than 3.5 USD per pound.
Wherever you are has some tiny chickens. Most chickens I see are in the 3.5-4 pound range. And breast meat is $4ish a pound minimum.
So yes, you actually do save money by butchering it yourself. Maybe your area has some weird dynamics to make it not true.
That is a problem I am facing. Until recently I ate out alot. like 3-4 times a week.
Now, not so much. Im hoping living in a place that is like a 30 minute walk from the nearest resturant or 30min bus ride to a cheap one, forces me to learn that it aint hard to actually cook.
Wherever you are has some tiny chickens. Most chickens I see are in the 3.5-4 pound range. And breast meat is $4ish a pound minimum.
My local supermarkets run chicken breast at around 4.99/lb minimum. The local butcher shop I go to runs it at 4.79/lb. The same thing is true of ground beef, steaks any pretty much every sort of animal musculature that is consumed by humans on a regular basis.
As for "what is poverty", based on where I'm at, you'd be dead in six months on the kind of numbers in the OP. Cost of Living is extremely high in WA state. Utilities here are every other month, but averaged out, it's probably about 400, and we're a fairly typical family of 4. Simply "not driving", or using public transport isn't really an option because the Transit company is notoriously never on schedule. Not to mention, there are almost no lines that connect, so if your home isn't on the same line, or doesn't meet with a line that does with your work, you're SOL. Library hours are very short, so if you don't have your own internet, that's also not practical for the kind of hours a "typical" working poor person has.
Of course, if these idiot kids think you can simply not spend money on clothes... when you have kids in the house. Well, frankly if I were the professor I'd fail them all for not thinking
Thats really the main problem with trying to set any poverty benchmark. It is entirely dependent on the specific areas, you can't have any one or even multiple levels. You have to have hundreds of poverty levels to even begin to cover the US.
This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.
This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.
While you can't define a set dollar amount for the whole country, I believe that you can create a sort of "laundry list" of items to include
@hotsauce, as a parent, I can tell you flat out that kids grow ridiculously fast. Even buying clothes "too big" for them before school, by the time the school year is out, the younger ones often can barely squeeze into them.
Wherever you are has some tiny chickens. Most chickens I see are in the 3.5-4 pound range. And breast meat is $4ish a pound minimum.
So yes, you actually do save money by butchering it yourself. Maybe your area has some weird dynamics to make it not true.
Your math still doesn't work out. At 1.5 USD per pound a 3.5 pound whole chicken will cost 5.25 USD, even if it yields a pound of breast meat (and it probably won't) it is still cheaper to pay 4 USD for a pound of breast meat if that is all you want. Hell, it would still be cheaper to pay 5 USD for a pound of breast meat.
You can also save a lot of money on poultry by buying whole birds, which are usually between $1-2 a pound, and butchering them yourself. Buying cuts individually drives the prices way up. If you only want to eat white meat, buying a whole bird, cutting off the breasts and throwing the rest away is cheaper than buying breasts individually.
Yeah, that's not true. A small, whole chicken usually comes in at around 2.5 pounds. If we assume that chicken costs 1.5 USD per pound, then its total cost will be 3.75 USD. Chicken breast (whether boneless or bone-in) is usually about 3.5 USD per pound. If you are throwing away everything but the breast meat from our example whole chicken you are paying more in total and getting significantly less than a pound of breast meat, meaning your effective cost per pound is going to be higher than 3.5 USD per pound.
Wherever you are has some tiny chickens. Most chickens I see are in the 3.5-4 pound range. And breast meat is $4ish a pound minimum.
So yes, you actually do save money by butchering it yourself. Maybe your area has some weird dynamics to make it not true.
2.5lbs chickens are normal and are a standard size across the US, and may be called Broilers, Fryers or "Broiler/Fryers". 3.5-4lb chickens are Roasters. Their names denote their intended usages and both are normal mass production products to be found anywhere:
LordofHats wrote: At the end of the day, I think it patently obvious that a $250 budget for feeding a family of 4 for 31 days (and expecting not to run into health issues sooner rather than later) is beyond absurd
Oh, most assuredly. And God help you if one of those people earns a living doing something physically demanding. Malnutrition is a bad thing under the best of circumstances, but add in the load of, say, a construction worker and you're basically just asking for work related injuries.
This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.
While you can't define a set dollar amount for the whole country, I believe that you can create a sort of "laundry list" of items to include
@hotsauce, as a parent, I can tell you flat out that kids grow ridiculously fast. Even buying clothes "too big" for them before school, by the time the school year is out, the younger ones often can barely squeeze into them.
Oh Agree. I honestly believe that they where not saying you could go without clothe, I be they where thinking things like "You dont need to go clothes shopping anymore, you can just wear the ones you have.
Wherever you are has some tiny chickens. Most chickens I see are in the 3.5-4 pound range. And breast meat is $4ish a pound minimum.
So yes, you actually do save money by butchering it yourself. Maybe your area has some weird dynamics to make it not true.
Your math still doesn't work out. At 1.5 USD per pound a 3.5 pound whole chicken will cost 5.25 USD, even if it yields a pound of breast meat (and it probably won't) it is still cheaper to pay 4 USD for a pound of breast meat if that is all you want. Hell, it would still be cheaper to pay 5 USD for a pound of breast meat.
Ok, I was exaggerating a little. Its still way cheaper to buy a whole bird and butcher it for its parts than buy the parts individually. You'll stretch your $ way farther was my main point.
Wherever you are has some tiny chickens. Most chickens I see are in the 3.5-4 pound range. And breast meat is $4ish a pound minimum.
So yes, you actually do save money by butchering it yourself. Maybe your area has some weird dynamics to make it not true.
Your math still doesn't work out. At 1.5 USD per pound a 3.5 pound whole chicken will cost 5.25 USD, even if it yields a pound of breast meat (and it probably won't) it is still cheaper to pay 4 USD for a pound of breast meat if that is all you want. Hell, it would still be cheaper to pay 5 USD for a pound of breast meat.
Ok, I was exaggerating a little. Its still way cheaper to buy a whole bird and butcher it for its parts than buy the parts individually. You'll stretch your $ way farther was my main point.
This is actually 100% untrue. Because of the high cost of breast meat, the value of breast meat is included in the cost of whole birds. Dark Meat, particularly thighs has a lower price per pound than whole birds in most markets. This is because even including the labor to cut off the thighs, they're still the lowest value part of the bird. The wings, breasts and to lesser extent drumsticks are worth more than the cost the store puts into butchering the birds. The cheapest chicken to be had is bone-in, skin-on thighs.
Thighs are only so cheap because they're viewed almost as a byproduct. You saying the value of the breast is included in the whole bird is a gross oversimplification. Breast meat has such a high price because its so labor intensive to separate, and only done because customers want it and are willing to pay that high price. Its actually high enough to where breasts in the US are removed from the bird by hand, one of the few areas where automation is less efficient than manual labor(because machines miss enough breast meat to make them less profitable than human labor which can remove more meat).
This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.
While you can't define a set dollar amount for the whole country, I believe that you can create a sort of "laundry list" of items to include
@hotsauce, as a parent, I can tell you flat out that kids grow ridiculously fast. Even buying clothes "too big" for them before school, by the time the school year is out, the younger ones often can barely squeeze into them.
You'll find that the Census Bureau does a decent job of identify both "poverty" and levels of poverty. Every year, data collected is compiled into the SAIPE report (Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates); they even consider multiple definitions of poverty when compiling the report. The US Dept of Education uses this data to help determine how much federal education funding school districts around the country (of a certain size or bigger) are eligible to receive.
Oh Agree. I honestly believe that they where not saying you could go without clothe, I be they where thinking things like "You dont need to go clothes shopping anymore, you can just wear the ones you have.
What I'm saying though, is that line of reasoning simply does not work with children. Children do this pesky thing called growing and they very quickly attain a size where you pretty much are forced to buy them new clothes. Sure, the adults in the household will be wearing clothing till it wears out, but until the kids reach "adult size" they are going to wear out and outgrow clothing. This necessitates replacement.
If you are the OPs "family of 4" you could save a bit of scratch, if your kids are the same sex/gender, OR you buy clothing that is decidedly neutral and pass old clothing on to the younger sibling.
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: One thing about students is that they tend to have seriously degenerate lifestyles. Everything about them is pathological. Drug use, loud partying, lack of proper nutrition, lack of proper sleep, nestling together like rats.
They believe that everyone should wallow in pathology like them.
Not that you're one to generalise or anything.
I said, tend to do, not all do. Maybe it's different where you live, but here since the start of high school, drug use is rampant. Almost all students and teachers engage in heavy drinking during school trips (like in 95%). Which is why I stopped going on them and always protest if they try to put mandatory stuff like exams on school trips.
They plan drinking before trips and then come from trips talking about their excesses and how they drank with their professors. Socialising also tends to be drug-centred, sometimes with alcohol, sometimes with illegal drugs. The default mode of meeting is meeting with alcohol.
Same thing continues on emigration, with people nestling, many people in one room and taking drugs after work. I recently talked with a friend who returned from UK and he talked about how everyone where he lived and worked were almost all the time on drugs.
Other people talked about constant drinking.
Grey Templar wrote: Thats really the main problem with trying to set any poverty benchmark. It is entirely dependent on the specific areas, you can't have any one or even multiple levels. You have to have hundreds of poverty levels to even begin to cover the US.
This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.
Not to mention that different people have different nutritional needs. I'm 1,94m tall and my caloric requirements are 3400kcal for fairly sedentary lifestyle (14 hours sitting, 2 hours of slow walk and 8 hours of sleep). Average recommendation for men is 2,000 to 2,600kcal a day for such lifestyle. So, my food expenses are going to be much higher than for average person, basing on caloric requirements alone.
It's not nonsense. Drinking and illegal drug use is a norm among teens and alcohol causes brain damage in developing brains. Most of people are nothing to speak of intellectually or morally as kids. Adding drugs only makes things worse when they grow up.
LordofHats wrote: At the end of the day, I think it patently obvious that a $250 budget for feeding a family of 4 for 31 days (and expecting not to run into health issues sooner rather than later) is beyond absurd
Oh, most assuredly. And God help you if one of those people earns a living doing something physically demanding. Malnutrition is a bad thing under the best of circumstances, but add in the load of, say, a construction worker and you're basically just asking for work related injuries.
Exactly. That's something that powers that be and their servants don't want to understand or pretend to not understand.
agnosto wrote: Well, yeah, that's part of it. People who come from generational poverty generally don't have experience with such concepts as long-term planning or possess budgeting skills. They generally live in the "now" and instant gratification, if they have the ability/resources to make it happen, takes precedent. All of this combined creates a cycle of debt that is unfortunately supported by society as a whole with predatory lending through such places as paycheck loan companies and organizations that give out "free" phones, weekly rental centers, etc. These people wind up paying 3x the MSRP or more on what most people consider to be fairly standard household items like sofas or beds because they lack credit to "put it on a card", the income to buy it outright or the training/experience to budget for it and save.
Yeah, sadly, there's plenty of industries that are preying on people from poor backgrounds and their ignorance. I think that it should be taught about at school (budgeting, the tricks that these industries use to get people's money, etc.).
And it's bad for all of us because many people who otherwise would end up in middle class and our potential customers end up as poor people in endless debt.
I come from very poor background (my mother used to be an architect and the whole architecture market in Poland collapsed during the crisis of 90s. She spent 4 years unemployed until she got a unemployment office funded real estate appraisal course and got a cheap credit for starting a company).
When my mother's company prospered we'd live month to month despite that she earned way above median wage.
When market situation worsened (real estate appraiser trade union leadership was making money on damaging the market - first trying to monopolize market using contacts within local governments, then training masses of real estate appraisers, now that it's harder to get exclusive contracts due to anti-corruption laws, they basically take money for writing opinions that real estate appraisals are badly made), we got stuck with debts and no savings.
Buttery Commissar wrote: It possibly says something that both posts are from the UK. Not that we have it particularly worse than any other country, but that we as a culture just feel so ground down by this government that hands out a little benefit with one hand and points at us with the other. There is little to feel but tired and resigned to it rather than ashamed.
There is a massive social stigma about being on benefits here. Partly driven by politics, partly driven by press. It is legal to refuse to rent to people who're recieving that aid. Most housing ads you will see say "No DHS" which is an outdated term to basically say "no low income", as DHS is/was a low income supplement from the council.
There's a now a food-bank donation bin in every major supermarket in the country now. And ironically the town halls of most towns. Some papers even briefly tried to shame those who used the banks. That they include things like sweet yoghurt and cake if it's been gifted. Thankfully that blew up rather spectacularly in the press's faces, and raised funds and awareness for the banks.
Rainy fascism island is a really sad and scary place.
Though food banks are generally a pretty horrible idea when compared to giving people cash. Most of food in them seem to be heavily processed stuff that is both less nutritious and more expensive than fresh food. I'd rather give money to beggars than donate canned food to food bank.
Buttery Commissar wrote: That day I mentioned was an extreme example, but you do find yourself having to justify nearly everything to yourself and to others. I've had friends who've kindly spotted me lunch ask why I don't give up my book collection from college. I own artwork personally gifted to me by a few industry names, "...surely you could get something for that?"
Like the small existence I do have can be broken down into things other people might buy, and things I deserve to keep. I can't get mad because it comes from a sincere place of trying to help.
The idea of having to pawn off ones items to be considered legitimately poor encourages following the trend of spending money on alcohol, drugs and cigarettes as a form of compensation for enduring reality of living in the world polluted by the other and boredom of work and school.
If you spent money on vice, it's okay, you're legitimately poor! If you buy long-lasting stuff instead, you get punished for it.
Buttery Commissar wrote: To stay sane... I have to segregate my budget - I have rent and food money, and in five years I've never been late on bills or rent. But I also have hobby money that I make and spend independently of that. If I want a kit, I have to sell and save up from things I already own. Not from my wages or my benefit. It allows me to feel normal.
But it can be hard to explain, when a friend says, "I thought you were poor, why did you buy [x]?" and X is a £15 model or a replacement aquarium valve. Answering to yourself, that's often harder.
Tell them that they are right and from now on you're going to buy drugs like normal people instead of buying hobby items.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: @hotsauce, as a parent, I can tell you flat out that kids grow ridiculously fast. Even buying clothes "too big" for them before school, by the time the school year is out, the younger ones often can barely squeeze into them.
Isn't that the fething truth!
Or they could be like my kids: two and a half years apart but are the same size, meaning there are no more "hand me downs."
LordofHats wrote: At the end of the day, I think it patently obvious that a $250 budget for feeding a family of 4 for 31 days (and expecting not to run into health issues sooner rather than later) is beyond absurd
Oh, most assuredly. And God help you if one of those people earns a living doing something physically demanding. Malnutrition is a bad thing under the best of circumstances, but add in the load of, say, a construction worker and you're basically just asking for work related injuries.
That's assuming our hypothetical construction worker manages to walk 20 miles to the work sight without breaking his ankle on the side of the road. Just walking along, and SNAP! Too bad cars are a luxury amiright?
LordofHats wrote: At the end of the day, I think it patently obvious that a $250 budget for feeding a family of 4 for 31 days (and expecting not to run into health issues sooner rather than later) is beyond absurd
Oh, most assuredly. And God help you if one of those people earns a living doing something physically demanding. Malnutrition is a bad thing under the best of circumstances, but add in the load of, say, a construction worker and you're basically just asking for work related injuries.
Construction jobs usually pay pretty well though, and safety regulations out the wazoo.
This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.
While you can't define a set dollar amount for the whole country, I believe that you can create a sort of "laundry list" of items to include
@hotsauce, as a parent, I can tell you flat out that kids grow ridiculously fast. Even buying clothes "too big" for them before school, by the time the school year is out, the younger ones often can barely squeeze into them.
Oh Agree. I honestly believe that they where not saying you could go without clothe, I be they where thinking things like "You dont need to go clothes shopping anymore, you can just wear the ones you have.
I would suspect as well, that being kids or young adults, they do not realise some of the "surprise" costs that an adult or parent would understand.
Clothes that you already own are not by any means "free". If you want your child to have clean clothes, or God forbid, ironed uniforms, that costs. And so does keeping the house clean with anything much more than bleach. You can't just stop cleaning your clothes, people notice.
Haircuts for those kids so that they can be presentable in school. Supplies like text books and gym clothes... Trips, etc.
I was always peripherally aware that my education was not "free" when near weekly, I was taking an envelope of coins or a cheque into class.
Peter Wiggin wrote: At any rate, the federal poverty level is something like $28,000 (or maybe $32k?) per year for a family of 4 and TRUST ME....that threshold is set way way too low.
The actual, published US Federal poverty level is $24,000 for a family of 4.
Peter Wiggin wrote: At any rate, the federal poverty level is something like $28,000 (or maybe $32k?) per year for a family of 4 and TRUST ME....that threshold is set way way too low.
The actual, published US Federal poverty level is $24,000 for a family of 4.
The feds don't use a universal system for poverty measurement as each federal agency, and the programs that it is responsible for, have their own rules. Look at the link that I provided earlier and you'll get a better, crosscutting measurement of poverty but even then it's going to be region, state and even county specific.
So when HHS talks about poverty and when ED talk about poverty, they're not speaking the same language; to complicate matters, ED lets districts and states choose their own form of poverty measurement.
reading this thread reminds me why i don't have any kids, and why i live in Mexico...
my monthly total cost of living is between $500 and $600usd, depending on how much i splurged on cashews and pistachios that month...
i live two blocks from the beach in Mazatlan, and live well for $7,000usd a year, but i come home to Hermosa Beach and people are not even blinking at a $10 million dollar price tag for a house on the beach...
the funny thing is, i don't even feel poor...
i'm happy with warmer water, my two block walk to the beach, and a lifestyle of more surfing and less working...
jah-joshua wrote: reading this thread reminds me why i don't have any kids, and why i live in Mexico...
my monthly total cost of living is between $500 and $600usd, depending on how much i splurged on cashews and pistachios that month...
i live two blocks from the beach in Mazatlan, and live well for $7,000usd a year, but i come home to Hermosa Beach and people are not even blinking at a $10 million dollar price tag for a house on the beach...
the funny thing is, i don't even feel poor...
i'm happy with warmer water, my two block walk to the beach, and a lifestyle of more surfing and less working...
cheers
jah
"Poor" is relative and dependent upon a number of factors including cost of living and average salary for the area. I used to spend my summers in Thailand and would spend about $1,000 for 2 months of living like a king, obviously I can't do that in my home state and certainly not in Japan where I lived at the time.
Something I provide to Administrators and Teachers to give them an idea of the kinds of decisions that the parents of underprivileged children have to make:
agnosto wrote: Something I provide to Administrators and Teachers to give them an idea of the kinds of decisions that the parents of underprivileged children have to make:
agnosto wrote: Something I provide to Administrators and Teachers to give them an idea of the kinds of decisions that the parents of underprivileged children have to make:
Couldn't complete it- I succumbed to anxiety at around day 12.
There are indeed some disingenuous choices, I.E. either pay $30 for a baby-sitter or don't go (I don't have siblings/cousins/friends in this hypothetical who might be willing to do it for free?). However on the whole it's a pretty stark and reasonable snap-shot of how much it sucks to be poor, and how out of touch with reality people who champion "If you're poor it's you're fault!" are.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not a complete simulation of modern American consumer life.
However it's shocking how much health insurance costs in the USA.
Health insurance is insanely expensive because it's most often laid on the backs of everyone - and it's a tricky one. What makes medical services so expensive are long-term patients. Cancer etc. The cost for these individuals keep exploding for years and everyone has to carry them. In Germany, most people pay 15.5% of their pre-taxes salary for health insurance. You must have a health insurance in Germany. "Almost" everyone pays 15.5% because some people have the option to get a private health insurance that offers much, much, much better services at lower cost. Sounds crazy, but that's because you pay for you and yourself only. The healthier you are, the less you pay and vice versa. Plus in order to qualify for a private health insurance, you have to either have a very high monthly income (~55.000€ before taxes, German average is ~40.000€ pre taxes). It's cheaper because you don't have to pay for others.
Now...that's the tricky part for all non-privileged people. You cannot lower the fees as cost keep rising by an immense amount. Raising wages? Inflation. Force long-term ill people to pay more? You'd be pressing them into povery or, generally, payment problems...morals of "You're sick, bad luck, pay more!" left aside.
agnosto wrote: Something I provide to Administrators and Teachers to give them an idea of the kinds of decisions that the parents of underprivileged children have to make:
I think there are some disingenuous choices in there. (My only shoe options are $100 brand name and $10 thrift store, etc.)
Interesting nonetheless.
Very true. I think it's primary utility is in presenting some of the decisions, and their potential repercussions, that people in poverty are often forced to make.
Anecdotal, we saw around a 45% increase in our overall premiums.
What's funny is, my state publicly stated they had a decrease in premiums "across the board".... What they were actually saying though, was that the overall premiums for people who opted for a "silver plan" went "down" compared to equivalent, pre-ACA insurance. Bronze and Gold plans were all up across the state, and had the highest proportion of enrollment.
Huh, Me and my mothers Insurance droped by nearly 100$. while our copay dropped like 25 i think.
and the entire UC system got better insurance.
In my experiance ACA helped more people then it hurt.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Huh, Me and my mothers Insurance droped by nearly 100$. while our copay dropped like 25 i think.
and the entire UC system got better insurance.
In my experiance ACA helped more people then it hurt.
I have trouble believing that unless you are on an ACA plan.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I am, I used to not because it was so expensive. But my mom was on a private one. SO yes, my family is doing BETTER with the ACA
Congrats. Many people are not. Individual plans and small group plans have risen in all but 6 states. Something around 15 states have see a 30% or more increase. And that's on premiums.
Out of pocket caps have increased exponentially as well, in many instances.
But you got yours. So all is right.
Th ACA can go fall into the Pacific Ocean and take much of California with it.
Personally, I can't wait until we start applying the principles of the ACA to life and car insurance. Get rid of all that horrible discrimination.
But now more people(Like my broke family) can afford it. Heck, my sisters mom finally got life saving medicine from it.
But nope, the rich and those well off are paying a bit more, so we better stop it.
Oh, and good stuff showing your hatred for californians there.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But now more people(Like my broke family) can afford it. Heck, my sisters mom finally got life saving medicine from it.
But nope, the rich and those well off are paying a bit more, so we better stop it.
Oh, and good stuff showing your hatred for californians there.
Rich and well off? Get over that, and quickly. The largest population affected by the price increases are the very middle class.
I keep thinking you'll actually learn something useful one of these years you're at university. I continue to be disappointed.
Like I said, I look forward to applying the principles of the ACA to life and car insurance to stop all the egregious and unfair discrimination going on in those industries, risk and actuary tables be damned.
Um, Car insurance is already required if you get a car.
And Middle Class? So? The middle class is what I would describe as "Well Off" considering they can shoulder it.
And I am learning stuff in University, like how the poor and working class are constantly gakked upon by those on top. One of these days, I hope you realize that, but I continue to be disappointed.
Then, in most circles, those would likely be called the working class, or likely, lower-middle class.
Middle Class typically is of the higher end of Income, right below Upper class.
Upper-class
Middle-class
Working-class
Poverty-class
Underclass
hotsauceman1 wrote: Um, Car insurance is already required if you get a car.
And Middle Class? So? The middle class is what I would describe as "Well Off" considering they can shoulder it.
And I am learning stuff in University, like how the poor and working class are constantly gakked upon by those on top. One of these days, I hope you realize that, but I continue to be disappointed.
The middle class is well off? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
The middle class is the class, especially now, saddled with the most student debt because they don't qualify for the assistance that the lower classes do.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Um, Car insurance is already required if you get a car.
And Middle Class? So? The middle class is what I would describe as "Well Off" considering they can shoulder it.
And I am learning stuff in University, like how the poor and working class are constantly gakked upon by those on top. One of these days, I hope you realize that, but I continue to be disappointed.
The middle class is well off? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
The middle class is the class, especially now, saddled with the most student debt because they don't qualify for the assistance that the lower classes do.
Middle class is well off. FFS.
Yup. Too poor to straight up afford college, but not poor enough to qualify for financial aid.
My college tuition would effectively get cut in half if my dad made $20,000 less a year.
Grey Templar wrote: Working Class = Middle Class. its not a 4th class wedged between Middle and Lower.
Yes there very much is. Working Class does not equal Middle. Middle class tends to be proffesionals, Tech Worker, things of that Ilk. Working tend to be construction, Trade, Teaching, and other things.
Seriously, go take a basic Sociology class, they will explain why Middle Class is not what people think it is.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Then, in most circles, those would likely be called the working class, or likely, lower-middle class.
Middle Class typically is of the higher end of Income, right below Upper class.
Upper-class
Middle-class
Working-class
Poverty-class
Underclass
Grey Templar wrote: Working Class = Middle Class. its not a 4th class wedged between Middle and Lower.
Yes there very much is. Working Class does not equal Middle. Middle class tends to be proffesionals, Tech Worker, things of that Ilk. Working tend to be construction, Trade, Teaching, and other things.
Seriously, go take a basic Sociology class, they will explain why Middle Class is not what people think it is.
You don't know what the feth you're talking about.
Grey Templar wrote: Working Class = Middle Class. its not a 4th class wedged between Middle and Lower.
Yes there very much is. Working Class does not equal Middle. Middle class tends to be proffesionals, Tech Worker, things of that Ilk. Working tend to be construction, Trade, Teaching, and other things.
Seriously, go take a basic Sociology class, they will explain why Middle Class is not what people think it is.
You could divide the Upper, Middle, and Lower classes into infinite brackets if you wanted to.
Arbitrarily drawing a line between people who do skilled manual labor and those who have more technical positions is silly. Especially when they're making similar amounts of money and living in roughly identical living situations.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Then, in most circles, those would likely be called the working class, or likely, lower-middle class.
Middle Class typically is of the higher end of Income, right below Upper class.
Upper-class
Middle-class
Working-class
Poverty-class
Underclass
Grey Templar wrote: Working Class = Middle Class. its not a 4th class wedged between Middle and Lower.
Yes there very much is. Working Class does not equal Middle. Middle class tends to be proffesionals, Tech Worker, things of that Ilk. Working tend to be construction, Trade, Teaching, and other things.
Seriously, go take a basic Sociology class, they will explain why Middle Class is not what people think it is.
You don't know what the feth you're talking about.
Im starting to think you dont. There is an under-class, they are called homeless and Refugees.
Homeless and Refugees are the bottom rung of the Lower Class, possibly. Assuming they don't have job skills which would move them into another class if they were to find employment, like many refugees do.
Ok, then, rather then being snide, explain. I told you that the law states that if you have a car, you must have insurance.
The elimination of risk tables and "pre-existing conditions." The inequality between how much men pay for life and car insurance vs. women (because you'll recall our current POTUs making such a big stink about women paying more for health care).
But it's all good. You should pay the same amount for insurance as the redneck with 4 DUIs on his record.
Yes, but that do occupy a class of people within society.
Like I said. It tends to go in most social-science circles
Upper
Middle
Working
Lower(I forgot the term previously)
Under
But you will just dismiss this because it comes from social sciences and therefor isnt valid.
So, because someone makes a life choice(Like Smoking, or Running for long periods of time) they have to pay more? Cause remember Medical science cant predict everything or how much medical care you need.
But good for another insult. Keep insulting my intelligence, that will indear me to you.
One huge problem (at least here in the USA) is how many poor people are poor because they are too lazy to go out and get a damn job. They just sit on their asses and eat, sleep, drink (often alcoholic beverages, don't ask me how they afford them), watch TV, play video games, and make more of themselves. And the government just enables them to do so through benefits programs like food stamps and welfare. Makes me wonder how much better our economy would be if these people would just get a job. Doesn't have to be a hard job, maybe just flipping burgers or digging ditches or something, but at least they would be productive. And I do realize that there are people with disabilities who can't work, so I'm not complaining about them. The categorically lazy ones are the ones I have a problem with. The government just provides a gravy train for them while I slave away to keep my rent paid and my stomach full. Some of these people even have more kids on purpose just to get more benefits. Even worse, some of these people are foreign nationals, who have no business being here if they won't at least earn their keep. I suspect that some of them come over here from their third-world homes just to live off our benefits. People used to come to America for freedom, now they come here for free stuff. I have nothing against foreigners (indeed, some of my friends and coworkers are from other nations), but lazy people of all types are just dragging this country down. I am truly sorry if this sounds like hate speech, but I am sick and tired of seeing this, and I know I'm not the only one. And I bet it is not just a problem in America, but a lot of countries with similar benefit programs. I guess it's just human nature. /rant
P.S. I have no problem with people who have jobs getting benefits if they need a little extra help. It is hard to earn a living in this economy, especially for families with more than 2 kids.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, because someone makes a life choice(Like Smoking, or Running for long periods of time) they have to pay more? Cause remember Medical science cant predict everything or how much medical care you need.
But good for another insult. Keep insulting my intelligence, that will indear me to you.
I can only assume you mean endear. But what do I know.
And yes. You should be held responsible for your life choices. Are you fething kidding me?
ZergSmasher wrote: One huge problem (at least here in the USA) is how many poor people are poor because they are too lazy to go out and get a damn job. They just sit on their asses and eat, sleep, drink (often alcoholic beverages, don't ask me how they afford them), watch TV, play video games, and make more of themselves. And the government just enables them to do so through benefits programs like food stamps and welfare. Makes me wonder how much better our economy would be if these people would just get a job. Doesn't have to be a hard job, maybe just flipping burgers or digging ditches or something, but at least they would be productive. And I do realize that there are people with disabilities who can't work, so I'm not complaining about them. The categorically lazy ones are the ones I have a problem with. The government just provides a gravy train for them while I slave away to keep my rent paid and my stomach full. Some of these people even have more kids on purpose just to get more benefits. Even worse, some of these people are foreign nationals, who have no business being here if they won't at least earn their keep. I suspect that some of them come over here from their third-world homes just to live off our benefits. People used to come to America for freedom, now they come here for free stuff. I have nothing against foreigners (indeed, some of my friends and coworkers are from other nations), but lazy people of all types are just dragging this country down. I am truly sorry if this sounds like hate speech, but I am sick and tired of seeing this, and I know I'm not the only one. And I bet it is not just a problem in America, but a lot of countries with similar benefit programs. I guess it's just human nature. /rant
P.S. I have no problem with people who have jobs getting benefits if they need a little extra help. It is hard to earn a living in this economy, especially for families with more than 2 kids.
Please tell me you are joking? You do realize the wel-fare queen is a myth right?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Yes, but that do occupy a class of people within society.
Like I said. It tends to go in most social-science circles
Upper
Middle
Working
Lower(I forgot the term previously)
Under
But you will just dismiss this because it comes from social sciences and therefor isnt valid.
No, I dismiss it because it doesn't make sense.
Working is just a synonym for Middle Class. At best, it describes a subsection of the middle class, but its not its own distinct class. Working class people get paid similar wages and have a similar standard of living to the Middle Class. Therefore they are Middle Class.
Saying they are distinct is silly because Class is based on wage and standard of living, not type of employment.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, because someone makes a life choice(Like Smoking, or Running for long periods of time) they have to pay more? Cause remember Medical science cant predict everything or how much medical care you need.
But good for another insult. Keep insulting my intelligence, that will indear me to you.
I can only assume you mean endear. But what do I know.
And yes. You should be held responsible for your life choices. Are you fething kidding me?
So, a Life choice =/= denied the right to medicine or stuff that can save your life?
Cause let me tell you this, alot of the athletes I know, go to the doctor way more then me, and arguably "Big" person. Should they pay more?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Yes, but that do occupy a class of people within society.
Like I said. It tends to go in most social-science circles
Upper
Middle
Working
Lower(I forgot the term previously)
Under
But you will just dismiss this because it comes from social sciences and therefor isnt valid.
No, I dismiss it because it doesn't make sense.
Working is just a synonym for Middle Class. At best, it describes a subsection of the middle class, but its not its own distinct class. Working class people get paid similar wages and have a similar standard of living to the Middle Class. Therefore they are Middle Class.
Saying they are distinct is silly because Class is based on wage and standard of living, not type of employment.
Well I say no. alot of people, specifically social sciences, are moving away from that understanding.
cincydooley wrote: If you're an obese smoker you're damn right you should pay more than these athletes you're claiming go to the Doc more than you.
My Athlete friends went to the docter way often then me. It was always runners knee, and injury from working out, or something. Heck, my Roommate The hulk went every week and needed medicine for his damaged knees from running to much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah. If you are in a dangerous line of work or are an athlete at risk for certain injuries you should pay more. You are a higher risk.
So, you should pay more for medical care, because your are in a dangerous line of work?
Guess who is often in the dangerous line of work? The Working Class, those who make less.
cincydooley wrote: If you're an obese smoker you're damn right you should pay more than these athletes you're claiming go to the Doc more than you.
My Athlete friends went to the docter way often then me. It was always runners knee, and injury from working out, or something. Heck, my Roommate The hulk went every week and needed medicine for his damaged knees from running to much.
Which are all small and comparatively inexpensive issues when compared to heart disease, diabetes, or cancer.
There's a reason many insurance providers subsidize gym membership costs these days. Fit and healthy people are cheaper to take care of than obese slobs that don't take care of themselves.
cincydooley wrote: If you're an obese smoker you're damn right you should pay more than these athletes you're claiming go to the Doc more than you.
My Athlete friends went to the docter way often then me. It was always runners knee, and injury from working out, or something. Heck, my Roommate The hulk went every week and needed medicine for his damaged knees from running to much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah. If you are in a dangerous line of work or are an athlete at risk for certain injuries you should pay more. You are a higher risk.
So, you should pay more for medical care, because your are in a dangerous line of work?
Guess who is often in the dangerous line of work? The Working Class, those who make less.
My friend is a Tower. He could very well get hit by a Car any moment
He gets paid like IDK, 50,000 a year.
Not much TBH.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, so the freedom to make a choice, something our country if founded on, means you are supposed to pay MORE then other people.
Thats not an example of a particularly dangerous job. A better example would be something like a power line inspector, a construction worker, or a crane operator.
Grey Templar wrote: Thats really the main problem with trying to set any poverty benchmark. It is entirely dependent on the specific areas, you can't have any one or even multiple levels. You have to have hundreds of poverty levels to even begin to cover the US.
This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.
Where do you get this stuff?
There are cost of living indices for every state, and within each of those you have rural and major city indices.
Grey Templar wrote: Thats really the main problem with trying to set any poverty benchmark. It is entirely dependent on the specific areas, you can't have any one or even multiple levels. You have to have hundreds of poverty levels to even begin to cover the US.
This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.
Where do you get this stuff?
There are cost of living indices for every state, and within each of those you have rural and major city indices.
Which is a large reason why a national minimum wage makes zero sense.
1.... I should point out, the "Middle class" is very much defined in economic terms, and usually this wage is from 40-250k per year. This is also pretty synonymous with the term Working Class, because people earn their money through their wages and work, rather than dividends and stock options.
2. Cincey is quite right... the cost for most people who ALREADY had insurance pre-ACA has gone up.
3. Healthy people are cheaper to insure than unhealthy. Trust me, a prescription for Motrin, a knee brace or whatever for "runner's knee" is a whole helluva lot cheaper to insure than the drugs used to treat lung cancer, or to pay for bypass surgery....
Those last two are quite often the result of living an unhealthy lifestyle. And it really should be more expensive for people who have made those choices. However, I think there's a limit to how expensive that "expensive" should be, and it has to do with the associate risk pool that insurance companies have.
Grey Templar wrote: Thats really the main problem with trying to set any poverty benchmark. It is entirely dependent on the specific areas, you can't have any one or even multiple levels. You have to have hundreds of poverty levels to even begin to cover the US.
This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.
Where do you get this stuff?
There are cost of living indices for every state, and within each of those you have rural and major city indices.
Yes, there are cost of living indices for every little area.
You'd also have to legislate a living wage for each of these individual areas, it would have to fluctuate on a yearly basis because this kind of thing is very volatile, and you'd have to consider each individual employee's living situation and dependents. Every individual person would basically have his own living wage.
This would be a nightmare to legislate and keep track of.
Not to mention there's very little concurrence on what, exactly, this mythical living wage should allow one to buy or how many people it should support.
Grey Templar wrote: Thats really the main problem with trying to set any poverty benchmark. It is entirely dependent on the specific areas, you can't have any one or even multiple levels. You have to have hundreds of poverty levels to even begin to cover the US.
This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.
Where do you get this stuff?
There are cost of living indices for every state, and within each of those you have rural and major city indices.
Yes, there are cost of living indices for every little area.
You'd also have to legislate a living wage for each of these individual areas, it would have to fluctuate on a yearly basis because this kind of thing is very volatile, and you'd have to consider each individual employee's living situation and dependents. Every individual person would basically have his own living wage.
This would be a nightmare to legislate and keep track of.
This sort of information is already kept and used in all sorts of things. Once you have the computer systems and databases set up to track & analyze data, it's not all that hard to manage at all, especially if you're not trying to micromanage it on a scale down past the zip code level. The nightmare is designing the formulas and computer systems in the first place, but again, that data is largely already in existing systems.
Grey Templar wrote: Thighs are only so cheap because they're viewed almost as a byproduct. You saying the value of the breast is included in the whole bird is a gross oversimplification.
It isn't an oversimplification. It's the fething reality of the situation. If you want to eat cheaper, then buying the less valuable parts of the chicken is better, and your idea of buying the whole chook is wrong (let alone your idea about buying whole chooks and then only keeping the breast meat...)
Which brings me back to my earlier point - people need to stop thinking they know how poor people should spend their money. Unless you live in that situation, you're probably oblivious to a whole bunch of stuff. And even if you do live in that situation, the circumstances of poverty change so much from person to person, city to city that advice needs to be very limited.
Saying they are distinct is silly because Class is based on wage and standard of living, not type of employment.
Class is defined by factors which extend beyond the economic, that's why we call it a socioeconomic concept, and type of employment is one of the biggest because the sort of work that you do has a huge impact on the sort of people you regularly interact with.
Can I use the "You don't know what its like" argument next time someone from Europe tries to tell Americans how we should run our constitutional rights and laws?
Another aspect of poverty is that quite often it's simply more expensive to be poor in many respects.
Have car troubles? Well, you don't have the money to afford a complete overhaul, so you patch the one critical system for half the price, but you have to do that three or four time because you never have the money for the complete overhaul before it gives out again. Same thing with many medical issues (can't afford the major surgery for $20k so I have to keep going to the ER to manage the symptoms twelve or fifteen times at $3.5k a pop).
Yes, but its not like its some skill only poor people practice. its something every adult needs to be functional, and it applies no matter your income level.
Vaktathi wrote: Another aspect of poverty is that quite often it's simply more expensive to be poor in many respects.
Have car troubles? Well, you don't have the money to afford a complete overhaul, so you patch the one critical system for half the price, but you have to do that three or four time because you never have the money for the complete overhaul before it gives out again. Same thing with many medical issues (can't afford the major surgery for $20k so I have to keep going to the ER to manage the symptoms twelve or fifteen times at $3.5k a pop).
Heck, there are places that thrive on that. For example, Payday loan places.
Or, arguably, Laundry mats, paying sometimes 6$ a week for cleaning clothes. After a few years, you could have bought a machine for that much.
But, you dont have the money THEN so you cant.
Being poor is, Ironically expensive
Vaktathi wrote: Another aspect of poverty is that quite often it's simply more expensive to be poor in many respects.
Have car troubles? Well, you don't have the money to afford a complete overhaul, so you patch the one critical system for half the price, but you have to do that three or four time because you never have the money for the complete overhaul before it gives out again. Same thing with many medical issues (can't afford the major surgery for $20k so I have to keep going to the ER to manage the symptoms twelve or fifteen times at $3.5k a pop).
Heck, there are places that thrive on that. For example, Payday loan places.
Or, arguably, Laundry mats, paying sometimes 6$ a week for cleaning clothes. After a few years, you could have bought a machine for that much.
But, you dont have the money THEN so you cant.
Being poor is, Ironically expensive
Exactly, it's far cheaper to be rich, and being poor is most definitely expensive.
The calculus carries up too. It costs more for a middle class family to own a home than a very wealthy family, as the latter can simply buy a home outright while the former goes into debt for thirty years, often paying double or triple the value of the home over time.
Money just doesn't go as far the less you have of it
cincydooley wrote: Yeah, costs went up significantly for a lot of people under the ACA.
We've been over this before and yes, some states had a high initial hike (where there was a large number of people on extremely minimal plans before ACA). But the overall price impact was not that much.
Vaktathi wrote: Another aspect of poverty is that quite often it's simply more expensive to be poor in many respects.
Have car troubles? Well, you don't have the money to afford a complete overhaul, so you patch the one critical system for half the price, but you have to do that three or four time because you never have the money for the complete overhaul before it gives out again. Same thing with many medical issues (can't afford the major surgery for $20k so I have to keep going to the ER to manage the symptoms twelve or fifteen times at $3.5k a pop).
My first couple of years out of home I was buying the cheapest shoes I could find, because I also liked to eat sometimes... It was a bit of a revelation the first time I was able to splash out and buy a decent pair, and had them last much, much longer than the same amount of cash would have kept me in the cheapies...
Vaktathi wrote: Another aspect of poverty is that quite often it's simply more expensive to be poor in many respects.
Have car troubles? Well, you don't have the money to afford a complete overhaul, so you patch the one critical system for half the price, but you have to do that three or four time because you never have the money for the complete overhaul before it gives out again. Same thing with many medical issues (can't afford the major surgery for $20k so I have to keep going to the ER to manage the symptoms twelve or fifteen times at $3.5k a pop).
It goes for housing too. Here in the UK there are so many people trying to get on the property ladder, there is absolutely no value at the bottom. You're paying through the nose (~180K) for shoddy basement conversions with no space for a bath and "open plan kitchens", which is apparently estate agent speak for "there wasn't space for a kitchen so the sink is in the living room"
On the flip side, if you can stretch your budget to 2 million plus, you can get incredible value, like 10 bedrooms and swimming pool, because there just isn't competition for those houses.
BlaxicanX wrote: Couldn't complete it- I succumbed to anxiety at around day 12.
There are indeed some disingenuous choices, I.E. either pay $30 for a baby-sitter or don't go (I don't have siblings/cousins/friends in this hypothetical who might be willing to do it for free?). However on the whole it's a pretty stark and reasonable snap-shot of how much it sucks to be poor, and how out of touch with reality people who champion "If you're poor it's you're fault!" are.
Yeah, it's far from a complete simulation. I paid to rent in the city, and then kept getting hit with car bills, I should have had an option to just sell the car.
But it is really good at getting to the emotional impact of each decision. I had the money for my kid to go on a field trip, but because I spent that money I didn't have enough two days later when the dog got sick. Damn...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: Health insurance is insanely expensive because it's most often laid on the backs of everyone - and it's a tricky one. What makes medical services so expensive are long-term patients. Cancer etc. The cost for these individuals keep exploding for years and everyone has to carry them. In Germany, most people pay 15.5% of their pre-taxes salary for health insurance. You must have a health insurance in Germany. "Almost" everyone pays 15.5% because some people have the option to get a private health insurance that offers much, much, much better services at lower cost. Sounds crazy, but that's because you pay for you and yourself only. The healthier you are, the less you pay and vice versa. Plus in order to qualify for a private health insurance, you have to either have a very high monthly income (~55.000€ before taxes, German average is ~40.000€ pre taxes). It's cheaper because you don't have to pay for others.
The German system is very screwy in that regard. Someone on €54,000 has to pay in to the private system and subsidise the healthcare of everyone earning low wages, but someone on €56,000 can go and pay for his own care. Very odd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Working Class = Middle Class. its not a 4th class wedged between Middle and Lower.
Please just stop making things up. Words have actual fething meanings.
The working class are people who have full time work, but in unskilled or semi-skilled positions. Historically this meant manual labour, but more and more it's meaning stuff like retail or food service.
The middle class are people who still work full time, but are able to command a higher wage because they have specialist skills, so lower and middle management, or middle rung professionals like accountants and IT guys.
"In this analysis, Pew defined middle class households as those earning 67%-200% of a state’s median income."
So basically your argument amounts to saying that if we take middle class to be 67% to 200% of a state's median income, then we can prove that middle class is 67% to 200% of a state's median income. Good job.
Anyhow, I think there's an idea that floats around, it's more common in the US but not exclusive, that 'middle class' is referring to the people literally in the middle of all society. So you line everyone up in order of income, and the ones in the middle are the middle class.
But the middle is actually defined in respect to the working class and the upper class, it is the class in the middle of those two. And when society has a pyramid structure with lots of people at the bottom and not many at the top, then that middle group is actually much smaller than the working class beneath it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: If you're an obese smoker you're damn right you should pay more than these athletes you're claiming go to the Doc more than you.
Umm, then I guess you like ACA, because that allows a premium of up to 50% for smokers, and up to 30% for obesity or other conditions.
If you work in logging or on an oil rig, then sure. But really high risk jobs like that are a pretty small portion of the workplace, despite what the History Channel shows.
Most workers are in low risk jobs, or in very low risk jobs. Think of someone working in a warehouse, compared to someone working in data entry. The guy in the warehouse is more likely to get injured, but he’s not taking home any kind of sweet danger money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: Which is a large reason why a national minimum wage makes zero sense.
In the abstract, then sure. But given that the federal minimum is pathetically low by the cost of living in any state, in practice it’s okay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: 1.... I should point out, the "Middle class" is very much defined in economic terms, and usually this wage is from 40-250k per year. This is also pretty synonymous with the term Working Class, because people earn their money through their wages and work, rather than dividends and stock options.
No, class is defined by more than just income, and any definition that draws in such a wide range as 40-250k is just totally fething pointless.
2. Cincey is quite right... the cost for most people who ALREADY had insurance pre-ACA has gone up.
This is a big ‘sort of’. Costs have gone up for people on very good plans, and gone up for people who had very basic plans. But for the latter it is a wash, as they now have plans that actually do something.
For those in between it’s been a much more mixed story, with some up and some down, and made even more complex because premiums have been increasing anyway. I mean, if my premium increased 15%, and yours decreased 2%, what does that mean when premiums were increasing on average 7% before hand? And when we both have different stuff in our new plans?
Those last two are quite often the result of living an unhealthy lifestyle. And it really should be more expensive for people who have made those choices. However, I think there's a limit to how expensive that "expensive" should be, and it has to do with the associate risk pool that insurance companies have.
So a system that allowed for a cap of 50% on premium for smoking, and a 30% cap for other unhealthy behaviour…
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, there are cost of living indices for every little area.
So you accept you were wrong. Good, moving on.
You'd also have to legislate a living wage for each of these individual areas, it would have to fluctuate on a yearly basis because this kind of thing is very volatile, and you'd have to consider each individual employee's living situation and dependents. Every individual person would basically have his own living wage.
This would be a nightmare to legislate and keep track of.
No, you wouldn’t. You’ve invented a really weird system in your head, and used the impossibility of that system to argue against a more robust, basic system. Don’t do that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Can I use the "You don't know what its like" argument next time someone from Europe tries to tell Americans how we should run our constitutional rights and laws?
That depends on whether they're point requires personal experience or not. Plenty of things can be understood without direct experience. For instance, today we all learned that water flows on Mars, though none of us have been there.
On the other hand, plenty of stuff, especially on day to day living, is actually quite hard to understand unless you've lived it.
Grey Templar wrote: Can I use the "You don't know what its like" argument next time someone from Europe tries to tell Americans how we should run our constitutional rights and laws?
Certainly you can, but it will be a bad argument because anyone can read the Constitution and understand the laws that derive from it.
Vaktathi wrote: The calculus carries up too. It costs more for a middle class family to own a home than a very wealthy family, as the latter can simply buy a home outright while the former goes into debt for thirty years, often paying double or triple the value of the home over time.
Well, sort of but not really. While the mortgage payer ends up paying a lot more over the course of the loan, it’s a bit misleading to add up the total mortgage payments and compare to purchase price. A payment of $1,000 made in 30 years time simply is nowhere near as valuable as a $1,000 payment made today. Not just because of inflation, but also because $1,000 today could be invested and grow significantly in value.
And the trick is in realising that almost all homeloans are way lower than any but the most conservative investment rates. As a result, even people with the money to buy a house flat out generally don’t, instead taking a mortgage and investing their money. If the bank charges 4% and the market pays 8%...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: It goes for housing too. Here in the UK there are so many people trying to get on the property ladder, there is absolutely no value at the bottom. You're paying through the nose (~180K) for shoddy basement conversions with no space for a bath and "open plan kitchens", which is apparently estate agent speak for "there wasn't space for a kitchen so the sink is in the living room"
On the flip side, if you can stretch your budget to 2 million plus, you can get incredible value, like 10 bedrooms and swimming pool, because there just isn't competition for those houses.
I think that kind thing changes with time and market conditions. Here in Perth right now we have something similar at the bottom end of the market, with $300k buying you nothing more than a very shoddy apartment. But once you get past that basic buy in then an every extra $100k buys a significant increase in quality, until you get to about a million, after which it takes about 500k to get any significant increase in house or location.
Speaking very loosely of course, there’s always better buys and poorer buys in any price bracket.
cincydooley wrote: No. There should be no cap. And no insurance company should be forced to provide for a 400 pound slob smoking 2 and a half packs a day.
What about someone who is over 90? That could also be seen as self inflicted... If they hadn't abstained from smoking and hamburgers their whole life, they wouldn't have lived to be so old and such a burden on the system.
Umm, then I guess you like ACA, because that allows a premium of up to 50% for smokers, and up to 30% for obesity or other conditions.
Honestly, you guys sometimes...
No. There should be no cap. And no insurance company should be forced to provide for a 400 pound slob smoking 2 and a half packs a day.
Wow.
Might as well not cover pregnant women as well, they did it to themselves after all...
Yeah, that's absolutely what I said.
But it's foolish to say they shouldn't pay more.
Every study out there tells us females use medical care more often than males.
As such, they should absolutely pay more than a 23-year old male that probably wont go to the doctor unless he's got a broken or severed limb.
They do. Statistically speaking, women buy the more expensive health plans as they realize that they'll need the services more as do older people. The reason being that the out of pocket maximums and co-pays are lower in the more expensive plans; meanwhile that 23 year old is buying the cheapest plan available.
I don't get your point. In a modern, first world country, every citizen is deserving of medical treatment; hell there's 2nd and 3rd world countries that do a better job of it than we do. I've lived in two other countries, both of which have/had universal coverage (S. Korea and Japan) and it was fantastic. I've also visited several other countries with universal coverage; Thailand has some truly beautiful hospitals and I paid about $100 for a full body scan and blood work-up just because it was cheaper than Japan (where I lived at the time).
You may be young and spry but that doesn't last forever unless you want to picture the US as Logan's Run.
Uhhhh... even healthy 23 year old males have been intimately involved in at least one birth...
They're also likely to be healthy because someone else paid for proper nutrition, vaccinations, medicines, checkups. Not to mention sewerage... No rickets, cholera or polio for you!
The thing is, we are not talking about just Obese and smokers.
We are talking about people like my old teacher, bad back so every insurance forced him to pay more, even for non-back related stuff.
I got a better Idea, State sponsored healthcare.
cincydooley wrote: No. There should be no cap. And no insurance company should be forced to provide for a 400 pound slob smoking 2 and a half packs a day.
And that's an idea with some nice theory behind it, but its dysfunctional in the real world.
Because allowing an open ended increase will see insurers just push prices past the point that anyone will be willing to pay, because no insurer wants smokers on the books. But when they get sick we aren't going to just let them die, we will still give them treatment, because we aren't a completely awful bunch of monsters. So society as a whole still bears the cost, and maybe we recover some of that cost by bankrupting the dude who didn't have insurance, but that's hardly a good solution.
cincydooley wrote: Don't worry; they're made up for with their health and auto insurance costs.
Damn being born a man.
No, seriously, what's the point of making women pay more?
I mean, the point of different prices is to give people an incentive to act differently. You make a smoker pay more to encourage him to quit, and discourage other people to start smoking. But what's the point in charging a woman more for health insurance? Trying to encourage her to be born a man next time around?
cincydooley wrote: Don't worry; they're made up for with their health and auto insurance costs.
Damn being born a man.
No, seriously, what's the point of making women pay more?
Maybe because they cost more?
Its really simple. If you are higher risk for the insurance paying out then you pay more. Higher premiums aren't only a disincentive, they're also indicative of the risk the insurance company is willing to take.
Its really simple. If you are higher risk for the insurance paying out then you pay more. Higher premiums aren't only a disincentive, they're also indicative of the risk the insurance company is willing to take.
But insurance is a pool. Individual costs are spread across the whole. So you establish a price that's an average of men and women, and then you take on men and you take on women, and hey presto the costs are covered.
The only reason to change from the base price is to encourage or discourage certain kinds of behaviour. Increase prices for smokers etc. That doesn't exist with women, you can't encourage them to stop being the gender that gets pregnant.
Its really simple. If you are higher risk for the insurance paying out then you pay more. Higher premiums aren't only a disincentive, they're also indicative of the risk the insurance company is willing to take.
But insurance is a pool. Individual costs are spread across the whole. So you establish a price that's an average of men and women, and then you take on men and you take on women, and hey presto the costs are covered.
The only reason to change from the base price is to encourage or discourage certain kinds of behaviour. Increase prices for smokers etc. That doesn't exist with women, you can't encourage them to stop being the gender that gets pregnant.
Thats not profitable. What you do is put people with the same characteristics in their own category to determine their rates, using their risk factors to determine the end rate. This way, everyone gets what they pay for and the company can maximize profits.
You don't make everyone pay the same rates. You make everyone pay a rate that reflects their risk. Thats how loans work, thats how insurance works/should work.
Its really simple. If you are higher risk for the insurance paying out then you pay more. Higher premiums aren't only a disincentive, they're also indicative of the risk the insurance company is willing to take.
But insurance is a pool. Individual costs are spread across the whole. So you establish a price that's an average of men and women, and then you take on men and you take on women, and hey presto the costs are covered.
The only reason to change from the base price is to encourage or discourage certain kinds of behaviour. Increase prices for smokers etc. That doesn't exist with women, you can't encourage them to stop being the gender that gets pregnant.
In insurance, it's a simple reality that people get charged more or less for many things they can't control. Age & Gender are both taken into consideration for just about any type of insurance, and in *most* (though not all) cases, women get cheaper rates than men.
cincydooley wrote: they're made up for with their health and auto insurance costs.
A lot of people feel that charging men a higher premium just for being men is also discriminatory. It's really quite a lazy and offensive way of distinguishing who is or isn't a safe driver.
Vaktathi wrote: In insurance, it's a simple reality that people get charged more or less for many things they can't control. Age & Gender are both taken into consideration for just about any type of insurance, and in *most* (though not all) cases, women get cheaper rates than men.
Due to there being a competitive market, insurers will offer lower rates to people they think are lower insurance risks. Car insurance attempting to use big data to identify safer drivers is a classic example.
And in most cases insurance companies are free to do that, if they want. In terms of how it affects the overall industry, the behaviour is harmless, has a neutral effect. But when you're designing an insurance sector and what insurers may price on, there's just no reason to include those factors.
I mean, are people really not getting this? Would it help if I went back to basics about insurance sector design? If people are genuinely curious I'll put in the effort, but if they're just trying to moan about ACA again then I won't bother.
I thought the difference between commercial insurers competing for more niche market shares, and an act designed to get everyone affordable health care aught to be obvious.
Allowing insurance companies to pick and choose only people they feel will be profitable, is the same as allowing schools to pick and choose students they feel are going to pass. Yes, it allows the organisation the maintain unrealistically good results, but it does nothing for educating and medicating society.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't have a dog in the ACA fight, just making a note is all.
Sure, it's just there seems to be a bit of confusion about how and why insurance operates, at an individual and company level, and how it works best as an overall sector.
No, thats not what it is. Its more like the companies being allowed to charge appropriate rates for every persons risks instead of telling them they can't charge a certain amount.
Smacks wrote: I thought the difference between commercial insurers competing for more niche market shares, and an act designed to get everyone affordable health care aught to be obvious.
Allowing insurance companies to pick and choose only people they feel will be profitable, is the same as allowing schools to pick and choose students they feel are going to pass. Yes, it allows the organisation the maintain unrealistically good results, but it does nothing for educating and medicating society.
Forget writing up a design for the sector from scratch, you've made the point better with about 1/100 as many words
It seems pretty straightforwards, right? If you're making an insurance system and everyone has to get insurance, you want to incentivise behaviour that will reduce the number of payouts you have to make. So if you are talking about car insurance you want to encourage people to drive safely. Maybe you're insuring against theft and you want to give people lower rates for installing particular security measures or something. Or if you're making everyone get health insurance maybe you want to encourage people to not smoke and to lose weight.
But you can't encourage people to not be their particular gender, so there's no point in making it cost more for that. It'd just be perverse to charge people more for it when they have no control over it.
Also whoa apparently men get charged like a dollar less for car insurance than women later in life? What the heck, insurance industry. I think it's clear we should make discriminating by gender on car insurance illegal. (And apparently the EU already has.)
Trying to pick out customers who will cost less and offering them cheaper rates is a strategy designed to make the insurance company more profitable, not actually provide the maximum number of people with insurance.
But you can't encourage people to not be their particular gender, so there's no point in making it cost more for that. It'd just be perverse to charge people more for it when they have no control over it.
Are you just going to ignore risk factors? Insurance isn't just about incentivizing good behavior, its also about covering your risk. And if you are a higher risk you should pay more.
Trying to pick out customers who will cost less and offering them cheaper rates is a strategy designed to make the insurance company more profitable, not actually provide the maximum number of people with insurance.
Yeah, so? You can't just say "screw you Insurance companies, you gotta eat all the risk for no reward because reasons!"
But you can't encourage people to not be their particular gender, so there's no point in making it cost more for that. It'd just be perverse to charge people more for it when they have no control over it.
Are you just going to ignore risk factors? Insurance isn't just about incentivizing good behavior, its also about covering your risk. And if you are a higher risk you should pay more.
Why should you pay more if you're higher risk due to factors you can't control? It doesn't do anything except make life suck more for people who're already at a disadvantage.
But you can't encourage people to not be their particular gender, so there's no point in making it cost more for that. It'd just be perverse to charge people more for it when they have no control over it.
Are you just going to ignore risk factors? Insurance isn't just about incentivizing good behavior, its also about covering your risk. And if you are a higher risk you should pay more.
Why should you pay more if you're higher risk due to factors you can't control? It doesn't do anything except make life suck more for people who're already at a disadvantage.
Why should you not? Why should the insurance companies eat your risk?
If you are higher risk due to circumstances beyond your control that sucks but them's the breaks. Life's not fair. Deal with it. If I have to pay $20 extra a month because I have an elevated risk of cancer I'd say its worth it in case I do get cancer I'll be covered when I need it.
Grey Templar wrote: Are you just going to ignore risk factors? Insurance isn't just about incentivizing good behavior, its also about covering your risk. And if you are a higher risk you should pay more.
Once again, risks that are spread across the pool do not need to be individually covered. Insurance companies might like to do that so that their own pool of insured people are lower cost individuals, but that doesn't actually improve things for the greater population.
The only time individual pricing matters is if it produces a price incentive to change individual behaviour, ie to encourage someone to quit smoking or to not start in the first place.
The only time individual pricing matters is if it produces a price incentive to change individual behaviour, ie to encourage someone to quit smoking or to not start in the first place.
OR if its to compensate for an inherent risk that person poses.
Really, the risk for something out of someones control and in someones control makes no difference to the insurance companies. Risk is risk. They should be allowed to charge in relation to it.
But you can't encourage people to not be their particular gender, so there's no point in making it cost more for that. It'd just be perverse to charge people more for it when they have no control over it.
Are you just going to ignore risk factors? Insurance isn't just about incentivizing good behavior, its also about covering your risk. And if you are a higher risk you should pay more.
Why should you pay more if you're higher risk due to factors you can't control? It doesn't do anything except make life suck more for people who're already at a disadvantage.
Why should you not? Why should the insurance companies eat your risk?
If you are higher risk due to circumstances beyond your control that sucks but them's the breaks. Life's not fair. Deal with it. If I have to pay $20 extra a month because I have an elevated risk of cancer I'd say its worth it in case I do get cancer I'll be covered when I need it.
You seem a bit confused about how insurance works? The insurance company doesn't "eat the risk." They charge their customer pool based on how much they expect to have to pay out. The other customers will end up paying a bit more because the company has to take into account the potential increased cost of the higher-risk customer.
Part of why this is neat is it allows people to access preventative and diagnostic health care, and it turns out that preventative health care is way cheaper than the alternative, meaning as a society we can spend less on health care overall.
And each customer should be charged a rate reflective of their specific risk if they have complicating factors. They still get the health care they need, but also are charged to reflect their increased risk.
Grey Templar wrote: And each customer should be charged a rate reflective of their specific risk if they have complicating factors. They still get the health care they need, but also are charged to reflect their increased risk.
Grey Templar wrote: You can't just say "screw you Insurance companies, you gotta eat all the risk for no reward because reasons!"
And neither is it right to say "screw the public, insurance companies have to have all the reward for no risk!" Insurance companies would like that I'm sure, and there are plenty of high powered lawyers and politicians who will fight their corner (for the right price). But there is a middle ground which is kind of fair for both sides. Besides insurance companies don't eat all the risk, they share it across more people, which is the whole idea behind fund pooling.
The idea that things like schools, hospitals, transport, insurance etc... exist only to make the maximum profit for shareholders is a gross perversion of what they are supposed to be doing. Regulating, so that profits are at least somewhat balanced against providing a service to society is hardly kicking the bread out of their mouths.
Grey Templar wrote: And each customer should be charged a rate reflective of their specific risk if they have complicating factors. They still get the health care they need, but also are charged to reflect their increased risk.
Then my medical bills get discharged during bankruptcy and everyone loses.
Yes, the risk is spread out, but its still there. Taking on another policy is a risk. If you are higher risk than normal you should pay more to gain the benefits of the pool.
Insurance companies hope most of their clients never withdraw more than they put in. But even though it gets spread out, they should still be allowed to charge certain people extra if they are a higher risk.
Grey Templar wrote: And each customer should be charged a rate reflective of their specific risk if they have complicating factors. They still get the health care they need, but also are charged to reflect their increased risk.
Then my medical bills get discharged during bankruptcy and everyone loses.
No, you still had insurance to cover your expenses. You just paid more per month than someone without those risks. Why are you in bankruptcy?
No. The purpose of the state is to provide external/internal security and public services(and no, fairness is not a public service).
So your contention is that security and public services should not be administered fairly?
You misunderstand me. The government does not exist to ensure everyone's life is fair, not even a little bit. All they exist to do is provide security and public services to everyone, which of course should be done fairly but the fairness is not the purpose or primary objective. They have zero business doing anything else, like making sure there is equity in everything.
Grey Templar wrote: Insurance companies hope most of their clients never withdraw more than they put in. But even though it gets spread out, they should still be allowed to charge certain people extra if they are a higher risk.
Perhaps they should, but it needs to be within reason. If they have complete freedom to charge whatever they want then they will try to price out people they aren't interested in, and we end up with a cruel and dysfunctional system where only the very wealthy can afford treatment.
Grey Templar wrote: OR if its to compensate for an inherent risk that person poses.
Really, the risk for something out of someones control and in someones control makes no difference to the insurance companies. Risk is risk. They should be allowed to charge in relation to it.
And so now I’ll just repost the part of my post that you deleted, because it answered your last post, and answers this post just as well.
“Once again, risks that are spread across the pool do not need to be individually covered. Insurance companies might like to do that so that their own pool of insured people are lower cost individuals, but that doesn't actually improve things for the greater population.”
If you really don’t get it, here’s a simple example. Let’s say the world has four people in it, two men and two women, and they all need insurance. The insurance companies expects those four people will have $10 worth of claims in the next year, so it sets its charges at $3 each, so there’s $10 to cover expenses, and $2 profit.
But then they come up with an idea, they realise that two women will cost more, and so they charge those two women more. Now the girls pay $4 each, and the two boys pay $2. So the boys gain a bit and the girls lose a little, but what’s actually changed? Nothing. The insurance company still gets $12, still pays out $10.
The insurance company wouldn’t bother with that. The reason it wants to differentiate is so it can affect the risk of its clients. It wants one or both of the women to decide they can’t afford $4 and leave the system, taking their high expenses with them. So if a woman left, the company would lose $4 in revenue, but maybe save itself $5 in expenses, so now it makes $8, and only pays out $5. That’s the point of differential pricing to the insurance company.
And in a world where we’ve realised that it’s very important that everyone has insurance, it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out why that kind of approach has been heavily curtailed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: No. The purpose of the state is to provide external/internal security and public services(and no, fairness is not a public service).
There is no country on earth where government is limited to that mandate.
Grey Templar wrote: OR if its to compensate for an inherent risk that person poses.
Really, the risk for something out of someones control and in someones control makes no difference to the insurance companies. Risk is risk. They should be allowed to charge in relation to it.
And so now I’ll just repost the part of my post that you deleted, because it answered your last post, and answers this post just as well.
“Once again, risks that are spread across the pool do not need to be individually covered. Insurance companies might like to do that so that their own pool of insured people are lower cost individuals, but that doesn't actually improve things for the greater population.”
If you really don’t get it, here’s a simple example. Let’s say the world has four people in it, two men and two women, and they all need insurance. The insurance companies expects those four people will have $10 worth of claims in the next year, so it sets its charges at $3 each, so there’s $10 to cover expenses, and $2 profit.
But then they come up with an idea, they realise that two women will cost more, and so they charge those two women more. Now the girls pay $4 each, and the two boys pay $2. So the boys gain a bit and the girls lose a little, but what’s actually changed? Nothing. The insurance company still gets $12, still pays out $10.
The insurance company wouldn’t bother with that. The reason it wants to differentiate is so it can affect the risk of its clients. It wants one or both of the women to decide they can’t afford $4 and leave the system, taking their high expenses with them. So if a woman left, the company would lose $4 in revenue, but maybe save itself $5 in expenses, so now it makes $8, and only pays out $5. That’s the point of differential pricing to the insurance company.
And in a world where we’ve realised that it’s very important that everyone has insurance, it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out why that kind of approach has been heavily curtailed.
No. What actually happens is the men keep paying $3 and the women pay $4.
Lets say the women average out to $1.5 a year in medical bills. The men are only expected to have $1.
The women are thus charged $4 and the men are charged $3. There is $5 a year in payouts, but the insurance company gains $14. If they went with the equalized model where everyone pays $3 they would only make $12. They are not incentivized to crowd women out because, while they are higher risk they are also higher reward. If they dropped one of the women they would lose $4 in revenue and only $1.5 in costs. This is because the company is always going to charge you more than what they expect you to use, they're not going to take on people they'd lose money on repeatedly. They'll charge those people a matching rate. All they do is charge higher risk patients more money. Even though the probability of paying out is higher if they get more of these customers they'll make more money in the long run. Higher risk = higher reward.
Your example is flawed in that they are not going to be charging only slightly above their expected costs.
Having ever-so-quickly scanned the thread and not seen it referenced (apologies if I missed it), I come back to the definition of poverty. What is it exactly?
Simply put, it is an attempt to categorise all needs and desires of humans, starting from the absolutely necessary things for survival all the way through to lofty philosophical/spiritual enlightenment and fulfillment.
To be naked, homeless, starving and illiterate would be by my definition, destitute.
To be clothed (in makeshift, handmade clothing) in a crude shelter and have a command of the basics of language, with little to no education, and hard physical labour as your only option for employment. You may not always get a meal, and when you do its not going to be much or of a high quality. I would define this as poor.
To have some education, with employment still very mechanical or repetitive (little to no requirement for higher thinking) and some basic literacy, numeracy and social awareness. Holidays are a rarity, usually a state-dictated affair than personal. I would describe these people as getting by. They are neither poor, nor are they comfortable.
Beyond that, you have greater levels of material wealth, social mobility and education, which reflect in higher attainment of needs met. They are the rich, the wealthy. Collecting our various miniature hobbies, painting them and arranging them in fictitious battles with each other, this is feeding a psychological need for deeper stimulus; intellectual and creative in nature. This is a 'luxury' in the higher end of needs, regardless of the amount of money spent to acquire them. The fact you have disposable income where you are not *forced* to spend on other necessities deems it so.
This is my small contribution to the debate. I pose the question to the forum, at what point do you draw the line? In order to define poverty, we have to know at what point we deem someone to have 'enough'?
iLLiTHiD wrote: This is a 'luxury' in the higher end of needs, regardless of the amount of money spent to acquire them. The fact you have disposable income where you are not *forced* to spend on other necessities deems it so.
I studied maslow's hierarchy of human needs at university, and even though it's a very interesting way of defining human needs, it isn't ironclad. It will apply differently in different aspects of people's lives, and people will short circuit it when certain needs can't be fulfilled. ButteryComissar made an excellent post about this earlier in the topic, about the need to just feel human.
Soldiers during the first world war often wrote poetry, even though their safety was far from secured. This is why people will never be content with just the basics, no matter how poor they are. They will never resign themselves to just not having fun or expressing themselves simply because they can't afford it.
Grey Templar wrote: No. What actually happens is the men keep paying $3 and the women pay $4.
Lets say the women average out to $1.5 a year in medical bills. The men are only expected to have $1.
Nope. If the men only cost $1 in expenses, then competition among insurers will drive the price they pay down. Everyone will be chasing men for their own insurance pool, until the price stabilises at the point where show normal profit.
Arbitrage. Read about it.
Anyhow, now that we've got that silliness out of the way, you get back to the reality that if you chop up the pool in to higher and lower cost parts, then each of those pools will still be costed for competitively, at some % above expected cost. Which means the only way to achieve a greater return is for the individual fund to change the make up of people in it's overall risk pool.
I think that the big difference between health and car insurance is that you're not required by law to own a car. Sure you have to have insurance if you own one but you don't have to have one. I think a better example is FICA and Social Security. Men and women, smokers and non-smokers, everyone pays the same rates in even if they have little statistical chance of taking full benefit. Everyone pays the same amount for the common good. The problem with the ACA is that it's a bastard child that tries to cater to companies AND provide a blanket public service.
agnosto wrote: I think that the big difference between health and car insurance is that you're not required by law to own a car. Sure you have to have insurance if you own one but you don't have to have one. I think a better example is FICA and Social Security. Men and women, smokers and non-smokers, everyone pays the same rates in even if they have little statistical chance of taking full benefit. Everyone pays the same amount for the common good. The problem with the ACA is that it's a eastward child that tries to cater to companies AND provide a blanket public service.
The other thing about car insurance is in every state I've lived in, the required insurance does not really cover your car. It covers medical for you (protection from uninsured/underinsured) and medical and repairs for anyone you hit. The consumer still has a choice as to how they cover their car(s).
No, seriously, what's the point of making women pay more?
They cost everyone more. Women take up a higher amount of health insurance cost than men and, more importantly, they live longer on average than men do, thus need to be taken care of for a longer time.
I am not defending the reasoning, just giving you one. It's a logical reason.
On the other hand, I agree with the, current, unisex rule. Yes, women cost more than men, but in the end...well...someone has to carry our babies
agnosto wrote: I think that the big difference between health and car insurance is that you're not required by law to own a car. Sure you have to have insurance if you own one but you don't have to have one. I think a better example is FICA and Social Security. Men and women, smokers and non-smokers, everyone pays the same rates in even if they have little statistical chance of taking full benefit. Everyone pays the same amount for the common good. The problem with the ACA is that it's a eastward child that tries to cater to companies AND provide a blanket public service.
The other thing about car insurance is in every state I've lived in, the required insurance does not really cover your car. It covers medical for you (protection from uninsured/underinsured) and medical and repairs for anyone you hit. The consumer still has a choice as to how they cover their car(s).
You usually don't have a choice about covering the car if you're still making payments on it.
agnosto wrote: I think that the big difference between health and car insurance is that you're not required by law to own a car. Sure you have to have insurance if you own one but you don't have to have one. I think a better example is FICA and Social Security. Men and women, smokers and non-smokers, everyone pays the same rates in even if they have little statistical chance of taking full benefit. Everyone pays the same amount for the common good. The problem with the ACA is that it's a eastward child that tries to cater to companies AND provide a blanket public service.
The other thing about car insurance is in every state I've lived in, the required insurance does not really cover your car. It covers medical for you (protection from uninsured/underinsured) and medical and repairs for anyone you hit. The consumer still has a choice as to how they cover their car(s).
You usually don't have a choice about covering the car if you're still making payments on it.
That is not between the gov't and you though, that is between you and your financing institution. A private transaction. I have no problems with that.
No, seriously, what's the point of making women pay more?
They cost everyone more. Women take up a higher amount of health insurance cost than men and, more importantly, they live longer on average than men do, thus need to be taken care of for a longer time.
I am not defending the reasoning, just giving you one. It's a logical reason.
On the other hand, I agree with the, current, unisex rule. Yes, women cost more than men, but in the end...well...someone has to carry our babies
And they kind of already do pay more for insurance...
Women, on average, live five years longer than men, but that's not the only reason their overall health care bills tend to be higher than men's. Until the Affordable Care Act took effect, many insurance companies charged women higher health insurance premiums, and they're still often charged more for long-term care insurance. Long-term healthcare insurance premiums for single women rose by more than 12% annually between 2012 and 2014, according to the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance. In addition, women may face obstacles finding affordable health care coverage after a divorce or the death of a spouse. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that in 2013, approximately 17% of women ages 19 to 64 were uninsured—leaving them without access to preventive care and more apt to postpone care when they do become ill.
But you are the one who is worried that they are not.
So your second argument contradicts your first one twice.
No, it really doesn't.
The notion that if someone is unhappy with what they pay for insurance then they should simply change their sex is an absurd one from any perspective.
And it doesn't change the fact that people with a higher risk (women, smokers, the obese) should pay more for their insurance than people with a lower risk.
But you are the one who is worried that they are not.
So your second argument contradicts your first one twice.
No, it really doesn't.
The notion that if someone is unhappy with what they pay for insurance than they should simply change their sex is an absurd one from any perspective.
And it doesn't change the fact that people with a higher risk (women, smokers, the obese) should pay more for their insurance than people with a lower risk.
Unless the insurance company decides to lump them into risk pools with those of lesser risk... Which is what appears to have happened to some extent.
Ehm, you cannot change your sex. What commonly is referred to as a "sex change" basically is slapping a penis / vagina on and getting hormones in. You won't magically live longer just because of that.
cincydooley wrote: the fact that people with a higher risk (women, smokers, the obese) should pay more for their insurance than people with a lower risk.
That sounds more like an opinion than a fact, and it really depends on what you want the system to do. If you think people should only pay for what they use, then why bother with insurance at all? Just have everyone save and pay for their own medical care. That way people who think they aren't going to be a drain on the system by getting sick, won't need to worry about other people "leeching" off them. That system might sound fair to you, but to me it sounds like a system where only the very wealthy can afford care. Which is just a recipe for millions of people left to die in squalor, and probably murderous hatred of the rich.
Alternatively, if you want a system where healthcare is affordable for everyone then you need to spread the cost across more people. This means that some people will pay more than they aught to "statistically", but that means little, since no one really knows what the future will bring. That 300lbs woman who chain-smokes 50 a day, might die suddenly of a massive heart attack, and never cost the system a dime, while a healthy 23-year-old man might break his neck, and need life long care.
Women don't have a higher risk, men do. Men live a much more dangerous live and are much more prone to injury. Biological coding etc. Women pay more because they live longer, on average, and they, naturally, give birth to children and, mostly are the ones to keep children, further increasing health insurance cost.
cincydooley wrote: the fact that people with a higher risk (women, smokers, the obese) should pay more for their insurance than people with a lower risk.
That sounds more like an opinion than a fact, and it really depends on what you want the system to do. If you think people should only pay for what they use, then why bother with insurance at all? Just have everyone save and pay for their own medical care. That way people who think they aren't going to be a drain on the system by getting sick, won't need to worry about other people "leeching" off them. That system might sound fair to you, but to me it sounds like a system where only the very wealthy can afford care. Which is just a recipe for millions of people left to die in squalor, and probably murderous hatred of the rich.
Alternatively, if you want a system where healthcare is affordable for everyone then you need to spread the cost across more people. This means that some people will pay more than they aught to "statistically", but that means little, since no one really knows what the future will bring. That 300lbs woman who chain-smokes 50 a day, might die suddenly of a massive heart attack, and never cost the system a dime, while a healthy 23-year-old man might break his neck, and need life long care.
We actually do have smokers and obese people pay more for insurance. The statistics bear out that they do, over enough time, cost more to keep alive. This is because of the obvious things: lung cancer, heart disease and the like. My neighbor's wife works in a specialist clinic... If a person presents with kidney/liver problems, and it comes out that they drink like a fish, quite often the insurance companies will not approve a procedure or medication to save them.
IMO, The people who have a choice should continue paying more. Roofers and other highly dangerous professions are often viewed as uninsurable or they get gouged because of the risk involved in their work. It's a high risk activity. Smoking is a high risk activity. being morbidly obese on its own may not be risky on its own (there are naturally large people out there, and there are also people who don't conform to the BMI indices or are otherwise very heavy, but very healthy), but it's simply a truth that the risks for a decent sized list of problems increase massively by being morbidly obese.
Here, I actually agree with Smacks: being a particular gender, in itself should not be a reason for higher monthly premiums
I understand that some people are statistically a higher risk, and I agree they are a higher risk. What I disagree with is the idea that because they are a higher risk, that means they should pay more (or pay less, or even pay the same). What people should pay depends entirely on what society wants to achieve out of the system.
Sigvatr wrote: They cost everyone more. Women take up a higher amount of health insurance cost than men and, more importantly, they live longer on average than men do, thus need to be taken care of for a longer time.
I am not defending the reasoning, just giving you one. It's a logical reason.
Sure, but I’ve pointed out three, just because we can identify some groups will cost more, it doesn’t mean we need a system where insurers can charge that person more. It would be in the interest of an individual insurer to charge different prices (and so encourage cheaper people to join their roll and not someone else’s, and encourage more expensive people to join other rolls), but overall everyone needs to be insured by someone. There’s no benefit to the whole by making my insurance a little cheaper and woman’s a little more expensive.
So the only time you get an actual change is when the price difference is on a controllable condition, like smoking or weight.
On the other hand, I agree with the, current, unisex rule. Yes, women cost more than men, but in the end...well...someone has to carry our babies
This is why I'm glad that I never left the motherland. No health insurance, just free healthcare for everyone. (It might not be the best, but it does the job.) and the rich pay more to fund it.
I can relate on car insurance, there used to be a huge divide between male and female drivers. Young males are the most likely to be involved in accidents, so the insurance was really high. Then the ECHR stepped in and declared that was sexist. So they raised the insurance premiums on women to match men. Everybody wins!
So the only time you get an actual change is when the price difference is on a controllable condition, like smoking or weight.
)
I fully agree. If you willingly put yourself at risk, then you're playing with the money of everyone involved. Therefore, you should pay more. On the other hand, if you behave very well, e.g. often take part in sport events, have a low amount of body fat etc., then you should be rewarded by paying less or getting a bonus (the latter is much better and easier law-wise). Positive Punishment and positive reinforcement, that's how humans roll.
Sigvatr wrote: On the other hand, if you behave very well, e.g. often take part in sport events, have a low amount of body fat etc.
Playing sports increases your risk of injury, and having a low amount of body fat does not necessarily indicate good health.
Being active highly increases your overall health and promotes a healthy lifestyle. Long-term. What makes health insurances expensive aren't people breaking a leg or having a muscle torn. It's long-term patients that increase cost by an insane amount and in a lot of cases, a healthy lifestyle can work well with lowering the risk.Having a low amount of body fat is the best way to reward people who take care of themselves. BMI does a good job at sorting obese people out, but you also punish very muscular people at the same time...albeit that isn't too healthy either....but being lazy and fat isn't doing anything good for anyone.
Being active highly increases your overall health and promotes a healthy lifestyle. Long-term.
I am 29. I will need to have a knee replacement before I am 35, this is what my physicians call "bad".
I also have nervous injuries that cannot be fully corrected, this is explicitly because I spent ~15 years of my life playing contact sports and training to do so.
Being active highly increases your overall health and promotes a healthy lifestyle. Long-term.
I am 29. I will need to have a knee replacement before I am 35, this is what my physicians call "bad".
I also have nervous injuries that cannot be fully corrected, this is explicitly because I spent ~15 years of my life playing contact sports and training to do so.
Cool?
I bet your cardiovascular health is phenomenal, though.
Knee replacement, surgery, and upkeep is far cheaper than the constant upkeep of someone with heart problems caused by obesity.
And oh yeah, obese people also have significant problems with their joints, too.
Not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, but I'd wager 10 out of 10 doctors would rather have a fit, athletic person with some joint issues as their patient than a morbidly obese person with all the issues that come with it.
I bet your cardiovascular health is phenomenal, though.
That's debatable. Like many of the men who grew up playing sports in which high body weight was considered a positive thing I have put a lot of stress on my cardiovascular system.
Knee replacement, surgery, and upkeep is far cheaper than the constant upkeep of someone with heart problems caused by obesity.
Many athletes, regardless of age, are obese. Obese does not mean "fat".
That said all the care which leads up to knee replacement is constant. I have been in and out of various doctor's offices for 15 years, fighting insurance companies all the while.
I bet your cardiovascular health is phenomenal, though.
That's debatable. Like many of the men who grew up playing sports in which high body weight was considered a positive thing I have put a lot of stress on my cardiovascular system.
Knee replacement, surgery, and upkeep is far cheaper than the constant upkeep of someone with heart problems caused by obesity.
Many athletes, regardless of age, are obese. Obese does not mean "fat".
That said all the care which leads up to knee replacement is constant. I have been in and out of various doctor's offices for 15 years, fighting insurance companies all the while.
As someone with zero cartilage left in either knee due to many years of sports, I understand.
But that doesn't change the fact that those same outcomes you're attributing to sports are also outcomes of the stressors put on the joints due to unhealthy obesity. And I know you know that.
I think your argument that your cardiovascular health is less than that of a morbidly obese layabout is a bit disingenuous.
But that doesn't change the fact that those same outcomes you're attributing to sports are also outcomes of the stressors put on the joints due to unhealthy obesity.
Being obese is being obese, there is no differentiation between "healthy obesity" and "unhealthy obesity"; sports often motivate people into becoming obese.
So we seem to be pretty solidly in the "health of obese people" topic which relates back to healthcare costs for obese people compared to non-obese people (specifically athletes) which relates back to Obamacare which relates back to one facet of the original topic. Is that right? Because if it is, we can probably call it done here.
motyak wrote: So we seem to be pretty solidly in the "health of obese people" topic which relates back to healthcare costs for obese people compared to non-obese people (specifically athletes) which relates back to Obamacare which relates back to one facet of the original topic. Is that right? Because if it is, we can probably call it done here.
) when we were asked to pair up and discuss how much we think the government standard for yearly income of a family of 4 is to be in poverty.
One huge problem (at least here in the USA) is how many poor people are poor because they are too lazy to go out and get a damn job. They just sit on their asses and eat, sleep, drink (often alcoholic beverages, don't ask me how they afford them), watch TV, play video games, and make more of themselves. And the government just enables them to do so through benefits programs like food stamps and welfare. Makes me wonder how much better our economy would be if these people would just get a job. Doesn't have to be a hard job, maybe just flipping burgers or digging ditches or something, but at least they would be productive. And I do realize that there are people with disabilities who can't work, so I'm not complaining about them. The categorically lazy ones are the ones I have a problem with. The government just provides a gravy train for them while I slave away to keep my rent paid and my stomach full. Some of these people even have more kids on purpose just to get more benefits. Even worse, some of these people are foreign nationals, who have no business being here if they won't at least earn their keep. I suspect that some of them come over here from their third-world homes just to live off our benefits. People used to come to America for freedom, now they come here for free stuff. I have nothing against foreigners (indeed, some of my friends and coworkers are from other nations), but lazy people of all types are just dragging this country down. I am truly sorry if this sounds like hate speech, but I am sick and tired of seeing this, and I know I'm not the only one. And I bet it is not just a problem in America, but a lot of countries with similar benefit programs. I guess it's just human nature. /rant
