Started By
Message
locked post

"working full time and still below poverty line"...slightly misleading

Posted on 3/23/18 at 9:48 pm
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69250 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 9:48 pm
Bernie and co love to tug on heart strings by saying that "we have americans working full time who are below poverty line"

What they almost never say is that these people are single with children. A single person with no kids working full time earning minimum wage has an income above poverty line.

Having children should not entitle you to a higher wage rate. It makes no sense to claim that workers who work full time under poverty line are being exploited. Those workers have kids at home, and kids do not somehow entitle you to higher pay.

Poverty in America is NOT caused by low wages, it is caused by having kids at bad financial times in your life.
Posted by CorporateTiger
Member since Aug 2014
10700 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 9:50 pm to
FWIW, one of the few forms of government spending I would support is spending a lot of time telling poor people HOW TO STOP HAVING frickING kids. Condoms aren’t that difficult to use, but I guess neither is flipping burgers and they still frick that up.
Posted by Eighteen
Member since Dec 2006
33858 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 9:51 pm to
Poor decision makers make poor decisions. Someone’s gotta tell them the truth
Posted by Jyrdis
TD Premium Member Level III
Member since Aug 2015
12788 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 9:52 pm to
What's the poverty line?

eta: so I thought I knew what the poverty "rate" was. Apparently, for a single person under 65 with no kids it was $12,752 in 2017. A full time job at minimum wage ensures you aren't below poverty.
This post was edited on 3/23/18 at 10:00 pm
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69250 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 9:53 pm to
quote:

FWIW, one of the few forms of government spending I would support is spending a lot of time telling poor people HOW TO STOP HAVING frickING kids. Condoms aren’t that difficult to use, but I guess neither is flipping burgers and they still frick that up.
These people WANT to have kids, though. Poorer cultures in America put much more emphasis on having kids than cultures with higher incomes.

For example...hispanics. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but most hispanic girls are expected to be mamas at a pretty young age.
Posted by wutangfinancial
Treasure Valley
Member since Sep 2015
11075 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 9:54 pm to
I think it's close to $18k
Posted by mmmmmbeeer
ATL
Member since Nov 2014
7419 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 9:58 pm to
To put what this guy is saying into context, working full-time and earning minimum wage will earn you a WHOPPING $15k/yr. The federally recognized poverty line for individuals is $12,140. For families of just two (single custodial mother) it's $16,460.


quote:

Poverty in America is NOT caused by low wages, it is caused by having kids at bad financial times in your life.


So you can live on $15k/yr? That's not impoverished in your eyes? GFY.



Posted by mmmmmbeeer
ATL
Member since Nov 2014
7419 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 10:01 pm to
quote:

These people WANT to have kids, though. Poorer cultures in America put much more emphasis on having kids than cultures with higher incomes.


Or they can't afford abortions because we refuse to let taxpayer funds offer assistance. Or it could be that they've been brainwashed by religion to believe they're going to hell if they abort their child. Then you think schools and community health centers should offer free condoms and then remember that religious folks raise hell about that, too.

Unless you're pro-choice, you don't have a single leg to stand on when it comes to bitching about people not being able to afford kids.
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69250 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 10:01 pm to
Poverty in the physical sense means a lack of vital necessities.

Poverty in the political sense is an arbitrary income line declared by gov't fiat.

The gov't could make poverty rate 0% or 100% if it wanted to, just by adjusting the line.
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69250 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 10:05 pm to
quote:

mmmmmbeeer
You seem like a really really angry person.
Posted by mmmmmbeeer
ATL
Member since Nov 2014
7419 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 10:06 pm to
quote:

Poverty in the physical sense means a lack of vital necessities.

Poverty in the political sense is an arbitrary income line declared by gov't fiat.

The gov't could make poverty rate 0% or 100% if it wanted to, just by adjusting the line.


And that has what to do with your OP? I completely agree with what you're saying being it means we both agree no one can live on $15k/yr, kids or not, but admitting that flies in the face of your initial point.
Posted by mmmmmbeeer
ATL
Member since Nov 2014
7419 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 10:07 pm to
quote:

You seem like a really really angry person.


I'm really not

This board is angry so I just try to get in where I fit in.
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69250 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 10:09 pm to
I enjoy you here, brah

you can be as liberal as you want, that ava picture makes up for everything
Posted by mmmmmbeeer
ATL
Member since Nov 2014
7419 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 10:14 pm to
Likewise
Posted by Bjorn Cyborg
Member since Sep 2016
26658 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 10:45 pm to
Poverty will never be eradicated because the line moves.

A certain percentage at the bottom will always be considered poverty.
Posted by Golfer
Member since Nov 2005
75052 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 10:50 pm to
quote:

So you can live on $15k/yr? That's not impoverished in your eyes? GFY.


Yes. You’re not paying anything in taxes.

$400 for your portion of rent/utilities (roommates).

$200 for food

We’ve still got $600/mo and not to mention if you’re making minimum wage and single you better be working a second job.
Posted by mmmmmbeeer
ATL
Member since Nov 2014
7419 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 11:02 pm to
Not every poor person is a 19yo kid fresh out of high school with friends looking for roommates. What about a 45yo felon after getting out of jail?

Health insurance or dental care?

Gas?

A car or public transportation? Insurance and repairs for the car, maybe a car payment?

A cell phone for 911 calls, relatives, calling work, etc.?

Laundry? Work uniform purchases?
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
20869 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 11:06 pm to
quote:

FWIW, one of the few forms of government spending I would support is spending a lot of time telling poor people HOW TO STOP HAVING frickING kids.


But god forbid if the same amount of money goes toward their birth control.
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
20869 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 11:08 pm to
quote:

We’ve still got $600/mo and not to mention if you’re making minimum wage and single you better be working a second job.


Gas, car insurance, car note, power...?
Posted by Joshjrn
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2008
26983 posts
Posted on 3/23/18 at 11:12 pm to
If having a cell phone and owning a car are prerequisites for not being impoverished, you’ve set a rather high bar.

In most of the world, poor people are thrilled to have electricity.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram