From the Daily Beast:
Is this what decline looks like? According to new supplemental data from the Census Bureau, nearly half of Americans—a shocking record number—have fallen under the poverty line or are classified as “low income” and barely scraping by. Many in the middle class have dropped to the low-income threshold, meaning they make less than $45,000 for a family of four, because of pay cuts or spouses losing jobs. They number 97.3 million, and together with the 49.1 million in poverty, they represent about 48 percent of the U.S. population, or 146.4 million. That’s up by 4 million from 2009 numbers.
That seems rather high for a poverty threshold. What defines ‘poor?’ What criteria is used? Does it vary from region to region? Many starting pay jobs in this area are below $45,000. Recently separated or divorced women often have to restart careers making this much money. Are they all living in poverty? Starting pay in Prince William County for a first year teacher is $43,615 for 195 days work. No paid holidays etc. That’s below the poverty level if that teacher has a spouse and kids.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think living on $45,000 would be picnic, but I think you can have a roof over your head and clothes on your back, even in Northern Virginia. Do we need to rethink what poor is? What does poor mean to you?
Will Northern Virginia suffer a financial relapse? If yes, what will cause it? What can we do to insulate ourselves and our families from it?
I think poor would mean having to worry about affording basic shelter, food, and transportation to a job. It could also include being able to afford to be competitive in our society. A person might go next door to use a phone, to the library to use a computer or to a radio instead of tv for his news, but he will be at a disadvantage if he doesn’t have this technology at home. He won’t starve but it will be harder for him to make contacts with employers, doctors (if he can afford them), his child’s school, etc.
We may suffer more than we needed to thanks to our AG who has loved poking the Feds in the eye with his stick. I suppose whatever happens to the defense budget will determine how badly we fare.
What is more worrisome is the average net worth of households – http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/networth/networth.html – You need people in the middle class to be able to purchase items to generate demand. Having the wealthiest 2 or 3% of the population buying things does not generate demand – which is where we are right now. And, many people do not have very much saved for retirement – they are looking at their parents who may have pensions, and thinking – wow, I will retire like that some day – http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/networth_ageincome/
The discussion on poor does have Federal Guidelines, but Moon you hit it on the head as it can vary region to region. Quick way to think on that is cost of the roof over your head – in NoVA it can be skyrocketing and eat your paycheck within this extended (and keeps extending) Metro Area. Go to other places in Virginia, and even other States, and a $45K paycheck can keep you at least with clothes on your back, roof over your head, and food on the table with small luxuries if you manage your check.
One of the discussion points being kicked around is the definition needs to be really refined as you point out. Poor in one place is not poor in another – sort of like the old expression that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Many are saying what is really needed across the board when looking at what is “poor” is shifting to “livable wage” which would define what you need to make in order to have the basics (place to live, food, clothing, etc) plus pay for transportation. In NoVA, for as single person, a livable wage is $12.05/hour. Comparing that to Jacksonville NC (home of Camp Lejuene) it is $7.65. Happen to know that number only because of having grown there, and working with a nonprofit in that area.
Of course, now we get into the weeds. Transportation means buying something you can afford, of if it is available and works, using public transportation (i.e. OmniLink, OmniRide, VRE, etc around here). If you buy a car, you stay within your means. I used to have counsel my young Soldiers that buying $2000 in stereo equipment was not a smart use of their money especially since I was counseling them on their debt notice received by the Company Commander.
An endless discussion indeed we could have, with so many variables.
Apparently the real poverty line is about $22,500 for a family of 4 and you double that to get to the low income level.
I guess it is like a midpoint.
Does Obama get the blame yet for the low wages, high unemployment and high under employment? Or do we still think that it is just taking a really, really long time for the theadministration’s policies to improve the economy?
If the goal is to fix the economy, it appears that the US is still on the wrong track. If the goal is to increase dependency on government handouts and increase support for big, expensive programs from a large and growing dependent class, then it is hard to quibble with the current direction. I would be hard pressed to come up with a more effective plan to grow the dependent class than what the administration has already implemented. And it leads to side benefits (for the administration) of class warfare and support for soaking the “rich.”
@Kelly3406
According to data collected by the IRS, from 1992 to 2007 the wealthiest Americans saw their income rise 392 percent while their average tax rate dropped 37 percent. The only way this could be called “soaking the rich” is if they’ve filled the pools on their yachts with the massive amount of cash they’ve horded as the middle class was drained dry and they swim in it. It’s got to be tough climbing out of the pool awash in dead presidents and dripping Benjamins. If you want to label that “class warfare” then where do I enlist? Still got my cammies and combat boots.
Everyone’s taxes went down during that period. My personal income tripled over that period as did yours in all likelihood. Drawing a distinction between the wealthy and everyone else is indeed class warfare.
But the real questions are whether increasing taxes on the wealthy will improve the economy and whether you and I would be counted as “rich” for the purpose of the Obama tax code. I say the answers are ‘no’ and ‘yes’, respectively.
@Kelly, no, my personal income didn’t triple. Not even close.
My only point has been that Americans paid lower taxes and did not pay for its 2 wars.
And no, I am not even close to being rich. Not even close.
You have to be at a million or so to be considered rich.
I think the discussion which hasn’t really taken place in this country revolves around how many jobs could be expected to exist now and in the future – even if we have maximum employment. It seems that there is a natural down-sizing of jobs due to technological advances even as our population grows. And, how many of these jobs would afford a person an above-poverty wage? The parties can finger-waggle at each other ad infinitum; but if we have no idea of how many jobs could exist in this country, we won’t solve the unemployment problem. If statistics show that we will forever have at least 10 million fewer jobs than we have applicants, then what?
Forty years ago your corner drug store would probably have five to seven people working at any one time. Now there are probably three or four. Even Sears and Macy’s have fewer clerks and the salaries aren’t ones that provide a single wage-earner a way out of poverty.
Why aren’t we having a discussion in this country about the reality of employment opportunities? It’s easy to say that an educated work force will find jobs, but will they?
@Censored
Are you suggesting that we haven’t really kept up with technology in our job expectations?
We send a bunch of people to college who don’t use it and probably shouldn’t be there for the job they do. We have almost no vocational training. Manufacturing is outsourced. People are unemployed. People blame Obama. makes perfect sense to me. NOT.
Define an educated work force.
Are we talking about a classical collegiate one or vocational education?
And, don’t take me as harsh but what’s wrong with having poor people?
Nothing if you are selfish. Poor people are good. They will be grateful to work for you for peanuts. It gives blowhards and those consumed with their own importance something to pump up their own ego on.
On the other hand, you over-look the fact that the poor require more resources from the rich. Pay me now, pay me later.
Its better to import your poor people. Then you can tell them tough crap when they want hand outs. The Kuiwaitis do it. Why shouldn’t we?
@marinm
Either classical collegiate or vocational. We need both.
You’d have to ask yourself what level of poverty you’re willing to live with. Beggars on the streets? More communicable diseases because of lack of health care? Perhaps more crime? Children with few options because they’re raised in families with few options? Being viewed as a third world country unable or unwilling to address its problems?
“You’d have to ask yourself what level of poverty you’re willing to live with.”
Really good question. I don’t know. I think high enough to remind people to get off their arse and work but low enough that it doesn’t impact my stock holdings.
“Perhaps more crime?”
Poverty is up but crime is down.
“Being viewed as a third world country unable or unwilling to address its problems?”
No one views the US as a 3rd world nation. This country on our worse day is still better than any other country on their best. We simply rock.
I do agree that we need both but that we need less liberal arts majors and more plumbers.
Marin, when people get their education, they don’t necessarily know whaat to do for 40 years down the road. What exactly is a liberal arts major? I don’t think there really is a liberal arts major. It usually describes the type of course work. For examply, I attended a liberal arts college. Translation: no engineering school, no med school, etc. There were math and science majors though.
According to wiki–
In modern times liberal arts refers to an educational curriculum that is designed to produce a well-rounded individual suitable for citizenship. Therefore a liberal arts education imparts general knowledge to develop the student’s intellectual ability to reason and argue, unlike the professional, vocational, and technical curricula which emphasize specialization. The contemporary liberal arts comprise studying literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, psychology, and science.[1]
Pardon me, but those people are often snapped up by companies because of their communications skills and general knowledge. When I was coming along it was seen as a good thing because you would fit in different places. If you survived and graduated from college, you usually had a fairly quick learning curve.
Are people with majors (math, science, English, history) valuable in today’s business sector? I would hope so.
Maybe you meant some other term rather than liberal arts? Now I am going to agree with you. If you need a plumber or a cabinet maker I will be the first person to suggest that person doesn;t need to know Shakespeare. They might like knowing it but it isnt a job skill.
I know plumbers who are out of work. That might be a location problem though. We need ways for young people to learn trades and to be able to apprentist to become masters. We need vocational training. the vocational training needs to mean something upon completion. It needs to be an incentive towards completion.
@marinm
What if the jobs aren’t there and won’t be there for everyone looking for work? I have neighbors who were employed in the construction trades and are now in their mid-thirties or forties and can find only twenty hours of work weekly. Some will not be able to physically do this type of work for much longer. If a person doesn’t have the financial resources because of reduced hours or no work, how does he afford to retrain? Or does someone else pay to train him? Should re-education or community service type work be required for someone who collects unemployment? And after they’re trained, are there jobs? What happens when an employer decides it’s cheaper to hire two part-time employees with few benefits rather than one employee? That scenario can play out in practically any field. Or the employer can get guest workers for less- even in the IT field because we’re not meeting the demand here.
So, will there be an adequate number of jobs?
This country may not be third world yet but it’s not as well off as it used to be and will have to make more adjustment as it competes world-wide. How low can wages go?
“What if the jobs aren’t there and won’t be there for everyone looking for work?”
There is no guarantee in life that someone will always be employed. They may be required to move, to take a lower wage or hours, or go into a different specialty or trade altogether.
“Some will not be able to physically do this type of work for much longer.”
Hopefully they planned ahead.
“If a person doesn’t have the financial resources because of reduced hours or no work, how does he afford to retrain?”
I would hope that they would’ve sought training before the economy went south. If they ain’t prepared they’re putting themselves at a disadvantage.
“And after they’re trained, are there jobs?”
That’s the gamble called life. Who knows?
“What happens when an employer decides it’s cheaper to hire two part-time employees with few benefits rather than one employee?”
Find a different employer, become an employer yourself (they can open up a small biz of 1) or go into another field.
“Or the employer can get guest workers for less- even in the IT field because we’re not meeting the demand here.”
Interestingly you don’t see a lot of H1s in the field anymore. Some work is outsourced because the work does not need to occur in country but because of the economy sometimes it’s cheaper to find programmers in the US than in other countries. That’s awesome.
“So, will there be an adequate number of jobs?”
Law of supply and demand.
“This country may not be third world yet but it’s not as well off as it used to be and will have to make more adjustment as it competes world-wide.”
This country is great. As far as adjustments I agree with you. We’re going through our lost decade right now. This is a massive market correction.
“How low can wages go?”
As low as people are willing to accept for work. I don’t remember people crying (for employers) when wages we’re going up by 10% every year during the ‘good years’.
On the whole I agree with you. Less spending on schools and push more kids towards the trades (private market trade schools).
Marin, good Tin Man impersonation. He was looking for a heart. at long as you are sitting on top of the turnip you won’t ever get one. However, pride goeth before a fall,
No one has 20/20 vision and your advise appears to be based on haughtiness and illogic. You are in your 30’s. All is going well. Many people had a great deal going for them in their 30’s and 40’s and then something happened. Things changed. They had no way of predicting that jobs would be outsourced, they or a family member would become ill or in an accident or certain jobs would dry up or that the stock market would crash.
I am sitting here as a person with a few more decades behind them than you have, it might not all go as you have planned. I hope it does. But it might not and some of life’s uncertainties have very unpredictable. I hope more than anything you find a heart, Tin-man. You might not always be in Kansas.
@Moon-howler
I remember posting on a message board five years or so ago with a twenty-something year old woman from Chicago. She claimed that everyone should do as she had done or prepare to starve. She’d accumulated about $100,000 in stocks and made substantial down payments with a partner on two properties. I’ve always wondered how she fared since she wasn’t old enough to have gone through the typical cycles in real estate or the stock market. She was absolutely certain that she was set for the future. No one could convince her that those two investments could be in any way risky much less with a partner.
That certainly is putting all one’s eggs in one basket, isn’t it? I wish you knew how it worked out for her also.
Repubs balked at increasing the tax rate for those making over a million dollars a year to pay for the payroll tax reduction. Now, Congress is planning to raise the fee on new mortgages and refis to generate the money for the payroll tax cut. I suspect very few of the very high earners require mortgages and few of the very poor own homes. That means the cost will fall on the middle class … again. At least Congress spared the job creators.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/17/mortgage-fees-would-rise-under-payroll-tax-cut-deal/
@Morris Davis
You have got to be kidding me!!! The endless screw job. Protect the rich 1% and screw the middle class. Again.
What exactly is the payroll tax reduction? Is that where you take out less per pay check for federal and medicare but you still pay taxes in April?
Here’s a hint about why Congress would rather tweak SS, Medicare and entitlements that the middle and lower economic classes have come to depend upon for parts of their retirements rather than chasing the rich. It appears that 30 companies spent more on lobbyists ($400,000 a day – seven days a week) than they did in federal taxes between 2008 and 2010. Their state contributions were paltry as well.
Where are the jobs that were supposed to trickle down?
http://publicampaign.org/sites/default/files/ReportTaxDodgerLobbyingDec6.pdf
yea what the hell are we going to do about it? Nothing.
@Morris Davis
Hey Mo. My understanding is that the mortgage fee only hits the government backed mortgages.
If that’s the case it’s worse than y’all thought because it would probably impact only the lower middle class or those in financial turmoil.
Censored, God Bless America. Where we can lobby against paying $2 in taxes by instead paying $1 to a lobbyist.
@marinm
I don’t think you and I are getting those breaks. Try sending your Congressman $5000 and see if you can get a $10,000 tax break. You go first and report back your success so the rest of us can try it.
Why would I bribe a member of Congress? That’s illegal.
But you think some of the campaign contributions aren’t bribery? bwaaahahahahahaha
I feel the exact same way when people think that govt can solve problems.
So you think that corporate campaign funds aren’t bribes?
Actually the govt servers many more than some corporations. Let’s start with what you have reaped. You got an education which amounted on about 120k. Do you think your parents would have done that for you, out of pocket? Did they have more than one kid? Pretty tough to do since I don’t know of any private school with that low of a tuition. You drive on roads, you get your mail delivered, you have libraries, snow removal, police protection, military protection from foreign invaders…..the list goes on.
The govt has solved a lot of your problems…you just haven’t taken the time to analyze it. Its easier to shoot off sound bytes than to think.
I was thinking….I wish I made $43,000 a year,I would be living large!
Not around here you wouldn’t be living large.
@Morris Davis
Mortgage fees will rise only for mortgages under written by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to the Washington Post, the purpose of the higher fees is to allow private insurers to compete with Freddie and Fannie, which tend to undervalue loan risk. Given the role of Fannie and Freddy in the mortgage crisis, I tend to view an attempt to reduce the exposure of the American tax payer for covering financial losses due to bad loans as a good thing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-votes-to-extend-payroll-tax-cut/2011/12/17/gIQAJ6tR0O_story_1.html
@Moon-howler
So you think that corporate campaign funds aren’t bribes?
How about “ALL campaign funds” in that case…or are union campaign funds magically innocent?
I don’t think ALL campaign funds are bribes. If I write a check for $100 or $10 to the local supervisors race, I just want them to have some money to work with during their campaign. Now if I start giving them $10k, you might guess that I want something in return. On the other hand, if Joe Blow Sr. gives Joe Blow Jr. $100k for his campaign, it might just be that he loves his son. Hard to generalize.
Union campaign funds aren’t the same as corporate campaign funds. Why bring them in to the mix?
Hit submit too soon.
Sometimes corporate campaign funds are protection money. Microsoft had NO lobbyists until the government decided to sue them over that idiotic “bundling” controversy.
They now pay campaign funds.
@marinm
Fannie and Freddie cover more than 71 percent of mortgages and Ginnie Mae (FHA loans) is responsible for more than 25 percent, for a total of nearly 97 percent of all mortgages being government backed. [I happen to be in the 3 percent group that has no connection to the government and, therefore, I’m never eligible for any of the mortgage relief programs.] The 97 percent coverage should spread the fee increase across the entire range of people that require financing to buy a house.
@Morris Davis
Mo, thanks. Didn’t know the govt covered so many loans. I know my first loan was govt secured. When I refinanced my LTV was better than 80% so I got a straight conventional — does that mean its somehow still govt secured?
I think I hit a nerve with the govt can solve problems quip. 🙂
MH, I have no problem with the govt making roads or running a police force. I don’t want to get RID of govt (after all I’ve said before the function of govt is to keep the poor people off my yard) but I do want it smaller. It’s not a soundbite.
I don’t get my marching orders from Mr. Beck or Messrs Koch. I just want a smaller govt that leaves me alone.
So, unions are not private corporations?
Unions are unions. We weren’t talking about them and I am going to resist your Republican urge to deflect to another subject because it was getting uncomfortable. We are talking about corporate campaign contributions.
#40 just made me chuckle.
When the facts get in the way attack the message writer. Your blog, your rules.
I’m reminded of a phrase with respect to union vs. corporation lobbying and campaign funds.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Truthfully, I don’t see much difference in union campaign money and corporate campaign money, do you? Its all a form of influence peddling in many cases.
@marin, so let me see if I understand you….you mention bribing congressmen and I suggest that corporate campaign funds (from no specific party) might be considered a form of bribery. You mentioned unions campaign funds. Why? Were we talking about those? Had we established that campaign funds in general were bribery?
It sure looked like a deflection to me. You know, one of those, ‘hey what about so and so…he did it too.’ to me.
So tell me why you find that amusing. I found it to be dodging the discussion and trying to turn it party against party….because??????
I mentioned paying a lobbyist. Censored said that I should go pay a Congressman. I told her that doing so would be a felony (bribery).
Why would corporate campaign funds be a “form of bribery”? Then, lets move the yard stick a bit. IF it were why would union campaign funds NOT be considered that same “form” of bribery that you speak of.
It’s not my deflection at all. You misread someone’s vein attempt to be funny and thought that I was advocating bribery of a government official. If you re-read the above you’ll see I in no way deflected. When the focus shifted I wanted to understand your reasoning (Cargo’s question) on how you could see one thing as “ok” but something that quacks and looks like it as somehow “different”.
But, to your point about deflection (from the original topic) I generally blame poor people for being poor.
Riding a little high there? No, I didn’t misread anything. I did not think you wre advocating bribery. I suggested, again, that corporate campaign funds were a form of bribery.
I never said a word about union campaign funds. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I wasn’t talking about unions. I havent in a couple days.
I certainly don’t recall Cargo even being involved in this discussion. What is it he is quacking about?
I am still trying to find what was funny.
I don’t think I blame anyone for poor people being poor. I would have to evaluate it on a case by case basis. There are different kinds of poverty. Generaltional, temporary, etc.
And back to the conversation in question….I called corporate campaign contributions a form of bribery, in some cases, You took out after unions. Exactly what does deflection mean to you?
@marinm
I would argue that there is a difference between union contributions and corporate contributions. While corporations earn their profits, Unions use a form of extortion to get their money (protection money). Corporations don’t make any assertion that profits are collected for the benefit of the workers, while Unions pretend to collect dues “for the benefit of the workers” and instead use them to give cash to politicians (which rarely actually benefits any workers). It wasn’t always like that with Unions, but it is today.
Whatever happened to just PAC money going to political campaigns?
I don’t believe straight dues can go to a political campaign–or at least that is the way it used to work. I don’t keep up with it. I basically don’t give a crap. If someone doesn’t like having to belong to a union, move or change jobs. Come to the sun belt. Discussion over.
Please don’t make corporate American innocent on this one. You can’t.
@SlowpokeRodriguez
Touche sir.
Are we getting off topic?
For the record, it is against the law for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization.
If you think that has happened, you need to go after it.
Most states have similar laws prohibiting this practice.
Check out National Right to Work website.
http://www.nrtw.org/d/illegalpac.htm
I am serious about moving if you hate unions and must be in one. Move to a right to work state. The south is loaded with them. Happy medium. You can belong to a union if you want or not if you don’t want.