Ownership Myth

And The Two-Income Syndrome

Published on September 14, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

The current median income for a family of four is about $55,000 or approximately three times that of the poverty line at $19,000 for a family of four. The problem with these statistics when trying to arrive at a “living wage” that often is juxtaposed to the horrific rate of $5.15 an hour or $10,500, which if adjusted for inflation should be at $7.50 or $15,000, is in the difficulty of determining how much of the median and the poverty line owe to two salaries. If those at the four-family poverty line consists of two-incomes at the minimal wage the income would place the family at above the line by $2,000 or a total income of $21,000. This example, however, does not consider the costs of child care, whether governmentally assisted or out of pocket. Nor does it take into account the erosion of parental quality under such duress. For the median $55,000 may constitute some cushion for child care but leaving little room for building wealth or “ownership.” Moreover, the payroll tax, respectively, $1400 and $3500, substantially reduces the subsistence level of both groups. As for the income tax, chances are the minimal level will not be taxed at all, and those frozen on the median will be helped somewhat by having dependents; in spite of this, the move to “ownership” is out of the question.

If, however, the minimum wage rose the necessary 8.7%, it would also affect the median by perhaps an additional 5% so that the low level increased some $1800 and the median some $2700 and from there adjusted for inflation annually, some progress would be made on the road to ownership, but more importantly would increase the rolls of the middle class. This, of course, does not address the shame of the two-income family where it directly affects the degradation of raising children. Only those above the median can find the right child care through comfortably retired, or one-income grandparents or professional nanas. For the rest, most leave to chance the well-being of their children.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 1)

Deference

on Sep 14, 2004

The far left may say single mom families are just fine and the far right may argue that no one who is working minimum wage deserves a "raise" anyway, but some know that between these extremes is a struggling family unit being torn in two and falling to the ground with no socio-cultural safety net.

Draginol

on Sep 14, 2004

I think there's a basic disagreement here though that can't be easily reconciled: The poverty rate.

The poverty rate is something that is arbitrarily determined. $10,500, like you said, is what someone making the minimum wage would get if they worked full time.

The question is, can they live on that? The answer is, yes. Yes they can. You can afford food, clothing, and shelter on that. You may not be able to have the lifestyle that you like, but you can live on it.

I don't see what business it is of some outside group to decide how much someone should have to pay for a product or service. That's a matter between the service provider and the customer.

If $7.50 per hour is a good minimum wage, why not make it $50 per hour? What's magical about $7.50 or any arbitrarily arrived number?

stevendedalus

on Sep 14, 2004

The poverty rate is something that is arbitrarily determined. $10,500, like you said, is what someone making the minimum wage would get if they worked full time.

I agree--for a young single person and should be patient that if he hangs in there he will be upgraded--however, it surely is not livable if one is trying to support a family. The "arbitrary" $7.50 is simply an inflation adjustment from the '60s. I trust you yield that the cost of living has increased since then. Then again, maybe not: I observed in your comment a few weeks ago wherein you compared the rent you were paying in your struggling youth without accounting for the double rent one pays today.

DEF, "safety nets" are taboo for the right[eous] let them eat week old cake.

Deference

on Sep 14, 2004

Good one.

ShoZan

on Sep 14, 2004

$7.50

$8, saw that one on the news, it needs to be $8 now, not four or five years from now. Think the news, if I remember right, that they were enforcing an $8 minimum wage but could only do it with local businesses in New Mexico or Arizona, but anyways I remember the important part that is the minimum wage needs to be 8.00 dollars now, not some years down the road, and neither Bush nor Kerry have that plan or even support it.

messybuu

on Sep 14, 2004

agree--for a young single person and should be patient that if he hangs in there he will be upgraded--however, it surely is not livable if one is trying to support a family.

Why in God's name would somebody intentionally raise a family under minimum wage? With Planned Parenthood and other programs available, it's not as if they have no choice.

Abe Cubbage

on Sep 14, 2004

I don't see what business it is of some outside group to decide how much someone should have to pay for a product or service. That's a matter between the service provider and the customer.

It’s society’s business. It’s generally accepted that the common interest is greater than the interest of a person or business. It is in society’s best interest to insure that people get paid a minimal amount for their labor.

chiprj

on Sep 14, 2004

It is in society’s best interest to insure that people get paid a minimal amount for their labor.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Sorry, the first time I read that, it looked like you were saying that people should only be paid as little as possible. Context tells me what you meant, but still... pretty funny!

Mr_Frog

on Sep 14, 2004

The question is, can they live on that? The answer is, yes. Yes they can

Holy cow, you CAN'T be serious? In California, that wouldn't even pay rent for the year in a "low-income" apartment. I was renting a one bedroom apartment in a pretty ghetto neighborhood in Richmond, CA. Rent: $985/mo. You tell me how I'm supposed to pay for food/clothes/gas/water/electricity etc? Welfare? Food stamps? I thought that was temporary assistance. I urge you to reconsider that statement, and maybe take a good look at how little $10,000 a year is.

-- B

messybuu

on Sep 14, 2004

I remember hearing that in Silicon Valley that people who were making six-figure incomes were sleeping in cars because the rent was so high. Therefore, I think the minimum wage should be raised so that people will make a minimum of seven-figures.

ShoZan

on Sep 14, 2004

Damn right, I want to be living in a Rolls Royce too.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 14, 2004

Why in God's name would somebody intentionally raise a family under minimum wage? With Planned Parenthood and other programs available, it's not as if they have no choice.

Simply because people DO get unemployed, messy...and look for work at any cost. MAYBE you should try a little less judgementalism!!!

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 14, 2004

Welfare?

Welfare isn't even temporary assistance. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist for many Americans.

Texas Wahine

on Sep 14, 2004

steven: This is a brilliant and incredibly relevant article.

WiseFawn

on Sep 14, 2004

Am I loving this article, or what? The minimum wage should be at least $8.50 an hour. But it should actually be a living wage, decided by the location you live in. Wonderful blog, stevendedalus!!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!