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 4)

1tomot1

on Sep 15, 2004

If $5.15 is still livable for a single person though, then why raise it that high?

Because $5.15 is NOT a viable wage even for one person, let alone a family.

Which brings us back to the idea that if we're going to go the minimum wage route it should be calculated on the actual cost of living where a person holds residence.

Or at the absolute least the minimum wage should be raised to meet inflation annually. Congress apparently thinks at least that much is reasonable as they have given themselves a raise to meet inflation every year for the past four years.

The most recent raise just occurred last week to the tune of an additional $4,000.00 a year per conrgressperson.

In a country that is supposed to be of, by, and for the people our representatives see the necessity of increasing their income through wage increases. If we believe in this country then how can we possibly argue that what's good for our representatives in office isn't good for the people?

guy in the sky

on Sep 15, 2004

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.

If you can't afford the lifestyle, change it. If you make minimum wage, you can't afford to live in Richmond, CA. So don't. It is really that simple. That may seem cruel, or "unfair" that someone may be forced to move from a location they like just because they can't afford, but its not. It is simply realistic.

My aunt and uncle both work full time making minimum wage. They have four children. Years ago, they moved from San Bernardino up here to Vancouver, WA, simply because they could not afford their lifestyle. They had the intelligence to realize this, and rather than complaining, and asking why the government didn't fix their problem, they decide to fix it themselves.

I will admit, they may not have many possessions, or wear the nicest clothes, or drive the nicest cars. They may not have cable and do still use 5.99$ a month dial-up, but they survive. They are proud of the fact that they do not require outside support to operate daily.

Too many people look to others to fix things for them. If these same people would choose a livable lifestyle for themselves, whether by relocating, sacrificing vices, and quite simply not living outside of their means, they might find it easier to get by than they think.

drmiler

on Sep 15, 2004

Reply #47 By: guy in the sky - 9/15/2004 7:55:58 PM
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.

If you can't afford the lifestyle, change it. If you make minimum wage, you can't afford to live in Richmond, CA. So don't. It is really that simple. That may seem cruel, or "unfair" that someone may be forced to move from a location they like just because they can't afford, but its not. It is simply realistic.

My aunt and uncle both work full time making minimum wage. They have four children. Years ago, they moved from San Bernardino up here to Vancouver, WA, simply because they could not afford their lifestyle. They had the intelligence to realize this, and rather than complaining, and asking why the government didn't fix their problem, they decide to fix it themselves.

I will admit, they may not have many possessions, or wear the nicest clothes, or drive the nicest cars. They may not have cable and do still use 5.99$ a month dial-up, but they survive. They are proud of the fact that they do not require outside support to operate daily.

Too many people look to others to fix things for them. If these same people would choose a livable lifestyle for themselves, whether by relocating, sacrificing vices, and quite simply not living outside of their means, they might find it easier to get by than they think.

So by your line of thinking ALL the single people in southern California who were "born" there and make minimum wage should move????
first point, you can't live in southern CA and NOT have a car. They will NOT survive without one!
second point at $5.15 per hour there is NO living within your means. At that rate you would have to work "3" jobs just to make a "living"!
third point low price housing in that area starts @ $250,000 for a lousy 1000sq ft home.
I can say all this in absolute honesty because, I lived there, done that!!!

1tomot1

on Sep 15, 2004

If you make minimum wage, you can't afford to live in Richmond, CA. So don't.

It isn't cheap to move. That includes finding transportation costs if you don't have a vehicle, not to mention being able to come up with enough money to pay the deposit and first month's (or more) rent at a new location.

Your example is a tragedy not a triumph. It is admirable that two people could manage such a task under the circumstances and I applaud that, but it's tragic that somebody should be forced to flee their hometown because they have been priced out by the economy.

Another thing, the government doesn't have any money. They don't earn or possess anything that doesn't come directly from the American people. So when somebody is "asking the government to fix their problem" it is an address to all of us as citizens.

Who is so callous that they would turn up their nose at a fellow citizen in need?

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 15, 2004

first point, you can't live in southern CA and NOT have a car. They will NOT survive without one!
second point at $5.15 per hour there is NO living within your means. At that rate you would have to work "3" jobs just to make a "living"!
third point low price housing in that area starts @ $250,000 for a lousy 1000sq ft home

California's minimum wage isn't $5.15 an hour anyway (It's $6.75), so it's pointless to speculate on whether $5.15's liveable in Cali anyway.

drmiler

on Sep 15, 2004

Reply #50 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/15/2004 8:32:16 PM
first point, you can't live in southern CA and NOT have a car. They will NOT survive without one!
second point at $5.15 per hour there is NO living within your means. At that rate you would have to work "3" jobs just to make a "living"!
third point low price housing in that area starts @ $250,000 for a lousy 1000sq ft home

California's minimum wage isn't $5.15 an hour anyway (It's $6.75), so it's pointless to speculate on whether $5.15's liveable in Cali anyway

You are "very" correct. But they won't make it on $6.75 either. At least not in southern CA anyway.

Texas Wahine

on Sep 15, 2004

Just a little note: We have rampant homelessness here in Hawaii.

*Rent for a small (small here is much smaller than mainland small, btw) apartment with two bedrooms is at least $1,000/mo . . . that's a really ghetto apartment, and that's if you get lucky enough to find one that cheap.

*Add utilities at at least $100/mo

*Gasoline is a minimum of $2.10/gallon here. If the family owns a junker car that get decent gas mileage and carpool together, they will spend at least $100/mo on gas.

*Groceries are MUCH higher here . . . like $6 or $7 for things like a gallon of milk or a box of cereal. A family of four will likely spend at least $400/mo on groceries. That's bare minimum.

*Auto insurance will differ, but I'll assume a minimum amount of $75.

*Household items like cleaning supplies and toilet paper are much higher here as well, but I'll assume $25/mo.

*Most apartments here (especially like the affordable $1,000/mo ones) don't have space or hook ups for washers and dryers. Laundry at at a laundromat for four people will be at least $40/mo.

*Health insurance for a family of four will be at least $250/mo.

If this Hawaiian family never leaves the house to do anything and never buys a single thing except what is neccessary for survival *and if nothing is actually higher than my absolute cheapest estimate*, their cost of living is $1,990/mo. If the adults both work full time making $6.50/hr (HI minimum wage), they will have a whole ten bucks to spare each month! So long as no one gets sick or the car has no problems or no one needs new undies, they are doing great, aren't they?

Draginol

on Sep 15, 2004

Simple. There is the obvious reality that the average small business could not pay that level of a wage withhout going under. Could that same business pay $8 an hour, definitely.

You know this? What small business do you run? What is your data to back up this claim? Why $8? Why not $9? Or $10? Or $12?

I always find it funny when people who don't run businesses start trying to say how much someone can afford to pay for a given service.

Draginol

on Sep 15, 2004

Because $5.15 is NOT a viable wage even for one person, let alone a family.

And you know this..how? I've lived on that level of income, as an adult. I couldn't support a family on it but I could live on it. It requires having roommates and such but it can be done. This is how most people USED to live btw. Renting an entire apartment for yourself is a relatively new thing.

Heck, remember Three's Company? It was a given that young people would room together while they made their way up. Now people apparently expect to just leave home and be able to magically afford their own apartment. You want to make money, get some skills.

guy in the sky

on Sep 15, 2004

If you make minimum wage, you can't afford to live in Richmond, CA. So don't.

I simply meant this as an example. I am not at all saying that all single people who make minimum wage in SoCal should leave. However, as I said, I do believe that if your lifestyle is outside of your means, it is up to you to fix it. If a single guy making minimum wage can't afford to live in Richmond, CA, (or any other place) then why would he? Or perhaps he could, if he would make some sacrifices, or alter his lifestyle in another way. I am sure that there are jobs paying minimum wage in Redmond, CA. Somebody has that job, and lives close enough to do that work, and manages to survive by it. If it is difficult, yet he refuses to move or otherwise change his situation, why should he automatically demand or deserve a raise in pay?

If I am born and raised in a community that booms to a point that is very difficult to live there while making minimum wage, and cannot afford the taxes or other living costs, shouldn't I take care of the problem? Or should I ask everybody to pitch in, raise my salary, etc., so that I can continue to outlive my means? Is it their responsibility to make sure I can be where ever I want? Or should I have prepared when I saw the coming changes, and made a plan to stay self-sufficient?

Another thing, the government doesn't have any money. They don't earn or possess anything that doesn't come directly from the American people. So when somebody is "asking the government to fix their problem" it is an address to all of us as citizens.

Who is so callous that they would turn up their nose at a fellow citizen in need?

Have you ever seen a panhandler, and not given them money? I know I have. I don't think that makes me or you or any Joe a callous person. Is that person needy? Maybe, maybe not. I cannot be sure. However, when I offer to buy them food or a blanket, and they refuse, saying they just want money, this tells me they aren't really needy.

It is a similar problem. There are many options available to people besides asking for a pay raise. Unfortunately, some people don't wish to deal with their situation appropriately, and look for the easy way out, placing burden on others to take care of them.

messybuu

on Sep 15, 2004

Well, that's the problem with a national program. What works in Ohio might be inappropriate in California. The thing is, it should be a state, not national issue because there's no way for a national program to determine the needs locally. Politics and poverty are a bad mix on all levels of government to a degree with the national being the worst.

This would definitely work better, since the cost of living varies from state to state.

Texas Wahine

on Sep 15, 2004

d'oh! I forgot about childcare . . . now my example family is completely screwed. $10 won't pay for full time child care for two kids.

1tomot1

on Sep 15, 2004

And you know this..how? I've lived on that level of income, as an adult.

Becuase I have lived on that income myself. I was in a position where I had to have multiple roomates as well. I wouldn't quite call it living as much as surviving - once again, why should the citizens of the greatest and wealthiest nation be forced to live in conditions unbefitting of such a nation?

You want to make money, get some skills.

I actually do possess the necessary skills to make a good income. But if you do some research you will find that there are millions of Americans with good skills who still can't find a job that pays well.

A friend of mine is an environmental engineer with a master's degree and graduated in the top five of his entire class. He cannot find a job that pays him what he should be making.

Real life isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

oligarchy314

on Sep 15, 2004

Perhaps people complaining that you can't raise a family on minimum wage shouldn't be having kids in the first place. It would have the practical result of weeding out unsuccessful genes from the the human gene pool.

xtine

on Sep 15, 2004

Health insurance for a family of four will be at least $250/mo

I wish!! I can't imagine that it would be cheaper in Hawaii than in Minnesota, but for my family it's $417 for three of us, and would be an additional $127 for my other child if she wasn't covered under her biological dad's health insurance. This is private individual health care with a $500 deductable (I wonder if we shouldn't up it to save on premiums but that may come to bite us in the ass someday too). Neither of our employers offers health care as a benefit. My hubby's an upper level blue collar worker and I'm a lower level white collar. We both work very hard and are making ends meet.

There is definately a problem. I don't know if it's a minimum wage problem, or a health-care problem or what. I mean, if the minimum wage were higher, then that would ripple throughout the payscale structure and thus our income would be higher. Then the health care burden would be a little easier to bear. But if something could be done about the rising costs of health care then we would be more able to handle that. I'm sure that there's just so much more to the equation that these two issues though. I just don't know what the answer is.

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!