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 6)

guy in the sky

on Sep 16, 2004

You're assuming that all of those disadvantaged possess the innate wherewithal of those under the same circumstances have. Not everyone can win the lottery. Omitting the lazy and the don't give a damn few--in all classes, by the way--there are honest people who are in distressful situations requiring a compassionate government to ease the burden.

Innate wherewithal has nothing to do with luck or chance. People that make sacrifices, work hard, and control themselves and their spending, can and do survive, even at the poverty level. It depends on their will to succeed. If they surrender from the beginning, and say to themselves "I require help to survive" rather than "I can help myself survive," they are destined to fail.

I completely agree with your statement, "There are honest people who are in distressful situations requiring a compassionate government to ease the burden." However, I don't think they are the majority. Programs like welfare are designed for these situations. Obviously there are many problems with our current such system, and I am not suggesting that it is the only way, or even the way. However, I think a system that helps those in genuine need, by providing food, money, shelter, etc. is a much better answer than a blanket "raise minimum wage" or similar action.

I don't mean to say that I think nobody should ask for or receive help. I do mean to say that people failing because they won't be honest with themselves and their situation shouldn't automatically assume the rest of our society should and/or will care for them.

1tomot1

on Sep 16, 2004

Many of the citizens posting here, such as "guy in the sky" etc., seem to be missing the big picture. Sure, it would be ideal if everyone were willing to put in an equal share of effort into the management and maintenance of their own lives. And that applies to those born into wealth with all of their lazy money as much as it does to someone born into poverty.

However, the reality of life is that not everyone lives the same life, not everyone has the same circumstances. And yes, humans have a vast array of dispositions, energy levels, and greatly varying levels of determination, persistence, and will.

Recognizing this reality we cannot expect everyone to fit into the same "survival box."

The rational approach is to find solutions that fit the largest cross section, based on what we understand are realistic human limitations.

If anyone takes the time to study Americna history for insight on this subject you can easily find that the highest point of American history for the average citizen (for wages, purchasing power, economic stabilty etc) were following the establishment of programs like welfare, social security, the American safety net so to speak. Keep in mind that all of these programs are less that 70 years old and that the American public fought and died to establish them.

There was good reason that people were willing to sacrifice their very lives for these things, they knew first hand what it was like before them.

Keep that in ind before being so eager to dicard or disparage proud accomplishments of the American people.

stevendedalus

on Sep 16, 2004

I don't mean to say that I think nobody should ask for or receive help. I do mean to say that people failing because they won't be honest with themselves and their situation shouldn't automatically assume the rest of our society should and/or will care for them.

I'm glad you met me half way.

I wonder what your feelings are about the million dollar bill to the taxpayer for the pilot training of W that he wasted?

stevendedalus

on Sep 16, 2004

If anyone takes the time to study Americna history for insight on this subject you can easily find that the highest point of American history for the average citizen (for wages, purchasing power, economic stabilty etc) were following the establishment of programs like welfare, social security, the American safety net so to speak. Keep in mind that all of these programs are less that 70 years old and that the American public fought and died to establish them.

I like this. Odd, isn't it, that so many congressmen violently against helping others are where they are today because of the GI Bill and now reap the rewards of the best damn medical insurance in the country.

messybuu

on Sep 16, 2004

The rational approach is to find solutions that fit the largest cross section, based on what we understand are realistic human limitations.

Why doesn't somebody start finding solutions besides raising the minimum wage to $20-40 per hour (if we're serious about making it so that somebody can sufficiently raise a family of four on it).

stevendedalus

on Sep 17, 2004

(if we're serious about making it so that somebody can sufficiently raise a family of four on it).

I agree, but there are very few who are serious.

guy in the sky

on Sep 17, 2004

As I said, or meant to make clear, I have no problem with a "safety net" such as welfare or social security. I believe in the intent of these programs, even if they do not work perfectly. However, as I also said, I don't think that something as all encompassing as raising minimum wage is the key. If you are looking to help families trying to scrape by on two or three minimum wage incomes, stick to social programs that will target and help them sufficiently.

You must target the group you are trying to help. If you just assume that raising minimum wage is the answer, in my opinion, you are mistaken. The people you are trying to help must be targeted a little more specifically to actually help them.

If minimum wage were increased to $12, $15, $20, or any other dollar amount, it would not solve the problem. Does the teenage, live-at-home burger flipper, who simply has a job for extra money, really need to make that much? No. Does the married, father-of-three burger flipper, who simply has the job to support his family, really need to make that much? Yes.

Too much opportunity will be wasted if we are too general in how try to help those in need. No matter what the intent of an action, such as raising the minimum wage, if too much money and resources are wasted on those who don't need it (i.e. the teenage burger flipper), the result will be that not all of those in true need were helped, or if all were helped in some way, the help may be less than sufficient.

I wonder what your feelings are about the million dollar bill to the taxpayer for the pilot training of W that he wasted?

I would be careful to say that it was wasted, at risk of giving the connotation that all money spent on guards units is wasted. As far as whether he fulfilled his duties, I am not yet convinced either way. While it has not been proven that he didn't, it has not been proven that he did either. I give him the benefit of the doubt; if he says everything was in order, I believe him. I give Kerry the same courtesy concerning the hubbub over his medals, although I am not sure I believe he really deserved the bronze star. Surely pursuing a man armed with a rocket launcher, wounded or not, was a brave act; I simply thought medals were awarded for something a little more exemplary. However, if it was decided his actions deserved a medal, I can and do accept that.

drmiler

on Sep 17, 2004

As far as whether he fulfilled his duties, I am not yet convinced either way. While it has not been proven that he didn't, it has not been proven that he did either.

Actually it HAS been proven! He has a Honorable Discharge certificate. I don't care who's son you are you don't get one of those for ha-ha's! There are certain "requirements" that MUST be met "before" you get one of them.

stevendedalus

on Sep 17, 2004

If the minimum wage had increased at the same rate over the past 7 years that CEO salaries have increased, the minimum wage would be over $15 an hour.

Would be $25.75.

stevendedalus

on Sep 17, 2004

I grant you that; but do you accept the military records of Kerry as well?

although I am not sure I believe he really deserved the bronze star.

Why not the benefit of the doubt with this as well since you're being philosophic about Bush? But I agree that most medals are morale-builders for the home front and have little to do with action in the field. To me, anyone who faces the enemy gallantly is worthy of recognition.

guy in the sky

on Sep 17, 2004

although I am not sure I believe he really deserved the bronze star.
Why not the benefit of the doubt with this as well since you're being philosophic about Bush? But I agree that most medals are morale-builders for the home front and have little to do with action in the field. To me, anyone who faces the enemy gallantly is worthy of recognition.

Yes, I should have been more clear. Kerry did not decide to get the medal, it was bestowed upon him for his actions, and I honor that. Me being unsure if he deserved it has nothing to do with Kerry himself.

As far as whether he fulfilled his duties, I am not yet convinced either way. While it has not been proven that he didn't, it has not been proven that he did either.

Actually it HAS been proven! He has a Honorable Discharge certificate. I don't care who's son you are you don't get one of those for ha-ha's! There are certain "requirements" that MUST be met "before" you get one of them.

Thanks, didn't really think about that.

drmiler

on Sep 17, 2004

Reply #85 By: stevendedalus - 9/17/2004 12:38:13 PM
Actually it HAS been proven! He has a Honorable Discharge certificate. I don't care who's son you are you don't get one of those for ha-ha's! There are certain "requirements" that MUST be met "before" you get one of them.
I grant you that; but do you accept the military records of Kerry as well?

Yes, however it's NOT his military record that has me SO pissed! I'm PISSED about what he did and said when he got home!

1tomot1

on Sep 17, 2004

"I like this. Odd, isn't it, that so many congressmen violently against helping others are where they are today because of the GI Bill and now reap the rewards of the best damn medical insurance in the country."

Appreciated, and good point. Sometimes it can be be pretty disheartening when you consider that every single advantage that the American people have over a third world nation is due to the struggles waged by citizens of the "left" persuasion. Yet, all too often the American public is subjected to the drumbeat of "liberals are destroying America."

No example is better than the workplace. Let's see, the 8-hour day, the decrease to a 40-Hour work week, the end of child labor, bathroom breaks on the job, employer paid benefits like retirement and healthcare, paid vacations, the minimum wage, and on and on.

These were all causes fought against by the "right" and won by the "left" to the benefit of us all.

The very fact that today we are having this discussion is so amazing to me.

stevendedalus

on Sep 17, 2004

The very fact that today we are having this discussion is so amazing to me

Yes, amazing and sad, yet the reminders must be continually hammered out, for the trend is to unravel all the good that met a dead-end with Reagan and now is under even greater scourge.

Evan Woods

on Sep 18, 2004

Perhaps a soultion might be that the poor sell their children to the rich as delicacies, or hand over the control of the nuclear family to the government so they can mass produce a breed of docile, low intelligence, high strength workforce and this would greatly reduce the cost on individual families. Of course, the nuclear family as we know it will be destroyed. Perhaps all aspects of individuality could be removed ie. Religion, Art, Music.

Or, realistically, we could lower taxes...

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!