[avavavava]

Yes, that seems high to me as well. At least in most areas.

[RlUbQU3R]

I think they transposed some numbers. $24,400 seems more reasonable to me. IIRC, the median income for a family of four is in the mid 40s.

[xochex]

Comrade: No, apparently they got the numbers correct. This report defines poor as 2x poverty income.

[lmHVYs8e]

Low income means being able to pay for oneself. A family of four can't pay form themselves on 20k a year.

JM

[alexosnasos2]

Very true, I was going to mention that but didn't.

JM

[i32I7qyH]

How about (income) * (cost of living) ? Seems simpler (though includes basically that list).

I'd say rural poor is around $25k-$30k for a family of 4 (depending on the rural area and your definition of rural). Urban poor is probably $30k-$35k (depending on the city). NYC you might go as high as 40k.

[parishilton]

Originally posted by snoopy369
How about (income) * (cost of living) ? Seems simpler (though includes basically that list).

I'd say rural poor is around $25k-$30k for a family of 4 (depending on the rural area and your definition of rural). Urban poor is probably $30k-$35k (depending on the city). NYC you might go as high as 40k. Once more, poor doesn't mean unable to live without assistance.

JM

[Pateeffelty]

What is poor, in a more general sense? Forget the exact numbers.

I figure it's when you cannot afford to both:

1) pay for the basics (rent, taxes, food, energy, clothes); and
2) save.

If you cannot save you cannot gain wealth. If you cannot gain wealth and you're just barely meeting basic needs... you're po in my book.

-Arrian

[vNQmO2BF]

What is poor, in a more general sense? Forget the exact numbers.

I figure it's when you cannot afford to both:

1) pay for the basics (rent, taxes, food, energy, clothes); and
2) save.

If you cannot save you cannot gain wealth. If you cannot gain wealth and you're just barely meeting basic needs... you're po in my book.

-Arrian I would agree, however I am quite sure that most American's concept of "the basics" is quite different than yours or mine.

[Grenader]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Where did I say it was defined as unable to live without assistance?

I'd define the level of 'poor' as less than 10% of income is 'disposable' income; ie, 90%+ income is used on food, clothing, rent, transit, healthcare, etc., based on standard measures for 'minimum acceptable' based on the area.

For Chicago, family of 4, I'd use the following figures:

$800/mo rent ($9600)
$400/mo food ($4800)
$150/mo transit ($1800) (monthly bus pass for both parents)
$150/mo clothing ($1800)
$300/mo health insurarce ($3600)
$100/mo other health costs ($1200)
$70/mo electricity ($840)
$40/mo gas ($480)
$40/mo heat for 6 months ($240)
$20/mo water ($240)
$20/mo telephone ($240)
--
24,840
so around 28,000 is the level at which you can spend about 10% of your paycheck on optional goods, by this calculation; I'd guess that some of those costs are low estimates (kids in school have school item costs, for example, while younger kids go through clothes faster, plus diapers etc; daycare; and I'm assuming zero taxes, which may be inaccurate at that level.) Probably closer to $32,000 for a family of 4 in Chicago, which has a fairly low CoL for a large urban environment. I agree with this idea.

JM

[MipRippoomamn]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Where did I say it was defined as unable to live without assistance?

I'd define the level of 'poor' as less than 10% of income is 'disposable' income; ie, 90%+ income is used on food, clothing, rent, transit, healthcare, etc., based on standard measures for 'minimum acceptable' based on the area.

For Chicago, family of 4, I'd use the following figures:

$800/mo rent ($9600)
$400/mo food ($4800)
$150/mo transit ($1800) (monthly bus pass for both parents)
$150/mo clothing ($1800)
$300/mo health insurarce ($3600)
$100/mo other health costs ($1200)
$70/mo electricity ($840)
$40/mo gas ($480)
$40/mo heat for 6 months ($240)
$20/mo water ($240)
$20/mo telephone ($240)
--
24,840
so around 28,000 is the level at which you can spend about 10% of your paycheck on optional goods, by this calculation; I'd guess that some of those costs are low estimates (kids in school have school item costs, for example, while younger kids go through clothes faster, plus diapers etc; daycare; and I'm assuming zero taxes, which may be inaccurate at that level.) Probably closer to $32,000 for a family of 4 in Chicago, which has a fairly low CoL for a large urban environment. You're forgetting a few things. First of all if both people work and the children are young you need daycare. $200/wk = $10,400 year.

So now we are at $24,480 + 10,400 = $34,880

Remember the $34,880 is take home. Add withholdings (Federal State, Local, FICA etc) at 15% and you get (34,880/.85) = $41,035.91.

If you live in an area without public transportation subtract your bus pass ($150/mo) and add a car payment, gas and car insurance. Let's say you get no-fault $75/mo, a cheap car $150/mo, you don't drive much - gas $50/mo, repairs and maint $25/mo and you come up with:

(75+150+50+25-150) = 150/mo or another $1800/yr So, you have to take home another 1800/.85=$2177.65 if the 2 adults can somehow figure out how to share the car.

Or a total of $43,213.56. Add you 10% discretionary and you get $47,534.92.

Based on that $48,000 doesn't sound too far off.

[Doctor-CTAC]

Arrian.

-=Vel=-

[payowlirriply]

I also would guess more on food, I spend 500$ which is a lot, but I would expect 200$ per person as being pretty reasonable. We already discussed this, your estimates on food are wildly out of all relation to normal people who don't eat Tofu

[Tyncneiff]

200$ a week for daycare?! O_O
That's insane.

[katespepach]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I based that on my own rent, actually; I have a 1BR that is big enough for a family of 4, if they were cramped (2 living spaces, one for the kids, one for the adults). It's actually in a slightly more expensive area of town (Hyde Park), so I imagine you could get a bigger space for the same amount in a slightly worse area of town (say, Kenwood). I suppose that's true. I've a studio in Uptown that's just $100 cheaper, and it's big enough for me and my adorable little kitten... but not for a family of four.


Monthly pass is a convenient number (gives you free rides for 30 days), and is the most efficient way to purchase it. Even the poor can save up one month's paycheck to pay for a transit card, if they choose to. They often don't, of course, but they could. In calculating these numbers, you should always assume the correct choice when it's reasonable to be made; certainly people making $80k a year can be 'poor' in the sense of having no savings, but that is due to poor choices. While I agree that they could save up to buy a transit card, and that it's a smart choice, that doesn't mean that it's the one they'll take--and I disagree that you should assume that they'll take the 'correct', rational choice; instead, I think one should use the most common, or likely choice.

Often times, the 'correct' choice is a luxury only the comfortable can undertake.

I've friends who could easily afford the monthly pass, and yet they still go weekly--laziness being the factor. For someone who's living paycheque to paycheque, earning not very much a week, I can see how it's better for them to simply pay as they go--if they only have $20 to spare, it'll get them to work for a week, but then they don't have the option of saving it over a period of four weeks to pay the $75 for the next month.

Additionally, while I know that you can get paper transit cards for a month, the simplest method is the Chicago Card itself--which requires a charge card of some sort (debit or credit)--something that many impoverished families may not actually have.


A car is a luxury in Chicago, not a need.
Well, it's not like the CTA has any dry/problematic spots in its coverage, or that it has budgeting issues and perennially threatening to cut routes in the poorer regions of the city... right?

I myself do tend to think of a car as a luxury; that said, and you should know this living in Hyde Park, mass transit has a whole host of additional issues--particularly when you start getting past 75th street.

Obviously this number can vary - even by where you live - but $400 for a family of four can feed them adequately.
I do make an allowance for that. I'm simply saying that I'd actually raise that amount by maybe a $100, since if a family of three in Atlanta buying things on sale and at wholesale stores can rack up $400 bills, I wouldn't be surprised if a family of four in Chicago ends up paying more--especially when the cost of living in Atlanta is cheaper, by and large, than Chicago.

I consider it a necessity, so it's included. You can choose not to get it, just as you can choose to walk to work instead of taking the bus ... but in most cases it saves money overall (if you take away the relying-on-society-for-medical-bills).
I know it saves money in the long run--but see my reasoning from above. Just because it's the right, logical, sane, correct choice, does not mean people have access to it. Impoverished families may not have access to it through their workplaces; insurance companies may not be willing to cover them for a reasonable amount, either due to 'pre-existing' conditions, or a host of any other bureaucratic reasons. They could get the insurance for only life-threatening issues, but even that may require a monthly expense that they cannot afford.

Why do you think so many people end up going to the emergency room, rather than their GP?

I didn't include laundry directly, probably not an unreasonable cost to add (though not sure what water costs would be - again, I don't actually pay water myself).
That, I don't know. $1.25 is what I've always seen, but I've never been to a laundromat, where things might be more.

Ground Beef is less than $2 a pound NOT on sale, probably closer to $1 (I estimated $2/lb above, but that's honestly quite high).
Well, I suppose ground beef--I was thinking more of beef stew cuts, so. *shrugs*

That's not an unreasonable price. I'm not sure why grapefruit juice should be a price estimator, though... Milk is more useful ($3/gallon if you buy it at Walgreens).
Milk's not so useful for the lactose intolerant--which is why I couldn't think of the price off the top of my head.

[glagoliska]

$400 sounds completely insane for food costs. I just spent $43 on enough food to get me by for two weeks plus, and that is without me being able to take advantage of the economy of scale a four person family can (the food will go bad). And I wasn't even trying to save money by using bargin brands or coupons.

If you are buying Cape Cod potatoe chips and brand name breakfast ceral then maybe you could spend that much, if you are even remotely trying to spend wisely you should even begin to approach $400.

[kranskregyan]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
How in the world can you survive off of 43$ worth of food for two weeks?

I mean, I know you could have 10 years ago, but how could you do so now?

JM Lots of Top Ramen?

[DoctorQuquriramba]

Google it ... you can find plenty of plans for $200/month (not Chicago prices, but still). $400 is quite reasonable for a family of four, and we're not talking Top Ramen. I spend ~75/wk for two of us, but we buy nice steaks and things like that; we could easily do $40 or less per week if we wanted to.

[Aizutox]

So poor people are by definition people that if they are any poorer they couldn't get by. That isn't poor, that is poverty.

I thought we were getting away from that defintion and using reasonable numbers for getting by and including a 10% emergencie/savings rate.

JM

[BundEnhamma]

OK, if we want to argue about reasonable, then do this.

Reasonable is 10% over minimum.

Easy definition.

JM