What is poor?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by snoopy369
As I said, $32k is a reasonable level for Chicago in my opinion; $28k is certainly low. But $48k is way over the top. $35k is the most I could believe is considered 'poor'.

I'll admit my memory of Atlanta is a bit fuzzy, since I haven't lived there since 2001, and when I was there, I was only slightly aware of the monthly expenses, living with my mom and all.

I'd agree that maybe $48k does sound steep, but it does sound reasonable to me that $32-$35k/year for a family of four is probably quite poor.

[Patroklos]

$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.

[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

[Supr49er]

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?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess... I mean Hell, I spend about $300 a month. Now granted, some of that is alcohol, but still!

edit: that's not counting going out costs, of course.

[snoopy369]

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.

[Patroklos]

How in the world can you survive off of 43$ worth of food for two weeks?

I don't have the reciept, so I am estimating:

I bought six .5lb+ chicken breasts for $9.35 (on sale buy three get three free)

A dozen eggs for $3.95 or some such.

A box of cerial for $4.00.

A gallon of milk for $3.00.

A loaf of bread for $3.00.

Enough deli meat/cheese (1lb meat, 1/2lb cheese) for two weeks at $12.00.

A package each of Johnsonville Brats and Italian Sausage for $7.00.

And a package of spaghetti for $3.00.

Not right on but close enough. To suplement that I still have plenty of a 15lb bag of rice that has 200 servings and cost me $25, and about two gallons of homeade spagheti sauce frozen in the freezer.

And of cours my panty is full of all sorts of odds and ins. But on average, I spend less than $100 dollars a month on food for the home. Granted, because I can I eat out a bit, but not enough to significantly impact my food prices should I decide to eat at home instead. We are talking about poor people though who shouldn't even entertain that thought of eating out.

BTW, Idahoan instant potatoes $1.50 for a good 4-5 servings, and they are damn good tasting for that price.

I guess... I mean Hell, I spend about $300 a month. Now granted, some of that is alcohol, but still!

That isn't including alchohol, which hardly counts as a basic food cost. This would be where the concept of "basic necessities" between poor Americans (or most Americans) rational people.

When I am saving money I don't go out to bars, and nurse my rather expanise liquor cabinet that is criminally neglected when I do have money. If I didn't have that cabinet I would just not drink.

Similarly, I cancel my cable when I don't have money (its been awhile). I know, thats considered the equivalent to eating mud pies in America these days

[Jon Miller]

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

[Patroklos]

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

Yeah, but you have to ask yourself, do they not have that 10% savings rate becasue they simply don't have the money, or because their definition of "getting by" includes tofu and just a case of beer/six packs of cigarettes a week?

[Jon Miller]

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

Reasonable is 10% over minimum.

Easy definition.

JM

[Arrian]

Originally posted by snoopy369


You cannot forget the numbers, however. This is economics after all.

True enough. But I was a liberal arts major. Whaddya want?

-Arrian

[Flubber]

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

I absolutely think its doable even today-- Back when I was a student I lived insanely cheaply-- Cheap veggies like potatoes plus pastas mainly filled me up. I drank a lot of water and all my meats were always the cheapest varieties like chicken thighs . Also The superstore back then closed on Sundays and usually had some marked down meats late in the day on Saturday.

It wasn't very varied but I was generally full and I loved the fact that some of my friends were in different faculties etc-- With an ear to the ground it was rare that I couldn't find a wine and cheese reception or something atb leat once a week . Nobody cared how much you ate from the fruit platter or veggie platter or whatever-- I never would bring myself to scoop stuff to take home but I probably could have.

and no -- I don't expect people to live like that but I am just affirming that people can live pretty cheaply if they so choose.

[Deity Dude]

For a family of 4 you have to assume 2 children that are not self supporting. I wonder how many of the people here that think $40/wk for food is doable actually have 2 children. God forbid you have a baby, you'll spend over $40/wk on the baby alone.

Snoopy I purposely didn't debate each price with you I just pointed out some things I think you missed.

But if you want to, I think my assessment is much closer than yours. (I should know - I have a wife and 2 kids)

Snoopy if you have kids under 10 and you work the kind of jobs that don't get you home until 7pm or 8 pm you are going to pay daycare during the school year and extensive day care in the summer. I've paid daycare, and cheap/safe daycare is about $75/wk - $100/wk per child (IF they are an infant it is more). Believe me, there aren't many licensed daycares that are going to watch your kid for less than $10/hr. I guess you can assume you have someone who will do it for free. While that might be possible I don't think it should be an assumption for this discussion.

Where I live, unless you want to live in a dangerous neighborhood (which one could argue is a symptom of being poor) you are not going to find an apartment or house for 4 people that is $800/mo so I think you were low there. If you can find a 2 bedroom apt. (1 for the parents and 1 the kids share) for under $800 you are moving farther and farther from where the jobs are so you will pay for the savings with more gas and car maintenance.

Speaking of cars, I was conservative and assumed one car for 2 working adults. The odds of the 2 adults having work schedules and close enough jobs to accommodate 1 car are unlikely.

I have a relatively small house (3 bedrooms, 1400/sqft). My heating bills were around $200/mo in the winter and that was keeping the thermostat at 65 degrees. I'm sure they will be higher this year. I have no clue how anyone in a northern climate can pay only $40/mo for heat.

The study spoke of income, not take home pay, so taxes and withholdings have to be considered. Even for the working poor a take home pay of 85% is not a low estimate. Soc Sec and Unemployment insurance are probably close to that all by themselves. Then the Feds and the State always take a piece. If you happen to live or work in Detroit, which is where most poor people around here live or work, they take another 1.5% city income tax.

I think a lot of the posters here are thinking about 4 adults who live either a single or college type of lifestyle (i.e. walk to work, have a couple $1 menu items for dinner and then go hang out with their friends). That is not the real world for a family with children that does not have public transportation.

I think the scenario I laid out earlier (using your numbers but substituting 1 car for a bus pass and adding daycare and withholdings) was conservative and it still came out to $47,535. To classify $48,000 gross or $41,800 take home for a family of 4 in the Detroit area as poor is certainly not a stretch.

[Seedle]

$3.00 for a gallon of milk? At WALGREEN'S?!?! Thank the lord you don't live in the south, milk is outrageous down here. 3.50 a gallon at the super-market, if you are lucky, and depending on what kind you get; 4.00 at least at the drug store.

[snoopy369]

Walgreen's here (in Chicago) actually sells milk as a loss leader, actually (they're cheaper than the grocery store).