Being poor is not fun. Period. Can you imagine living on $20K, $30K, $40K, a year? Depending on where you are in the US that might just cover your living costs. There is a large segment of the population that will not get degrees, not work in jobs that are considered "careers".
In any demographic class there are people that abuse the system, but I wouldn't consider the poor in that category. These people are as or more hard working than the middle class.
Also, the government giving disability and welfare doesn't mean they are bringing in $100K a year in benefits. The government provides enough to live on.
They article states it's $13k/year in cash. Not sure what the value of the medical benefits, but $13k/year would be pretty miserable on a family. I know someone who subsists basically on minimum wage and made just about $12k last year, he's still pretty young and healthy and is looking for a job that's better (has a degree), but he's spent a significant amount of time having to live with family/friends to get by. He's always on the lookout for $.99 taco night, but I think really at some point he'd like to get past that phase of life.
For a family or working person, sure. For an individual who no longer has to work or live in a city, $13K/yr is a windfall. One could live like a king, experiencing great nature with all the time freed up, and have money left over.
For medical, it's a safe bet that many of those on disability go to the emergency room and never pay a dime.
>Can you imagine living on $20K, $30K, $40K, a year?
Yes, because I have done it every year for the past decade. Having lived in several large metropolitan areas, I don't consider myself poor or even struggling.
I'm a grad student, so I make about $30,000 a year.
I didn't feel poor until I had a bicycle accident and saw the hospital bill. If the insurance hadn't covered it, it would have taken me years to climb out of that hole of debt.
> Can you imagine living on $20K, $30K, $40K, a year?
Where do you live that $30-40K a year is poor? The median personal income in the US is under $33,000 a year for employed workers, and still under $40k if you exclude part-time and seasonal workers (which is think is abusing the statistic).[0]
My father raised me and took care of my mother on barely $30k a year all throughout high school. It's not impossible to live on that or less, nor is it especially hard if people would stop acting like they deserve a new car, a big house and the latest toys.
The millionaire that compares themselves to the multi-millionaire feels poor. Someone making $90K could feel poor beside the person bringing home $200K a year.
Feeling poor is a mindset. Having a limited income is a reality. I use those numbers as ranges. You are right that you can live on a low income if you manage wants (and being in a low-cost area will definitely help).
The problem with low income is that there is hardly any breathing room. Medical, car or other types of unexpected expenses can make it difficult.
People that make a good income can afford to be more stupid with their money. Being stupid with money when the income is low is just asking for real trouble.
I would much rather get $20K a year for life and have all day every day to do what I want, than have to work to earn $100K a year. I could live on $20K/yr easy. My main cost would be transportation to hiking trails. But I could live near the trailheads since I wouldn't have to live in a city.
To most people on disability or any sort of welfare $100,000 per year is literally rich, even some employed people feel that way. I don't know any 6 figure earners getting bailouts. When discussing poor and rich it's worth either defining what you believe each is, or including an extra class (eg: "super rich"), because for the lay person (depending on audience of course) when you say "rich" they think of people like us, people making average engineer salaries.
I'd venture that most employed people would feel that an income of $100,000/year is rich. While the definition of rich isn't exactly set in stone, $100,000 is nearly twice the national median household income. If you're making $100,000 a year, you're almost certainly rich.
Edit: And while those of us earning "average engineer salaries" might not be getting bailouts, I'd reckon we're at least more likely to feel the effects of them than a poor, or even "average" person. The financial services sector got bailouts -- they also buy a lot of software. Maybe we keep our jobs because of those bailouts.
Anyone who doesn't think $100k/yr is rich has never been poor… or even middle income. Sure, $100k/yr will only get you a small studio in Manhattan, but you're still rich. You live a life that someone who's making $30k can only imagine, you just decided to live in a relatively small place square footage wise. The closest most middle income people will ever get to the experience of being able to just walk down to the Guggenheim, or go out drinking fancy cocktails is watching someone else do it on TV. If they are lucky, they'll maybe get to experience that once in their life.
It's perplexing to me that people who are rich don't think they are just because they live in a small apartment. How you can be obtuse with respect to how he majority of people live? I see it all the time in New York and San Francisco. Single people making $100k pretending like they are somehow "middle class" because they live in a small apartment.
I think the person making $xx and living in a farmhouse on 10 acres in Idaho is richer than the person making $xxx and living in a 400 sq ft studio in Midtown.
I didn't always think that. Possibly my perspective has changed because I'm starting a family, and spending time with relatives and friends at home is vastly more important to me than going out on the town. You spend that time at your house, and if your house is a tiny apartment it sucks. Then you realize that you can't afford a house in the city on your $100k salary and it feels bad.
Some middle-income joe in Nebraska might make 1/2 of my income, but I bet he can afford a sweet house with lots of bedrooms for all his kids - something I can't afford. Who's the rich one?
I don't earn huge amounts, but I live in a really nice little cottage in a small rural village surrounded by amazing countryside, I eat well, own a car and a good computer, I have all the amenities of modern life, disposable leisure income, and don't really want for anything.
How do I do this? I live in rural Yorkshire, near Barnsley, in a very cheap area. I would say that in real terms, I'm 'richer' than someone earning twice as much as me, but living in a similar village 30 miles outside London. There are jobs in the capital with salaries far higher than mine, that I could likely have a shot at getting if I applied, but I don't apply because I don't want to live in crowded, expensive London.
I much prefer it this way, even if my bank account doesn't have as big a number next to it as someone else's. I'm happy!
$100k is rich, provided you're purchasing something with little dependence on land prices. $100k is middle-class if you're purchasing something with a land-price component.
(The fact that the FIRE sector, also known as the owners of land and large pools of money, can extract huge rents from the rest of the economy is probably America's chief economic problem today.)
