People who live above their means can claim to be poor? People with a new Mercedes payment, a newer home with a huge mortgage, two kids in expensive colleges…these people who earn over $50,000 in income can claim to be poor? These people do choose to be poor by living too large, but real poor people haven’t those luxurious choices.
Why can’t you admit that real poor people work full-time for bumpkus as an income?
What aren’t you reading in my posts? Did I not say that part of the problem is systemic? Did I not say that most of the people can be considered to be poor? I also pointed out that so-called wealthy people can be considered poor through their own choices. What more do I have to say? I am NOT going to buy in to a simplistic raise wages to 15.00/hr scenario. Sure, it would help, but most of my blathering here is about all the other things that make us poor or living in poverty.
Think about it: How many people do you know that wouldn’t be poor if the money was there? How much money would it take to not be poor? If everyone in the country made 50,000 plus they would continue to be poor. A better house (higher mortgage), a new car for everyone in the house of driving age, the boat, or motorcycle, or… Between systemic failure and human nature, poor is, and always will be,with us. There are no simple answers. The causes of poor are many. There is no single scapegoat to blame it on.
The everything would be right if… That is a load of BS. There are as many solutions as there are problems and so I repeat: It’s local, small scale, and done slowly over time. There is no magic bullet.
That is way too low…$20.84.
You are equating people with decent incomes to be in the same boat as people without decent incomes which IS WRONG minded.
Define decent. Oh wait, we’ve beat that horse to death already.
Why do I get the notion that WendyDarling is just looking for a fight? 
I have defined decent, why don’t you?
I did. Multiple times. Perhaps you need to read a bit more carefully? Everyone should be compensated at a rate that insures that all necessities are covered.
Now: Define necessities. I refuse to throw the simplistic dollar blanket over necessity because it will be different for every person.
One more time: There are no one size fits all answers. I know you want one, but I’m not telling. It’s a secret. 
My reading comprehension could improve. Write what a decent income is, ballpark figures, once more in a blue font color.
Ever heard of practicality? Why don’t you define the necessities in terms of practical living conditions.
A budget would be very helpful too, make it as loosey goosey, as ideal as you’d like to include the huge differences for each and every single individual.
I don’t think this is a useful argument/exercise, for the reasons tent amd others have already stated. What counts as “practical living conditions” in your mind? I make considerably less than $20.84/hr and am perfectly comfortable. If I made more money, which i have in the past,
I would find “necessary” ways to spend it, and so my idea of practical living conditions would change.
Blurry wrote
When you have to put quotes around “necessary”, it does not equate with practical. I’m simply asking for straight answers from folks who I’ve been told are liberal elitists, answers that can be circumscribed rationally to alleviate some of the hardships of a majority of overworked, underpaid USA citizens. Why is that so hard to fathom folks?
How’s about you describe your income, budget and why you feel comfortable? What type of financial safety net do you have?
Nice try, but I’m not about to be boxed in with some simplistic numbers game. But at the risk of repeating myself for the umteenth time, there simply is no way to determine some blanket definition of necessity. THAT is why so many help programs fail. To the extent that they try to please everybody they please no one.
Another example of why blanket definitions don’t work: You are a single mother with 2 children. Daycare for those children is a necessity that enables you to hold down a job. Your sister (or brother) is single and has no children. Daycare isn’t even in their basket of necessities. Your cousin is also a single mom with 2 children but she is lucky. Grandma will babysit her children so she can work a job. HOWEVER… She lives 30 miles from a job so her necessity is having reliable transportation. Three different situations each with different needs called necessity.
This is why I reject simplistic answers. The problems aren’t solved by some unidimensional solution. It just ain’t that easy.
Yes. More money for the labors performed. Wouldn’t it be great? I see where Target plans on paying 15.00/hr by 2020. It isn’t enough, but a step in the right direction. But by 2020, inflation will eat up any gains and we’ll be back to existence wages again. If you add my thread on AI and robotics can you see where we are headed?
If there is any blanket solution it will be when we collectively, ALL of us, decide to stop being profligate consumers. Then, and only then, we might begin finding realistic solutions to the issues facing the people who work their asses off just trying to survive and those solutions will address a hell of a lot more than just dollars.
I’m sorry that I can’t give you what you want, but it is because the simple answer just isn’t there.
Or perhaps it’s because I’m a victim of old age cynicism. 
I do not feel comfortable divulging personal financial information to complete strangers, but I’ll try to answer in loose terms. My income is sufficient to cover the gas I need, food, rent (which includes utilities), and a few creature comforts. Additionally, I home and feed a small, beautiful cat, and so have the additional costs of food, hairball prevention treats, and litter for the cat box. If I lived in another place, the money I make might not be sufficient, as cost of living differs greatly from place to place around the country, but as is, I do just fine. I have some savings set aside for my future, and I also have that money making more money for me while it sits there waiting for me to be old and grey.
Putting quotes around the word necessity does not mean those necessities wouldn’t be practical. Practicality is a pretty subjective term in this context, which is the point that has been explained to you multiple times, in one way or another.
Screw them all and their earnings of $8 an hour…not my problems. They’ll just have to invest in the stock market with their savings like Mr. Reasonable said, no electricity and rice eats only.
Wendy, I applaud your concerns and desire to find solutions. Don’t give up but maybe narrow your focus a little. Remember? I’m the one who said keep it local, small scale and doable.
Okay, so why do people have children that they cannot support?
You had to go there didn’t you? I did my best to avoid that issue but no, YOU hadda drag it out.
OK
Prolly 90% of all live births are OOPS! Anyone who says different is lieing.
The ultra right conservatives are against any kind of birth control. “Keep 'em barefoot, pregnant, and in the bedroom or kitchen.”
Various religious groups discourage the use of condoms, and suggest the failed rhythm method to control population.
In certain states, the designed lack of facilities to correct unplanned pregnancies contributes to unwanted live births.
Supporting a child is an afterthought in the heat of the moment, assuming any afterthought.
There are dozens of other reasons but these are the obvious. You do realize that each of these plus others deserve their own thread with numerous pages of back and forth and a year from now…
I should add health and car insurance, I pay for both of those as well.
Wendy - one of the points I am trying to make is that individual median income doesn’t define people as poor. Median household income is a better measure. Single income families is a problem. There are causes unique to those families and solutions unique to those families. It’s a point about using the stats most supportive to your point. There are solutions other than simply waving a wand and granting everyone a $50,000 income, because there is a price to pay for everything. And this is a conservative position, by the way.
What’s not so conservative is universal, taxpayer supported health care, which doesn’t add to anyone’s income but which takes away an expense. Both sides of the lever matter.
Okay, but it’s worth pointing out that single mom families represent a lot of poverty. Are we doing everything we can to force dads to pay the freight? Are we making it too easy for irresponsible people to have kids? Should people have the right to bear four kids that they cannot support? Or to father them? If they do and should have that right, do we then complain that we have so much poverty or do we just accept it as a result of all those rights?
Why would single income families get preferential income treatment to a single individual? Sure, you can throw programs for childcare and food stamps at such situations, but why would they earn a greater income for the same work being performed?