Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Could You Live on $7 a Day?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:48 AM
Original message
Could You Live on $7 a Day?
Could You Live on $7 a Day?
by Tula Connell, Nov 30, 2006

Seven dollars a day. That’s not the income of impoverished residents of a lesser-developed nation. That’s the average income of the poorest 60 million of Americans.

That shocking statistic was buried deep inside a New York Times article Tuesday that detailed our nosediving national incomes.

Seven dollars a day. Why isn’t that stunning revelation screaming from newspaper headlines, the top story on the national network and cable TV and in the e-mail of every news outlet’s breaking alerts?

The United States spends $2.5 million a day on the war in Iraq while 48 million adults and some 12 million dependent children each live on $7 a day, according to an analysis by the Times. It’s not just that Bush has the worst job growth record of any president in the past 40 years. (Just today the U.S. Department of Labor reported 357,000 newly laid-off workers filed jobless claims, a rise of 34,000 from the previous week.) It’s also that the jobs being created do not pay family-supporting wages nor do they provide the type of health and pension support that has sustained our traditionally vibrant middle class.

(snip)

The AFL-CIO union movement is pushing the new Congress for immediate action on a series of pocketbook issues. In addition to raising the minimum wage, we want lawmakers to restore workers’ freedom to form unions by passing the Employee Free Choice Act, overturn the ban prohibiting Medicare from negotiating with drug companies for more affordable prescription drugs and reverse the cuts in student loans made by the Republican Congress. In addition, we want policies enacted that will stop giving companies taxpayer dollars for sending our best jobs overseas and instead reward them for creating jobs at home.

Continued @ http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/11/30/could-you-live-on-7-a-day/



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. I once included in a report the fact-oid
that the residents of the neighborhood I was studying lived on the annual coffee budget of someone who drinks two lattes a day. It really got folks talking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. What percent of Americans is that?
I don't know that's pretty shocking - but what exactly does that $7.00 a day include or exclude? Are they working?

Going to have to go look up the original article.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. that's 20 percent (60 million of 300 million), it is not credible
Edited on Fri Dec-01-06 11:58 AM by pitohui
no one is living on $7 a day, a little logic here, at 30 days to a month that is $210 for an entire month, unless they are counting every teen who lives at home and doesn't help with the bills as an impoverished american, there is some serious exaggeration going on here

i've known many people who had to live on around $400 a month plus housing help plus charity hospital here in louisiana which i suppose is probably a real income of around $1,200 a month or more depending on what private health insurance would have cost them -- and that is almost impossible to get by on without some hustle

$210 a month is not believable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. It does say 48 million adults and 12 million dependent children.
So I would expect that means it is an average - that $210 a month would be $840 for a family of 4. That seems completely believable to me, considering that is $10,080/year, which is real close to the income of a minimum wage worker ($10,300).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. no that still doesn't make sense -- the math don't work
if it were one min. age worker supporting spouse and 2 kiddies, the proportions would be different

you've got way too many childless adults left over which would hugely pull up the average, think about it



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
30. That's only one kind of household - and probably a pretty rare
one at that. First off, there's the 2-4 million homeless. Then there's the millions who have exhausted their unemployment and fallen off the radar, who now are sleeping in relatives' spare rooms. There are those who are semi-employed (does 15 hrs/wk count as employed in government statistics?). And, of course, the prototypical starving artist type, lives with 5 roommates and none of them bring in over $5000/yr, but split the rent and utilities, and they can make it while trying to make it.

It's not a neat and tidy $210/mo. There are those with $0, and those with $500, and those renting single rooms for $100 month, and those sleeping on friends' couches.

Those who live closer to that line can accept it as credible. Like the guy who empties the aluminum recycling bin beside my apartment once or twice a week. I think he sleeps in his car. Probably eats at soup kitchens, will head on south as it gets colder here.

Poverty has a lot of faces. They're not hard to find if you look for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ellis Wyatt Donating Member (328 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
32. it excludes benefits
It excludes any and all government benefits. It also is "reported" income, so many of the unemployed/underemployed are forced to take menial labor tasks where they may be paid cash, under thet able, which is not reported.

It's also a "mean", not a median, so all of the 8+ million people who are unemployed are viewed as "zero dollars a day" even though some may be getting welfar, unemployment, or other benefits.

So, no, in reality 60 million people are not living on $7 a day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. Why must we pay to exist?
Better question. I like to think so anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Pay equates to work
and obviously you have to work in order to live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Unless our food wasn't
controlled by governments and corporations.

Yeah, you would still need to "work", but not for the right to pay someone to exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. It has nothing to do with government or corporations
Money is merely a medium of exchange that in many cultures predated both governments and corporations. It is merely a universal standard that allows economies to avoid the inefficiences of of a barter system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Agreed. We have to pay someone for the right to exist
That's what I said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Wrong.
Two-thirds of the population does not work to live. Children don't and the retired elderly don't. Stay at home wives don't and billionaire trust fund recipients don't have to work unless they want to, like Paris Hilton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Good point
Although for the most part children will work at some point in the future, the elderly did work at some point in the past, and housewives DO work, they just don't get paid in money. While those people account for the vast majority of the 2/3 you mentioned, we still have the Paris Hiltons of the world that unjustly will never have to raise a finger for their entire lives--simply because of the circumstances of their birth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Why do people keep knocking on Paris Hilton?
She works. She's done a half-dozen films, 2 TV series, modeling.

C'mon. She's not a Bush twin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. Not knocking her individually at all. She's just famous and
convenient to use as an example, however, she never had to work as a waitress at Denny's waiting for that all important phone call that could be her big break. I have known many such heirs, not famous like her, as I worked on their trust funds in the past.

Many do chose to work to their credit but they really don't have to worry if they lose a job, or just decide to quit and knock around Europe for year. Paris will never have to worry about getting acting and modeling jobs once she starts aging like many other women do have to worry about keeping their jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #26
39. She would likely not be famous if she weren't born into tremendous wealth
She is a product of her predecessors. If she had to start from scratch, you would likely never hear of her. She stands on the shoulders of everybody else who did work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. Nevertheless, she does work.
She is acting against type - she could very easily get through without ever even thinking about work, but she tries. Sure, she will never suffer for her failures (only for her indiscretions) and she gets to pick and choose what to try next, but her instincts are right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #26
40. Don't Forget Her Porno
That counts as work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #26
49. She couldn't get work
as a model or an actress if she didn't have the money and the name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. Because we live in a world where there are limited resources
Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Yup
And we have to pay whoever owns those resources for the right to exist.

If we lived in a world where everyone didn't want, need, and expect to have everything, we could make it. But like you said, that ain't the world we live in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Correct
Edited on Fri Dec-01-06 12:36 PM by Nederland
People have universally chosen to "want" more than they "need". And let's be honest, a life where you get only the minimum amount of food, clothing and shelter that you need to live is pretty unappealing. Not really surprising that, as human beings, we want more. And I, for one, am happy that people want more. Many of the truly beautiful things that exist in our world--music, art, literature, etc.--would not exist if people were satisfied with the bare essentials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Some people universally chose that
Those who didn't ended up being in the way.

"Many of the truly beautiful things that exist in our world--music, art, literature, etc.--would exist if people were satisfied with the bare essentials."

I know you meant would not, but that was kinda funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. :)
Yup, irony is, well, ironic.

Editted to correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
28. because.....
You pay to exist because you pay others to do things that you can't or won't do. Money = work

You pay 3 bucks a gallon for milk because you don't have the time or space to care for a cow and milk it everyday.
You pay the electric company because you want electricity and you don't own your own windmill.
You pay rent/mortgage because you don't have the money to buy a house out right.

etc etc etc

Now you could slide on a back pack and hike out into the middle of no where in montana and live off the land for free without any modern convienances if you really wanted to.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. I could do many things individually
None of which would get rid of slavery.

I don't mean the wage slavery in the US exactly, more the 5 year old girl in SE Asia that makes our shoes type.

I could make my own shoes, but I don't know how, and you need money for that, and she'd still be making shoes anyway. I'd miss out on the modern convenience too. I'll just wear them until they disintegrate, out of respect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
43. You don't have to pay to exist. You do have to aquire the resources
necessary to sustain your life.

So do hunter/gatherers.

So do deer.

So do dolphins.

So do hummingbirds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
5. Why indeed? Is it because that, in the final analysis, amerikans, in
general (DUers hopefully are the exceptions) don't give two shits about anybody else, or what is done to them, until it effects them directly?

How many communities have, with overwhelming support, passed laws and ordinances that virtually criminalize poverty?

:kick: & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noonwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
6. Only when I was in college and my parents were paying the bills
I could go to the bar and drink myself into oblivion for 7 dollars in 1984. The Flaming Hog at Coral Gables-all drinks were 50 cents. Ladies drank free from 8-10 during ladies night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
9. I'll kick that. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
11. I'm having problems with the math here...
Granted, math has never been my best subject, but 7 dollars a day puts the person below the income required to file taxes, and the $5,743 also quoted in the article is a lot more than 7 dollars a day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. It's in the article
Edited on Fri Dec-01-06 12:09 PM by Nederland
You get to $7 a day by considering that the $5743 a year number is for a single taxpayer, who frequently is supporting spouses/children/parents/ etc. When you add those people into the mix, you end up with $7 a day per person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. you do know a single taxpayer would have declared such dependents?
Edited on Fri Dec-01-06 12:14 PM by pitohui
the article is just plain not making any sense, not from a tax standpoint, not from a math standpoint

no taxpayer is going to declare as a single taxpayer if she has dependents that she can declare, she files as head of household

the problem remains -- you have too many adults, too few children -- the average income is clearly well above $7 a day

also the disabled adult in the household still has an income, for instance, a friend is working at minimum wage, he is married to a woman who gets disability, her check alone is well over $210 per month

this report is leaving out all sorts of sources of income to exaggerate, never a good idea to give the other side a reason to poke holes, at least make it a challenge

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. The article admits that though
Here:

The official poverty line in 2004 was $27 a day for a single adult below retirement age and $42 a day for a household with one child. The I.R.S. data does not include the value of government benefits like food stamps, the earned-income tax credit for working families and subsidized medical care.

It also excludes unreported income, which the Treasury Department and the I.R.S. have said is a major and growing problem among the highest-income Americans, especially those who own businesses, invest in stocks and have overseas financial interests.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
athena Donating Member (771 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
53. That's not "single" as in unmarried with no dependents.
Nederland means "single tax return", I think.

The NYT article is worded misleadingly, but what they mean is:
  • The average income for the bottom 26 million tax returns filed in 2004 was $5743.
  • These tax returns represent a total of 60 million people: 12 million children and 48 million adults (which means 22 million adult dependents were reported).
  • Therefore, each of the 26 million tax returns represents, on average, 60/26 = 2.31 people.
  • This corresponds to a yearly income per person of $5743/2.31 = $2486, and a daily income per person of $2486/365 = $6.8.

Here is the relevant section from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/business/28tax.html
Analysis of the I.R.S. data by The New York Times found that average reported incomes fell or were virtually flat at the end of the period at every level of income except for the poorest 26 million taxpayers, the bottom fifth. Those impoverished taxpayers made less than $11,166 each in 2004 and had an average income of $5,743, up $135 or 2.4 percent, from the year 2000.

A taxpayer can be a single individual or a married couple. The poorest taxpayers consist of nearly 48 million adults and about 12 million dependent children. This means that the poorest 60 million Americans reported average incomes of less than $7 a day each.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. Yes, I noticed that, too
Edited on Fri Dec-01-06 12:55 PM by Lone_Star_Dem
It would be more factual to say that it was just over $15 a day per household, and then point out how the households of the poorest taxpayers consist of nearly 48 million adults and 12 million children.



Edit to add: It doesn't make the figure any more palatable, just more factual.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
35. $7.00 x 365 = $2,555.00
Edited on Fri Dec-01-06 02:20 PM by SoCalDem
But even at $20K, after you take out for FICA and state & fed taxes, you might be left with a little over $42 a day.

Full time (40 hrs) @ $10 an hour for 50 weeks. Of course most employers don't even GIVE employees 40 hrs anymore, not do they give a 2 wk paid vacation, so the employee "could" make a bit more by working those extra 2 weeks...if they can get the hours.

$42 a day translates to about $1,260.00 a month.

Now:

pay for food
rent
electricity/gas/phone/water/trash collection
car expenses/transportation
medical co-pays
clothes
child care

Now after you've paid all those expenses, save for your your retirement, your kid's college expenses, and don't forget.. they recommend that everyone have at least SIX MONTH'S take home pay in savings (the rainy-day account)..

How's that plan goin'??

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
51. Glad you posted all that. It must have
taken some thought, time and effort.

One thing you left out is re-paying college loans - if you work in the above ground economy, they can garnish up to 20% of your income to see you've caught up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
21. One minor correction...
"The United States spends $2.5 million a day" Actually that's $177 million per day in Iraq or $7.4 million per hour.

$122,820 per minute

So every minute the U.S. could have bought someone a house, but instead sends it to Iraq.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VOX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
34. With the value of a dollar what it is, no/ n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kineneb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
36. No,
trying to live on $40/day is trying enough (our "official income" from Hubby's SSDI).

Pro: "Benefits"- Medicare-Medicaid (for Hubby only), free food from monthly handout, discounted fees at local junior college...

Con: no vacations (what is a "vacation"?), hoping nothing breaks because we can't afford to fix it, having to work in the underground economy to be able to afford food and gasoline, not knowing if there will be enough money at the end of the month to eat or drive... hoping I don't get sick ($250 "co-pay" before state kicks in to pay bills!)...

I wish I could help others more, but I am busy trying to stay sane, juggle the books and be a full-time caregiver. Not an easy job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. I've never been on a vacation in my adult life
I'm 37 now and always worked full time with two college degrees and never have been able to afford a vacation except for a few days off.

But it's just as good to watch my masters' extravagant lives. That is enough fulfillment for me. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kineneb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. have had vacations
as children and then before Hubby lost his job (WorldCom). Now he can't take a real vacation because he has dialysis 3 days per week and has other health issues. He will be on the machines for the rest of his life, so going anywhere gets complicated. Never mind the lack of funds.

Hope your life improves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Consider camping
I was raised in a lower middle class blue collar family and money was hard to come by. With a modest investment in camping equipment (tent, cookstove a cooler etc) we had some fabulous vacations. A whole week in the Smokey Mountains, A whole week right on the Florida beaches and 2 full weeks in the Rocky mountains. Sure, we had to use the public showers at the campgrounds, and all our meals were picnics or canned goods or fish we caught ourselves. Each of us had a green garbage bag full of our clothing and toiletries and 6 people were cramped into a 10X14 tent every night. It was a lot of work but now, looking back, these are out fondest memories as a family. Every 2 or 3 years we managed to save up enough to cover the loss of income and the cost of the modest vacation. We did not go to expensive amusement parks or resorts. We went to the beachfront or mountain campground and visited national/state monuments, homes, parks etc.

One year we had to cancel a planned week away from home because my dad was laid off a week before we were to leave and the money was better saved than spent. Instead we took 3 weekends in a row and went to various local parks and had picnics, hiking and fun in the sun day and spent the night in our beloved tent.

IMHO the whole point of vacation is to put away the daily cares and go have fun as a family. A little creativity can make up for lack of money and I encourage you to think outside the box. I know money problems can be depressive and sap away creativity but every family needs the bonding time. IMHO.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
38. I don't believe this article at all.
48 million adults have an income of $210 a month?

Color me suspicious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
44. which works out to $210 a month
about what indigent adults get on general assistance here in california....well, that AND food stamps. still, that is unliveable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malmapus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
46. Couldn't even live off of $7 / hr
Barely making ends meet with what I'm making now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hamletsophelia Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
47. impossible..
I can't.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
48. Honest to God, I lived on less when Clinton was President.
Back in '98, I was making $6.50 an hour working 40 hours a week. My rent for a studio apartment was $395 a month, but I could still afford to buy a six pack of my favorite beer every week. Food was cheap back then and gas, oy, it breaks my heart to remember spending less than $10 to fill up the tank. No way you could do that now.

Wait a minute! Seven dollars A DAY?! FUCK THAT SHIT! THE REVOLUTION IS OVERFUCKING DUE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broken_Hero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
50. I have in the past
but only because I had a lot of "roommates"....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
52. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
athena Donating Member (771 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
54. Anyone who is surprised by this should read "Perfectly Legal"
by David Cay Johnston. Among other things, Johnston points out that quoting the incomes of the top 1% understates the gap between the rich and the poor, since the numbers go up exponentially as you separate the top 1% into its parts. When the NYT states, "Incomes after 2000 fell the most among those at the top of the income ladder," it ignores the fact that the richest of the rich have been getting increasingly good at tax evasion. Their average reported income may have gone down, but tax evasion among the rich is a large-enough effect that it renders IRS numbers meaningless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
55. My girlfriend is an adult who makes about that on average.
She lives in my bedroom in the apartment I share with 2 other people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC