1 in 3 US families classified as 'working poor" but I disagree

[runyc]

Price of goods will increase due to the VAT Tax that will go alongside the implementation of the $1000/month dividend.. However, there will not be any drastic inflation.

As an example, The Wall Street Bailout 10 years ago was around $700 billion dollars. There was no sudden increase in the cost of day-to-day goods right after. The only goods/services that have increased drastically in the US for the last few decades have been
- post high school / secondary Education Tuition
- health care

In theory, the benefits of the $1000 dividend will outweigh the negative effects. That is because there are intangible benefits that this UBI brings to the table: e.g. just being less stressed about financial burdens and obligations is a HUGE plus for our working class and lower-income class.

Agree 100%. It's a total misconception that UBI (Freedom Dividend) would raise prices of everyday goods. Over the past 20 years, we've seen nominal prices decrease for most items while technology and quality have increased at a faster rate. The only items that have witnessed outsized inflation are healthcare (driven by lobbyist and healthcare regulation) and education (driven by capital supply for student loans).

Also, the additional benefit of UBI which I have not seen widely discussed is its ability to create mobility for those in lower-income parts of the country. With an extra $12-$24K per year, families would have the resources to pay for moving expenses and relocate to other parts of the country where the cost of living is more affordable. This would also benefit those who live in rural parts of the country who have not witnessed appreciation in home prices as there has been a "flight to city" mentality which has increased home prices in major cities relative to rural parts of the country.

 

[boris]

Why are yall using the exception as the rule?

We get it, the bay is expensive compared to the "normal".

But that's what the market is out there.

A lot of people are making money to justify those prices.

It came up because blackintellect was trying to say that $70k is a lot no matter where you live. As a Bay Area resident, I can tell you it's not a lot here.

 

[kingkoopa]

It came up because blackintellect was trying to say that $70k is a lot no matter where you live. As a Bay Area resident, I can tell you it's not a lot here.

Ok, but you are the exception.

You honestly don't belong in this conversation if everything that is posted you relate to the Bay.

 

[boris]

Ok, but you are the exception.

You honestly don't belong in this conversation if everything that is posted you relate to the Bay.

Ok, but I am not the person that originally posted about the Bay. I'm just commenting on what others said.

 

[Chiron]

Add another $3400 for car maintenance (gas, oil changes, etc). If you spend $60 per week on gas, that’s $2880 per year. America is not designed for people who want to be single or, live the bachelor/bachelorette lifestyle. You need two sources of income in this country....

Can’t forget that “allegedly” most people are in credit card debt. So, that means poor credit scores.

Credit card debt is debatable if you are trying to "live within the means" but I did forget student loans which will definitely eat up the rest of you "70k salary". So like I said living "comfortably " on 70k can still be paycheck to paycheck without being a crazy spender on luxuries in any major city expensive or not. Unless you are a eat peanut butter sandwiches, and cancel Christmas type dude... 70k is not doing "Well".

I consider doing well to be having bills paid. Able to partake in an annual 1-2 week vacation, a few concerts here and there, without going into debt and still having a 6month rainy day fund. That is almost nobody in America on a single income.

 

[Brownstone]

I mean, I only live in the Bay Area. What would I know about the cost of living here?

There are really two separate conversations being had in here. Some are conflating my convo with the other. I am not talking about cost of living/living comfortably/ take home etc.... These are subjective, vary greatly based on asset size, familial wealth, tax laws/ marital status and geographic location, in essence you are talking about ones quality of life.

I am simply talking about incomes, which some like to pretend we don't have measurable data on. We have this at a state level, county level and town level in some cases. Saying 70k doesn't go as far in the bay area as other places is like saying the sky is blue...duh.

I'm saying income is a measurable data point that states 70k income is high, yes EVEN in the bay area. I've posted numerous sources to support this point.

 

[boris]

There are really two separate conversations being had in here. Some are conflating my convo with the other. I am not talking about cost of living/living comfortably take home etc.... These are subjective, vary greatly based on asset size, familial wealth, marital status and geographic location, in essence you are talking about ones quality of life.

I am simply talking about incomes, which some like to pretend we don't have measurable data on. We have this at a state level, county level and town level in some cases. Saying 70k doesn't go as far in the bay area as other places is like saying the sky is blue...duh.

I'm saying income is a measurable data point that states 70k income is high, yes EVEN in the bay area. I've posted numerous sources to support this point.

What are you defining as high? I'm trying to figure it out, because the way you're using the word high doesn't make sense to me.

This link, https://datausa.io/profile/geo/california#economy, that you posted provides median income data from 2017, so I'll go with that.

Alameda County has a median income of $96,296. Santa Clara County has a median income of $119,035. The lowest around the Bay appears to be Solano County at $77,133. $70,000 would be less than the median income in all the counties that surround the Bay, so I wouldn't call $70,000 high.

 

[Brownstone]

I tend to favor median numbers over mean with income statistics. That being said I will admit by mean standards 70k in San Fran is average (not low)

This btw is the ONE metro area in California that 70k would not be considered high income - The Department of Labor reflects San Francisco / Oakland / Hayward as 72k for mean income, so from that area 70k could be considered average. I stand corrected, but certainly not low.

Los Angeles by comparison has an average income Of 58k.

OES Home : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

OES Home

www.bls.gov