Almost half of US families can’t afford to pay for basic needs
Nearly 51 million households don’t earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation, and a cell phone.
The figure includes the 16.1 million households living in poverty, as well as the 34.7 million families that the United Way has dubbed ALICE — Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. This group makes less than what’s needed “to survive in the modern economy.”
“Despite seemingly positive , the ALICE data shows that financial hardship is still a pervasive problem,” said Stephanie Hoopes, the project’s director.
California, New Mexico and Hawaii have the largest share of struggling families, at 49% each. North Dakota has the lowest at 32%.
Many of these folks are the nation’s child care workers, home health aides, office assistants and store clerks, who work low-paying jobs and have little savings, the study noted. Some 66% of jobs in the US pay less than $20 an hour.
The study also drilled down to the county level.
For instance, in Seattle’s King County, the annual household survival budget for a family of four (including one infant and one preschooler) in 2016 was nearly $85,000. This would require an hourly wage of $42.46. But in Washington State, only 14% of jobs pay more than $40 an hour.
Seattle’s City Council just passed aon big businesses to help alleviate the city’s growing homelessness and affordable housing problems.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
92 visitors
If you can't afford kids--don't HAVE kids.
Did you ever think that they could afford to have children when the child was born? It takes 20+ years to raise a child and a lot can happen in that period. Maybe instead of blaming the parent, we should blame the public policies and corporations who create unstable economic situations. Do you want to blame the parents when their job is outsourced, the lack of affordable healthcare coverage when the parent has a serious illness such as cancer, or the economy crashes because of deregulation?
My daughter was born in 1986, and by the time she graduated from college, I had experienced recessions. 1987, 2000 and 2008.
I agree with both you and the Texan here.
Sure, some people fall on hard times after they have kids. Kids are expensive. I am not against helping people who are in need through no fault of their own. I am against cradle-to-grave govt. assistance, especially for those who keep having kids they can't or won't support.
There are also plenty who become pregnant while on govt. assistance, and stay on it for decades.
It's nice that it is just that simple. There could never be such a thing as an unintended pregnancy...given that there appears to be a full throated return to just say no to sex, and an effort to defund BC provider for low income people and a shuttering of abortion providers. I'm so glad to know that the "don't have kids" thing is so black and white. PHEW. /S
It IS that simple.
In this day and age, there are fewer and fewer unplanned pregnancies. And abortion is legal, so if you can't afford to have kids on your own, I feel you would be doing the taxpayers of America, and most likely the child, a great service by aborting it.
Birth control is readily and cheaply available for all.
Pretending otherwise is foolhardy.
Let me guess...you're a man. Am I right?
Pretty much every thing you said is wrong.
The $5 an hour many working class people made in 1978 for hard manual labor would equal about $40 per hour today but those same unskilled jobs only pays about $10 per hour now.
If you have to ask, and we can only assume you asked, then there is really no point explaining it to you...
Removed for context
Nah, you’re off by a factor of 2. $5 in 1978 dollars in closer to $20 in 2018 dollars.
$20 not. $40
Why do you put disingenuous crap like that out there?
I thought Trump had supercharged the economy.
"I thought Trump had supercharged the economy"
3.9% unemployment. Trump has " supercharged" liberal hatred.
Obama supercharged SNAP. When he took office In 2009, 33,490,000 people received food stamp benefits. As of October 2016, the last month reported for FY 2016, 44,219,123 people received food stamp benefits, an increase of about 10,729,000.
You mean trumps government says it's 3.9%. He said it was 45% just before the election. I would LOVE to see what he has done to drop the UE rate OVER 40% since taking office.
I am sure you are going to tell us all how Obama's policies are the sole reasons the UE keeps dropping.
I want to see that math, too.
2016, there's something about 2016, oh yeah that's right Trump wasn't president yet.
We know that job creation under Trump is no different than it was in Obama's last years, and we know that wages are crawling along at the same rate of increase they did in Obama's last years, so what is the basis for saying that it is better for these people under Trump? We are not talking here about those who are in the stock market.
Make up your mind, please.
Either Obama gets credit--and blame--for today's economy or he doesn't.
Which are you picking TODAY?
Trump is claiming that he has done wonderful things for working people. There is very little evidence of that.
People who work full time hours need government assistance to get by. What is he doing about that, other than trying to end the government assistance?
people are getting off govt. assistance because they are doing better.
it isn't the govt. job to support everyone.
Trump and Congress lowered taxes for virtually everyone who pays income tax. Don't remember that--after all the complaining about it?
Weird.
When 40% of the population has trouble buying basic needs, you have a problem in your society.
Unfortunately a lot of the people getting the short end from Trump and the Republicans vote against their own pocketbook interests because of white nationalism and other bullshit appeals of Trump and the right.
So the folks struggling in liberal Washington--with a higher than federal minimum wage, are doing so because of Trump and Republicans?
OMG! That is freaking hilarious!
You have obviously missed your calling as a comedy writer.
10.7 million more people needed SNAP to get by after Obama took office.
"People are now getting more on their paychecks thanks to the tax reform. You sound like that is a bad thing"
What's good for the American people under Trump is bad for John.
Obama took office in the middle of the Geo. W. Bush recession or did you think that the slate was wiped clean when the president takes the oath of office?
Do you remember the October 2008 banking collapse, or was that also Obama's doing?
In 2016 some 49.2 percent of U.S. households received benefits from one or more government programs—about 151 million out of an estimated 306.8 million Americans—according to U.S. Census Bureau data
Can you formulate that into a point?
NOBODY sees much benefit from those tax cuts intended for the top. And price increases eliminate any benefits. I'm just picking a few ways you are wrong.
Most of the cuts go to the top. The ones to average Americans EXPIRE.
Of course those piddly tax cuts are dwarfed by the price increases:
Who hasn't noticed the rise in gas prices, alone they eliminate any gains.
Healthcare cost up:
Did you include these tit suckers?
LMAO!!!!!!!!!
Sadly, they DO think that. 18 trillion in debt and the cons will swear up and down that every single penny of it was Obama's fault.
Did you happen to notice that column is essentially an op-ed opinion? It is marked as an OPINION for a reason.
Obama could have accomplished much more if he had a Congress that was essentialy a 6 year GOP temper tamtrum who were willing to harm the middle class to make a partisan point? Congress and the POTUS must work togther to solve problems but the GOP were opposed to that, even when their own voters were harmed in the process because they were able to use Fox News to blame Obama for their lack of effort in addressing econoimic issues.
This is simply not true and a made up figure. It figures, considering the source.
You can't be that obtuse can you?
That banking collapse had the fingerprints of more than one POTUS and more than one congress all over it. Both parties, in both cases.
Blaming it on Bush only reeks of disingenuous partisan politics.
But they aren't expired NOW, are they?
So saying that ordinary working Americans are not benefitting is simply untrue.
Whining about how they will expire is pointless. Since you are so sure Dems will take the House and Senate, have them extend them like Obama did to the Bush tax cuts.
VERY simple solution.
Oh...yeah....a whole 35 more a month.
The debt doubled under Obama, and liberals blame only Bush.
More is more.
If you don't want yours, donate it.
Lol white nationalism?
Here John, i'll give you a basic Urban economics lesson. When costs in big cities become too high people move out to lower their costs. Been happening for decades regardless of what party held the POTUS position.
Or i suppose one could piss and moan about it and try to blame whatever political narrative you happen to be spewing that day. You know, like not getting paid a "living wage" for dumping frozen potatoes in a fat fryer because one chooses to live in a large urban area with high taxes and even higher cost of living.
Want fried frozen potatoes with that?
I am. Gas prices are rising, groceries are unreal, with summer my electric bill will double and most of all the price for a bag of weed has gotten outrageous.
I hear Oregon has pot for 4 bucks a gram.
All kidding aside, gas is getting outrageous again.
If you don't want it you can always send it to me. That goes for any other liberal/progressive/democrat/socialist out there.
Weird to complain and then donate.
No way! I need that for my cigarettes and beer. Go get a job if you need money.
I didn't say I needed it, I said I would take it off your hands .
You can't have it. I earned it and therefore I have the right to bitch about the piddling amount AND keep it.
Texan, please do not address Trout in any way. Thank you.
I was just trying to be helpful and relieve your apparent distress.
As we revisit the regulations that made it all possible, deja vu all over again.
you don't know anything about me so go bother somebody who will give you teh time of day
" you don't know anything about me"
You gotta love those who act as if they sit in your living room and bedroom and know all there is to know about you, when in fact, they don't know Jack, and merely make total fools of themselves. You'd think they'd get the message about their stupidity in making such unfounded comments like that. But, evidently, they are too dense to understand just how foolish they truly look when they try to act so smart.
It's like they can't help themselves
I'm not in the military any more so......D'OH!
I guess they must have missed that part. ??
Attention deficit disorder is a real thing in conservative land
Indeed. But, the afflicted are unable to understand their ailment, or perhaps, simply refuse to.
You bet and like usual people will blame the person/people who are most appropriate to the political agenda du jour they happen to be spewing that moment.
I've watched them come and go all my adult life starting with the S & L crisis of 1980's. Can you name the Keating Five without googling it? One of them ran for POTUS.
You want to provide the link for those graphics or are we just going to dismiss them as something you made up?
Well, goody for you! Obviously, I don't make anywhere near 80,000 a year or I would bring in more than 35 bucks a month.
And $1000 bucks a year is chump change.
According to what you've been saying , Obama did that.
Now you DON'T want to give credit to Obama for the economy?
Supply Side Economics is working perfectly. So perfectly that half of these people won't vote and those that do will vote GOP to erode their shaky status even more. Need more tax cuts, more money for the military and that darned wall.
s/
S_T_R_E_T_C_H_I_N_G just a LITTLE bit ain't ya?
Supply side economic theory is now responsible for low voter turn out rates?
LMFAO!
You don't pay attention do you?
Asked and answered already, counselor.
of COURSE I pay attention--it is how I can tell when you're wrong!
I have always believed that ( if ) the oligarchs gain true majority, in order to maintain that majority, they will use the poor against the poor.
Will also add this. If the oligarchs gain the prominence they want, the first things to go will be the guns. The uber rich will not tolerate an armed serfdom. This is why I believe that conservatism is the greatest threat to The Second Amendment. And also, The First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and so on.
Yep, and the irony will be that the right wing will completely support it......and then it will dawn on them, but it will be too late.
Uh, the right wing is the oligarchs. The simple ones with their confederate flags, guns and fat bellies are the fodder to be used then discarded.
It will leave them doing this
We can give Israel 7 billion a year in welfare checks and we have a president that spends 100 million taxpayer dollars a year on GOLF, but we cannot afford to fund meals on wheels or feed the poor in THIS country? Wow.
Got facts and figures, or just barrels of bullshyt??
Easy to find if you are looking, apparently you are not.
They should probably learn to lift a hoe as you reap what you sow.
Too bad you miss the true intent of that phrase. Let's just say Trump and republicans are totally reaping what they've sown.
Then you must be harvesting a bumper crop of cliches. Too bad they won't feed many hungry Americans...
is that a Stormy Jack Daniels reference ?
What if shes too heavy, and you have no needle n thread ?
Will you be Grim ?
Don't you mean, "Lift a whore?"
Here is the question, if child care workers and health aides don't make enough money to provide for their basic needs, does that mean we don't need child care workers and health aides?
How about we pay people better and create a few less billionaires?
Other than that, who cares what you did? Every one doesnt have the option of working two jobs.
There is something seriously wrong with people that glorify income inequality as part of their ideology of life.
It isn’t about glorifying inequality. It’s about choosing liberty where risk carries both the opportunity for reward and failure vs Marxist statist where everyone must suffer equally
Yes if it means Marxist redistribution of wealth
I'll stop redistributing wealth from billionaires when there are no poor, homeless, sick or hungry people.
If that is opposed by your religious morality then you should reconsider your religious belifs. Blaming the proof for being poor, while claiming to be a follower of Jesus is outrageous.
Why should a lazy bum be entitled to the profits of another mans work?
Why should the frontline workers who do all the heavy lifting be entitled to less and less a share of the company's profits?
LOL When I asked my last boss that she sure wasn't happy. But she did work with me that day for about an hour.
lol
They shouldn't. That is not who is using our social safety net programs though.
Once again JR, what are your solutions to this problem. Real solutions, not anti-Trump rants.
Isn't it already obvious?
"Tax the rich more--redistribute what they earned"
dont you mean tax more what their money earned for them ?
I dont see any rich people working too hard it's their money that "earns" them more not their labor.
PS: These days my own investments make more income for me than I "earn".
I mean what I write.
Why on earth would any rational person write something OTHER than what they mean?
Do YOU do that--write something other than what you meant/ Why would you think others would do that?
No problem We just see things differently evidently, personally all the wealthy folks I've ever known did not earn money with their own labor they "earned" money by using their money, many times using other people labor as well.
To me that's called profiting on an investment not "earning" money.
You must not know very many then.
The vast majority of rich people I know earned their money and invested wisely.
It is a left-wing myth that most people inherited their wealth and never worked.
I have known may people who who had and have much more money that I will probably ever have, To my knowledge none of them "earned" their money working in normal working jobs.
Most got where they are by continuing to invest either family money or they developed something and were amply rewarded for it. (patents, apps, businesses)
Hard work is not the path to wealth. Smart Investing is.
Most people invest the money they have EARNED. And what difference does it make anyways/ Does anyone owe somebody something just because they are rich?
To many it doesn't.
.......
Personally IMO earned money should be taxed at a lower rate than investment "earned" money.
Hard work should have some additional reward it's what built the country for people to invest in and profit from.
Let's look at who owns what....
It is NOT a myth that the most wealthy people do not actually work for their wealth. The majority make their wealth by exploiting other people's labor.
Lots of rich Americans started out FAR from rich. Zuckerberg, Dell, Jobs, Buffett to name a few.
Alright, now you are asking too much of him.
You need to get out more then. Nothing was handed to most of us. On the other hand I see a lot of younger people who expect exactly that.
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs that’s for sure
I never said it was and I've "Gotten out" plenty, all my life.
I worked for years building custom swimming pools and spa combos with new construction high end homes, I also was personally responsible for training most of these well to do homeowners on the operation and maintenance of their new pool/spas when the job was completed so I got to know many of them and spent quite a bit of time around and with many of them, after a few years of seeing so many of these folks with no apparent worksource day after day and plenty of money to burn thru I started (kind of as a hobby) of asking them WTF they did to be able to live like this and not to have to work a daily work schedule.
I was tactful and kind of jokingly asked, but I was serious. and I asked.
The answers I got didn't vary much. it was either they had started or taken over a (family) business, created a computer app (it was the biggy at that time) invented something (and held a patent) or were born into wealth and sometimes even fame. Every now and then It would be a doctor or a lawyer that was either retired or owned their own practice and had "taken time off while their home and pool was being built".
However I never meet a factory worker, a regular office worker or even any "skilled" professionals that I remember who ended up where these folks had.
Even the ones who did invest what they could wisely. Like I have.
I repeat: IMO: Hard work is not the path to wealth, smart investment is.
PS : I worked "hard" for many many years, But my investments have far surpassed what "hard work" gains towards wealth I have accumulated. I'll bet I'm not alone in this either.
In fact I'll bet this is the rule not the exception.
Had you not worked hard, you would not have earned that money to invest to make more money from. It all starts with the work. No work, no money to invest. Work harder, earn more money to invest.
Not sure what your argument is. Your comment makes no sense in that context.
My experience has been a polar opposite to yours. I know more people who have earned their base wealth from hard work and innovation and not from hand me downs.
My point is I have never known anyone who "Hard worked" themselves to wealth.
I've never known anyone who "earns" or is worth enough hourly, daily, weekly or monthly to build wealth just off of their own income alone.
My point is and was: Hard work is not the key to wealth, smart investing is.
How many times do I have to repeat that ?
Apparently you haven’t heard that money doesn’t grow on trees
This is not a chicken and egg type of thing. You don’t work to make money, you’ve got no money to invest.
How many times do I have to repeat that?
Not always, money doesn't alway come from work. I made more money when I sold a house than I "earned" in all the years I lived in that home. I still maintain hard work will not make a person wealthy. Investing will.
I've known hard working poor folks all my life that didn't invest. They never were wealthy by a long shot.
I've also known folks who did invest and they are the ones who did gain wealth.
To each their own.
I never said it did but you seem to be trying to infer that it rarely starts there. Which is simply not true. Your experience is not typical, far from it actually.
"I got to asking them How TF they did to be able to live like this and not to have to work a daily work schedule."
I was serious. and I asked.
The answers I got didn't vary much.
either they had started or taken over a (family) business, created a computer app (it was the biggy at that time) invented something (and held a patent) or were born into wealth and sometimes even fame. perhaps a doctor or a lawyer that was either retired or owned their own practice and had "taken time off while their home and pool was being built".
However I never meet a factory worker, a regular office worker or even any "skilled" professionals that I remember who ended up where these folks had.
Your experience is not typical : So what
Perhaps more people should ask where others got their wealth then like I did.
So you base your opinion on the microcosm that is the area you work and your customers. More curious is that you have decided some, like the Doctors, etc you have done pools for, have not worked hard to get where they got. Interesting judgement to be sure.
As previously noted I disagree with your assessment completely but I’m happy for you that you didn’t have to work hard to earn your wealth. Congrats!
I feel it was a pretty good basie's: I asked probably a hundred people, over the course of several years all over the state. I'd hardly consider that a "Microcosm." Many polls have less research involved.
It is.
Over the years my work and associations include contact with contractors in most all of the 50 states and some from other countries. While not everyone's story follows this theme, by and large the majority of them do. That is to say folks taking a chance on success, starting with little and becoming successful through hard work and innovation.
Yep, one can start with little and become very well off through those efforts. Not everyone has a rich daddy or relative. In fact most people don't and yet, they still can become a success through hard work.
It's obvious we are not going to agree on this. You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder about it. One that does not track with my lifes experiences. Not in the least.
I'll leave it at that.
innovation ? I'd say that includes investing wisely. I maintain you will never gain great wealth by hard work alone. Now you seem to agree, with stipulations of course.
and I'll leave it at that as well.
Nope, I don’t agree with the word games you’re playing. Again, good investments are not possible without money earned to invest. If one doesn’t have a rich daddy the best way to earn money to invest is through hard work.
Based on your comments here I have serious doubts you’ve experienced this reality. You can’t invest money that you don’t have. That’s where it all starts.
I seriously am not trying to play word games. I honestly believe without smart investing a person is unlikely to amase the wealth they could by hard work alone.
ofcourse you need money to invest to begin with and yes some investment money does come form hard working folks like myself. Who worked hard for it. But Left alone that's all we would have though. investing it takes you to the next level.
no games reality
Interesting. According to the 2010 US Census , the median income for a family in King County was $87,010 .
I wonder why the 2016 "survival budget" was lower than the 2010 "median income".
Maybe people should live within their means in order to "survive"? Here's how to do it:
And most of all ... make sure that even a small portion of each paycheck is SAVED and earns top interest.
Man, you sound as though you expect people to support themselves, and the kids they choose to bring into the world.
I tell it like it is, my friend. My wife and I didn't have luxuries as children or even when newly married. Our families taught us how to live within our means, and today we're able to enjoy what we've sown.
good point but we have the latest FARM SUBSIDY bill in discussion because farmers need handouts from a socialist program or the RV, aircraft and the really awesome new tractor might have to wait. Amazing how handouts are only handouts when they land in someone else's pocket!
I never said one word about farm subsidies. Go bark up another tree.
Everything is so expensive. A worker doesn't get a raise as often as the prices go up. Some people need extra help. If most of us waited to get married or have a child when we could afford it, most of us would still be single without a child. We do the best we can.
People have had good stable jobs when they decided to start a family but that changed because of economic conditions outside of their control. Do you want to blame the unemployed workers because of mismanagement, outsourcing or a recession?
Its time to put in place domestic policies that help the workers, raise incomes and support stable economies. Tax cuts do not do this.
You should stop making judgments of what you obviously do not understand.
BTW, You never told us what college degree is required to fix boats?
what is your problem? read what I wrote.
Most people are not lazy.
How many hours a week should a person be required to work to live a respectable manner with healthy food, clothing, shelter and proper medical care?
No one is required to work in America.
it is a choice`.
This is true. You can't guarantee success and effort doesn't necessarily equate to success either, at least as it pertains to financial success. You just have to live your life as best you can and hope that your aspirations are fruitful.
Since JR is suspended and cannot moderate this article, it will be locked until he returns.