How come most Americans are poor?

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
Is 32k a year poor for a family of 7?

Not if you had a house that was paid off, no car payments, didn't eat out every night, etc.

It's been said 1000 times in ATOT. It's not what you make, it's how you spend it.

I'm just using my family as an example. We've made it just fine for the past 8 or 9 years on this much, and we are still doing just fine. My parents have a mortgage payment, one car payment, utilities, and thats it. Sure, I have to work my butt off for my vehicle, my insurance, and my education, but this most defiantly isn't poor. Hell, we have a damn swimming pool in our back yard for cripes sake.

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Queasy
You live in Montana. $32,500 in Montana is probably about equivalent to $40k and up in other places.

There's a wide disparity, both income and cost of living, between western and eastern Montana. The sad fact is that voodoodrul lives in an area where the rich have flocked to and bought up properties, creating significant income disparities. I love western Montana for its beauty, but it's a sad reality that the natives there are mostly poor servants to wealthy that visit their ranches 6 months out of the year.

True, and I should get off of this particular area. It is an exception. Though even eastern Montana isn't much better.

Either way, I just want to get the hell out of here.. Like yesterday. Not really to another country. I'll do that someday. But for now, I just need to GTFO.. =o(

Anyway, carry on.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: Vic

America has the 3rd-highest GDP per capita in the world.

The reason behind that is because the top 1% of the super rich in USA makes more money than the rest of the country. The fact is, most Americans are low income earners, it's the opposite in Australia.

In other words, the US system favours the rich. The working poor who mostly survive on pathetically low minimum wage make the rich richer.

If the US favors the rich, then how come the median home prices in Australia are $355,000

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf...B70579A67CA25715C001A3C71?OpenDocument

But the US is only $167,500?

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/AD...e=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on

Who has a better chance of owning their own home?

US home ownership: 66%

AU home ownership: 70%

The facts and figures are clear, the average Australian has a better chance of owning a home.

So AUS > USA? Thats all I've been seeing throughout the whole thread.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Queasy
You live in Montana. $32,500 in Montana is probably about equivalent to $40k and up in other places.

There's a wide disparity, both income and cost of living, between western and eastern Montana. The sad fact is that voodoodrul lives in an area where the rich have flocked to and bought up properties, creating significant income disparities. I love western Montana for its beauty, but it's a sad reality that the natives there are mostly poor servants to wealthy that visit their ranches 6 months out of the year.

I think you mean 6 weeks.

 

[Fritzo]

I think the median income in the US is near the top of any country. We're not all poor by any means.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: voodoodrul

Besides, the problem with the rich is that they, under the guise of "generosity", give away large sums of money to charity, which is only a tax writeoff, followed by large kickbacks from the charity itself and it's businesses. Bill Gates doesn't hand out cash because he really wants to. It's purely business.

While that might be true of some, it's very hard to cover everyone with that statement. I would say the majority do it because they feel it's right. Others because of the insane guilt factor wealth in the US seems to bring.

Our nation's wealthiest people have a long history of philanthropy. Gates is our era's Rockefeller. Most of them are smart enough realize that there is no point in hoarding it indefinitely since you can't take it with you.

Not only that, but an expanding gap between producers and consumers is what is hurting capitalism in our country. As a producer, Gates has to give back to the consumers in this country in order to maintain their purchasing power. Capitalism depends on a strong middle class, but it cannot be helped if the people insist on constantly consuming more than they produce. Socialism and other such ideologies are schemes designed to keep people consuming at these artificial rates.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: Vic

America has the 3rd-highest GDP per capita in the world.

The reason behind that is because the top 1% of the super rich in USA makes more money than the rest of the country. The fact is, most Americans are low income earners, it's the opposite in Australia.

In other words, the US system favours the rich. The working poor who mostly survive on pathetically low minimum wage make the rich richer.

If the US favors the rich, then how come the median home prices in Australia are $355,000

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf...B70579A67CA25715C001A3C71?OpenDocument

But the US is only $167,500?

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/AD...e=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on

Who has a better chance of owning their own home?

US home ownership: 66%

AU home ownership: 70%

The facts and figures are clear, the average Australian has a better chance of owning a home.

That supports no such conclusion, only that a few more percent of Australians do own their homes. It makes absolutely no case as to why.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul

Originally posted by: exdeath
Don't you dare tell me thats bullshit, my fiance and I have the check stubs to prove it. We both took home LESS than we were used to after working more to put away for a down on a house. The difference was in the taxes, which would later bite us in the ass again at the end of the year. We had to sit down and mathematically manipulate the system so that we could work enough to make the extra money we wanted, but not an hour more than neccessary, in order to keep the tax down. Despite working more hours, I found myself leaving early on Friday so I didn't work TOO much. Way to stiffle productivity.

And for someone who has a problem with the military, etc, wouldn't you rather that Bill Gates send his money directly to a REAL CHARITY that has a reputation for helping people instead of letting the government take it and spend it on wars and welfare for illegals or limos for politicians? Whats the problem if the money goes from the wealthy directly to the needy without the government getting its piece of the pie first?

I don't buy it without figures. Besides, even if you peak and make extra money for a month or two, at the end of the year, that extra taxation is leveled out. You are taxed on your final yearly income, not the predicted income from those short peaks. You should get almost every bit of that extra tax back. Either way, I don't care. The point is there is a huge difference between you working overtime and the taxation of the rich. You aren't dodging taxes with massive writeoffs for your new business developments or your "charitable contributions".

You totally missed the point ENTIRELY. By 'punishing' the rich you basically just put up barriers to people who AREN'T rich from every GETTING there themselves, just so a few socialists can feel good about themselves.

Basically, you're saying to those people, "I know you haven't had it well all your life and have had to work hard, but now that you've worked hard and almost turned that around, just when the fruits of your labor are starting to pay off, you STILL cant have the things you dreamed of hahahaha"

After that experience that I just described, you can bet I do. I itemize everything now, including fuel costs associated with driving to job sites in my 16 mpg 700 HP car.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: voodoodrul

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: Vic

America has the 3rd-highest GDP per capita in the world.

The reason behind that is because the top 1% of the super rich in USA makes more money than the rest of the country. The fact is, most Americans are low income earners, it's the opposite in Australia.

In other words, the US system favours the rich. The working poor who mostly survive on pathetically low minimum wage make the rich richer.

It does not escape notice that you have posted no links to back up this claim. And why haven't you? Because it's utter bullsh!t. The "working poor" in America make an average of $40k/yr. USD (which let me explain, because you have already proven to be ignorant of exchange rates, is 267% higher than the minimum wage). Which BTW only about 1% of America's workforce make the minimum wage, of which most those are under the age of 25.

I love the "it's the opposite in Australia" line. So everyone there makes above-average incomes, eh?

Fsckin' hilarious.

$40k/yr is "working poor"? That's an effing dream job for everyone I know. Hell, my latest programming job wants to start me at $32,500, and that's after talking them up quite a bit. It is widely accepted fact that the upper 1% of just about any country account for the largest slice of the pie. Bill Gates alone skews the curve. Add in hundreds of other multi-billionaires and you see that it takes a lot of people making minimum wage to average it all out. That's how it works. Come up with some of your own facts and figures to prove him wrong. That's a lot more useful.

According to the census bureau Text, the median household income in the US was $46,326 (if you're unaware BTW, using the median takes out the weighted average effect of the Bill Gates-ers). $40k is only an "effing dream job" if you're in your 20's.
According to Forbes, there are 160 "multi-billionaires" in the US, including families.
According to the UN, Australia has Gini index of .352, while the US Gini is .408 Text. While the Autralian number appears better, both countries actually rank about middlin' from the global perspective.

Are those facts and figures enough for you?

The other thing to take into consideration is that a lot of the "uber rich" are paper rich...stocks/options/real estate value and aren't actually earning that "income" in a traditional salary/hourly manner that gets added into those income stats.

It's not like Bill Gates get's $1,000,000,000 a year in paychecks to skew those numbers.

 

[malG]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: Vic

America has the 3rd-highest GDP per capita in the world.

The reason behind that is because the top 1% of the super rich in USA makes more money than the rest of the country. The fact is, most Americans are low income earners, it's the opposite in Australia.

In other words, the US system favours the rich. The working poor who mostly survive on pathetically low minimum wage make the rich richer.

If the US favors the rich, then how come the median home prices in Australia are $355,000

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf...B70579A67CA25715C001A3C71?OpenDocument

But the US is only $167,500?

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/AD...e=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on

Who has a better chance of owning their own home?

US home ownership: 66%

AU home ownership: 70%

The facts and figures are clear, the average Australian has a better chance of owning a home.

That supports no such conclusion, only that a few more percent of Australians do own their homes. It makes absolutely no case as to why.

Because the typical Australian makes much more money than a typical American?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Fritzo


I think the median income in the US is near the top of any country. We're not all poor by any means.

Excuse me?

One-fifth of the population of the United States is poorer than 80% of Americans.

Does this not concern you?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: Vic

America has the 3rd-highest GDP per capita in the world.

The reason behind that is because the top 1% of the super rich in USA makes more money than the rest of the country. The fact is, most Americans are low income earners, it's the opposite in Australia.

In other words, the US system favours the rich. The working poor who mostly survive on pathetically low minimum wage make the rich richer.

If the US favors the rich, then how come the median home prices in Australia are $355,000

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf...B70579A67CA25715C001A3C71?OpenDocument

But the US is only $167,500?

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/AD...e=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on

Who has a better chance of owning their own home?

US home ownership: 66%

AU home ownership: 70%

The facts and figures are clear, the average Australian has a better chance of owning a home.

That supports no such conclusion, only that a few more percent of Australians do own their homes. It makes absolutely no case as to why.

Because the typical Australian makes much more money than a typical American?

That is your personal reasoning which you are pulling out of your ass to support your conclusion. Again, it makes no case as to why.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: Vic

America has the 3rd-highest GDP per capita in the world.

The reason behind that is because the top 1% of the super rich in USA makes more money than the rest of the country. The fact is, most Americans are low income earners, it's the opposite in Australia.

In other words, the US system favours the rich. The working poor who mostly survive on pathetically low minimum wage make the rich richer.

If the US favors the rich, then how come the median home prices in Australia are $355,000

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf...B70579A67CA25715C001A3C71?OpenDocument

But the US is only $167,500?

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/AD...e=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on

Who has a better chance of owning their own home?

US home ownership: 66%

AU home ownership: 70%

The facts and figures are clear, the average Australian has a better chance of owning a home.

The statistics actually show who OWNS a house, not who has BETTER CHANCE of owning one. You must control for demographics to get that...

Example:

Homeownership Rate of Selected Countries (2003)


Rank Country % Homeowners

1. Spain 85.3
2. Greece 83.6
3. Italy 75.5
4. Belgium 72.9
5. Luxembourg 70.8
6. United Kingdom 70.6

So, I guess Greece must be richer than Australia following your idea of what home ownership indicates. After all, they must have better chances to own a house, right?

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
Is 32k a year poor for a family of 7?

Not if you had a house that was paid off, no car payments, didn't eat out every night, etc.

It's been said 1000 times in ATOT. It's not what you make, it's how you spend it.

I'm just using my family as an example. We've made it just fine for the past 8 or 9 years on this much, and we are still doing just fine. My parents have a mortgage payment, one car payment, utilities, and thats it. Sure, I have to work my butt off for my vehicle, my insurance, and my education, but this most defiantly isn't poor. Hell, we have a damn swimming pool in our back yard for cripes sake.

:thumbsup:

I came from a single working low income family of 6 in a 3 bedroom home (no pool heh), etc. But we've never needed government handouts. We just didnt blow our money on cigarettes, beer, and Red Lobster every night.

Threads like this piss me off, especially BECAUSE I had to grow up as a child/teen with less than everyone else with my peers bragging in my face and putting me down for what I didn't have.

Now that I am on my own and doing pretty damn good for myself, I find that the closer I get to my goals, the harder it gets STILL, all because a few people think they are 'punishing the rich'.

Doesn't anyone grasp the concept that by 'punishing the rich' you are preventing anyone from rising above poverty with those same barriers?

The people bitching about minimum wage being too low, etc, are people who have no education and have never made more than minimum wage. If these people actually put themselves through school and they themselves started making decent money, and saw how success is taxed to death, they would know how wrong they are.

Yes, shamefully, I admit, that I used to be one of those people that always said "Bill Gates doesn't need all that money, they should give it to everyone who needs it"

Until I started going to college and started making something for myself. The cure to socialism is personal success.

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: exdeath
You totally missed the point ENTIRELY. By 'punishing' the rich you basically just put up barriers to people who AREN'T rich from every GETTING there themselves, just so a few socialists can feel good about themselves.

Basically, you're saying to those people, "I know you haven't had it well all your life and have had to work hard, but now that you've worked hard and almost turned that around, just when the fruits of your labor are starting to pay off, you STILL cant have the things you dreamed of hahahaha"

After that experience that I just described, you can bet I do. I itemize everything now, including fuel costs associated with driving to job sites in my 16 mpg 700 HP car.

I think you missed the point. Thanks for clarifying your world view for us all.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: malG
US home ownership: 66%

AU home ownership: 70%

The facts and figures are clear, the average Australian has a better chance of owning a home.

The US homeownership rate in 2006 was 68.8% according to the census bureau Text

It should also be noted that the Australian figure of 70% is an approximation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Fritzo


I think the median income in the US is near the top of any country. We're not all poor by any means.

Excuse me?

One-fifth of the population of the United States is poorer than 80% of Americans.

Does this not concern you?

:laugh::thumbsup:

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
Is 32k a year poor for a family of 7?

I'm betting you pay no income taxes.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul

Originally posted by: exdeath
You totally missed the point ENTIRELY. By 'punishing' the rich you basically just put up barriers to people who AREN'T rich from every GETTING there themselves, just so a few socialists can feel good about themselves.

Basically, you're saying to those people, "I know you haven't had it well all your life and have had to work hard, but now that you've worked hard and almost turned that around, just when the fruits of your labor are starting to pay off, you STILL cant have the things you dreamed of hahahaha"

After that experience that I just described, you can bet I do. I itemize everything now, including fuel costs associated with driving to job sites in my 16 mpg 700 HP car.

I think you missed the point. Thanks for clarifying your world view for us all.

You think I always had things like that? Hell no. I do it now because I do my best to keep what I have finally fvcking earned after years of busting my ass under everyone elses ridicule. Now that I have surpassed the people I used to be envious of, they are envious of me and want to punish me, so I do what I need to do to protect and keep what is mine.

 

[malG]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: malG

Because the typical Australian makes much more money than a typical American?

That is your personal reasoning which you are pulling out of your ass to support your conclusion. Again, it makes no case as to why.

Even if an American entry level employee gets paid TRIPLE the federal minimum wage, it's still less then Aussie employee makes. Hence in my book, every entry level employee in America is underpaid.

Federal minimum wage in US: $5.15/hour

Minimum wage in my state is $16/hour but nobody wants to work if you paid under $18/hour.

Hence the typical Australian makes much more money than a typical American

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: malG

Because the typical Australian makes much more money than a typical American?

That is your personal reasoning which you are pulling out of your ass to support your conclusion. Again, it makes no case as to why.

Even if an American entry level employee gets paid TRIPLE the federal minimum wage, it's still less then Aussie employee makes. Hence in my book, every entry level employee in America is underpaid.

Federal minimum wage in US: $5.15/hour

Minimum wage in my state is $16/hour but nobody wants to work if you paid under $18/hour.

You poor workers

I don't think I could justify paying a 16-year old frozen food stocker $16/hr. But that's just me.

 

[joecool]

most would mean > 50%. the poverty rate in america is much lower than that. so your statement is incorrect. most americans aren't poor. however, we do have a huge imbalance in wealth, with the folks at the top possessing a large percentage of the entire countries wealth.

also note, australia has been experiencing an economic boom for many years. that is easier to maintain with a small, homogeneous population, and a small military budget. the us has to spend large sums in areas australia will never have to worry about.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: malG

Because the typical Australian makes much more money than a typical American?

That is your personal reasoning which you are pulling out of your ass to support your conclusion. Again, it makes no case as to why.

Even if an American entry level employee gets paid TRIPLE the federal minimum wage, it's still less then Aussie employee makes. Hence in my book, every entry level employee in America is underpaid.

Federal minimum wage in US: $5.15/hour

Minimum wage in my state is $16/hour but nobody wants to work if you paid under $18/hour.

You poor workers

You have ignored all previous arguments/information against that line of reasoning and I'm too ill and tired to bother restating them.

I suggest you go back and read your own thread.

 

[deerslayer]

We buy too much stuff that we really can't afford. Yes, I am guilty.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: Vic

America has the 3rd-highest GDP per capita in the world.

The reason behind that is because the top 1% of the super rich in USA makes more money than the rest of the country. The fact is, most Americans are low income earners, it's the opposite in Australia.

In other words, the US system favours the rich. The working poor who mostly survive on pathetically low minimum wage make the rich richer.

If the US favors the rich, then how come the median home prices in Australia are $355,000

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf...B70579A67CA25715C001A3C71?OpenDocument

But the US is only $167,500?

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/AD...e=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on

Who has a better chance of owning their own home?

US home ownership: 66%

AU home ownership: 70%

The facts and figures are clear, the average Australian has a better chance of owning a home.

That supports no such conclusion, only that a few more percent of Australians do own their homes. It makes absolutely no case as to why.

There is a fundamental difference between "being able to" and "wanting to".

Hell we have over 1,000,000 active military personnelle that are continuously being moved around and living on base not being counted in the "ownership" category. We have thousands of professional business people that travel for a living and rent a condo because they aren't home enough to justify ownership. We have a huge retirement base that rent out condos in retirement communities or live with family members that aren't included in those numbers.

And then you just have millions of people that are temporary residents of an area or simply don't *WANT* to own a home because of the hastle and choose to rent.

The US has a population that is more than 15 larger than Australia. There is a lot of stuff behind the numbers that can account for a trival few %.