this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2025
271 points (96.6% liked)

collapse

301 readers
57 users here now

Placeholder for time being, moving from lemm.ee

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
eleitl@lemmy.zip
BurnRate@lemmy.zip
Anarchitect@lemmy.zip
271
The real American household poverty line isn’t $31,200, it’s around $140,000. (www.yesigiveafig.com)
submitted 1 month ago by fake_meows@sopuli.xyz to c/collapse@lemmy.zip
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The threshold household income where a family can afford housing, healthcare, childcare, and transportation without relying on means-tested benefits is a lot higher than the official stats suggest.

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 81 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Part 1 (which you are reading) points this out:

And the system is designed to prevent them from escaping [from poverty + precarity]. Every dollar you earn climbing from $40,000 to $100,000 triggers benefit losses that exceed your income gains. You are literally poorer for working harder.

Part 2 is here.

The wealth you’re counting on—the retirement accounts, the home equity, the “nest egg” that’s supposed to make this all worthwhile—is just as fake as the poverty line.

Part 2 points out that all these inflating assets (401k plans, homes, etc) depend for their value on the next generation to ultimately be wealthy enough to want to buy these at a future date at a higher price. The whole "asset inflation" spiral seems like a ponzi scheme of epic proportions since that doesn't appear to be shaping up.

[–] Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Part 1 is the one I have more experience with and yet so many people refuse to believe it exists. Prefect example. Last year my son for approved for SSI benefits, about 300 dollars a month. Great right? Some much needed wiggle room for a family that relies on disability benefits, SNAP, housing assistance, etc right?

Well that income change triggered a reduction in our SNAP benefit and an increase in our income based rent. So that additional 300 a month cost us about 250 dollars in benefits and now we have to keep meticulous track of where every cent of that SSI gets used on our son's behalf. Lucky for us in this particular instance we're allowed to just say "we're putting it all towards rent" every month and have it be fine.

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The system wants everyone Numb or Dumb.

For extremely successful people, they are busy out of their minds and distracted with sports, shopping, zoned out on comfort and affluence living in a privileges bubble.

For everyone else, the situation is just this futility of never being able to make it. The system is geared to keep everyone stuck and subservient and employable and dependent. Caught in a system of traps that seem designed for maximum inertia.

People either don't Want anything to change or feel Powerless to make it change. I don't meet many people who are working to replace the system.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

what are they going to replace it with?

nobody is offering them a compelling alternative.

the current system works for 10% of the population, which is enough for most people to feel like they have a shot at making it.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago

I've not beaten the system but am better off and am now out on a limb, but i went from working for someone else to self employed.

My business makes more money now then I ever could working for someone else.

But fuck is a lot of work and if I screw it up it will al go away.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When my youngest son was born we were barely making it and looked into getting benefits.

We were told we were disqualified for around $500 a month of various benefits (housing, food, etc) because I made $50/month too much.

[–] Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The eligibility cliffs are a rough place to be yeah. Even when you don't immediately lose the entire benefit you get screwed but my Gods do you get screwed when it's just "Nope, you make too much money. You get nothing."

Having to be very careful about pay ranges for jobs you pick up because there's a big glaring red zone where you lose a bunch of benefits without making enough money to replace them. That raise you just got? That was actually a pay cut nerd. Have fun.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah it really needs to be an offramp so no dollar gainrd ever costs you a full dollar.

Also medicaid for all would just completely eliminate one of the rougher cliffs and replace it with an ordinary progressive tax

[–] LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fuck it, let's burn it all down then.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 7 points 1 month ago

sees username

I think you might be a bit biased.

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've never willingly paid a cent into any of that bullshit (401k, home equity, etc.) and I've never had a credit card, either. It may've initially been rooted in a severe distrust of a system that hadn't shown a single instance of not fucking me sideways at every opportunity, but it's grown into a dystopian "I told you so" as the decades've passed and those around me are positively agog when the leopards eventually dine on their faces. 🙄🖕🏼

Thafuq did you think was going to happen?!

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The 2008 global financial crisis had all these deep causes, but the timing came in an interesting moment in history. 2008 was right around the exact moment that the first / oldest among the baby boomer generation were reaching the retirement age.

That generation was really the first cohort to really go all-in on personal investing and financial assets for funding a retirement.

Anyhow, as a result, many many of these people had their nest eggs wiped out, losing as much as half their life savings. The media carried all these stories about how people would think they were investing in a car company (say GM) and then lose money in a supposed housing market melt down (through GMAC mortgages). In the murky web of global finance everyone was exposed to toxic assets.

I do not believe the boomers retiring caused the crisis, but rather it worked the other way around, that the bigger the pile of loot became the more tempting it was to raid the money.

But, yeah...just to echo your personal stance, I got to watch all my family and relatives fail to retire. The whole thing was a stark lesson. I sold all financial investments in 2010 which was basically (adjusted for inflation) the first reasonable rebound of the market. I'm very happy I did so and have never reverted.

Don't mistake money for wealth!

The farther I stand back and squint, it looks like a giant casino. Everyone is all into "momentum investing" where it's all about hopping onto hot stocks and hopping back off at a higher price, basically it has nothing to do with actual companies with actual business ideas making actual products that improve lives. Its just people making a quick buck for playing with extra money. Nothing could ever go wrong.

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Have you been preparing to retire since 2010, and if so how?

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sort of? Due to my age, the year I would hit traditional retirement age is later than many of the predicted crises becoming emergent (combined crop failures, climate change, financial collapse, peak oil, etc.). So basically my personal discount rate looks radically different from most people I know around my age because most people are either not collapse aware or they deny the implications of collapse as a self defense mechanism.

So I see myself as having semi-retired or active retired extremely prematurely. I did a bunch of travel and moved around and found a new life when it was still kind of cheap and easy before covid. I traveled 50,000 miles in an old van over 5 years for the total budget of 2 months income on the job I walked away from. The highest cost was the opportunity cost, like not working and earning during those 5 years. Travel was cheaper than living in one place when I had a job.

When covid hit I was living in an ecovillage bordering 2 million acres of forest and mountains and the world didn't change really at all, except seeing more cool predators on hikes. I was already ahead of the curve.

I have a collapse job (think professional scavenger) and its extremely countercyclical with the health of the overall economy. I live well below my means and save money on very few hours of compulsory work. I actually volunteer in my community as much as I work for money. I basically pulled out of the rat race around 2010 and have been building a life I really like since then. How do you eat an elephant? A bite at a time. I am prepared do continue this way until it's not possible, I don't care about age at all.

This is covered in the article but being available to work he says costs a family about $50,000 (clothes, commuting etc) a year. I now work from home in my pajamas and fill a lot of my needs directly instead of buying in the market. So stuff like gardening, yard work, car repairs, home repairs etc I do for myself because I have the time. I have developed a weird array of skills that would get me through the Apocalypse. I can garden, fix drywall, repair a chainsaw or do your non-profit's taxes. It didn't start out like this.

Getting out of the rat race was hard. Its not difficult to stop but its hard to let go completely. Like letting ambition and success fall away and rebuilding an identity based on self reliance was harder than my previous career ladder.

[ * ] most of my peers seem to be running on a treadmill. Like piling up money in a high cost of living area they seem to never really get anywhere, and >poof< that's their real life! Like they are chasing a mirage with their real one only life. My one friend is going to be the best 85 year old scuba diver one day when he retires! He will have so much money then.

When you get the call, hang up the phone.

TLDR read the parable of the fisherman.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

what is 'real' wealth according to these people? cash only?

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

To the rich, the thing of value is their membership in the elite ownership class. Like their pedigree, station, title and position means they can call the shots. He talks about how they go to the right school, know the right people and get paid in company equity.

[–] SanctimoniousApe@piefed.social 36 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

I’m sure many of my left-leaning readers will say, “This is obvious, we have been talking about it for YEARS!” Yes, many of you have; but you were using language of emotion (“Pay a living wage!”) rather than showing the math. My bad for not paying closer attention; your bad for not showing your work or coming up with workable solutions. Let’s rectify it rather than cast blame.

Yeah, no. How convenient you wanna do that when there's no way to avoid the shit that has been given to the other side for-fucking-ever.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 17 points 1 month ago

but you were using language of emotion (“Pay a living wage!”) rather than showing the math.

There's a key bit of bullshit buried in this line that I'd like to call out. This calls back to some old fashioned conservative propaganda from decades past.

It's the idea that the left thinks with their heart while the right thinks with their brain. It implies that emotionally stunted greedy assholes are actually smart and admirable, while things like empathy and giving half a shit about the lives of people outside your circle are weak and foolish and "giving in to emotion."

But giving in to greed and anger are just following God's plan or some shit.

[–] JakenVeina@midwest.social 13 points 1 month ago

Yeah, the idea that no one has been able to put math behind the wealth and wage gaps until now is UTTER horse-shit. You weren't just "not paying closer attention" dude, you were being WILLFULLY ignorant, and if you really want to be part of the solution now, that deserves a lot more than a "my bad".

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 month ago

not coming up with a workable solution

We've come up with plenty, but I'm a ¹⁷90s girl myself.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 7 points 1 month ago

it’s also rather different things:

pay a living wage is a concept that applies no matter when you say it

this maths is for this particular point in time and a particular set of circumstances

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

“It doesn’t count when I say you’re being emotional, ot only counts when I say it”.

Wtf.

Must’ve completely skipped the parts where plenty of people actually did the math. Or the author just scrolled the stupid parts of social media and ignored places where actual discussion takes place.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

The math has been shown. Times published an article a few years back that showed the 1% have siphoned $50 trillion for themselves over decades since 1970 that are essentially due to stagnant wages. Put differently, the 1% owes the rest of America $50 trillion. Probably a few trillion more now.

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My household makes good money and ya, if you include housing, it's gonna take a lot more money for us to afford our own place.

There is seemingly few things as broken and fundamental as current generations inability to own the place they live. Housing does not have to be this expensive, the paperwork doesn't have to be so hard, and the houses do not have to be made of cardboard to be economical.

We need to limit house ownership to those who live in it until everyone has their first.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

or let them own as many as they want but pay 500% property taxes.

[–] Xenny@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just fucking tie the taxes to a logarithmic scale based on the amount of properties an entity owns. It's too easy of a solution.

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There is a radical / revolutionary idea around tax reform that frames taxes as being applied to LAND and not improvements.

The argument is that the value of a piece of land derives from the public investments / improvements. Like decent infrastructure, public transportation, good schools etc all raise the market value of a given size of land in a given location.

Then its up to the owner to find a use case / improvement that makes the tax burden "worth it". Like the market incentives are for the highest value of private investment / private use. You don't get rewarded for land banking or sitting on empty lots or making hotels into surface parking, instead you perhaps pay 5% of the value every year AS IF you were doing something that is worthwhile with the property.

Basically the system currently rewards speculation and idle property, and when the public makes an investment in services in an area, the profits get extracted by land owners who essentially privatize the reward by cashing out after doing nothing. A lot of people feel this is fundamentally broken. Not only that, but a lot of these land owners KNOW this is a rigged game and they run city hall and get the public to commit to investments that they stand to profit from.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Notice how the poverty line increases barely at all, and if so, linearly. However, the stock market grows exponentially.

[–] BlackAura@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

That's because the poverty line is directly tied to the cost of goods and services (and to social services, tax credits, etc that those under or near the poverty line can take advantage of).

Effectively it will move up as goods cost more (inflation) and social services and other credits people can take advantage of are reduced / removed.

If more social services are added, i.e. Life becomes cheaper without your income increasing, then the effective poverty line drops as it's only a number based on household income, and now you need less household income to survive at the same level.

The stock market is its own beast and is not directly connected to income, social services, or the cost of goods.

[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 month ago (5 children)

So the folks at $32000... What are they?

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

they are single 20 year olds just entering the workforce.

this stat is for dual income households later in life, not young single people.

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Indentured servants

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago

I tried to live off $45k 10 years ago and I felt broke all the time. I can’t imagine living off $32k today.

[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

They are so poor that they actually feel rich, and if they get poorer they may end up clipping through the system and become billionaires.

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

TIL that I'm severely below the poverty line by about 70%.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

great piece worth reading in full. It's well argued but it is based on "average spending". Some tips:

In the Snowpiercer economy, children are to be eaten, not heard. babies taste best. Savings: $2700/month.

$1200/month transportation is argument for bikes.

Big part of post is about "welfare cliffs", and divisive hatred directed below (above?) from those who fall off the cliffs, by earning more than a magic number.

UBI/freedom dividends is an extremely important reform, not just to eliminate homelessness, but all of the cliffs that prevent incentives to work harder and keep gains from working harder. Whether freedom dividends are $12k or grow to $24k+, it should be viewed as help to everyone, and more help than existing programs that can be eliminated.