Article: Americans Want To Believe Jobs Are The Solution To Poverty

[Hargrove]

So a good part of why housing has become more expensive is that houses are bigger, but the stuff we fill them with is cheaper, and the household as a whole is earning more.

These consumer goods arguments are offensively misleading.

"Sure, the average Joe could be financially crippled by a single visit to the hospital, and it's legal to jack prices on his epipen indefinitely because why not, but think how many toasters he can buy!"

Also, Joe doesn't buy 20 toasters a week. The family budget items (the trajectories of which make sense to compare to wages) are housing (up), food (reasonable), education (way, way up), healthcare (way, way up), and maybe retirement. Discretionary toasters have no place in that conversation at all, unless we're starting a conversation to recommend Joe stop buying toasters.

[maizefolk]

I'll just add that food as a percent of household income as declined DRAMATICALLY in recent decades, from about 20% in the 1950s to about 10% today (and the decline would be even more dramatic if more and more meals hadn't shifted from grocery stores to restaurants, so the cost of a healthy subsistence diet has declined far more).

Anyway that doesn't change the main point that most essentials have stayed the same or gotten more expensive in real terms, just a pet peeve.

[Cranky]

You know, middle class people regard kids (in many ways) as a luxury good, to be produced when you can afford them.

But not every community looks at it that way. It’s been my experience that in many poor communities, babies are a bright spot in a difficult existence and people look forward to them - plus, they don’t see themselves as ever really “affording” them, so why wait?

And I think poor people know where babies come from, so I think the “better sex Ed” is kinda condescending. How about access to long term birth control, which has been shown to cut the teen pregnancy rate? (Which has steadily fallen anyway.) How about access to abortion for women who realize that can’t manage a second or third child?

[DreamFIRE]

I had some times in my early 20's of minimum wage and unemployment, but I was smart enough not to have kids.

There's a word for that:  Common sense.  If you cannot support yourself adequately, a child is the last thing you need.

Yes, indeed.  You would think poor people who can't afford kids would at least have a little common sense.  But, apparently not in so many cases.

[Kyle Schuant]

These consumer goods arguments are offensively misleading.

"Sure, the average Joe could be financially crippled by a single visit to the hospital, and it's legal to jack prices on his epipen indefinitely because why not, but think how many toasters he can buy!"

Medicine isn't a consumer good. It's medicine. In this, my perspective is perhaps shaped by living in a more-or-less civilised country. I can only suggest that you attempt to civilise your own country, or move to a better one.

Regardless, overall across the Western world, households have more discretionary income than they used to, and new houses are being built bigger, and more stuff is being put in them.

Also, Joe doesn't buy 20 toasters a week.

If you wish to argue that most people do not have the chance to reduce their discretionary spending, you will perhaps not get a great reception on a forum dedicated to... well, some degree of frugality.

The US median household income - "median" meaning, "half of people have more than this, half less" - is $59,039. Vanessa Williams, homeless single mother with three children who earned $10,446.81 last year, yes she is going to struggle no matter what she does. Joe and Josephine Average should not be struggling.


Ms Williams needs help, either government help in the form of benefits, or legislated to ensure the father of her children helps, or the help of a better-paying and/or more secure job. I'm certainly in favour of ensuring deadbeat fathers do their part, and I'm also in favour of government benefits. But most people would rather do a good day's work, if they have their chance, and Ms Williams certainly takes pride in her work. So to help her I'd raise the minimum wage and introduce better worker protections.


Now, we can argue just what would help her the most, whether she is deserving poor or undeserving poor, and all that nonsense. But there's no doubt that on $10,446.81 she needs something to change. Joe and Josephine Average  on more than five times her income are fine, though. I'm not worried about them.

[Hargrove]

Regardless, overall across the Western world, households have more discretionary income than they used to, and new houses are being built bigger, and more stuff is being put in them.

You missed the point entirely, which is that the crap filling your house has no bearing on whether the major expenses listed have gone up staggeringly, disproportionately affecting many people without that discretionary income.

If you wish to argue that most people do not have the chance to reduce their discretionary spending, you will perhaps not get a great reception on a forum dedicated to... well, some degree of frugality.

I can't even tell how you got there, but that's basically this thread for me, so I guess I'll just shrug at that one. Joe's problem may not be useless crap, it may be the price trends of housing, healthcare, and education. I know I know, I'll tell him to move or civilize his country or whatever, thanks.

[Kyle Schuant]

You missed the point entirely, which is that the crap filling your house has no bearing on whether the major expenses listed have gone up staggeringly, disproportionately affecting many people without that discretionary income.

And you've got it backwards. What you're not asking is why the price of housing has gone up. It's gone up because it can, because so many other things are cheaper. If food goes from 20 to 10% of our expenses, that's another 10% of our spending which can now go towards housing. If TVs have gone from three months to a day's wages, that's another three months' wages we can now chuck on housing.

And so we offer a little more at auctions, or go for that slightly fancier place for rent. If enough people are like us, then the average housing price goes up. Joe and Josephine Average will no doubt bitch and moan a lot, that's the nature of the middle class to complain a lot. But people like Williams are the real losers in this.

Because so much other stuff got cheaper housing got bidded up in price and became more expensive. Joe and Josephine Average are the ones who made housing expensive.

Toss in some irresponsible lending by banks and you have a nice little cauldron of speculative bubbles.

Now, health and education are another matter. These are also demand-driven. In Australia in 1966 there were 90,000 university students in a country of 11 million; now it's 1.3 million students in a country of 25 million. Basically you can have a cheap education for a few people, or an expensive education for a lot of people. We've chosen the second one, and it looks like the US has as well - but with a good old US capitalist price-gouging premium tossed in for good measure. Of course, since we outsourced all the low-education jobs to China and removed worker protections everyone wants a degree so they can have a nice secure job, and we can't blame them. And this is why I'm not a free-trader.

But that's another discussion, really. Again: Vanessa Williams has the right to complain, and needs some help. Joe and Josephine Average on more than five times her income, rather less so. But complaining is a middle class hobby.

[DreamFIRE]

You know, middle class people regard kids (in many ways) as a luxury good, to be produced when you can afford them.

But not every community looks at it that way. It’s been my experience that in many poor communities, babies are a bright spot in a difficult existence and people look forward to them - plus, they don’t see themselves as ever really “affording” them, so why wait?

Right, because they know we taxpayers will be subsidizing their costs and providing generous handouts.

And I think poor people know where babies come from, so I think the “better sex Ed” is kinda condescending.

Yes, that gets back to that common sense thing, or lack there-of, mentioned in previous posts.

[MrsPete]

Not to pick on you exclusively, because I've seen a lot of this 'don't have kids then!' pinned on the woman in the article (and on women in general), and then I look at what's happening in the U.S. (from an outsider's perspective of course) where it seems to be purposely being made increasingly difficult for women to access birth control, abortions, and any other means of them being 'smart enough to not have kids', and I wonder two things: (1) why is it assumed that they didn't use birth control at all?, and (2) how it isn't clear that these are two conflicting principles (have kids responsibly only, but we're making it hard to prevent or end unwanted pregnancies)?

I live in the US -- in the South, no less, and I don't think birth control is at all difficult to find.  Doctors seem to look for excuses to put teen girls on the pill (it'll regulate your cycle, it'll help your acne).  If you can't afford to see the doctor, the health department is free /near-free.  Even if you're paying full price for birth control pills, a month's worth costs less than a single value meal at McDonald's.  If you're not good at remembering to take the pill every day, the in-the-arm thing requires no thought on a daily basis.  Over-the-counter contraceptives are available at drug stores, grocery stores, big-box stores.  The internet has made contraceptive information super easy to find. 

I am 100% certain that if I went out right this minute, I could pick up multiple forms of birth control from at least a dozen stores within two miles of my house -- we absolutely do not have a birth control desert in the US.  Okay, admittedly, it'd be easier for me because I own a car and have money, but the health department and loads of stores are on the bus route, and some birth control is even free. 

Why do I assume that the woman in the article didn't use birth control?  Because -- when used properly -- birth control is extremely effective.  The key, of course, is "when used properly".  I assume you've seen statistics describing perfect use vs. casual use, the biggest difference being that "casual birth control users" don't use it each and every time.  For example, we've all heard about girls saying to a friend, "I won't be having sex today, so you can have my pill."  And we've all heard of girls who didn't realize that a round of antibiotics will negate the pill for the rest of the month.  Statistics also tell us that more educated (we might assume smarter) birth control users experience fewer "failures".  So, if you're really serious about birth control working, chances are pretty good that it will work. 

As for availability of abortion, I really don't know; however, I am certain that the answer to that touchy subject is better birth control usage.  If people -- and, yeah, the responsibility mostly falls on women; life's not fair -- used birth control more effectively, abortion would all but cease to be an issue. 

[MrsPete]

You know, middle class people regard kids (in many ways) as a luxury good, to be produced when you can afford them.

But not every community looks at it that way. It’s been my experience that in many poor communities, babies are a bright spot in a difficult existence and people look forward to them - plus, they don’t see themselves as ever really “affording” them, so why wait?

And I think poor people know where babies come from, so I think the “better sex Ed” is kinda condescending. How about access to long term birth control, which has been shown to cut the teen pregnancy rate? (Which has steadily fallen anyway.) How about access to abortion for women who realize that can’t manage a second or third child?

Yes, among my poor students, I do see an attitude of "it's going to happen sometime, so why worry about a girl who's pregnant at 16?" 

Even more than that, these communities feel little to no social stigma towards teen mothers -- and have no expectations towards the boys who fathered the babies. 

I have a friend who works with adoption placements, and I was surprised that she says few teenagers put babies up for adoption -- though literally, in all the time I've been teaching, I've never known a single girl who carried a baby and put it up for adoption.  Not one.  My friend says that's typical:  She says teenagers still live at home and have some financial support, so they keep their babies; in contrast, she says that the women who give up babies tend to be in their 20s and already have at least one child.  They're living on their own, and they know how expensive it is -- so they make a tough choice.  My friend herself is an adoptive mother, and her son was adopted from what she says is the best possible situation:  He was born in prison.  Why is this best?  His birth mother had three meals a day, medical care and limited access to drugs and alcohol.  It's interesting to talk to people who are actually involved in such things -- I have no personal experience with adoption. 

[PoutineLover]

Here's a good article explaining why men are really more to blame for unwanted pregnancies:
https://www.georgetakei.com/moms-blistering-rant-about-why-men-are-to-blame-for-all-unwanted-pregnancies-goes-viral-2605669198.html?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1537220613
The pill and all other hormonal contraceptives do have side effects and are not necessarily cheap or easy to get. When I had a prescription I needed to see a doctor every year to refill it and I could only get 3 months at a time, and it cost about 30 bucks a month without insurance. If you don't have a family doctor or insurance, or your parents don't approve of sex, it becomes that much more difficult to access. And the morning after pill needs to be taken pretty quickly and is also not cheap. Not to mention that the pill and morning after pill aren't necessarily effective if you weigh more than a certain amount, which is often not discussed. Anyway, yes its easy to prevent pregnancy if you are reasonably well off and well educated but we can't pretend there aren't still plenty of barriers especially for low income people.

[GuitarStv]

Article makes a lot of very valid points.

[libertarian4321]

Put another way: America. LOL.

Clearly, we poor, misguided Americans just need to look to the greatness of Australia for all the answers, as they clearly have it all figured out.  Australia has been the world leader in everything for so long, how could we have been so foolish as to not see this before? 

 (Was my sarcasm obvious?  If not, take my word for it, I was being sarcastic.)

Put another way:  The USA isn't perfect, but Australia sure as Hell isn't either, mate.

[marty998]

Put another way: America. LOL.

Clearly, we poor, misguided Americans just need to look to the greatness of Australia for all the answers, as they clearly have it all figured out.  Australia has been the world leader in everything for so long, how could we have been so foolish as to not see this before? 

 (Was my sarcasm obvious?  If not, take my word for it, I was being sarcastic.)

Put another way:  The USA isn't perfect, but Australia sure as Hell isn't either, mate.

Ahh don't mind him. I think he has it wrong on housing. The real reason it has gone up here is that there are literally $millions of incentives for millions of baby boomers to lock up their wealth in an asset that is not only tax free but is also exempt from the age pension and other welfare benefits means testing regimes.

But alas, even then, outside of Sydney and Melbourne most housing remains relatively cheap. We do have a problem of wealth in this country, I'd almost argue most* people are so well off that they are struggling to figure out what to do with it all. Hence the plethora of "wants" being invented like blenders and coffee makers, together with the continual upgrading of housing on Sydney's North Shore and Melbourne's Leafy East. It's the same in the US. You will have communities with 10-100x more than they need, and communities that don't.

*At this point I'll mention the appalling conditions some Australian Aboriginal communities live in, and drop it there saying yes, we have our issues too.

You know, middle class people regard kids (in many ways) as a luxury good, to be produced when you can afford them.

But not every community looks at it that way. It’s been my experience that in many poor communities, babies are a bright spot in a difficult existence and people look forward to them - plus, they don’t see themselves as ever really “affording” them, so why wait?

And I think poor people know where babies come from, so I think the “better sex Ed” is kinda condescending. How about access to long term birth control, which has been shown to cut the teen pregnancy rate? (Which has steadily fallen anyway.) How about access to abortion for women who realize that can’t manage a second or third child?

Yes, among my poor students, I do see an attitude of "it's going to happen sometime, so why worry about a girl who's pregnant at 16?" 

Even more than that, these communities feel little to no social stigma towards teen mothers -- and have no expectations towards the boys who fathered the babies. 

I have a friend who works with adoption placements, and I was surprised that she says few teenagers put babies up for adoption -- though literally, in all the time I've been teaching, I've never known a single girl who carried a baby and put it up for adoption.  Not one.  My friend says that's typical:  She says teenagers still live at home and have some financial support, so they keep their babies; in contrast, she says that the women who give up babies tend to be in their 20s and already have at least one child.  They're living on their own, and they know how expensive it is -- so they make a tough choice.  My friend herself is an adoptive mother, and her son was adopted from what she says is the best possible situation:  He was born in prison.  Why is this best?  His birth mother had three meals a day, medical care and limited access to drugs and alcohol.  It's interesting to talk to people who are actually involved in such things -- I have no personal experience with adoption. 

This is sobering. I acknowledge I have no hardship in my life or any understanding at all of these matters. It does help me become a more compassionate person when I see posts like this and some of the ones before. Life genuinely is hard for people who have had no example to follow - I don't mind if through my taxes someone does get a helping hand up. We can't be sure everyone will take that helping hand, but a reasonable society should at least try and make that help freely available.

And FFS, +1 to access to birth control. The church has a lot to atone for on this. You think Jesus stood at the pulpit proselytising "thou shalt not cover thy phallus in the act of congress?" Point that out to me in the Bible please.

[GuitarStv]

According to currently accepted biblical accounts, Jesus didn't ever take a wife (quite unusual for the time).  Given that without a wife any sort of sex or masturbation is verboten, I don't think he would have any kind of authority on the matter.

[Walterbl]

Oh yeah, I remember reading this online article once. This leftist writer was complaining about McDonals maying low wages, and the example he used was this woman who worked at McDonalds and had four kids, so of course she needed government assistance...and I am like wtf. If you are poor you should be working on getting out of poverty, not having kids, let alone FOUR.

Jobs are a solution, but here is the thing, on the very long term, there will be less, not more jobs. Humans are being replaced by machines at an alarming rate. So long term the solution to poverty is probably technology. Make things cheaper so more people can afford them.

[Lovelywings]

I'm guessing the overlap in the Venn Diagram of folks who believe this lady needs to suck it up and suffer the consequences of her youthful mistakes and those who think Louis CK has already suffered enough is about 99%.

Slow clap.

[accolay]

And I think poor people know where babies come from, so I think the “better sex Ed” is kinda condescending. How about access to long term birth control, which has been shown to cut the teen pregnancy rate? (Which has steadily fallen anyway.) How about access to abortion for women who realize that can’t manage a second or third child?

It's not that they don't know where babies come from it's that they don't know how to prevent them. Abstinence only education came back during this administration. Abstinence only education was happening when this article's subject had her kid. How about we call it "scientifically accurate sex Ed?" And you're right, lack of access is a big deal.

A Catholic friend of mine told me that they were taught that birth control doesn't work, so don't bother.

[maizefolk]

Heck, I went to public school and what I took away from sex ed was "all birth control can fail and even if it doesn't you will get STDs/STIs, now let's split up into groups of three and put a condom on a banana."

At some point in the future I imagine we'll have drugs that actually do to human sex drive what saltpeter supposedly did when it was rumored to be mixed into the food of soldiers, sailors, and all boys schools. I wonder if the fundamentalist religious folks who get behind just dosing their children to have zero interest in sex through high school, or if even that would be considered a form of birth control and you're only truly virtuous if you desperately want to have sex but still chose not to.

[Johnez]

Birth control and sex ed isn't enough. If it was, things like the opioid crisis wouldn't exist. We all know drugs are bad. It's building the right thought processes, the right support system, encouraging the sensical choice EVERY time that makes the difference. When there are adults all around you making stupid comments and putting attitudes into your head that sex ed is a crime, condoms and birth control are for sluts, and questioning everything a person can do to prevent unwanted pregnancy, it's kind of easy to slide into the thought pattern that it doesn't matter. And face it-sex is fun. Without good prospects, without good purpose, without a bright future, what is the point of protecting from an unwanted pregnancy? Yeah, in the abstract it's the rational choice to prevent pregnancy regardless. Having a kid at 16 isn't the best idea, but having a kid at 16 with a scholarship in hand and a bright future is unthinkable.

The problem with some of the deepest issues we face today is that we rely on some combination of "programs" or "education" when the entire system needs to be examined and taken into account. One of the things a lot of people don't have that could mitigate so many of the ills we face today are strong families, friend networks and neighborhoods. You can't undo a father leaving. Can't undo a grandma unwilling to take care of the kids. Can't undo years of mistakes. Can't undo zero effective support system. I feel for the woman in the article. I'm not a heartless bastard that says take away assistance, I'm just saying none of it's enough. They don't address the systemic issues that allow people to fall into the situation she's in right now. I don't know what is, but what we have isn't enough. I have a feeling addressing the income disparity between the poor and rich and stagnating wages would be far more effective than another assistance program.

[Hargrove]

Birth control and sex ed isn't enough. If it was, things like the opioid crisis wouldn't exist. We all know drugs are bad. It's building the right thought processes, the right support system, encouraging the sensical choice EVERY time that makes the difference. When there are adults all around you making stupid comments and putting attitudes into your head that sex ed is a crime, condoms and birth control are for sluts, and questioning everything a person can do to prevent unwanted pregnancy, it's kind of easy to slide into the thought pattern that it doesn't matter. And face it-sex is fun. Without good prospects, without good purpose, without a bright future, what is the point of protecting from an unwanted pregnancy? Yeah, in the abstract it's the rational choice to prevent pregnancy regardless. Having a kid at 16 isn't the best idea, but having a kid at 16 with a scholarship in hand and a bright future is unthinkable.

The problem with some of the deepest issues we face today is that we rely on some combination of "programs" or "education" when the entire system needs to be examined and taken into account. One of the things a lot of people don't have that could mitigate so many of the ills we face today are strong families, friend networks and neighborhoods. You can't undo a father leaving. Can't undo a grandma unwilling to take care of the kids. Can't undo years of mistakes. Can't undo zero effective support system. I feel for the woman in the article. I'm not a heartless bastard that says take away assistance, I'm just saying none of it's enough. They don't address the systemic issues that allow people to fall into the situation she's in right now. I don't know what is, but what we have isn't enough. I have a feeling addressing the income disparity between the poor and rich and stagnating wages would be far more effective than another assistance program.

Wait just one minute, you. If we're merely going to look at what works, where we will get the visceral satisfaction we can usually get from condemning others? You really haven't thought this through. Think of how many people we can shake our heads at after the abstinence-only campaigns. Realistically, there's a lot of untapped potential condemnation out there, and our generation probably won't even be brought to task for it, because it's surprizingly easy to convince people that everything would be perfect if only the destitute were faultless heroes.

Communist.

[GuitarStv]

A Catholic friend of mine told me that they were taught that birth control doesn't work, so don't bother.

My wife was Catholic, and we had to do a Catholic two day marriage course in order to be married in the church that she wanted.  Honestly, about 95% of the stuff they went over was reasonable and sensible (good questions about goals, values, children, family).  The sex ed part though was terrible.

They pushed a message that condoms were likely to fail and that birth control pills give women cancer and make women fat.  The two approved methods of birth control that they gave were pull n' pray and ovulation charting . . . both of which are wildly more risky than the frowned upon methods.  It was so silly that I actually laughed out loud during this presentation . . . but I had been given a real sex ed through school.  It didn't seem as funny when I realized that some in the room were taking what was being said to heart.

[Hargrove]

My wife was Catholic, and we had to do a Catholic two day marriage course in order to be married in the church that she wanted.  Honestly, about 95% of the stuff they went over was reasonable and sensible (good questions about goals, values, children, family).  The sex ed part though was terrible.

Wow. Fiance is Catholic, and we couldn't do the 2-day, so we did the longer one. Totally agree with your take on it, though pulling out was not discussed at all with us (that one was definitely improvised at your meeting, lol). Even Planned Parenthood agrees either one of those is substantially more than nothing, though.

It is too bad that we think "counseling" is only for relationships in trouble. There was a lot of good, practical advice. I enjoyed having another venue to explore the relationship in (and a "no brainer" to one person is a total surprize to another).

[jengod]

Recycling force!

I can't think of anything more useful than paying people to sort through and process discarded valuable materials (many valuables get sent to the dump because contractors make far more money building than they would doing this).

Just wood, for example.

Wood is getting really expensive. And we dump tons of it, because it's got nails, and it's not in standard dimensions.

A crew of people with proper training and safety gear pulling nails and ripping/planing it into standard dims would be awesome.

Ditto for so many things we just throw out. The problems of lurking unemployment and landfills filling up (with totally usable materials) can solve each other.

YEEEESSSSSS!

[robartsd]

With a frugal attitude, most US families could get by on a single full-time income.

I wonder about this, really.  The more I read about it, the more I doubt it. Even in the halcyon days (what a great word), most families weren't living on one income, only middle class and upper class white families were. 
ts to those who work part time.

Median personal income for full-time employees age 25 or older without a HS diploma in the US is $30,598. Median personal income for full-time employees age 25 or older with just a HS education is $38,102. I'll stand by the statement that most US families COULD get by on a single full-time income.

[mm1970]

With a frugal attitude, most US families could get by on a single full-time income.

I wonder about this, really.  The more I read about it, the more I doubt it. Even in the halcyon days (what a great word), most families weren't living on one income, only middle class and upper class white families were. 
ts to those who work part time.

Median personal income for full-time employees age 25 or older without a HS diploma in the US is $30,598. Median personal income for full-time employees age 25 or older with just a HS education is $38,102. I'll stand by the statement that most US families COULD get by on a single full-time income.

Well, without spending hours digging up the cost of living in every area of the country - I cannot directly refute that.  I can say "good luck" in most of California, and in most large cities in the country.  In fact, just a short google finds articles like "13 cities where you can live comfortably on less than $60,000 a year".  Far cry from $30,000 to $38,000.  I'd wager that there are VERY few places where the cost of housing would make that even possible.

So instead, I'll post this link:
http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/1

You can change the "1" to any other number up to 50, and it will tell you the "living wage" in each state - with a column for "2 adults (1 working) and 2 children".  And... even Alabama shows a living wage of >$20 an hour.  (Some of the numbers don't work, some states may be missing.)

In any event, if you want to buy a home, for example, with a $35k income - then using the rule of thumb of spending no more than 2.5x your income - your house price would be limited to $87,500.

The median household price was $200,000 in 2017
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/what-the-median-home-price-of-200000-will-get-you-across-the-us.html

So, a median income of $35,000 would certainly not buy the median house.  Meaning "most" Americans could not "get by".

Then there's this: not many new houses sold for under $125,000
https://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/pdf/quarterly_sales.pdf

In a quick search I was unable to find the equivalent data for "existing housing sales", but it would be interesting to see that and put it into an analysis - like a histogram.  That would be pretty cool.

Even just anecdotal data - I've lived in DC and coastal California - that $ will get you nowhere.

But I grew up in rural western PA.  Current stats:
Median home price: $102,000 (20% vacancy rate)
Median income: $22,300 (for a single adult)
Median household income: $43,000

So: yes, you could afford to live on two incomes.
But not one.

[Johnez]

With the median being the dividing point I wonder how tilted it is by older workers being at their job or field for 5-10+ years collecting raises and seniority versus younger workers barely out of school? Yes, I know people shouldn't be having kids when they're barely managing, but it happens anyway. Millennials especially are known to delay tons of things in life, cars, marriage, kids, home buying, etc. I just lost my job and am checking out the job market around me. Its pretty bleak, especially for entry level anything. 90% of jobs I'm seeing right now leave me with $300-$400 a month after rent. Not including anything else essential like groceries. If I didn't have the savings I built up, we'd be SOL. Another statistic. I was extremely lucky to have this job and wonder how the hell people around me make it. Actually I know, roomies, used cars, side gigs, and delaying everything. I'm making a lot of "right" choices and waited to have kids and might be in a bad situation in six months. If a recession hits god help me....

[Adam Zapple]

With a frugal attitude, most US families could get by on a single full-time income.

I wonder about this, really.  The more I read about it, the more I doubt it. Even in the halcyon days (what a great word), most families weren't living on one income, only middle class and upper class white families were. 
ts to those who work part time.

Median personal income for full-time employees age 25 or older without a HS diploma in the US is $30,598. Median personal income for full-time employees age 25 or older with just a HS education is $38,102. I'll stand by the statement that most US families COULD get by on a single full-time income.

Well, without spending hours digging up the cost of living in every area of the country - I cannot directly refute that.  I can say "good luck" in most of California, and in most large cities in the country.  In fact, just a short google finds articles like "13 cities where you can live comfortably on less than $60,000 a year".  Far cry from $30,000 to $38,000.  I'd wager that there are VERY few places where the cost of housing would make that even possible.

So instead, I'll post this link:
http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/1

You can change the "1" to any other number up to 50, and it will tell you the "living wage" in each state - with a column for "2 adults (1 working) and 2 children".  And... even Alabama shows a living wage of >$20 an hour.  (Some of the numbers don't work, some states may be missing.)

In any event, if you want to buy a home, for example, with a $35k income - then using the rule of thumb of spending no more than 2.5x your income - your house price would be limited to $87,500.

The median household price was $200,000 in 2017
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/what-the-median-home-price-of-200000-will-get-you-across-the-us.html

So, a median income of $35,000 would certainly not buy the median house.  Meaning "most" Americans could not "get by".

Then there's this: not many new houses sold for under $125,000
https://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/pdf/quarterly_sales.pdf

In a quick search I was unable to find the equivalent data for "existing housing sales", but it would be interesting to see that and put it into an analysis - like a histogram.  That would be pretty cool.

Even just anecdotal data - I've lived in DC and coastal California - that $ will get you nowhere.

But I grew up in rural western PA.  Current stats:
Median home price: $102,000 (20% vacancy rate)
Median income: $22,300 (for a single adult)
Median household income: $43,000

So: yes, you could afford to live on two incomes.
But not one.

Rental rates would be a much more useful comparison than home prices since very few low income families buy homes.

[mm1970]

Rental rates would be a much more useful comparison than home prices since very few low income families buy homes.

Well, yes but I didn't feel like digging through rental rates either.  That would likely be more affordable.

But still, I doubt that you could make the statement that *most* families in the country making $30k to $38k could live on one income EVEN if you are renting.

For example, with a $35,000 income, the standard recommendation of spending no more than 30% of your gross income on rent would come out to being $875/ month on rent.

https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/national-rent-data/

This list has 100 cities listed, and only 22 of them have a median rent of a 2BR apartment that is less than $875/month.  Which is not even close to "most".

And you referred to "low income families" -  the point (not yours) that *I* am trying to refute is that "most families can afford to live on one income" is false, when you consider "one income" means $30,000-38,000.  (Poverty level is $24,600 and Medicaid eligibility is approx $33,000).

[SwordGuy]

Rental rates would be a much more useful comparison than home prices since very few low income families buy homes.

Well, yes but I didn't feel like digging through rental rates either.  That would likely be more affordable.

But still, I doubt that you could make the statement that *most* families in the country making $30k to $38k could live on one income EVEN if you are renting.

For example, with a $35,000 income, the standard recommendation of spending no more than 30% of your gross income on rent would come out to being $875/ month on rent.

https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/national-rent-data/

This list has 100 cities listed, and only 22 of them have a median rent of a 2BR apartment that is less than $875/month.  Which is not even close to "most".

And you referred to "low income families" -  the point (not yours) that *I* am trying to refute is that "most families can afford to live on one income" is false, when you consider "one income" means $30,000-38,000.  (Poverty level is $24,600 and Medicaid eligibility is approx $33,000).

You are making a logic error.

You are comparing national income levels to specific locales and complaining that incomes don't match expenses in the larger cities.    Expensive areas tend to have higher incomes, too, to compensate for the higher costs.   You aren't taking that into account.

But if you're going to be paid national average wages in a high cost of living area, the solution is to move to a lower cost of living area (or find another line of work that pays better).   For example, I've bought 2 homes for less than $38,000 each and another for just $400 more!  I rent entire 3BR homes, nicely restored and well maintained, for less than $875 a month in my area -- and I make good profits, too.

[mm1970]

Rental rates would be a much more useful comparison than home prices since very few low income families buy homes.

Well, yes but I didn't feel like digging through rental rates either.  That would likely be more affordable.

But still, I doubt that you could make the statement that *most* families in the country making $30k to $38k could live on one income EVEN if you are renting.

For example, with a $35,000 income, the standard recommendation of spending no more than 30% of your gross income on rent would come out to being $875/ month on rent.

https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/national-rent-data/

This list has 100 cities listed, and only 22 of them have a median rent of a 2BR apartment that is less than $875/month.  Which is not even close to "most".

And you referred to "low income families" -  the point (not yours) that *I* am trying to refute is that "most families can afford to live on one income" is false, when you consider "one income" means $30,000-38,000.  (Poverty level is $24,600 and Medicaid eligibility is approx $33,000).

You are making a logic error.

You are comparing national income levels to specific locales and complaining that incomes don't match expenses in the larger cities.    Expensive areas tend to have higher incomes, too, to compensate for the higher costs.   You aren't taking that into account.

But if you're going to be paid national average wages in a high cost of living area, the solution is to move to a lower cost of living area (or find another line of work that pays better).   For example, I've bought 2 homes for less than $38,000 each and another for just $400 more!  I rent entire 3BR homes, nicely restored and well maintained, for less than $875 a month in my area -- and I make good profits, too.

I am not making a logic error. I am only going based on the little bit of data that I am able to pull on line.

Here's the logic.

Someone states that *most* families in the US can afford to live on one income.  Now, we can argue semantics about what "afford" means, because we are all mustachians here, but let's just go on general recommendations for spending on housing.

My logic is based on math.
1.  Look at what the median income is PER PERSON (aka, "one income")
2.  Look at the cost to own or rent a place
3.  Compare the two and note that the general advice is to not buy a house worth more than 2.5x your income (so that sets the "purchase price"), or to not spend more than 30% of your gross income on rent (which sets the rental price).

So then the logic/ math means that we need to look at single person income vs. 2BR rent or home ownership costs - but around the country.  Without the specific detailed data on all urban and rural areas of the country - we can only speak in general mathematical terms.  (Although I would LOVE to have access to all of that data - it would be really cool to overlay all that...maybe I need a second career as a data scientist.)  I spend a great deal of my time doing data analysis - so I'd prefer to have more than just "median" - I mean, it would be great to have quantiles data for each area of the country (state/city/county) for both income, rental costs, and home prices - then you could get really into the numbers and affordability.

I looked at cities, because that data is readily available.

I have no doubt that there are *plenty* of rural areas where rents are cheaper - but in many of those areas, income is also less.

As an example (yes I am aware that the plural of anecdote is not data), I looked up my low-cost home county - where yes, rents are cheaper.  And homes are cheaper.  But income is ALSO less.  So even in the rural area - though median rent is only $610, median single person income is only $22,000 - meaning you should only spend $550 a month on rent (which is less than $610).

I found this while looking up what percentage of people live in rural areas (19%):

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210.html

I thought it was interesting, considering I grew up rural and now live in a small city.  I know that I've seen this particular analysis done for my own county ("only 7% of people can afford to buy a home, and only X% can afford rent).  But I haven't been able to find, in just a quick lunch-break google, the source of that data to really dig further into it.

There's also this:
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/harvard_jchs_state_of_the_nations_housing_2017_chap1.pdf

[Davnasty]

Rental rates would be a much more useful comparison than home prices since very few low income families buy homes.

Well, yes but I didn't feel like digging through rental rates either.  That would likely be more affordable.

But still, I doubt that you could make the statement that *most* families in the country making $30k to $38k could live on one income EVEN if you are renting.

For example, with a $35,000 income, the standard recommendation of spending no more than 30% of your gross income on rent would come out to being $875/ month on rent.

https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/national-rent-data/

This list has 100 cities listed, and only 22 of them have a median rent of a 2BR apartment that is less than $875/month.  Which is not even close to "most".

And you referred to "low income families" -  the point (not yours) that *I* am trying to refute is that "most families can afford to live on one income" is false, when you consider "one income" means $30,000-38,000.  (Poverty level is $24,600 and Medicaid eligibility is approx $33,000).

You are making a logic error.

You are comparing national income levels to specific locales and complaining that incomes don't match expenses in the larger cities.    Expensive areas tend to have higher incomes, too, to compensate for the higher costs.   You aren't taking that into account.

But if you're going to be paid national average wages in a high cost of living area, the solution is to move to a lower cost of living area (or find another line of work that pays better).   For example, I've bought 2 homes for less than $38,000 each and another for just $400 more!  I rent entire 3BR homes, nicely restored and well maintained, for less than $875 a month in my area -- and I make good profits, too.

I am not making a logic error. I am only going based on the little bit of data that I am able to pull on line.

Here's the logic.

Someone states that *most* families in the US can afford to live on one income.  Now, we can argue semantics about what "afford" means, because we are all mustachians here, but let's just go on general recommendations for spending on housing.

My logic is based on math.
1.  Look at what the median income is PER PERSON (aka, "one income")
2.  Look at the cost to own or rent a place
3.  Compare the two and note that the general advice is to not buy a house worth more than 2.5x your income (so that sets the "purchase price"), or to not spend more than 30% of your gross income on rent (which sets the rental price).

So then the logic/ math means that we need to look at single person income vs. 2BR rent or home ownership costs - but around the country.  Without the specific detailed data on all urban and rural areas of the country - we can only speak in general mathematical terms.  (Although I would LOVE to have access to all of that data - it would be really cool to overlay all that...maybe I need a second career as a data scientist.)  I spend a great deal of my time doing data analysis - so I'd prefer to have more than just "median" - I mean, it would be great to have quantiles data for each area of the country (state/city/county) for both income, rental costs, and home prices - then you could get really into the numbers and affordability.

I looked at cities, because that data is readily available.

I have no doubt that there are *plenty* of rural areas where rents are cheaper - but in many of those areas, income is also less.

As an example (yes I am aware that the plural of anecdote is not data), I looked up my low-cost home county - where yes, rents are cheaper.  And homes are cheaper.  But income is ALSO less.  So even in the rural area - though median rent is only $610, median single person income is only $22,000 - meaning you should only spend $550 a month on rent (which is less than $610).

I found this while looking up what percentage of people live in rural areas (19%):

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210.html

I thought it was interesting, considering I grew up rural and now live in a small city.  I know that I've seen this particular analysis done for my own county ("only 7% of people can afford to buy a home, and only X% can afford rent).  But I haven't been able to find, in just a quick lunch-break google, the source of that data to really dig further into it.

There's also this:
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/harvard_jchs_state_of_the_nations_housing_2017_chap1.pdf

Ya, don't do that. This is all to dispute:

With a frugal attitude, most US families could get by on a single full-time income.

Then you go on to disagree based on what people currently spend. I thought it goes without saying that what is "normal" in our society is actually ridiculous and wasteful?

[Rosy]

It is true that most Americans want to believe Jobs are the solution to poverty. ... and a decent paying as in living wage-full-time job clearly would be the solution in Vanessa's case.

If - there were a job that paid a living wage and if there were free child and after-school care and if there were affordable housing to rent on her salary - she would be fine.

Vanessa's past is irrelevant. It isn't our business nor is it up to us to judge without being privy to all the details of her life. Assuming the worst and ignoring that she was also a daughter who "chose" to care for her father "bedpan and all" is simply wrong. 

This woman has always worked and always looked after her children as best she knew how. She didn't become pregnant at fifteen by the holy ghost - it takes two to tango and where the hell were her parents? Good Catholics that they presumably were, given that they are from Puerto Rico I'd bet they failed to educate their daughter in anything relating to birth control. If I were to speculate I'd say they probably forbade the pill.
Who knows, Vanessa may have seen the father as a way out - away from a drug addict father and a mother who was basically a single, always working mother herself.
The fact alone that she views her father as a good person for not leaving the family even though he was a drug addict who caused hardship for his family speaks volumes as to what her "normal" life has been.

If you read the article it stated that grandma is not in good health and cannot always tolerate the noise from her three grandchildren, forcing Vanessa to occasionally live in a motel or driving the car to an isolated area so the kids can sleep in the car, until she drives back to grandma's house the next morning for a shower and breakfast in time for school.
I'm appalled, mostly because of the financial implications - but since this is indeed Vanessa's reality, I will say that this is most likely a difficult family dynamic and that most likely both mother and grandmother are occasionally at the end of their rope concerning three lively teens and space and privacy issues.
From my own parenting experience, I can only say that having a good male role model in their lives is invaluable for children in their teens. I don't really see anyone but their mother standing between them and foster care or worse jail and I bet they all know it.

Grandma could and would not take them in on her own and there are no other family members who would deign to step up and raise these children. She's successfully managed to keep her oldest boy out of jail and away from trouble - that is more than can be said for some oh so privileged kids in wealthy homes.
Kudos and more power to her for that alone.
She hasn't taken the easy way out - she doesn't take drugs or drink alcohol or neglect her children - none of which can be said for her own father and both of the fathers of her own children.

Oh my - the lives of welfare queens - shucks, just imagine the free workout she is getting while lifting her patients for ten bucks an hour.

I'd love to see the CEO of Bayada or Chase Bank or Walmart live the life of a welfare queen for a solid year. We would have excellent child care services, decent pay and good solutions for the future.

No point in discussing the various welfare programs either - I find I am totally on board with these two quotes from the article:

Senator Bernie Sanders once declared, echoing a long line of Democrats who have come before and after him, “Nobody who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.”
Sure, but what about those who work 20 or 30 hours, like Vanessa?

Because liberals have allowed conservatives to set the terms of the poverty debate, they find themselves arguing about radical solutions that imagine either a fully employed nation (like a jobs guarantee) or a post-work society (like a universal basic income).

Neither plan has the faintest hope of being actually implemented nationwide anytime soon, which means neither is any good to Vanessa and millions like her.
When so much attention is spent on far-off, utopian solutions, we neglect the importance of the poverty fixes we already have.

I believe that the 4% currently unemployed are probably not employable for a myriad of reasons. But perhaps there is a slim possibility that some of them might be a candidate for a year of social service or twenty hours a month of public work programs like space force:) or recycling.

Bottom line - the first thing I thought about was her oldest, what can be done to give him a good start in life. How can he be helped out of this swamp, get an education, start working full time and learn about money and living a good life removed from a world of neighborhood violence and daily temptation?
What can be done to get him out of there before he succumbs to threats and gangs and drugs?
What can be done to protect her 14-year-old from becoming pregnant at fifteen and having her first child at 16 like her mother?

A seventeen-year-old who says he would volunteer to wear an ankle bracelet to be tracked and thinks of that as protection in his neighborhood - is mindblowing.
Nothing was mentioned about him working part-time or what plans he may have for the future. From what I understand the military can be and is quite choosy as to whom it will accept these days - besides athletic abilities and a brilliant mind, the military is one of the few options remaining.
May he be smart enough and resilient enough to find a way out - his mother is already condemned to live out her life in poverty.

[mm1970]

Then you go on to disagree based on what people currently spend. I thought it goes without saying that what is "normal" in our society is actually ridiculous and wasteful?

I am referring to housing only.  You won't get a disagreement on many "other" things.  I am speaking of housing.

There are reasonable recommendations on what you should spend on housing (and debt, and food, and ...etc).  Now, most of us here would certainly think that our "fun" spending should be lower and our "savings" would be higher.  I am not disagreeing there.

But much like the whole "how much should I spend for college" conversation - you can do the math and come up with a "reasonable amount".  People have already done that on rent and mortgage - 2.5x your annual salary to purchase a house and 30% of your gross wages on rent.

Using those (fairly reasonable I think) percentages/ values - AND looking at typical "single person" income - I am saying that *most* families (defined by me as >50%) cannot get by on a single income.

Meaning: the single income of one person is not enough money to rent or buy a 2BR place in their area while keeping their costs lower than the aforementioned amounts.  This especially seems true when you consider that more people live in urban areas (which are more expensive) than rural areas.

In any event, I would also add that the "burden of proof", in this case, is on the person who said "most people can afford to live on one income".  Well, prove it.
Show me the data.
Show me the statistics of single person income across the country, in each state and county - compared to the cost of rent and housing.
I'm wagering that less than 50% of families have a single income large enough to meet those income requirements compared to the cost of housing.  Especially when you consider the Harvard study showed, already - that 1/3 of families are "cost burdened" with respect to housing - meaning they spend more than 30% in their income on housing.  NOT 1/3 of "single income families", 1/3 of all families.

11 million renter households spend more than 50% of their income on housing (out of a total of 43 million renter households).

[DreamFIRE]

There were comments that low income people can't get by because they can't afford "median" rent or home prices.  If they are low income, they shouldn't expect to rent median priced housing, they should expect to afford only low cost housing.  I was low income for a while when I was much younger.  I didn't consider myself to "not be getting by" simply because I lived in housing that was below the "median" cost.

[Just Joe]

Bottom line - the first thing I thought about was her oldest, what can be done to give him a good start in life. How can he be helped out of this swamp, get an education, start working full time and learn about money and living a good life removed from a world of neighborhood violence and daily temptation?
What can be done to get him out of there before he succumbs to threats and gangs and drugs?
What can be done to protect her 14-year-old from becoming pregnant at fifteen and having her first child at 16 like her mother?.

He can join the military at age 17 if he wants assuming the military will have him. The mother could seek to have a long term birth control device implanted in her daughter's arm. It lasts several years. I don't know the cost however. I knew women when I was in the military that chose that route. I have a coworker and his wife who chose that path for their daughters during their teen years.

The 17 year old could be working part time and funneling money back into his family's budget. Millions of teens have done that over the centuries. The military could speed the earnings.

The family (mother and children) can work together to rise above poverty but it will take long term planning, resisting temptations, hard work and good communication. Who knows if they can do that.

As for the grandmother - still can't imagine how she couldn't work out something with daughter and children so that they would have a safe place to sleep. These are the rules - she could explain that she wants them to stay with her so they don't need to sleep in a car and these are the rules that will enable it. Break the rules, they'd have to leave. Behave and they can stay. Everyone who is mentally complete ought to be able to understand that. I suspect the grandmother has her own problems. I've met a few plain old mean people in my time - just couldn't be bothered to help someone b/c they demanded their peace and solitude.

I knew of a family many years ago during my HS years that was POOR and they housed their expanding family in RVs around their property. Each RV functioned as a bedroom. It was a mess but it worked. Really rough folks.

As frequently repeated here - their success will depend on a long string of correct decisions and behaviors lasting years. Hopefully they will do the right things.

[Rosy]

Bottom line - the first thing I thought about was her oldest, what can be done to give him a good start in life. How can he be helped out of this swamp, get an education, start working full time and learn about money and living a good life removed from a world of neighborhood violence and daily temptation?
What can be done to get him out of there before he succumbs to threats and gangs and drugs?
What can be done to protect her 14-year-old from becoming pregnant at fifteen and having her first child at 16 like her mother?.

He can join the military at age 17 if he wants assuming the military will have him. The mother could seek to have a long term birth control device implanted in her daughter's arm. It lasts several years. I don't know the cost however. I knew women when I was in the military that chose that route. I have a coworker and his wife who chose that path for their daughters during their teen years.

The 17 year old could be working part time and funneling money back into his family's budget. Millions of teens have done that over the centuries. The military could speed the earnings.

The family (mother and children) can work together to rise above poverty but it will take long term planning, resisting temptations, hard work and good communication. Who knows if they can do that.

As for the grandmother - still can't imagine how she couldn't work out something with daughter and children so that they would have a safe place to sleep. These are the rules - she could explain that she wants them to stay with her so they don't need to sleep in a car and these are the rules that will enable it. Break the rules, they'd have to leave. Behave and they can stay. Everyone who is mentally complete ought to be able to understand that. I suspect the grandmother has her own problems. I've met a few plain old mean people in my time - just couldn't be bothered to help someone b/c they demanded their peace and solitude.

I knew of a family many years ago during my HS years that was POOR and they housed their expanding family in RVs around their property. Each RV functioned as a bedroom. It was a mess but it worked. Really rough folks.

As frequently repeated here - their success will depend on a long string of correct decisions and behaviors lasting years. Hopefully they will do the right things.

Agreed on all points.
I didn't realize the military will recruit at 17, so he is eligible - if - they'll have him.

Yeah, the thing with grandma is instrumental in keeping them down. I don't see them rising above their circumstances unless the kids start bringing in money and they stop hanging out at motels. They'll need a fair amount of luck, continued hard work - if she becomes ill or unable to work at all - it is all over.
Even if they make a string of good decisions one little thing can undo everything.
 

[robartsd]

I am referring to housing only.  You won't get a disagreement on many "other" things.  I am speaking of housing.

There are reasonable recommendations on what you should spend on housing (and debt, and food, and ...etc).  Now, most of us here would certainly think that our "fun" spending should be lower and our "savings" would be higher.  I am not disagreeing there.

But much like the whole "how much should I spend for college" conversation - you can do the math and come up with a "reasonable amount".  People have already done that on rent and mortgage - 2.5x your annual salary to purchase a house and 30% of your gross wages on rent.

Using those (fairly reasonable I think) percentages/ values - AND looking at typical "single person" income - I am saying that *most* families (defined by me as >50%) cannot get by on a single income.

Meaning: the single income of one person is not enough money to rent or buy a 2BR place in their area while keeping their costs lower than the aforementioned amounts.  This especially seems true when you consider that more people live in urban areas (which are more expensive) than rural areas.

In any event, I would also add that the "burden of proof", in this case, is on the person who said "most people can afford to live on one income".  Well, prove it.
Show me the data.
Show me the statistics of single person income across the country, in each state and county - compared to the cost of rent and housing.
I'm wagering that less than 50% of families have a single income large enough to meet those income requirements compared to the cost of housing.  Especially when you consider the Harvard study showed, already - that 1/3 of families are "cost burdened" with respect to housing - meaning they spend more than 30% in their income on housing.  NOT 1/3 of "single income families", 1/3 of all families.

11 million renter households spend more than 50% of their income on housing (out of a total of 43 million renter households).

Yes, lower income households would be "cost burdened" by housing. Housing costs are probably the hardest part of the equation. There are few areas of the country that a family with two full time minimum wage jobs is not cost burdened by median market rate two bedroom rental housing. We definitely don't have enough affordable housing.

Let's adjust expectations and set the maximum budget for housing for a low income family at 40% of income. This would mean that someone making median personal income of $15/hour can afford what someone making $20/hour would not be "cost burdened" by. In lots of areas of the US working full time at $20/hour can afford 2-bedroom housing at no more than 30% of income. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/06/what-you-have-to-earn-to-rent-a-modest-2-bedroom-mapped/562631/

So our hypothetical single median income family has about $2600/mo income. After housing and payroll taxes, roughly $1300/mo is available for everything else. Assuming medical coverage is provided by Medicaid, that should be enough for a frugal family of 4.

[dogboyslim]

2004
In spite of knowing the consequences, has unprotected sex again at age 18-19, becomes pregnant.
Chooses to raise that child too -- she might've been out of her parents' house at this point.

I was trying to read through to the end without posting, but this one caught my attention because the scenario is similar to one of a friend of mine that finally pulled herself out of what she calls the cycle of hell.  She had 3 kids from different fathers with full knowledge and intent to have another baby despite knowing the consequences.  She talked about how messed up her emotions were, and how having babies gave her the feeling of unconditional love and a strong emotional connection that she didn't get anywhere else.  As the babies got older and started gaining some independence, that feeling waned.  She told me to put myself in a position where everyone thinks you are a worthless leech on society, puts you down and disrespects you. Everyone that is, except your child who looks at you with admiration.  You want that feeling, and its worth it, because the rest of your life really can't be much worse anyway...

The comments of a few other posters have made the point that people in rough situations often are not in a state of mind to make the best decisions.  Expecting them to just choose to do something that is hard for extended periods of time before they get better vs. just accepting their life is s**t and doing things that at least give momentary comfort is unrealistic.

She got out when someone from a church near her took her and her kids in and helped watch them while she learned new skills and got a job and started to see life improve.  Her kids are adults now, and none of them followed her lead into adulthood, and she credits the lady that took her in for that.

There is value in having people face consequences of poor decisions as a deterrent, but for those that are already there, continuing to push them down is not likely to be the universal solution.  My friend may be an anecdote, but she was enough anecdote to help me understand that logic (behavior x leads to undesirable outcome y) is not a solution to problems faced by emotional people.

[Kyle Schuant]

Interesting story, dogboyslim. I have never really got the idea of worthy and unworthy poor. Or rather, I get it but I don't agree with it. I get why you look at some people and say, "oh for fuck's sakes..." and I get why if you decide all the poor are unworthy, then that's great because then you don't have to do anything or pay more taxes or something and can just leave them to rot.

But I think of emergency care workers, and how they treat the sick and injured. They make no judgement as to whether the patient is worthy or not. Whether they broke their leg waterskiing or assaulted by a random stranger, they treat the broken leg the same. Whether there is a bad reaction to a drug taken for health, or a bad reaction to a recreational drug is all the same to them. Whether it's lung cancer from city pollution or from three packs a day, same. A person is in need, and they help them.

Now, obviously ongoing we must consider the circumstances a bit, but not to decide whether to help them, but how best to help them. You could probably just give the single mother of this article $10,000 in cash and she would make sure their lives all got better, but it's probably a bad idea to give a meth addict $10,000 cash - but there might be $10,000 worth of other help he could get. Still, at the back of it must be: we're not judging worth, only need.

[nnls]

A Catholic friend of mine told me that they were taught that birth control doesn't work, so don't bother.

My wife was Catholic, and we had to do a Catholic two day marriage course in order to be married in the church that she wanted.  Honestly, about 95% of the stuff they went over was reasonable and sensible (good questions about goals, values, children, family).  The sex ed part though was terrible.

They pushed a message that condoms were likely to fail and that birth control pills give women cancer and make women fat.  The two approved methods of birth control that they gave were pull n' pray and ovulation charting . . . both of which are wildly more risky than the frowned upon methods.  It was so silly that I actually laughed out loud during this presentation . . . but I had been given a real sex ed through school.  It didn't seem as funny when I realized that some in the room were taking what was being said to heart.

I went to Catholic highschool, in Western Australia sex ed that mentions contraception is compulsory (well it was when I was in school and I doubt this has changed) so we got taught that abstinence was the best way to avoid STIs and unwanted pregnancy. And we should wait until marriage

One married when having sex that condoms often fail, contraceptive pills and other hormone based things could cause cancer or cause you to have fertility problems and so the best method was ovulation tracking (they called it the billings method) we were repeatedly told that pulling out wasnt a good method.

its interesting that pulling out is still mentioned in the USA as a good method

[J Boogie]

A Catholic friend of mine told me that they were taught that birth control doesn't work, so don't bother.

My wife was Catholic, and we had to do a Catholic two day marriage course in order to be married in the church that she wanted.  Honestly, about 95% of the stuff they went over was reasonable and sensible (good questions about goals, values, children, family).  The sex ed part though was terrible.

They pushed a message that condoms were likely to fail and that birth control pills give women cancer and make women fat.  The two approved methods of birth control that they gave were pull n' pray and ovulation charting . . . both of which are wildly more risky than the frowned upon methods.  It was so silly that I actually laughed out loud during this presentation . . . but I had been given a real sex ed through school.  It didn't seem as funny when I realized that some in the room were taking what was being said to heart.

I went to Catholic highschool, in Western Australia sex ed that mentions contraception is compulsory (well it was when I was in school and I doubt this has changed) so we got taught that abstinence was the best way to avoid STIs and unwanted pregnancy. And we should wait until marriage

One married when having sex that condoms often fail, contraceptive pills and other hormone based things could cause cancer or cause you to have fertility problems and so the best method was ovulation tracking (they called it the billings method) we were repeatedly told that pulling out wasnt a good method.

its interesting that pulling out is still mentioned in the USA as a good method

Pulling out is not accepted as a form of birth control for the Catholic Church globally.

Catholic theology insists on sex as being both open to creating new life as well as uniting the couple. So if the couple has sex in a way that isn't open to life it is frowned upon by the Church.

Scripturally speaking, this traces its roots all the way back to Onan, who pulled out and was struck dead by God in the OT for doing so. However, it's equally likely he was struck dead because it was his older brother's widow and he stood to inherit his father's estate as the stand-in for the firstborn son in the absence of any sons born to his brother's widow.

[I'm a red panda]

My pre-cana included "birth control pills cause abortions"; you have no way of knowing how many babies you have killed.  It was difficult to prevent my husband from walking out at this point.

Pulling out was not OK; only NFP (so abstinence); if you were having sex (which was for both children and marital bonding) you had to be open to children.

[carolina822]

I don't know why any Catholic would take that even remotely seriously since the church doesn't seem to have much of an issue with diddling little boys.