Say Anything Blog

While I agree with the sentiment, that statement is deeply flawed along with much of the other things he says.  No way are you supporting a family of four on a full-time minimum wage job alone, at least not in places like New Jersey.  Do the math.  It’s not happening. 

It’s a different world today so it’s hard to compare poverty now to poverty back then.  Things like televisions cost much less today.  Saying that someone is not living in poverty today because they own a television would be like saying that you and I are among the elite rich because we own a computer.

I hope no one gets mean spirited about this.  You don’t expect me to walk to the social services office do you?  And, since I’m driving there I should have a late model car--I think it would be demeaning to have people see me in some older car.

It’s like the way the “American dream of owning your own home” is always dying, according to the politicians. And the percentage of Americans who own their own home slowly and steadily increases.

Dave, your assumption about a television being a necessity is part of the point.  You can live on a minimum wage today.  You just have to realize that a lot of things - cell phones, television, DVD’s, etc. - are luxuries one purchases when one can afford them.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Maybe he’s talking about the 1850s.

In the early 1950s Only a small minority of families enjoyed such basics as a mixer or had a hot-water heater.

Rob, do the math.  Are you counting food and shelter as a “luxury”?  It’s a complete joke to suggest that you can provide for a family of four on a single minimum wage income.  I agree that what we classify today as “poverty” is exaggerated but it does no good for the argument to make false claims like this.  It doesn’t help the argument to make claims that anyone with basic knowledge of math and the cost of things can disprove. 

And I wasn’t claiming that a television is a necessity, simply that buying a television in 1960 cost a heck of a lot more in today’s dollars than a television set today.  It really makes no sense to use that as an indicator of economic class than claiming that all of us reading this now are filthy rich because we own a computer.

Minimum wage: 40*5.85*52 ~= $12,168/year.

Health insurance for a family of four, $12,221/year.

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Minimum wage: 40*5.85*52 ~= $12,168/year.

Health insurance for a family of four, $12,221/year.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Really, AV?  I’m currently insuring a family of three (one additional dependent would be no additional cost) for $7,000/year.  Still not exactly affordable, but then that’s comprehensive coverage.

You could get a high-deductible plan for as little as $2,400/year.  You pay for yearly check-ups out of pocket, and if someone breaks a leg you snag a quick loan to cover the deductible.  It’s tight, but you can do it.  In fact, I know a family that is doing this.

Rob, do the math.  Are you counting food and shelter as a “luxury”?  It’s a complete joke to suggest that you can provide for a family of four on a single minimum wage income.  I agree that what we classify today as “poverty” is exaggerated but it does no good for the argument to make false claims like this.

False claims?  Dave, I think you can disagree with me without calling me a liar.

I didn’t say that food and shelter were luxuries.  I said that television is, and I’m exactly right.  It is a luxury.

To be perfectly honest with you, the number of American families of four actually living on the minimum wage is so minute as to be incondequential.  Further, what’s the solution to the problem?  Raising the minimum wage?  All that does is put the same low-income people who make the minimum wage on the unemployment line while simultaneously rising the cost of the goods and serivces (often provided by other low-wage workers) they consume the most.

This whole argument is actually sort of moot, given that.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Anyone only capable of earning less than $6/hr. has no business reproducing in the first place!

Anyone only capable of earning less than $6/hr. has no business reproducing in the first place!

Harsh, but true.  You’re supposed to get an education or learn a trade, increase your earning capability, THEN have children.  To have children when you can’t get anything better than a minimum wage job is just grossly irresponsible.

False claims?  Dave, I think you can disagree with me without calling me a liar.

Whoa, who called you a liar?  No need to get defensive. 

The false claim I’m referring to is the quote in the original blog entry.  It’s a false claim that a family of four can be supported today by one person working full-time at minimum wage. 

In NJ (where I’m from and thus familiar with), you might be able to find a tiny, roach-infested apartment in a high crime neighborhood for $750 a month.  That works out to $9000 a year in rent and will hardly be the 1400 sqft palace that he talks about in the linked article.  Minimum wage here is $7.15 so we’re talking about $15,000 a year income leaving $6000 a year for food, clothing, and TV.  Divide that by 4 people, 365 days a year, and you end up with a whopping $4 a day per person.  I guess that’s probably enough to survive off of bread and water but it’s going to be hard to afford luxuries like clothing with what’s left.  You’re hardly going to be living at the level of the typical middle class lifestyle of the 50’s, even if you do happen to have a TV. 

Of course, no one is actually doing this because we’re paying for their housing, food, etc. through entitlement programs that the government is happy to use our money for.

The false claim I’m referring to is the quote in the original blog entry.  It’s a false claim that a family of four can be supported today by one person working full-time at minimum wage.

I don’t think it’s false at all.

Maybe you need to remember that not everyone lives in New Jersey.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

In NJ

Stop. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone’s head and forcing him to raise a family in NJ or any other blue state with a ridiculously high standard of living and property values. He can move. If he chooses to remain in NJ, he has no business whining about the cost.

Maybe the minimum wage is for people just entering the workforce and building up their job skills so they can earn enough to raise a family.

BTW...You’ve got to be a total moron and a sexist pig to assume that women shouldn’t and don’t work to help with family finances.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.