And it's definitely on the right.

But if you cling to a modern lifestyle, with a large home, two cars and kids all enrolled in sports and activities, I guess this person would think that. Wonder if he ever had Raman noodles and hot dogs for dinner because it was cheap?

The "Poverty line" should be wildly different in Manhattan, NY than East Bumfuck, OK.

The methodology re: how a researcher would "properly" average out the extremes is probably not all that well-defined (as it is, in fact, a nebulous concept to begin with), leading to wildly disparate possible outcomes to such calculations

Most 4 person families have 2 income earners, so yes they probably need 2 cars. Why shouldn't the same family expect to enroll their kids in sports and activities? Why should any food beyond "ramen and hot dogs" be only for the wealthy?

The guy is right

When I was a child in the 1960s most married women could afford to stay home if they wanted to (or even if they didn't want to, which is a whole separate conversation).

Many families with one wage earner could afford a detached home with a backyard, a car, an annual vacation, kids' sports and activities, etc.

Over the past 50 years the middle class has lost so much ground it's almost unbelievable.

My parents bought a fairly large run-down home in 1970 for something like 30,000. In 1985 my then husband and I bought a nice ranch, with three bedrooms, a garage, and a large yard for $75,000. That house recently sold for ten times that price. (And it hadn't been fixed up. The photos on Zillow show the same upgrades we made in 1987.)

Wages have not increased ten times. My spouse and I had no college loans. Many young people are paying $500+ each month for fairly low amounts of loans. They'll be paying this for decades. That's a car payment - and check the it the cost of cars now.

That would mean 80% of people are living below the poverty line

who can't pay an unexpected $1,000 tab from cash or savings, I'm not sure it's as ridiculous as you assert.

is highly likely that it is less than 80% IMO

Simple fact is that a huge number of Americans are now, and have forever, been living on the razor edge of financial oblivion.

What's a good number for you? 60%? 70? 55?

Let's just assume that 40% living in poverty is where it's at.

Are you good with that?

This definition of poverty may not be right.

Do you think the current one is?

"The existing measure is the right one. I will prove it by show you the numbers according to the existing measure."

That's not really how it works.

I'm not fat!!

says Kevin Corinth.. we can only guess what his income is? I did a little research and gave up..

Dude, please!!! That's me, laughing!

Maybe the median income is way too low and that's the problem!

Have been thinking about this lately, trying to caculate minimum for a family in my area to live. Whether buying or renting, i calculated a minimum of around $5000 per month (minimum rent in most areas is around $2000 a month, mortgage varies wildly, but can no longer find a home for less than $250,000 near most of the cities) Also need to clarify this is net income, not gross.

Acccording to the Census Bureau, the MEDIAN monthly rent was above $2000 in only one state. In the US as a whole it is below $1500. In 7 states it's below $1000.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Rent-in-US_02-web.webp

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-median-rent-by-u-s-state/

I need to try to dig deeper on their website.

Note the median rent figures includes utilities.

The source of average rent data from the Census Bureau is the American Community Survey (ACS). This annual survey provides detailed information on housing, including median gross rent, and is used to assess housing affordability and allocate funding for assistance programs.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/acs-1-year-estimates.html

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2025/09/20-years-housing.html

https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT1Y2024.B25031

You'd need at least 2 bedrooms, so the relevant median rent would be higher than the overall median rent. Plus if you have kids of different genders or significant age difference you might need 3 bedrooms.

just about everywhere. And the post I responded to did not mention any size of residence, implying rent for any kind of apartment is at least $2000. That statement was not only false, but not remotely close to be true.

And for the record, if you bothered to actually read my post and check out the links, you'd see that the median rent for 2 bedrooms was $1490, just $3 more than the overall median rent.

It should have been obvious.

The claim that a 2 bedroom is only 3 dollars more isn't believable which made me go looking for other sources. And there's also these all of which have higher rates than your link, I don't think there's a definitive value that is accurate.

https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/united-states/

https://www.apartments.com/rent-market-trends/us/

https://www.redfin.com/us-rental-market

https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/articles/heres-what-rent-costs-around-the-u-s

https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/

Sure, you can find listings. But you wouldn't want to live there. You definitely wouldn't want to raise kids there.

You could find a decent two-bedroom apartment with outside walk-up stairs in a safe neighborhood in my area for $1800+. That is the bare minimum. Most are more like $2500. Luxury apartments are much more.

A lot of detail (including historical data points) here:

https://www.yesigiveafig.com/p/part-1-my-life-is-a-lie

snip

aren't having kids. It's very hard work if you want your kids to have all that they need. And I've heard from a few people that they don't want to bring kids into this shitty world. All the bad news we're bombarded with would depress anybody.

It's really better if one parent can stay home with the kids, no matter which parent. Nobody else other than the grandparents can give the children the love they need to thrive. But it also takes money to give the children what they need, things like insurance and food and other necessities. That's all most of us can afford these days. The current poverty line shouldn't be for a family of four, that should be for a single person. I would say that it takes at least $35,000 a year for a single person to have what he needs, and that's still just scraping by.

And even then, I worked overnights and she worked days. Her job was still scheduling her 5 days a week, only 4-5 hr shifts. I'd come home at 5:30am, get 3 hr of sleep, and then stay up all day with our daughter. My wife would come home from work, I'd get another 2 hr of sleep, and off to work I'd go.

When we crunched the numbers we'd actually come out behind with her working full time at what her job was paying her.

And then watch them struggle to purchase a house, car, wait to get married, have kids . . . I don't think this is nationally true, but to live the suburban life of the 50s through 80s, it feels correct.

My oldest son graduated a couple of years ago from Rose Hulman Institute of Technology as a chem engineer.

He got $76k as a starting salary for a job from an internship in Richmond, Indiana. Two of his closest friends got $78 K for Chicago and Atlanta.

Son's tent for 2BR and 2 bath apartment was $850. Friends rents were $2000 or more for studio/1 BR within reasonable commute to work.

He has no problem paying $1100 a month student loan bill, got a car etc. his friends both abandoned initial jobs and moved back home to get on track.

So. I can easily believe that kind of number.

Could rent a decent place in Cincinnati suburbs for $1k or a little less but not a chance in Iowa City where I live now.

The disparity in housing costs are a ludicrous burden in areas that do not have sufficient affordable housing either thru lack of zoning for it, venture capital groups converting homes to air bnb, or flippers converting affordable units into luxury housing.

There is no economic principle that says having more than 50% of the population in poverty is laughable or impossible.

Whatever the "poverty line" may be, dismissing a number based on how many are in poverty by implication is a laughable empty argument. It's really just calling it "fake news". Wrong because he doesn't like what it implies.

Second, defining the poverty line to be 3 times the cost of food is itself laughable. Literally only looking at one portion of what it takes to survive and then guessing that the rest is double the cost of food, ignoring differential inflation and the changes in basic requirements green focuses on.

Third, green's insights are much needed, even if they turn out to be quantitatively inaccurate. Fundamentally, a poor family needs quite a lot more, and more expensive stuff, than they did decades ago. Cars are much safer these days, but they're also far more expensive. Smart phones were a dream luxury item once upon a time, but now it's nearly impossible to function in society without one. My daughter could even apply for a job at a McDonald's in person, she was told she had to apply online.

Poverty is the state of lacking the financial resources to meet basic needs like food, housing, and clothing

The idea that that definition applies to people above the median income level isn't just laughable, it's insane. Michael Green is a moron.

Don't get stuck on the specific concept of "poverty". He's getting at something meaningful.

Maybe there are two relevant levels. Strict poverty, really just enough to survive; then, the reasonable practical minimum life with dignity or whatever you want call it.

Median income isn't some magical number. It's entirely possible, certainly in third world countries, to have a few really rich people and a ton, of people in poverty, quite possibly more than 50%, and our income distribution has long been headed in that direction.

His observation that you can't just look at the price of food is certainly valid. The costs of a job are relevant as well.

And certainly, just multiplying food prices by 3 is pretty arbitrary.

Do people consider themselves impoverished if they can't afford to spend a few grand on an annual vacation?

You go from "very little disposable income for extras" to "a few grand on an annual vacation."

I guess if you think "a few grand" is very little, it gives an idea of where you're coming from

question went right over your head.

Whatever works for you, sport.

At least this doofus got attention.

Most jobs don't pay six figures. The only way for the vast majority of households can get that much is through two incomes.

Single people, especially women? Forget it.

He isn't saying that most jobs pay six figures.

He's saying that they should.

Surely you can see the difference.

Santa Cruz counties are considered low income, according to the California Department of Housing & Community Development. Topping the list is Santa Clara County, the home of Silicon Valley’s tech industry, which designates $111,700 as low income.

For a three-person household — say, two parents with one child — earning a combined six-figure salary is also considered low income in an additional 11 counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Monterey, Napa, Orange, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Sonoma and Ventura counties.

snip

https://calmatters.org/newsletter/what-is-low-income-in-california/


A family of 4 (like in the OP's calculations) would need even more income.

We hosted Thanksgiving this year (32 people, also insane). Included were a lot of cousins and things I've only met maybe once or twice over the years. Somehow conversation after dinner got to housing. These cousins are in their 30s mainly, and they were despairing ever owning a home like the one we have. And to be fair, a few circumstances colluded to allow us to have our house. We're fortunate in that way.

But the conversation centered on the fact they have jobs and careers, and they're simply priced out. Many of them have no children, because what will they do with them? They don't want to have kids while living in a small one or two bedroom apartment. Many of these cousins (and most of my nieces and nephews) live with their parents or grandparents despite being in their late 20s and two of them in their early 30s. They all work.

For the nieces and nephews who are younger that we're more or less responsible for, we've been banging the drum. "Go into healthcare, whatever that looks like." Most of our side works in healthcare. Partner's a manager. His siblings are in nursing. I'm going into nursing. A niece is going into nursing. We finally got a nephew to start an MA program. It's very much, "Figure out what you actually might want to do with this later, but set yourself up for a stable financial situation." My nephew's 25 year old girlfriend just bought a house. She's now an oncology nurse.

Tech is not a guarantee anymore. I have friends who were laid off two, three years ago and are still searching for stable work. With AI, I cannot imagine that's going to get any better.

I legitimately don't know how people manage anything in NorCal. I do know my in-laws are on track to secretly run every hospital system in the Bay Area, tho.

His so called analysis was one of the most ridiculous, idiotic things I've ever read.

Thank you for your cogent, irrefutable analysis.

A lot more detail here, at his original article, including historical data:

https://www.yesigiveafig.com/p/part-1-my-life-is-a-lie

snip

My US based daughter lives in Manhattan. Most of her net income, after Federal, NY state and NY City taxes, goes for child care for her two sons. Her husband’s salary is what pays for food, mortgage on the apartment, clothes, utilities, etc. They have no fancy electronic devices (I still haven’t seen a TV in there). If either one were to lose their job, it would be a major catastrophe. They were only able to buy their apartment because they bought when the first wave of Covid hit, and many New Yorkers were having distress sales to get out of the City.

Even our younger daughter, who makes a lot of money, doesn’t always have round-the-clock child care when she needs it. Last Wednesday, when I was over in Sprout City, my wife went down to Königstein (near Frankfurt) to pick up her two daughters, ages 5 and 7, to stay with us in Düsseldorf until today, since both my daughter and her husband, who work for the same firm, had to be in London this weekend, and couldn’t take the girls with them or leave them home by theirselves. My wife is bringing them back down there this afternoon.

Really compelling analysis of his analysis…

I am pretty sure where I live in Central Maine. an average family of 4 are living on less than 1/2 of that.

They can live a good life and even do things like regular vacations and eating out but people always think they should be living like those even wealthier.

I'm mostly talking about those that make 6 figures or close to it and above.

It's very easy to over spend on luxury items. Especially if you have kids and think buying designer shit and the latest tech shit makes you a better parent.

My daughter in Manhattan makes six figures (barely), which, after federal, state and city taxes barely covers child care for her two sons. Her husband’s salary covers mortgage payments, food, utilities, clothing, etc. and they sure as never splurge on luxury anything. They don’t have a fancy wide flatscreen TV because they don’t have ANY TV. The couple of fancy trips, like, for example, to Hawai’i for our 40th anniversary were paid by her sister in Germany, who makes seven figures. She paid for our trips, too, by the way. She is frugal, but also generous with her money, puts a lot of it away for her children, and even some for her sister’s kids, since they don’t have a lot left over. But they definitely don’t live beyond their means, and don’t have any frivolous debts, or really any debts beyond their mortgage. In fact, of the people in our circle of friends, of those in the six figure and above category, we don’t know anyone who fits the description you provide. Obviously you do, or you wouldn’t have made such a generalized statement, but it is anything BUT universal.

worth the read

I haven’t done the numbers, but in my area (Northern Virginia) a couple with two young children would probably need to gross at least 80-90k to support a modest lifestyle in a rental property, especially ‘inside the Beltway’. If they wanted to purchase an average single family home around here (minimum 600k, more like 700-900k), then they’d need a whole lot more. But a couple in their sixties who bought their home in the 1980s - 2000s don’t need nearly as much to live. It just really depends on location, lifestyle, and luck.

which I realize is almost everyone's single largest expense, I also want to bring up cars
I'm amazed at how many people always have a car payment. Always. The concept of paying off a car loan, then saving that money until you actually need a replacement car, at which point you ought to have enough cash to purchase that next car outright.

Not if the median income is so low!

Been saying it for years. It's not that Americans are taxed too much, as conservatives and weasels like Kudlow, Norquist, and Moore have said for years - it's that American DON'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY! We don't have a "revenue problem;" we have an income problem.

In 2012 Mitt Romney got caught on an audio recording whining that 47% of Americans "...are people who pay no income tax." And he was right! (Forgetting that they still pay payroll taxes, state and local, sales taxes, and gas and property taxes.)

What he should have taken from that conservative bull-shittery is that 47% of Americans don't make enough money to pay any taxes! Even at the lowest 10% bracket! Their adjusted gross income was so low that more than half had incomes less than $16,812 so they didn't have to pay taxes. So said the government that created the tax tables and determined the poverty levels!

I don't think Romney is stupid. The man from Bain Capital just didn't want to pay "those people."

Did Romney argue against the 2001, 2003, 2017, and 2025 Republican tax cuts...? It is to laugh....

Piling on...
Commenting on the 2017 tax cut bill on 11 June 2019