 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Mrs. Tuberski - you are running into the same problem I ran into with Patroklas, just worse. You have people that talk about the "statistics", those nice numbers and use people without children as their "examples" proving their point.
You and I know what it's like to be worrying what can we skip till next month, or can we kite a check to squeak by till the next paycheck, etc. It's not real to them. It's like the Neocons dismantling the government for their personal tax cuts - all those people who voted for those taxcuts who got nailed by Hurricane Katrina suddenly want a well-funded FEMA.
To them, your problems aren't really an issue until it is their problem. We both know how quickly one change, whether it's a bastard husband abandoning not just his wife but his three children, or a chance spark, can take us from a sort of comfortable mostly middle-class existance to a hand-to-mouth existance. One coworker of mine said it's not until this country really has hard economic times will the voters grow up and start voting intelligently. FYI she grew up poor and black in Mississippi but pulled herself out of that - she had wonderful parents.
I truly feel sorry for people like - damn, I'm drawing a blank on his name, he posted recently, but his mom was a drug addict and he had a really rough time as a kid. Sikander had it tough too. For most people they seem to have trouble understanding poverty is until they've live it - the same with abuse. I suspect that's why FDR was so successful after the Great Depression - that generation knew in their bones that IT COULD HAPPEN TO THEM. Today most people don't believe it anymore.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Mentally exhaustive jobs are just as hard as physical ones. Your just exhausting a different muscle. |
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
I've done jobs that were physically exhausting- cleaning a car factory in the summer fortnight layoff has to be one of the most tiring I've ever done- a year's worth of dried car paint impacted on the rails and walls of a car drying oven, a year's worth of industrial grease, some still viscous, some as hard as baked clay, again nearly solidly fixed to metal surfaces, having to be removed with small handscrapers and larger broom length scrapers.
Then there was cleaning the floor surfaces with some very smelly dangerous chemicals, designed to strip (again) a year's worth of accumulated industrial gunk.
I've also done white collar clerical work which involved lifting nothing heavier than my hands on the keyboard of a terminal, or occasionally a file of planning decisions- and I can tell you that working from 07:30 until 16:30 six days a week factory cleaning (half a day on Sunday) in temperatures reaching 100 degrees inside (and you have to wear regulation waxed paper overalls and rubber gloves and boots) was great for losing weight, but mentally and physically draining like no other employment I've ever had.
Last edited by molly bloom on 16-09-2005 at 16:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
OTOH, if I were living in Toronto or Vancouver, I'd be screwed on rent. Forget about owning anything.
|
You're dead on the money- a living wage in the north of England, or in Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland would not be a living wage in London- you'd need to be living at home with your parents and residing next to your place of work, and eating gruel to get by.
Even in places like Cornwall, which always looks so attractive in holiday brochures, there is long term unemployment, because many jobs are seasonal, dependent on tourist trade, which has a habit of sloping off dramatically in a Cornish winter- strangely some holidaymakers have a reluctance to brave Atlantic gales on Cornish beaches.
It means that many young people in Cornwall aren't able to afford a deposit, let alone a first home, and there are always complaints about 'emmets' (outsiders) buying up available housing stock.
There's no point anyone assuming that poor in London is the same set of criteria as poor in Skelmersdale or Wick or Swansea or Penzance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
And all of this is FANTASTIC!
Everyone has examples of people in specific situations (either above, or below the government's established Poverty Line) either living well, below it, or living poorly, above it.
That's good.
Doesn't change a THING, but that's good.
It proves that we're all individuals, and that this is a big country, and that a national statistic can't cover each and every individual case....and a whole host of other things, besides!
What it DOESN'T do, is change the fact that according to the GOVERNMENT'S OWN DEFINITION of poverty, there are more people living IN poverty now, than there were four years ago.
More people than the normal growth in population can account for.
It's not because of where we are in the business cycle.
It's not because more of "those people" suddenly moved in.
And it's not easy to admit when "your team" screws the pooch.
Is the statistic perfect? Nope.
And there's not a national statistic ANYWHERE that would fare better if you take the number to define the national average and compare it to a real, living, breathing INDIVIDUAL person.
Statistics ARE an abstraction. Abstractions can be used to talk about general trends in a society, but they can, in no real way, be set side by side with a real person and compared.
That's one of the silliest notions I have ever heard.
As an average though, and a general indicator though, it works.
What's happening here, is that we've got a telling statistic that's saying things some people don't want to hear, so now of course, there's a call to change the statistic (and predictably, the proposed changes will make "their side" look better...now THERE'S a surprise!)
But that's not how it works.
Using the current toybox of indicators that measure the health and vitality of this country, one thing is clear.
The number of people living in poverty in this country has increased markedly since the sitting administration took over.
As a general trend, this doesn't say good things about the sitting administration.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
So, the two combined = a wash.
Go ahead and tell that to the people wrongly above the line not getting any help (an sure Shawn appreciates your understanding of his situation), and I am sure the people needlessly below it appreciate your generocity. |
It's funny that you continue to argue against things not even attributed to me. All I've stated, about 10 times now, is that the poverty line is an indicator of a trend. That's clear to see, at the macro level. This has been pointed out, repeatedly, not only by myself, but by several other posters. The trend is that more people at the lower end of the income scale have less money. Period.
You seem to want to attribute a strawman to me that says I believe the poverty indicator means someone is poor or not, AND worthy of help, because of that indicator. Well, I don't believe that, as has been stated by myself and several others, several times. In fact it's getting old. You know this, you're just acting like you're ignoring it, and the dishonesty is getting really old now.
Are there individual cases above the line that need help? Of course. Duh. I've stated this from the beginning.
But that doesn't change the fact that this is a useful indicator. I think I'll just cut and paste this post from now on.
Nice try though. Next time don't project so much. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Mrs. Tuberski - you are running into the same problem I ran into with Patroklas, just worse. You have people that talk about the "statistics", those nice numbers and use people without children as their "examples" proving their point.
You and I know what it's like to be worrying what can we skip till next month, or can we kite a check to squeak by till the next paycheck, etc. It's not real to them. It's like the Neocons dismantling the government for their personal tax cuts - all those people who voted for those taxcuts who got nailed by Hurricane Katrina suddenly want a well-funded FEMA.
To them, your problems aren't really an issue until it is their problem. We both know how quickly one change, whether it's a bastard husband abandoning not just his wife but his three children, or a chance spark, can take us from a sort of comfortable mostly middle-class existance to a hand-to-mouth existance. One coworker of mine said it's not until this country really has hard economic times will the voters grow up and start voting intelligently. FYI she grew up poor and black in Mississippi but pulled herself out of that - she had wonderful parents.
I truly feel sorry for people like - damn, I'm drawing a blank on his name, he posted recently, but his mom was a drug addict and he had a really rough time as a kid. Sikander had it tough too. For most people they seem to have trouble understanding poverty is until they've live it - the same with abuse. I suspect that's why FDR was so successful after the Great Depression - that generation knew in their bones that IT COULD HAPPEN TO THEM. Today most people don't believe it anymore. |
YEP
It all comes from lack of personal experience. That's the exact thing I'm seeing here, is people arguing from statistics and not experience. I see the people who have had to live through it and/or see someone close to them go through, have a perspective that actually makes practical sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
And all of this is FANTASTIC!
Everyone has examples of people in specific situations (either above, or below the government's established Poverty Line) either living well, below it, or living poorly, above it.
That's good.
Doesn't change a THING, but that's good.
It proves that we're all individuals, and that this is a big country, and that a national statistic can't cover each and every individual case....and a whole host of other things, besides!
What it DOESN'T do, is change the fact that according to the GOVERNMENT'S OWN DEFINITION of poverty, there are more people living IN poverty now, than there were four years ago.
More people than the normal growth in population can account for.
It's not because of where we are in the business cycle.
It's not because more of "those people" suddenly moved in.
And it's not easy to admit when "your team" screws the pooch.
Is the statistic perfect? Nope.
And there's not a national statistic ANYWHERE that would fare better if you take the number to define the national average and compare it to a real, living, breathing INDIVIDUAL person.
Statistics ARE an abstraction. Abstractions can be used to talk about general trends in a society, but they can, in no real way, be set side by side with a real person and compared.
That's one of the silliest notions I have ever heard.
As an average though, and a general indicator though, it works.
What's happening here, is that we've got a telling statistic that's saying things some people don't want to hear, so now of course, there's a call to change the statistic (and predictably, the proposed changes will make "their side" look better...now THERE'S a surprise!)
But that's not how it works.
Using the current toybox of indicators that measure the health and vitality of this country, one thing is clear.
The number of people living in poverty in this country has increased markedly since the sitting administration took over.
As a general trend, this doesn't say good things about the sitting administration.
-=Vel=- |
WORD 
Vel once again sums it up perfectly. Is that so hard to understand???
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
And if u do research the majority living in poverty are military families. |
Mrs. Tub, your source does absolutely nothing to further your original statement.
The only relevant things it provides is…
quote:
Soldiers that enter basic training now make a base salary of approximately $11,500 |
Which is false. Recruits entering boot camp or any derivative thereof in all services make exactly $13712.40. Your source is from 2003, so it has changed a little bit. Not that much though. Then again, a third to half of recruits leave basic as a E-2 or E-3 less than one year, making their base pay at least $17,474.40 a year.
This is important because the only other relevant tidbit from your source is…
quote:
The current poverty threshold for the 2002 year, as estimated by the US Department of Health and Human Services, is $15,020 for a family of three… |
We have already established the poverty threshold for a family of three is 15,000 according to the poverty line (though you denied this earlier, interesting your only source contradicts you…). So, even the vast majority of people coming out of boot camp overwhelmingly as single teenagers not only are above the poverty line, but above the poverty line for a family of three.
But we are not done yet. Assuming the worst possible situation, an E-1 with a family of three coming out of boot camp, what do we get? We have established a $13,712.40 a year salary, lets look a BAH. If he was stationed in Jacksonville which is the lowest rate I found earlier, hell we will low ball it just in case, he gets $500 a month. That makes a gross of $19,712.40.
Then there is BAS, Basic Allowance for Subsistance, $267.18 a month. Minimum gross salary is now $22,918.56. That is 22 large for an 18 year old with probably nothing more than a high school diploma. If we made this realistic and factored in a $1000 average BAH it is more like 28 large.
But we are not done yet. What if this person is stationed in NYC, or San Fran? Well lets look at COLA (Cost of Living Allowance) which “Compensates for a portion of excess costs for non-housing expenses incurred in areas that exceed costs in an average U.S. military location by more than 8%.” For New York (12%) that is another $264 a month. For San Francisco (10%) its $220.
Now if you happen to work in on a flight deck or airfield then you get $150. If you are in a Hazardous Duty area you get $225 a month. If you pass through a hazardous duty area for at least 1 second of any month, you are exempt from Federal taxes for that month (score ).
And very relevant, since we are talking about families here, is FSA (Family Separation Allowance), or $250 a month.
quote:
wouldnt you try to assume that a person in the military doing the same job for 18 years would have had a few raises??
this man has been making this amount for the last 7 years and all the while the cost of living goes up which is what i was saying about the military families living on the poverty line. |
I would, and he did, and this more than anything is why I call BS on your friend and example.
This is a link to a the 2005 pay chart at the DFAS site. Feel free to look around, it is not controlled.
DFAS 2005 Pay Chart
Here you will see that assuming your friend did not get any promotion in 18 years he is making at least $1235.10 base pay a month, or with BAS and a ridiculously low BAH $24,027.36 a year. This is an impossible situation however, because if your were an E-1 for 18 years there would be a few thousand people at BUPERS that would be fired. You have four years to promote or they rightly assume you to be a loser and process you out.
You said he has been making the same thing for 7 years so he has had at least one promotion, but in order to make it 18 years he would have to be at least an E-5. E-5 at 18 makes 2450.70 a month. Note E-5s stop getting time in raises at 10 years because if you are still an E-5 at 10 years, or in the case of your friend make E-5 after 11, you are a dead end. So at the very least you friend makes a minimum of 38,614.56 a year.
He is deployed so he is not paying Federal taxes while in theatre, as well as getting Hazardous Duty pay. He is collecting FSA for the same reason. Assuming a normal 6 month deployment, with him being in theatre for 5 of them, that adds up to $2625.00 in allowances this year (all allowances except for COLA are not taxed). I am not going to figure out his taxes for him but it is safe to say he will save a good $3,000-$4,000.
So his speculative gross this year is $41,239.56, plus a very generous tax return.
BUT WAIT. We are not done. Since your friend has in fact had raises in 18 years (at least 13, though some may have been combined into one larger one depending on when he made rate), what about his reenlistment bonuses? Not sure what his specialty is but I would be absolutely amazed if he did not get SOME sort of reenlistment bonus in 18 years, though it is possible.
And as far as the poverty line and the cost of living, the pay scale is readjusted every year and we all get a cost of living raise. Granted it is not always enough to keep up in some parts of the country, but some years it is more (like last year). So your friend has actually gotten 31 raises in 18 years.
Next time your buddy’s wife says she couldn’t afford to bring potato salad to your barbeque, you might want to look at her eyes and see if you can tell what drug she is wacked out on, or see if every piece of clothing on her person has a logo on it because if her kids are playing barefoot in the empty lot and they have a rusted chevy in blocks in their front yard, it is not because they don’t make enough money.
And a last note, they don’t have to pay for health care
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-09-2005 10:56
|