U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2012, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
3,572 posts, read 6,583,349 times
Reputation: 2580

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by goat314 View Post
This is not 1955 buddy! I would assert that anything below $27,000/yr for a single person is poverty wages. When you figure in the rising cost of living, decreasing wages, health care costs, the disconnect between transportation and housing in most metropolitan areas etc. etc. etc. $500/week doesn't go very far. Not to mention the unexpected costs that are out of your control like accidents, sickness etc. The fact is a money doesn't go very far at all!
Quote:
Originally Posted by goat314 View Post
$22,000 is poverty wages in a major metropolitan area. Try living on that in Los Angeles, New York, or Chicago. Hell even St. Louis! Your quality of live would go down tremendously!

$22,000 is a little over $400 a week. Most people eat that in a month. Get real! Two paychecks to pay your rent with utilities. People are getting crushed in America. There are hardly any good paying jobs even with a degree.
I know that $400 a week isn't ideal, but an individual CAN live on it, MANY live on that much or even less, and many living on that have LUXURIES. That's reality. That's my point. This is America, it's not all that hard to live on that much. BTW, we were talking about Missouri here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
Honestly? I can't. I'm certain it could be done of course, but I've never had a salary of anything near there and as such it's pretty hard to imagine.

And I think it would be exceedingly difficult: On 22k a year you'd be struggling to pay $500 a month for rent. Saving would be nearly impossible and your car is likely to be a money-sucking POS. Definitely not an easy life. But with two kids? That is what makes me sick to my stomach.

I was pretty poor as a kid after my parents split up, although my mom worked hard to keep up appearances, and poverty is something that scares me more than any boogeyman.
It'd be as much a struggle as it is just realizing what you can afford (your budget) and actually putting thought into your spending. A used car doesn't have to be a money-sucking POS. Highly-reliable, low-mileage used cars can be bought for 1/3rd the cost of an average/middle-of-the-road new car, some of which will last longer than the new car. Americans are entitled. Have it easy. Everything has to be new. People keep up and project false appearances. It's a joke. Entitlement mentality. Lack of humility. Out of touch - just as the 1% is accused, but on a much lower level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2012, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,064 posts, read 28,113,289 times
Reputation: 3770
You are out of your mind if you think anyone that has $1600 a month has anything like luxuries. Unless you're one of those who consider a refrigerator a luxury.

The idea that a full-time job that pays someone a decent living wage with a chance to save and one day retire is "entitled" is like, woah to me. So pessimistic and cynical!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
3,572 posts, read 6,583,349 times
Reputation: 2580
Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
You are out of your mind if you think anyone that has $1600 a month has anything like luxuries. Unless you're one of those who consider a refrigerator a luxury.

The idea that a full-time job that pays someone a decent living wage with a chance to save and one day retire is "entitled" is like, woah to me. So pessimistic and cynical!
Expensive smart phones, dining out, more car than necessary/it having to be new, more apartment than necessary, more expensive clothes than necessary, etc. etc. are luxuries (relative, but still). We have a high standard of living here in America and everything is cheap. You can have so much for so little.

Working toward having a good living is not entitled, but once you achieve it and it's never enough, that's probably an issue, unless you're willing to continue working to get further. Certainly anybody who works for it and so desires should be able to have at least a modest, humble home and family, savings, and hopefully a vacation. I believe in the American Dream.

Really my only point is there are folks out there living on $10 an hour. And many are quite happy and do it well. It's not ideal, but it's reality for many. Actually, I know a guy who made this much and built up (renovated) a home (all brick, granite counter tops, designer/modern furniture, top of the line computer, surround sound, VW Jetta, etc. etc., fancy landscape, koi pond, etc. etc) on $10 an hour and was barely making even. Of course, then he went to school and is now making a salary. Where there's a desire and intelligence there's a way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 01:26 PM
 
1,783 posts, read 3,390,649 times
Reputation: 1374
I agree with both of you. Yes, wages are down and the middle class is feeling the squeeze. And yes, people can make do with far less than they have. Giving up a few luxuries in tough times is a smart thing to do.

At the same time, I feel the word entitlement gets thrown around way too much. I am sorry but if expecting a decent opportunity for hard working people to obtain and continue to live a middle class lifestyle - while saving for retirement and their children's future - is "entitlement mentality" then I will gladly wear that term. Just because there are knuckleheads out there who buy Escalades on 30k/year salaries doesn't mean the middle class isn't getting squeezed. Wages are stagnant while the costs of necessities - health care, education, energy - are skyrocketing. THAT is where the 99%/1% outrage comes from. The same one-percenters who got wealthy in a system that had a social safety net, upward mobility, and relative stability - are tearing down that system and denying younger people the same chances. And when the rest of us have the nerve to point that out we're told we have an "entitlement mentality." Give me a break. The entire social construct that caused our country to prosper after WW2 is being dismantled, and it has to stop soon or we're all screwed, both the 99% and the 1%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
3,572 posts, read 6,583,349 times
Reputation: 2580
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBoxing View Post
I agree with both of you. Yes, wages are down and the middle class is feeling the squeeze. And yes, people can make do with far less than they have. Giving up a few luxuries in tough times is a smart thing to do.

At the same time, I feel the word entitlement gets thrown around way too much. I am sorry but if expecting a decent opportunity for hard working people to obtain and continue to live a middle class lifestyle - while saving for retirement and their children's future - is "entitlement mentality" then I will gladly wear that term. Just because there are knuckleheads out there who buy Escalades on 30k/year salaries doesn't mean the middle class isn't getting squeezed. Wages are stagnant while the costs of necessities - health care, education, energy - are skyrocketing. THAT is where the 99%/1% outrage comes from. The same one-percenters who got wealthy in a system that had a social safety net, upward mobility, and relative stability - are tearing down that system and denying younger people the same chances. And when the rest of us have the nerve to point that out we're told we have an "entitlement mentality." Give me a break. The entire social construct that caused our country to prosper after WW2 is being dismantled, and it has to stop soon or we're all screwed, both the 99% and the 1%.
I tend to agree, but I really think things have been going down hill since the 1970s, which is one of the biggest reasons STL has lost so much population. But it's been all gravy until now when it's catching up with college-educated working-class individuals that actually have a voice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Saint Louis City
1,563 posts, read 3,346,512 times
Reputation: 629
^But they haven't, STL is larger than ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:37 AM
 
Location: Renton, WA
582 posts, read 1,158,044 times
Reputation: 484
Default Reorganizing local government in the St. Louis area

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Is there any chance that St. Louis can annex St. Louis County for consolidation? It seems if that happened that would solve a lot of the population problems that have plagued St. Louis for over 60 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1greatcity View Post
The City of St Louis does not and would not have the power to simply annex land without the approval of the majority of voters in all juristictions involved.
Most of the City of St.Louis is bordered by other incorporated cities (Clayton, U-City, Jennings, etc.). These long-established municipalities would very likely reject the idea of being annexed.

Perhaps you are thinking of the type of unified city- county government that cities like Louisville have. It takes a tremendous amount of regional cooperation to pull that off; not sure that provincial St Louis could ever manage to.

A far more likely possibility would be for the City of St. Louis to lose its independent status and rejoin St. Louis County as a 93rd municipality. Granted, this wouldn't in itself change the city's population one bit. But-- being part of the county, the city would no longer have to provide all of the same services it now does. Some would be provided at the county level. So the city would save revenue, which could be redirected toward other efforts that might make the city more appealing. Which, in turn, could draw more residents, thereby increasing density.
According to this article, "Many observers believe that reorganizing local government is necessary. Some have advocated that the city of St. Louis rejoin the county and become an ordinary city again. Others argue for a full consolidation of government between the city and county, pointing to merged city-county governments like Nashville and Indianapolis as positive examples. Urban planners have long viewed regionalized government, including city-county mergers, as a holy grail of good governance."

St. Louis Blues

Once a major American city, the Gateway to the West struggles to redefine itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:32 AM
 
3,583 posts, read 2,422,015 times
Reputation: 2740
For the record, a more recent article about the merger process:

https://news.stlpublicradio.org/post...rd-freeholders
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top