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.
^
And get paid crappy fixed wages...I think NOT.
Changed a bit over the years, but system is still fundamentally the same. Get with it. The more you fight it, the worse off you'll be. Capitalism not a bad deal. In America, it's estimated that you need $60,000 to live comfortably. You need $30,000 to survive. GDP per capita is $48,000. The entry level competitive salary in New York is $60,000. Quit complaining. If you have kids or live above your means, quit blaming the government for your decisions.
Changed a bit over the years, but system is still fundamentally the same. Get with it. The more you fight it, the worse off you'll be. Capitalism not a bad deal. In America, it's estimated that you need $60,000 to live comfortably. You need $30,000 to survive. GDP per capita is $48,000. The entry level competitive salary in New York is $60,000. Quit complaining. If you have kids or live above your means, quit blaming the government for your decisions.
Your flippant argument does not recognize the impact of wage inequity in the social stability that allows the aggressive to capitalize and make money. In all economic systems, capitalism included, you have to pay attention to wage inequality ratios. Following your "eff it, quit complaining" logic, all you end up in the end is a large disenfranchised populace and the inevitable inability of the capital owner class to enjoy their spoils. Basically no goat and no rope for the poor or the rich. I don't want to live in a Country where affluence makes you a target. Flippant disregard for the varying degrees of aggressiveness and talent of the individual laborer creates a country like Colombia or Venezuela. I think we can be more balanced in the US, considering our natural resource and labor diversity.
And using your numbers, which I do agree on, if it takes 30K for an individual to exist in this Country, then a median household income of 50K puts 150million people in the US (50% of the Country), whether they're working or not, 20K a year above the subsistence line. Holy crap that's a bad deal. That's a lot of people one skipped paycheck away from dispossession every year to no end. That's too tight. We need to increase the gap between the cost to exist and the household median income, that's just too many people too close to losing their shirt to have a platform of law and order worth writing about. Race relations aside, we had a better track record of that measure in the 50s and 60s. That's sad.
Your flippant argument does not recognize the impact of wage inequity in the social stability that allows the aggressive to capitalize and make money. In all economic systems, capitalism included, you have to pay attention to wage inequality ratios. Following your "eff it, quit complaining" logic, all you end up in the end is a large disenfranchised populace and the inevitable inability of the capital owner class to enjoy their spoils. Basically no goat and no rope for the poor or the rich. I don't want to live in a Country where affluence makes you a target. Flippant disregard for the varying degrees of aggressiveness and talent of the individual laborer creates a country like Colombia or Venezuela. I think we can be more balanced in the US, considering our natural resource and labor diversity.
And using your numbers, which I do agree on, if it takes 30K for an individual to exist in this Country, then a median household income of 50K puts 150million people in the US (50% of the Country), whether they're working or not, 20K a year above the subsistence line. Holy crap that's a bad deal. That's a lot of people one skipped paycheck away from dispossession every year to no end. That's too tight. We need to increase the gap between the cost to exist and the household median income, that's just too many people too close to losing their shirt to have a platform of law and order worth writing about. Race relations aside, we had a better track record of that measure in the 50s and 60s. That's sad.
With all the entitlements given to people at poverty level, they end up with more economic benefits than somebody at $60k.
At $60k gross salary, they would take home $34,366 after taxes and benefits are taken into account. At $14,500 gross salary, they would take home $37,777 after taxes and benefits are taken into account. The benefits end up adding another $23,277 to the net economic benefit after taxes.
Income has quite bit to do with age also. While a college kid going to college may lower the median salary, because he's only working part time or a crap job. The median income after 25 is over $50k and by 35 over $60k.
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.
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.
