GOP: Raped? Pay for it yourself.

[Demosthenes11]

there are so many more factors in that kind of study that it really means nothing in the end.

[archibaldcrane]

60k a year isn't "working poor" unless that's for a family with like 5 kids.

[rog]

Even if it's true (i dunno, i doubt it, but wouldn't really be surprised if it was), the quality of life would be much better for someone making 60k.

[aurik]

I remember that study, the main difference was that if you were on welfare you got all sorts of perks like a free shitbox to live in and shit, assistance with child care, foodstamps, which were all coverted 100% into cash value in the study. Thus ignoring the obvious point that when you're paying for your own house you probably don't live in the ghetto, and when you are actually earning and spending money, anything that you don't spend you get to save (whereas assistance for the impoverished is not intended to be converted into cash if it is not used)

I'm not shocked that Swampy remembers only the obviously slanted conclusion of the study and not how dodgy it was. Selective memory go!

[rog]

and when you are actually earning and spending money, anything that you don't spend you get to save (whereas assistance for the impoverished is not intended to be converted into cash if it is not used)

I think the point was that various expenses were paid by welfare, leaving more of their pay check as disposable income. It doesn't really matter if you can't convert it to cash, because you'd be spending less of your own cash, and the end result is the same, as long as you actually use all of what is given.

But like you said, not living in the ghetto is kind of a huge advantage. Or the family making 60k could just live in the ghetto and have twice as much disposable income.

[aurik]

I think the point was that various expenses were paid by welfare, leaving more of their pay check as disposable income. It doesn't really matter if you can't convert it to cash, because you'd be spending less of your own cash, and the end result is the same, as long as you actually use all of what is given.

But like you said, not living in the ghetto is kind of a huge advantage. Or the family making 60k could just live in the ghetto and have twice as much disposable income.

If you're on assistance with 2 kids or whatever the study assumed you don't HAVE disposable income.

[rog]

If you're on assistance with 2 kids or whatever the study assumed you don't HAVE disposable income.

Wait, what? Wasn't the idea of it that someone making minimum wage had more disposable income than someone making 60k/y?

[aurik]

Wait, what? Wasn't the idea of it that someone making minimum wage had more disposable income than someone making 60k/y?

Yes, but it was dodgy as hell, because it assumes that you spent NOTHING on the children / yourself aside from the federal assistance, and then if you didn't get that assistance you would spend exactly all of that money and save none of it.

What I'm saying is that if you make 7k or whatever the figure was and are supporting 2 children you don't have any disposable income: you will be spending it all on the kids.

[Correction]

Someone did a study, and depending on the state, a family of either 3 or 4, can't remember which, making minimum wage has more disposable income than a family of 3 or 4 making 60k. Maybe that's how.

OH GOD LOL THIS AGAIN.

[rog]

Yes, but it was dodgy as hell

No argument there.

I don't remember the article well enough to talk specifics, but like i said, i don't believe it either.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I don't remember a thread on it, but I found it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ent...ome-family-mak

And the idea is just disposable income, nothing else.

[ZarakiKujata]

Wouldn't you have more DISPOSABLE income @ 60k? since you actually have money to spend and not fucking food stamps?

[aurik]

Here's the thread in question:
http://www.bluegartr.com/threads/100776-Why-work-hard

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...y%20Earned.jpg

The main fudgy points are medicaid (really? Gonna spend 16,5k on medical care at 60k?) and foodstamps.

[ZarakiKujata]

Yeah, pretty cool how they don't add the healthcare you'd be getting from your work there to the 60k group.

[aurik]

Also the point isn't disposable income it's total economic benefit. This is also for a 1-parent 3-child family.

[aurik]

Yeah, pretty cool how they don't add the healthcare you'd be getting from your work there to the 60k group.

Well, the point is that if you're making <$14,500, you "earn" $16,500 in medicare/CHIP according to the chart. In reality, though, to get that assistance you must REQUIRE that assistance. You can't say "well we are all healthy this year" and then put the $16,500 as a down payment for an Escalade.

And that fudge is 50% of the "economic benefit" for the bottom 2 categories and 35% of the third.