• Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      I mean no offense, but I don’t think this is true.

      I don’t think anyone who makes $200,000 a year is considered poor under legal definitions or under the casual common use of the term.

      You could make $200k and be in debt. You could make $200k and be in a precarious situation. But I don’t think you can make $200k and qualify as in poverty, either legally or in the court of public opinion.

      • R1x38rexrper@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        You can find elsewhere in the thread where the guy shared the chart about San Francisco. So, what I said is true.

        • Andy@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          I saw it, and it said that a household of eight living on an income of $200k would be “low income”.

          First, “low income” is not poor, either legally or in the informal definition of the word. Even according to the chart you’re referencing, $200k is far above the poverty line. It’s more than twice the cutoff for “extremely low income”.

          Second, this is also based on an absurd qualifier: It’s only “low” if you’re trying to support seven dependents.

          By this logic, $300k a year is poor too (if you’re supporting a household of 12), and a million a year is also poor (if you’re supporting a household of 40 in San Francisco).

          This is silly. If your monthly income is $16k you aren’t poor.

          You can still be broke. You can be in debt. But no: you are not poor.

          • R1x38rexrper@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            14 days ago

            OP didn’t really ask for your definition of the word. OP asked broadly and in quotes. And, yes with a large enough amount of mouths to feed and house, 300k could not be enough to support that and you could be poor. Granted, its unlikely.

            All of that aside, I think you’re just biased because you don’t live in an area like SF. To you 200k seems like a lot of money, so you can’t fathom being poor with that income. Poverty line in parts of the bay area is $150k.

            What you don’t seem to understand is the cost of housing. A 3 bedroom apartment or house (normal boring house) will cost between $5000-$20000/month. That is barely affordable on $200,000 after taxes.

            • Andy@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              14 days ago

              You’re welcome to your opinion, but what’s funny is that I live in Oakland in a household of three on a joint income of $160k. We live in a two bedroom apartment near Lake Merritt that costs $2500 per month. And we’re pretty comfortable.

              It sounds like you and I are neighbors. If you’re having a harder time than I am I don’t want to invalidate your experience. But not everyone who feels financially constrained is poor, imo.