
Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food - llamataboot
https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html
======
fuzz4lyfe
If "Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget
that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a
cell phone"

Is true does that mean those households do without those things? Or are they
subsidized via other methods? Medicare/medicaid for health insurance for
example. Such programs often have income maximums that households may be
attempting to optimise for.

We often hear about millions not making a living wage but the fact that we
don't have millions of corpses makes that claim less effective as it exposes
it as rhetoric. Or perhaps millions are dying from exposure and malnutrition
as is claimed and I can't find that data.

~~~
danesparza
I would argue that there are worse things than the sweet release of death.

Living without dignity might be one of them.

That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about having "cell phone" in that
list of things that are considered necessities.

~~~
deogeo
Cell phone could be necessary for many jobs (like deliveries). And cell phone
+ mobile data can be a cheaper alternative to computer + landline internet,
which is pretty essential nowadays. Even if you argue you can do without, the
money you'd spend on transportation to do in person what you'd otherwise do
online would outweigh the price of a cell-phone. Not to mention the time you
save, which can be used to avoid need to spend on childcare, or bring in more
money with an extra job, or by using that time to cook, or... (haste makes
waste).

~~~
ryanmercer
>Cell phone could be necessary for many jobs (like deliveries)

Then it should be provided by the employer.

I don't know how old you are but, we got by without mass adoption of
cellphones in the 90's just fine. You had an answering machine, people called
you and if they didn't get you they left a message and you got home and
pressed play.

We also survived just fine without GPS and digital maps, people actually knew
how to look at maps and write down directions.

The only time I can even think of when someone would need to install a
location app would be for gig economy stuff. Ride share and food delivery apps
are often break-even at best when maintenance/upkeep is factored in and are
not valid income sources for low-income individuals (if they even have a
vehicle that meets the insurance requirements of the company).

You don't even need to own a computer or have internet access at home,
libraries exist. They have computers and internet for public use with the
general requirement being a (free) library card. Businesses like FedEx Office
also offer computer access for a modest fee [https://www.fedex.com/en-
us/office/computer-rental.html](https://www.fedex.com/en-us/office/computer-
rental.html) .

~~~
deogeo
> Then it should be provided by the employer.

Unfortunately they don't live in should-be land. And when an employer asks
them to send them a CV via e-mail, or to install the app which they use to
send delivery pick-up/drop-off locations, "I didn't need these things in the
90s!" won't fly.

------
shijie
This is quite a disingenuous title for CNN. The actual study reference in the
article (and not even directly, one must go to the linked website and dig
around for it) identifies a new subgroup of the US population that are "asset-
limited, income-constrained, and employed," or ALICE.

Nowhere does it say in the study that these people cannot afford rent and
food.

These people's financial stability is more tenuous, yes, but they can afford
rent and food. What a silly and dishonest conclusion made by CNN.

~~~
sys_64738
"asset-limited, income-constrained, and employed"

AKA have no savings and have minimum wage jobs. The USA needs universal
healthcare for all.

------
LUmBULtERA
>"For instance, in Seattle's King County, the annual household survival budget
for a family of four (including one infant and one preschooler) in 2016 was
nearly $85,000."

An $85,000 "budget" is needed for a 4-person household's "survival" in King
County? Otherwise they're dying? Maybe United Way's underlying data explains
this better, but CNN's conclusions don't seem well explained or supported.

Edit: What's weird is if you look into the ALICE project's website, their
number appears to be $74,052, not $85,000. [0]

Also definition of Survival Budget is on that page, but the definition of
"survival" is a bit different than a standard dictionary.

[0]
[https://www.unitedforalice.org/washington](https://www.unitedforalice.org/washington)

~~~
llamataboot
I'm not sure whether you are arguing in good faith or not, so I'd say just
bypass all the 'survival' stuff you are stuck on and essentially replace it
with 'middle class'.

Now you may also be pedantic and say that middle-class is supposed to be the
_middle_ , so 50% is about right.

But what you can't argue with is that nearly half of Americans simply cannot
build any wealth or get out of any debt and likely can't meet the basic
standards of education/transportation/food/housing that we used to assume was
the birthright of any American (1).

And that this is much higher than it used to be, and it is getting worse. And
that literally most of the basic working class of the US - nurses aides,
childcare workers, etc are often literally one missed paycheck away from the
street.

1) May not apply depending on skin color

~~~
Brendinooo
I don't think you can just swap out the word "survival" with "middle class".
Survival is a really powerful word, "the state or fact of continuing to live
or exist, typically in spite of an accident, ordeal, or difficult
circumstances." So the claim is that you need $85k in King County in order to
continue to live.

This isn't pedantry. If people are scraping by in that area with less family
income, then this metric is flawed and either the numbers should be revised or
it should be renamed.

