Minimum wage better than $60k/year salary?

[pellegrino]

The chart doesn't take into account the basic eligibility requirements of those programs. TANF money is capped at either at 36 months I believe.
Food Stamps also require an employment and training component. You would need a reason to be exempt from that requirement if you were going to sit on your duff and collect benefits.
Also, I believe the amount of Food Stamps you receive effects your eligibility for utility assistance and housing aid.
Why are CHIP and Medicaid lumped in together? Those are two different programs. Seems like a lazy chart to me.

It's a good chart for those who readily believe common stereotypes of the poor.

[TripletDaddy]

It's a good chart for those who readily believe common stereotypes of the poor.

And for those who don't understand the concept of disposable income.

[Viking]

And for those who don't understand the concept of disposable income.

i'm shocked that you don't understand this

[doctorcoug]

i'm shocked that you don't understand this

Accounting profits vs economic profits

[Viking]

Accounting profits vs economic profits

You just have to make the safe assumption that the "cash earner" ($60k) has expenses that are comparable to the benefits received by the min wage earner.

[TripletDaddy]

You just have to make the safe assumption that the "cash earner" ($60k) has expenses that are comparable to the benefits received by the min wage earner.

Even then the economic realities are hardly comparable.

For example, living conditions. The person making min wage and living off government assistance is living in subsidized housing (the only places that take checks from the government in lieu of a traditional mortgage) with a very low standard of living, often dangerous. The person making 60k has qualified for a home loan and is living in their own home with an int deduction or renting in a place more of their choosing and a much better standard of living. What bank is going to loan someone money when the applicant has no real disposable income?

I get the sensationalist point of the chart, I just think that the terminology is inaccurate as is the point being made.

[Viking]

Even then the economic realities are hardly comparable.

For example, living conditions. The person making min wage and living off government assistance is living in subsidized housing (the only places that take checks from the government in lieu of a traditional mortgage) with a very low standard of living, often dangerous. The person making 60k has qualified for a home loan and is living in their own home with an int deduction or renting in a place more of their choosing and a much better standard of living. What bank is going to loan someone money when the applicant has no real disposable income?

I get the sensationalist point of the chart, I just think that the terminology is inaccurate as is the point being made.

What's interesting is that in theory, the indifference curves are quite different yet the economic outcome is basically the same (assuming that the $60k earner has comparable expenses).

I'm a big believer in the (unfortunate) ability of government and entitlement programs to crowd out private enterprise and private endeavors.

[TripletDaddy]

What's interesting is that in theory, the indifference curves are quite different yet the economic outcome is basically the same (assuming that the $60k earner has comparable expenses).

I'm a big believer in the (unfortunate) ability of government and entitlement programs to crowd out private enterprise and private endeavors.

I saw your assumptions and I don't disagree. However it seems to go without saying that if the wage earner has benefits with a value commensurate with the government assistance being given to the non earner, of course their bottom line will look similar. Similarly, if you give a hobo a million dollars, he will be making the same amount of money as someone that earns a million dollars.

The point of the graph is to influence voters with sensationalist financial claims, misusing basic terminology along the way. The truth of the matter is that the reality for someone making less than 5k a year is much different than someone making 60k. At least in my opinion.

[Viking]

The right analysis would be to take the a/t income of the $60k wage earner and deduct the earner's disposable income by comparable expense categories.

[TripletDaddy]

The right analysis would be to take the a/t income of the $60k wage earner and deduct the earner's disposable income by comparable expense categories.

This is exactly correct. Then we might have a more interesting graph. As it stands, by using the term "disposable income," the chart implies that all that government assistance comes in the form of cash, when in reality, almost none of it does. Hence, the min wage earner literally has no disposable income while the 60k earner starts with 35k to make it work.

This lack of daily liquidity is probably why we see such high petty crime amongst that income demographic. They have no cash in pocket.

[statman]

Those are some damn expensive student lunches at $10 a pop. Angus sloppy joes and chianti for the youngsters.

Two kids. 180 days of school. That's $5 a day. About right if they're getting breakfast and lunch - and anyone who qualifies gets both.

[Jacob]

This is exactly correct. Then we might have a more interesting graph. As it stands, by using the term "disposable income," the chart implies that all that government assistance comes in the form of cash, when in reality, almost none of it does.

The chart doesn't use the term "disposable income." Those were the words of the newspaper writer and editor who carried the story. They didn't create the chart, I don't think.

I think most people are smart enough to understand the point.

[Indy Coug]

The chart doesn't use the term "disposable income." Those were the words of the newspaper writer and editor who carried the story. They didn't create the chart, I don't think.

I think most people are smart enough to understand the point.

The thing I don't understand is the differences in expenses between the different income groups. Until I understand that better, I don't know what to make of this.

[Jacob]

The thing I don't understand is the differences in expenses between the different income groups. Until I understand that better, I don't know what to make of this.

There are only 3 line items representing expenses. 2 of them are taxes, and the other is child care cost. Tax expense is less on the lower incomes for obvious reasons and the child care cost is less in the first column, presumably because that person only works a few hours a week and so doesn't need to pay for as much child care.

The rest of the rows are government subsidies.

[Indy Coug]

There are only 3 line items representing expenses. 2 of them are taxes, and the other is child care cost. Tax expense is less on the lower incomes for obvious reasons and the child care cost is less in the first column, presumably because that person only works a few hours a week and so doesn't need to pay for as much child care.

The rest of the rows are government subsidies.

So it's guaranteed that everyone in those income brackets will receive exactly that much in government benefits/subsidies?