No, it is not. It is so cheap now that even poor by Indian standards can afford it. Latest 4G VOLTE technology is now all IP based, means calls and sms now go though internet instead of traditional circuit switch based (3G) technology. 4G technology is 3 times faster than 3G and 6 times faster than 2G and it can handle manytimes more data traffic also thus cheap also. US based operators are still not using this. That is why you are paying more for it.
with love,
sanjay
The income of my family, which includes me and my wife but excludes my both children, is roughly 500 USD per month now, out of which we spend 8 USD for internet and phone services.
Secondly, we do not spend 70% of our income on food. That is roughly 15% and that is without any compromise too. But yes, we rarely go to restaurants and cook at home only. Only some street food once in a while.
with love,
sanjay
K: I was homeless for a few months back in the early 1990’s and trust
me, I had no choice of any kind… it just happened that way…
and quite often it does just happen… most Americans are only 3 paychecks
from being homeless and all it would take is two events like, losing a job and
getting hit with a medical bills and that its…it really doesn’t take much more
to become homeless…it is easy to dismiss the poor or homeless if you
haven’t been there…
Kropotkin
For home phone and internet service, we pay almost $80. For cell phones, another $100. Since we live in the countryside where internet service is interrupted, we have to have a landline for emergency purposes and general calls half of the time. It’s ridiculously expensive…someday we’ll get enough signal towers.
Where does the lion’s share of your income go? What kind of healthcare system is available in India? How much can you save or invest each month towards your future?
Internet and phone are relatively cheap today only because they are an integral part of the governance, mostly the surveillance part. The prices go up as the government’s need for them goes down, due to other means to achieve the same goal of population control. The more godlike they become, the less they care about what you think, do, or say (the whole point to being a god - to remove the need to care about anyone else’s concerns).
One question I would ask is, “Why is this a problem?” Not because I don’t think it is, but because this is not a single problem with a simple solution. But just for instance, income inequality is not a problem per se, as there will always be some. It’s a much less dire problem if the populace in general is satisfied with their lot than if they are not. Nor is it too much of a problem if the same forces that bring inequality also bring relative affluence to those at the lower end.
But there is more. There is more to compensation than cash income and this compensation has value. There is value in employer-paid benefits like health insurance, vacation time, childcare and the like. If my wages have stagnated but my and my employer’s health care costs have gone up, then maybe a shift in tax policy alone is not the best solution. Maybe single-payer health care has the best cost/benefit ratio. That is affected by tax policy, to be sure. Taxes would be paying for health care. They do now, in overt and relatively hidden ways.
If the employer cost of health care has risen so fast that it prevents higher wages, then maybe a more efficient system of health care delivery would allow wages to increase. There are people, and I don’t know how many, who change from a higher paying job to a lower paying job because the latter provides better and more affordable health care. That would drive wages down for that person, but perhaps not total employee compensation.
Just taxing passive income more heavily may not be the best way to go for anyone.
That opener was left deliberately - open. I think there is much more than income that I would call disparity. Why do we never discuss the disparity in living conditions? The wealthy live in gated communities next to a golf course while those on the bottom of the economic ladder are lucky to have a shitty apartment in unsafe slums. Why do the children of the wealthy attend private schools with all the amenities while the poor attend schools where a drive by shooting occurs weekly. What sort of society allows lead to be delivered in its drinking water? How in the hell did we ever allow the term “upscale” to become a common reality? Fuck the income issues, their bad enough, but disparity in how we live is the real disparity. Sure, it’s all about the bucks but WTF?
Yeah, tent, I agree. If I had to pick just three items on the consumer side that have the most impact on quality of life, it would be housing, health care and transportation. Everything else is cheap. Health care, well, there are models (like that exotic entity, Medicare) that are already in place.
I could write a book on why there is so much shitty housing, and how a slum begins and grows. And by the time I am done at my present job, I might just. I work in a community of less that 100,000 and we have over 300 vacant houses, representing possibly 1,000 units. In fact, that’s a stat I’ll have to generate. Most of them are held by a few major banks who are managing their loss portfolios - the banks are often in no great hurry to unload them. Now, that’s in a place where this condition has been neglected for years. Government policy can and does change that.
Putting these properties in the hands of owner-occupiers is extremely difficult but this is an area where tax policy could actually do some good.
Good call, tent.
These are the real issues of poverty.
Upto three years back, we were not able to save anything. As our both children were studying engineering so our whole savings used to go for their studies. Then firstly my daughter became IT engineer and got a very good job. One year later my son also became IT graduate and got into a job and their cumulative earning is 5 times more than me and my wife.
So now we have a lot to spend and save. Our regular necessary living expenses are not more than half of what we earn. In the last three years we have bought some new goods for home, which includes one bike and one scooter, a new big fridge, some furniture and furnishings and some new kitchen and other home appliances. Now we roughly save 1/3 of what we earn. Besides that, now our children also send some money to us. Now we can save almost all what we earn. That also goes into savings which are basically bank deposits and equities.
There are some kind of public healthcare available here. For salaried people in formal sectors, either public or private, one can get free treatment in lieu of very nominal contribution. To give you an example, my wife has to contribute 5$ per month to avail this facility. But, it is an issue for who are not working in organized sector. Government has introduced some cheap schemes for those very recently but those are not good enough. Yes, public hospitals are there and very cheap also but not up to the mark.
with love,
sanjay
Poverty or poorness is nevertheless the opposite of wealth or richness.
If people in developed countries have to economically live like people in other countries, they are much poorer than the poorest in their countries.
It would appear that all you’ve done is confirm that income disparity is a global issue. The definition of poor may be a local determination, but the income disparity is always there.
In the USA, the income disparity is 20% in wealth, 80% in poverty and when the baby boomers die, the disparity will grow even greater…10% in wealth and 90% in poverty.
Are you sure about that 80% number? I’d agree that most of us aren’t in the wealthy category, but that doesn’t mean that we’re 80% in poverty.
If you earn over $50,000 you are wealthy. If you earn under $50,000 you are part of the lower class, living for each paycheck with little to no breathing room. What are lower class folks…poor? Earn under $30,000 and you are poor with holes in your Walmart undies and socks. I laid this out on page one of this thread.
The best numbers we have comes from the 2013 census. In their final report they had the poverty level at 14.5% which was approx. 45 million U.S. citizens. They also noted that the poverty level was improving, but very slowly because of the 2006 crash.
IT is possible that the 80% in poverty statement might be a little bit of hyperbole? If we accept the CB report as credible, then approx. 85 % of Americans are not living in poverty.
I grant that only 10% are the insanely wealthy, but saying 80% of Americans are living in poverty seems a bit extreme. You are, of course, welcome and entitled to your opinion.
What was the 2013 poverty line in terms of income? 
Was it a ridiculously low income amount, like less than the minimum wage at 7.25 X 40 hrs. wk. which is a gross of $15,080? Is it $12,331 like it is stated in the 2015 Census?
How many people earn under $30,000?
Oops, I was 7% off on the number of poor, instead of 80% poor, it’s actually 73% poor. I am good, my income divide was spot on at $50,000.
Lessee… I think your post said that 80% of America was living in poverty. Now you’ve switched to “poor”. There is a difference in the definition of those words unless you wish to lump them together for a dramatic presentation. Perhaps you choose to not see the difference, but there are a lot of people who would be willing to say they are poor but not impoverished.
Name some deciding factors between poor and impoverished for I believe that its a great deal of the same issues which revolve around no money, no food, no rent/mortgage payment, no transportation, no utilities, no communication devices, loads of debt (almost forgot this, but most poor can’t pay their debts) no…no…no.
What might be some deciding factors is all over the park. Yes, the lack of money is ALWAYS a problem for everyone except the very wealthy. As I have said before, the national pastime is chasing dollars. I can certainly support any program that helps those living in poverty -ie- those lacking the basic necessities that you have mentioned. But what is poor? There are many people earning a lot more than 50 grand a year that are poor. What shall we call the people who are saddled with the hunky house mortgage, two children in college paid for by mom and dad, the usual burden of the various insurances, etc. They are struggling to cover all these expenses and one paycheck short and they go from poor to poverty in a flash. There are hundreds of thousands of people who made good livings before the crash that are now living a life of poverty. Ask them if they were ever “poor”. Even with an income described as wealthy, one can be “poor” in their own eyes. But perhaps this is only a description of extreme…
Most U.S. citizens fall some place in the middle, always struggling to keep their nose above water. Consumerism has to be paid by somebody and most people push right up to, or past the limits of their income. So in a perverted way, one can say that the whole nation is poor, except for the few at the top and that 15% at the bottom. At bottom, we could easily say that too many people have made bad choices in creating a no-win situation for themselves and that would be true almost any place on the planet. But the hard truth is that most of the issues of poor/poverty are systemic. Most of the people you are talking about are victims of their own bad choices coupled with a social system of turbocharged consumerism. Do we save for a rainy day? Don’t make me laugh. We choose and are encouraged to spend every last dime, use every bit of credit possible and count on winning the lottery to “fix” our problems. Us hoomans ain’t very bright…
I wish I had some sort of magic bullet that would fix everything, but I don’t. I participated and was caught up in the same insanity as everyone else. I think that it remains up to the individual to make their own way. It’s possible, just not likely. We might be able to help others move out of poverty, but it would take a miracle to escape being poor.
People who live above their means can claim to be poor? People with a new Mercedes payment, a newer home with a huge mortgage, two kids in expensive colleges…these people who earn over $50,000 in income can claim to be poor? These people do choose to be poor by living too large, but real poor people haven’t those luxurious choices.
Why can’t you admit that real poor people work full-time for bumpkus as an income?