6 ms·

Sure sounds like they can’t afford a family of 4 on that income. They have control over both variables in that situation.

ElProlactin 15d ago
Of course two people with low incomes shouldn't have two kids. But (as detailed in my other comment) you need a 4 person household with 2 kids to get tax negative at $50,000/year. Even a 3 person household with 1 kid isn't tax negative in most of the US at $50,000/year. So the other poster's argument that $50,000/year isn't so bad because of transfers, tax credits, subsidies, etc. doesn't hold up to real-world examples.
- wallst07 14d ago
  It holds up outside if costal urban areas, there are plenty of places where you can get a 2b/2ba home with garage with that salary. You can't get it in high cost states like CA, NY etc...
  - ElProlactin 14d ago
    I find comments like this interesting because they're devoid of the details that matter. What's the size of the household? Could a single person in rural America making $50,000/year save up enough to buy a house? Sure. Could two adults in a $50,000/year as a household? Possibly if they're very frugal. Two people with 1-2 kids? This is where the situation changes dramatically.
johnnyanmac 15d ago
>They have control over both variables in that situation. A modest proposal? And sadly, some states may not in fact give them control over that situation.
- alex43578 15d ago
  If you're implying abortion (or Swift's proposal) is the only option for birth control, you're very wrong. Are there any roadblocks to condoms or contraceptives in any state in America? I'm not aware of one.
  - johnnyanmac 14d ago
    I'm implying that an existing family of 4 in the present day is a bit too late to be "in control of those variables". Unless you have a modest proposal in mind to cull the numbers. Not much point talking in "should" tense. >Are there any roadblocks to condoms or contraceptives in any state in America? A few states are working on restricting birth control, no worries.
    - alex43578 14d ago
      Presumably the family of 4 isn't a family of 4 from the 1950s. Supporting a family of 4 on $50K or less hasn't been a thing for at a decade, so they were clearly in control of the variables at the relevant point in time. "Should" is fine because I'm disputing the very idea that this is an issue society should be responsible for solving. If I want a 4 bedroom home or lobster for dinner, buy it, then complain that I've financially overextended myself, is that society's fault or did I go beyond my means? >A few states are working on restricting birth control, no worries. So there are no roadblocks preventing them from using contraception in the past or currently. Not much point in talking about "working on" if you're discussing families now...
      - johnnyanmac 13d ago
        I don't think you understand the actual point here. Or worse, are choosing not to understand the point. >Should" is fine "Should" is not what I'm arguing. If you want to make your theoreticals, find another discussion. I'm simply using this to highlight existing problems and the (lack of) solutions to it. "You should have X" is a dismissal of the problem (and quite frankly, an active show of malice), not a solution to problems caused by systematic issues.
locallost 14d ago
The economy exist for the people, not the other way around. If too many people can't get something as fundamental as a family that will guarantee long term survival of mankind, the economy needs to adapt, not the people.

ElProlactin 15d ago

Of course two people with low incomes shouldn't have two kids. But (as detailed in my other comment) you need a 4 person household with 2 kids to get tax negative at $50,000/year. Even a 3 person household with 1 kid isn't tax negative in most of the US at $50,000/year. So the other poster's argument that $50,000/year isn't so bad because of transfers, tax credits, subsidies, etc. doesn't hold up to real-world examples.

wallst07 14d ago
It holds up outside if costal urban areas, there are plenty of places where you can get a 2b/2ba home with garage with that salary. You can't get it in high cost states like CA, NY etc...
- ElProlactin 14d ago
  I find comments like this interesting because they're devoid of the details that matter. What's the size of the household? Could a single person in rural America making $50,000/year save up enough to buy a house? Sure. Could two adults in a $50,000/year as a household? Possibly if they're very frugal. Two people with 1-2 kids? This is where the situation changes dramatically.

johnnyanmac 15d ago

>They have control over both variables in that situation. A modest proposal? And sadly, some states may not in fact give them control over that situation.

alex43578 15d ago
If you're implying abortion (or Swift's proposal) is the only option for birth control, you're very wrong. Are there any roadblocks to condoms or contraceptives in any state in America? I'm not aware of one.
- johnnyanmac 14d ago
  I'm implying that an existing family of 4 in the present day is a bit too late to be "in control of those variables". Unless you have a modest proposal in mind to cull the numbers. Not much point talking in "should" tense. >Are there any roadblocks to condoms or contraceptives in any state in America? A few states are working on restricting birth control, no worries.
  - alex43578 14d ago
    Presumably the family of 4 isn't a family of 4 from the 1950s. Supporting a family of 4 on $50K or less hasn't been a thing for at a decade, so they were clearly in control of the variables at the relevant point in time. "Should" is fine because I'm disputing the very idea that this is an issue society should be responsible for solving. If I want a 4 bedroom home or lobster for dinner, buy it, then complain that I've financially overextended myself, is that society's fault or did I go beyond my means? >A few states are working on restricting birth control, no worries. So there are no roadblocks preventing them from using contraception in the past or currently. Not much point in talking about "working on" if you're discussing families now...
    - johnnyanmac 13d ago
      I don't think you understand the actual point here. Or worse, are choosing not to understand the point. >Should" is fine "Should" is not what I'm arguing. If you want to make your theoreticals, find another discussion. I'm simply using this to highlight existing problems and the (lack of) solutions to it. "You should have X" is a dismissal of the problem (and quite frankly, an active show of malice), not a solution to problems caused by systematic issues.

locallost 14d ago

The economy exist for the people, not the other way around. If too many people can't get something as fundamental as a family that will guarantee long term survival of mankind, the economy needs to adapt, not the people.