From the article:

“Using conservative, national-average data:

Childcare: $32,773

Housing: $23,267

Food: $14,717

Transportation: $14,828

Healthcare: $10,567

Other essentials: $21,857

Required net income: $118,009

Add federal, state, and FICA taxes of roughly $18,500, and you arrive at a required gross income of $136,500.

This is Orshansky’s “too little” threshold, updated honestly. This is the floor.

The single largest line item isn’t housing. It’s childcare: $32,773.

This is the trap. To reach the median household income of $80,000, most families require two earners. But the moment you add the second earner to chase that income, you trigger the childcare expense.

If one parent stays home, the income drops to $40,000 or $50,000—well below what’s needed to survive. If both parents work to hit $100,000, they hand over $32,000 to a daycare center.”

The bigger picture point he’s making is that through this lie of the “poverty line” we’ve created a disincentive to work for anything less than ~$100k. Life actually gets worse from ~$40k to ~$100k. Sure people won’t starve but this system is fist-fucking our society regardless of what political POV you come from.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

> This is the floor.

Yeah, that's what I addressed. I don't think the metric is useful and I explained why.

I do agree our society is getting fist fucked by whatever parasitic systems have been constructed by people. The cost of child care is particularly egregious. But personally, I don't know why you'd want to pay someone to raise your kids for you, the money isn't worth it. Once you've determined that, the path forward becomes more clear.

Yeah the food metric is useless I guess that’s what he’s getting at too. 5% is pure subsistence, 10%+ is more realistic per the deeper analysis. Agree with the child care sentiment but then we’re saying one income needs to get a family out of the mess which makes it even less likely for the average American.