Off Topic Poker Forums

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/01/news/economy/poor-income/

One of the things that they overlook in that article, is that buying a TV provide immense returns on entertainment.

Generally people with at least some disposable income can afford to go out to be entertained to some extent. When you're poor, you can't afford to do that.

When you can't afford to spend say 30 bucks a ticket to a comedy club, comedy central is a fine substitute. I would much rather go to a Steeler game then watch one on TV, but watching it on TV is just fine too.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/01/news/economy/poor-income/

As far as I saw, that article made no mention of TV size. You can get 24" TV on Amazon for $130. Also, I would expect a family that has two or more children to have a couple of TVs. As medic said, trading that of against the cost of other forms of entertainment, it has a pretty excellent ROI.

I agree with most of that medic. Except I much prefer watching games at home, which is good for my wallet.

I think the overall sentiment was that we have this preconceived notion of how 'poor' should look, and LCD TVs don't jive with that vision. However, it is the real costs like health care that make it difficult for the lower class. Not to mention that the lower class likely doesn't make the best purchasing decisions as a result of ignorance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tq31AzexJs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

One of the things that they overlook in that article, is that buying a TV provide immense returns on entertainment.

Generally people with at least some disposable income can afford to go out to be entertained to some extent. When you're poor, you can't afford to do that.

When you can't afford to spend say 30 bucks a ticket to a comedy club, comedy central is a fine substitute. I would much rather go to a Steeler game then watch one on TV, but watching it on TV is just fine too.

Part of the issue, too, is that we aren't all operating under the same definition of poverty.

The CNN Money articles seems to be asking the question 'are people poor if they have a tv (or two, or a plasma, or something)'. Does that mean the definition of poverty is 'doesn't own a tv'? Although tv ownership might be one example or an indicator of what poverty in America means, it's silly to then try to frame the entire discussion around it.

There is an interesting point in the article that is glazed over. Who gets to define what is a luxury and a necessity? If poverty means being unable to provide the necessities - do we consider some form of entertainment a necessity? If not, is someone who can just barely provide enough food, shelter, and health care to their family but literally nothing else (no sports for the kids- can't afford the gas to drive there, no television, no toys/video games/football/etc.) living in poverty or not?

I'm not sure it's a question we can find an answer everyone will agree on and, while I certainly don't have an answer, it's worth keeping in mind. We don't all define 'poverty' the same and some things I see as a necessity and something one should expect to be able to afford another person may consider a luxury and an example of something that 'poor people don't need, so if they have it are they really poor'?

Final thought - how about the family with irresponsible parents? Those who choose to buy a nice $25,000 brand new pickup truck yet allow their homes to fall into disrepair and their kids are lacking educational materials and games. I've seen this a lot - where you must question a 'poor person's' financial priorities. Again, where is the line? Who gets to make that decision?

Sadly, I've no good answers and, frankly, I don't think I'm qualified to try and answer these questions for anyone other than myself.

How can you expect poor people to spend their money wisely? I would expect poor financial judgement to be one of the side effects of poverty.

Yes, they have a flat screen tv. Not because they can afford it. But because life is pretty boring when you don't have a job.

How can you expect poor people to spend their money wisely?

That's what I meant by ignorance.

That's what I meant by ignorance.

I did not see that post until now.

I think the question of what is a luxury and what is a necessity is a non-starter, because of what Luke said. Poverty being defined by certain types of possessions is not IMO an accurate gauge. Standard of living isn't a sum total of the utility of one's stuff. And certainly poor people don't necessarily make the best decisions on what to spend their money on. What we need though is a compassionate society that does not let someone die because they didn't spend their money wisely enough. Even if we help them not die, they still suffer consequences of bad decisions. Worse, their progeny often suffer the consequences of their parents' bad choices.

Do well off people spend their money well?

I did not see that post until now.

Seems to me that a bigger focus on money mgmt should be made in schools. It may not solve everything, but teaching life skills (stuff parents should teach but dont for a variety of reasons) can't hurt right?

Do well off people spend their money well?

It doesn't matter - that's the difference. They do not suffer the consequences of waste.

I think the question of what is a luxury and what is a necessity is a non-starter, because of what Luke said. Poverty being defined by certain types of possessions is not IMO an accurate gauge. Standard of living isn't a sum total of the utility of one's stuff. And certainly poor people don't necessarily make the best decisions on what to spend their money on. What we need though is a compassionate society that does not let someone die because they didn't spend their money wisely enough. Even if we help them not die, they still suffer consequences of bad decisions. Worse, their progeny often suffer the consequences of their parents' bad choices.

I agree. I define being "poor" as having little to no disposable income. While it's reasonable to assume someone under X income has little or no disposable income, that assumption doesn't hold true for higher incomes.

Housing prices are (still despite the bubble bursting) out of whack with income levels. One can still have a house, a car, and a job yet still be poor.

Disposable income for Danish households in 2010.

Below 100.000 DKK 16,483.07 USD
25 333 (1.3%)

100.000 - 199.990 DKK 16,483.07 - 32,801.31 USD
153 179 (8%)

200.000 - 299.999 DKK 32,801.31 - 49,284.39 USD
245 204 (12.7%)

300.000-399.999 DKK 49,284.39 - 65,767.46 USD
347 583 (18%)

400.000-499.999 DKK 65,767.46 - 82,250.53 USD
448 465 (23.3%)

More than 500.000 DKK 82,415.36 USD
706 382 (36.7%)

i can't find comparable household disposable income figures for the US, and i won't try myself since i can't adjust factors like state taxes, government benefits, etc.. so i'll just use the US household income for 2009 for some kind of comparison.

under 15k 13%
15,000 - 34,999 23%
35,000 - 49,999 14.1%
50,000 - 74,999 18.1%
75,000 - 99,999 11.5%
over 100k 20.1%

compared to Denmark, America has a much greater skew to the bottom of the income range. again, i'm not trying to say one country is better than the other. there are simply differences. and we can debate whether it's the role of government to provide such and such for every citizen. but i personally don't believe it's government's role to create most happiness for most of its citizens (but i've flipped on healthcare).

but is America in decline from America of the past? and that's probably a yes also. and i've questioned whether such prosperity of the past was sustainable, and i don't think it is.

How can you expect poor people to spend their money wisely? I would expect poor financial judgement to be one of the side effects of poverty.

Yes, they have a flat screen tv. Not because they can afford it. But because life is pretty boring when you don't have a job.

I can't say if this is true or not (no facts in front of me) but I will suggest it's a very dangerous assumption to operate from. If we start from 'well, they wouldn't be poor if they were good with money' then the entire discussion will be skewed. It would be as damaging as having 'well, poor people wouldn't be poor if they weren't so lazy' as one of our base assumptions. I'm not in a position to say if either of these statements are true or not, but we can't assume they are and start from there.

Also - you seem to suggest in the second paragraph that all poor people are unemployed. This is patently false, there is a large and growing population of 'working poor'. I can't say why this is (again, no research in front of me) but it's another dangerous assumption to start from.

Do well off people spend their money well?

Does anyone? I certainly waste money from time to time. I think it's more of a question of "well enough given your circumstances."