What's the bare minimum

[Stormieweather]

Well, I think the minimum people should have to get by is:

a) housing, incl electricity & water
b) transportation
c) some food
d) affordable insurance
e) a little extra for clothing, etc.

I don't think people necessarily need a phone, or cable, or tv, or internet. To me, those are luxuries and ones I did without for many years. But I would consider electricity and running water to be minimums due to sanitation/health/safety reasons.

Transportation can be anything from a bike to the bus to the train to a car. As long as you have the ability to get from point a to point b, you're ok. I've only owned one brand new car in my life. Most of them were beaters that were pretty darn embarrassing (and unreliable).

I say "some food" because there are always options to supplement one's food supply. Co-ops, food ministries, bulk buying, dents stores, grow it yourself, etc. Some things will cost money regardless, as a city person, I do not have the option of having chickens or cattle. But I've made due on what seems an insanely small amount of money...and fed my child as well.

Affordable insurance, because health issues are the one thing that can demolish a family's fragile finances. If we are to be required to purchase it, it damn well better be something affordable (and useful).

And since we aren't allowed to run around naked, we need to be able to afford clothing and other minimal necessities (ie: soap, tampax). I've bought clothing at Goodwill, Salvation Army, Platos and Walmart for many years. There is nothing wrong with that if that's all you can afford, but you need to, at a bare minimum, have enough to buy necessities from inexpensive stores. Also flea markets and Ebay are good deals!

The dollar amount that these will cost depends upon the number of people in the family, the laws in their region, and the region itself. Urban, rural, high cost of living, insurance laws, minimum wage laws, etc. will all impact how much this minimum would cost.



ETA: I have worked 2 jobs for the last 12 years to jack myself out of this sort of minimal existence. I don't have patience for people who could, but don't, work their asses off to make ends meet. But I also sympathize 100% with those who are stuck and cannot find a way out of the sucking muck of poverty. It's such a terrible, vicious cycle.

I forgot education!! Primary school education should be provided with taxes. That would be through high school, as that is the minimum required for almost all jobs. I would say that college should be affordable, but not free. Maybe the cost would best be calculated on a sliding scale (determined by the family income).

My personal opinion, of course, and not based on any facts, other than my own history.

[Clodfobble]

Sorry infi, my brain combined your post and the one limey made a little bit before it. I would be honored to receive some monkey milk, if you ever decide that primate lactation is a hobby you'd like to pursue.

[Sundae]

Your list does not match mine exactly Stormie, because we live in different societies. But it is close.

I don't think any family should have to choose between food and healthcare, or heating and education.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What's the bare minimum standard of living that an American should have

Originally Posted by jimhelm

these are communist thoughts.
knock it off.

Originally Posted by limey

I see nothing communist in the original question.

I kind of do. I have a problem with the word "should," which is why I compared this question to arguing about angels on the head of a pin.

"Should" implies that there is some sort of obligation. That people have a right to certain physical possessions simply because they were born. And if they are owed these possessions, then they are owed them by somebody or some entity. Who? Who owes them that?

[JBKlyde]

Isn't the poverty line like 12thousand a year.

[classicman]

The "official" poverty level for 2011 was $22,350 for a family of four.

[Stormieweather]

See, I don't think anyone "owes" anyone anything, other than...what we vote to spend our taxes on and personal freedom within the scope of the law.

BUT, I think when the economy gets to the point where a blue collar working person cannot earn enough to supply the bare minimum, then something is seriously wrong with that economy. Particularly if there is a top tier of people with money oozing out of every pore. This discrepancy has nothing to do with who works harder, it has to do with how the deck is stacked.

When bare necessities are overpriced in order to garner more profits for that same top tier, I object. A slum apartment full of bugs, raw wiring and broken windows should not cost 3 weeks of salary at minimum wage. If it does, either a) the apartment is overpriced or b) the minimum wage is inadequate for the region's cost of living. Or both.

I have to go...to be continued.

[infinite monkey]

I see people complaining about not having the bare minimum: but they have a lot of tattoos and nice cell phones and prolly Giant Screen TVs.

So those things are not needs but they're wants and you hear about people who can't make ends meet who have better TVs than I do.

*shrug*

Just an observation on consumerism.

[lookout123]

This is where I stop with most of these types of discussion. My feeling is no one owes you much of anything and if they choose to do well by you then that's wonderful.

Originally Posted by glatt

"Should" implies that there is some sort of obligation. That people have a right to certain physical possessions simply because they were born. And if they are owed these possessions, then they are owed them by somebody or some entity. Who? Who owes them that?

where a blue collar working person cannot earn enough to supply the bare minimum

I think the highlighted words are the whole point of this thread. My idea of bare minimum is probably different than yours.

Based on my knowledge of a guy I see nearly everyday when he heads in for his daily wash at the circle K, I'd say you don't need too damn much to exist. He doesn't want to go to a shelter and gets by on his own. That's his choice.

[jimhelm]

Originally Posted by glatt

I kind of do. I have a problem with the word "should," which is why I compared this question to arguing about angels on the head of a pin.

"Should" implies that there is some sort of obligation. That people have a right to certain physical possessions simply because they were born. And if they are owed these possessions, then they are owed them by somebody or some entity. Who? Who owes them that?

I imagined, instantly... and with no real thought...that the next question would be something along the lines of....if X is the bare minimum, and we have Y amount of Z (wealth, food, whatever) would you want to make it so Z is evenly distributed to make sure all of us have at least X.

So, my quip was but a quip... and I don't know if that's where spexx's thoughts were leading... I was just predicting kind of... probably wrong.

anyway... stop being a commie.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Well, for me, personally... I would really require a tent, sleeping bags, and a steady supply of matches or cigarette lighter fuel to get me going.

Beyond that, the right to prostitute myself or otherwise perform labor in exchange for goods or money from others. The right to gather firewood in my surrounding area. The right to hunt for animals and cultivate a garden in my surrounding area. The right to drink the raw milk from my goat, and the right to occasionally kill some of her babies for meat.

The only big one I can think of that someone would have to outright give me in the beginning: safety and protection from others who might try to steal my efforts or hurt my family. If not that, then I'd have to add a gun and lots of ammo to my tent, sleeping bag, and steady supply of firestarters.

These rights are inalienable.

[jimhelm]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Based on my knowledge of a guy I see nearly everyday when he heads in for his daily wash at the circle K, I'd say you don't need too damn much to exist. He doesn't want to go to a shelter and gets by on his own. That's his choice.

I thought a Circle K was a convenience store like 7-11. what is he washing? his car? clothes? person?

[jimhelm]

Originally Posted by Griff

These rights are inalienable.

especially the prostitution. huzah!

[limey]

Originally Posted by glatt

I kind of do. I have a problem with the word "should," which is why I compared this question to arguing about angels on the head of a pin.

"Should" implies that there is some sort of obligation. That people have a right to certain physical possessions simply because they were born. And if they are owed these possessions, then they are owed them by somebody or some entity. Who? Who owes them that?

Originally Posted by jimhelm

I imagined, instantly... and with no real thought...that the next question would be something along the lines of....if X is the bare minimum, and we have Y amount of Z (wealth, food, whatever) would you want to make it so Z is evenly distributed to make sure all of us have at least X.

So, my quip was but a quip... and I don't know if that's where spexx's thoughts were leading... I was just predicting kind of... probably wrong.

anyway... stop being a commie.

There is the same sort of implied obligation in passages from the Bible, but it doesn't make me a Christian to allude to them .

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by jimhelm

I thought a Circle K was a convenience store like 7-11. what is he washing? his car? clothes? person?

Himself. He's actually a homeless guy that lives in the area. He does odd jobs and wanders around. He usually pitches his tent just a couple minute walk into the desert.

He's a nice enough, sociable guy. He's probaby batshit crazy but doesn't seem to have any problems living the way he is and he says he hates the shelters. He likes to just do his own thing, or so he says.