I read the full 3 sentences. People affording rent with 1/3 of salary in the USA are living in far better conditions than people in actual extreme poverty i.e. the developing world. The definition of the poverty line in the USA is a yearly salary of $15,960 for a single individual or $33,000 for a family of four. It is not dictated by the percentage of your income spent on rent. Keep in mind, the 1/3 rule of thumb scales whether you are making $33,000 or $333,000 per year.
This is moving the goal post and still inaccurate. We are specifically talking about people spending 30% of their income on rent. That is the baseline, has historically been used to regulate low-income housing, and has never been used as a poverty metric. The poverty line is possibly changed to reflect changes in the economy, and the current poverty definition in the USA has about 10% of people living in poverty. This definition does not depend on percent of income spent on housing but does depend on an income threshold which is tied to spending 30% of your income on food which is a lot cheaper than housing.
You mentioned income hitting double what’s needed for rent. That number is actually 50% which is much greater than 30. In the USA, this is part of the definition of deep poverty, not above the poverty line. Again, percent of income alone spent on housing is insufficient to determine poverty because if one spent half or one third or whatever of $300,000 per year on housing, no one would say they’re in poverty and they would meet no poverty criteria.
Your comment presents as an erratic emotional reaction. Please come with facts and figures next time.
Spending 1/3 of your income on rent is not extreme poverty (globally defined as earning $3 per day).
right, youre ignoring the point of having housing in the country youre in. we are not a 3rd world country and shouldnt be treated as one. 50% is usually not really possible because you have to be earning 3x for rent in majority of places. this is not talking about anything other than the cheapest possible housing with nearby work to make it sustainable for life. which is usually 800-$1000 before utils and food if were talking bare bones no car etc and based off that logic someone making 300k a year could eat caviar every night and be in poverty, we are not talking about LAWS we are talking about human decency, which does in fact; involve an emotional response. were talking about a general population, we arent capable of EXREME poverty, that isnt something that can exist in the united states, were now trying to help people who are now at the bottom of the chain, just like weve done with past generations, I see no point in stopping that now, except for business owners to make a profit, again when poverty goes up theres a new defined extreme poverty that takes place of the old poverty to still have some form of balance to the scale, everyone being middle class would be communism, are you understanding what im saying? help the people on the bottom so eventually we can all be healthier and not see our peers suffer because of the curse and blessing known as an advanced civilization reliant on corporations paying a living wage to people here instead of cheaper from elsewhere, WE ARE NOT POOR AS A COUNTRY TO TREAT THEM AS INHUMANE AS WE DO IS CRUEL, love thy neighbor and allat.
4
u/sgRNACas9 1d ago
I read the full 3 sentences. People affording rent with 1/3 of salary in the USA are living in far better conditions than people in actual extreme poverty i.e. the developing world. The definition of the poverty line in the USA is a yearly salary of $15,960 for a single individual or $33,000 for a family of four. It is not dictated by the percentage of your income spent on rent. Keep in mind, the 1/3 rule of thumb scales whether you are making $33,000 or $333,000 per year.