Survey Says: If You're Not Eating Cat Food Tonight, You're Lucky

[hegemony]

http://consumerist.com/5362931/survey-says...ght-youre-lucky

[jayrandom]

What a disingenuous title for a survey about how well people keep to a budget.

 

From the article: "According to the survey, even workers making over $100,000 are feeling the pinch; 30% are living check-to-check, up 9% from last year." I don't think they're buying cat food and struggling on 100k.

 

It's not to say people aren't genuinely struggling to feed their families, but this article is only about how people are outspending their incomes.

[hegemony]

What a disingenuous title for a survey about how well people keep to a budget.

 

From the article: "According to the survey, even workers making over $100,000 are feeling the pinch; 30% are living check-to-check, up 9% from last year." I don't think they're buying cat food and struggling on 100k.

 

It's not to say people aren't genuinely struggling to feed their families, but this article is only about how people are outspending their incomes.

100K for a family or 3 or 4 is not exactly wealthy in many parts of the country.

[LBCS]

What a disingenuous title for a survey about how well people keep to a budget.

 

From the article: "According to the survey, even workers making over $100,000 are feeling the pinch; 30% are living check-to-check, up 9% from last year." I don't think they're buying cat food and struggling on 100k.

 

It's not to say people aren't genuinely struggling to feed their families, but this article is only about how people are outspending their incomes.

100K for a family or 3 or 4 is not exactly wealthy in many parts of the country.

 

Yup, for sure. $100K for a family of 4 is poverty level in CA.

Edited September 19, 2009 by LBCS

[jayrandom]

What a disingenuous title for a survey about how well people keep to a budget.

 

From the article: "According to the survey, even workers making over $100,000 are feeling the pinch; 30% are living check-to-check, up 9% from last year." I don't think they're buying cat food and struggling on 100k.

 

It's not to say people aren't genuinely struggling to feed their families, but this article is only about how people are outspending their incomes.

100K for a family or 3 or 4 is not exactly wealthy in many parts of the country.

 

Yup, for sure. $100K for a family of 4 is poverty level in CA.

 

I agree that 100k isn't exactly wealthy in many parts of the country (including my own) but it's above the median household income for every county in the country save four.

 

LBCS--I couldn't find any information that the poverty line is even set in California independently from the US as a whole, do you have a reference that lists the poverty line by household size in California? The closest I could find were income limits for affordable housing in LA County. They set the cutoff for "moderate income" for a household of four at 74.5k.

 

It's not that I don't think that hunger and poverty aren't real issues that deserve attention, it's just that someone who earns 100k in any part of the US who isn't saving sufficiently more likely suffers from over spending than under earning. If they must resort to eating cat food--which frankly isn't the cheapest way to feed yourself to begin with--they must be spending their income in some other way that should be modified before abandoning people food. I still think the title is disingenuous.

[LBCS]

What a disingenuous title for a survey about how well people keep to a budget.

 

From the article: "According to the survey, even workers making over $100,000 are feeling the pinch; 30% are living check-to-check, up 9% from last year." I don't think they're buying cat food and struggling on 100k.

 

It's not to say people aren't genuinely struggling to feed their families, but this article is only about how people are outspending their incomes.

100K for a family or 3 or 4 is not exactly wealthy in many parts of the country.

 

Yup, for sure. $100K for a family of 4 is poverty level in CA.

 

I agree that 100k isn't exactly wealthy in many parts of the country (including my own) but it's above the median household income for every county in the country save four.

 

LBCS--I couldn't find any information that the poverty line is even set in California independently from the US as a whole, do you have a reference that lists the poverty line by household size in California? The closest I could find were income limits for affordable housing in LA County. They set the cutoff for "moderate income" for a household of four at 74.5k.

 

It's not that I don't think that hunger and poverty aren't real issues that deserve attention, it's just that someone who earns 100k in any part of the US who isn't saving sufficiently more likely suffers from over spending than under earning. If they must resort to eating cat food--which frankly isn't the cheapest way to feed yourself to begin with--they must be spending their income in some other way that should be modified before abandoning people food. I still think the title is disingenuous.

 

When I said CA, I meant the livable parts of CA, the southern and the northern parts. In Southern Cal, a 100K income for a family of 4 is tough. Since large parts of LA county are rundown, rents are still pretty high in decent areas. And many school districts are terrible, so if you are interested in a decent education for your kids that pushes rents even higher since you need to move to someplace even nicer. And with $100K homeownership is virtually ruled out.

 

Obviously people making a HHI of 100K are not exactly in poverty - but it is very difficult.

[Kevin20]

Has anybody tried eating cat food? Some of that stuff I put in my cat's dish doesn't seem so bad

[Marty716]

I guess I'm lucky, I'm eating Tilapia tonight.

[GEORGE]

SLOPPY JOE'S FOR DINNER

 

No cat food

[hurricanesfans27]

Roast beef here at moms house. She cooks better than me.

[radi8]

Has anybody tried eating cat food? Some of that stuff I put in my cat's dish doesn't seem so bad

 

For that matter, the cat itself fits just about right on a rotisserie. Or perhaps a cat-kabob? Cat flambe?

[GEORGE]

Has anybody tried eating cat food? Some of that stuff I put in my cat's dish doesn't seem so bad

 

For that matter, the cat itself fits just about right on a rotisserie. Or perhaps a cat-kabob? Cat flambe?

YOU ARE GOING TO BE FRIED FOR THAT

[radi8]

Has anybody tried eating cat food? Some of that stuff I put in my cat's dish doesn't seem so bad

 

For that matter, the cat itself fits just about right on a rotisserie. Or perhaps a cat-kabob? Cat flambe?

YOU ARE GOING TO BE FRIED FOR THAT

 

 

Good call! Fried might not be bad either.

[TroyP]

What a disingenuous title for a survey about how well people keep to a budget.

 

From the article: "According to the survey, even workers making over $100,000 are feeling the pinch; 30% are living check-to-check, up 9% from last year." I don't think they're buying cat food and struggling on 100k.

 

It's not to say people aren't genuinely struggling to feed their families, but this article is only about how people are outspending their incomes.

100K for a family or 3 or 4 is not exactly wealthy in many parts of the country.

 

Yup, for sure. $100K for a family of 4 is poverty level in CA.

 

I agree that 100k isn't exactly wealthy in many parts of the country (including my own) but it's above the median household income for every county in the country save four.

 

LBCS--I couldn't find any information that the poverty line is even set in California independently from the US as a whole, do you have a reference that lists the poverty line by household size in California? The closest I could find were income limits for affordable housing in LA County. They set the cutoff for "moderate income" for a household of four at 74.5k.

 

It's not that I don't think that hunger and poverty aren't real issues that deserve attention, it's just that someone who earns 100k in any part of the US who isn't saving sufficiently more likely suffers from over spending than under earning. If they must resort to eating cat food--which frankly isn't the cheapest way to feed yourself to begin with--they must be spending their income in some other way that should be modified before abandoning people food. I still think the title is disingenuous.

 

Naturally, my county borders one of the 4, and just misses the $100k median income mark. Also, we have a TON of attorneys in this county. Many of them work for the government. The lawyers I know that are employed by the federal gov make about $120k a year. That sounds like a lot, but when you owe $175k in student loans, and a decent single family home is north of $600k, its really not all that much.

 

Now, you're not eating cat food on a $120k salary, even supporting a family of 4 around here. But you're not exactly driving a new benz and taking European vacations every summer either.

[athensgaguy]

Cat food is way more expensive than Top Ramen!