OT - the cost to live comfortably as a single person in every state

[mstateglfr]

I don't think a lot of people realize just how much we spend on welfare programs. We spend an enormous amount on welfare and education along with defense spending, something that eats up a smaller percentage of GDP. So what are we getting for all that welfare spending?

Guesses as to what we are getting for all that welfare spending- fewer people on the streets, fewer people dying early due to preventable or treatable conditions, fewer kids arrested, increased education, fewer elderly in deplorable situations, etc?

I really dont know what we are 'getting' for that spending and it is so complex that I am hesitant to believe it could even be calculated in an accurate and unbiased manner.
It is a good question to ask, even if it cant actually be answered in an accurate and unbiased manner.

At the same time, if questions are being asked, why not ask why the increase in spending had to occur at all? And why not ask why income growth, which kept pace amongst socioeconomic classes for years, separated and has further separated at exponential levels?
Seems as though if lower wage growth had kept pace with higher wage growth, perhaps fewer welfare programs which serve lower wage earners would be needed.

 

[Boom Boom]

I don't think a lot of people realize just how much we spend on welfare programs. We spend an enormous amount on welfare and education along with defense spending, something that eats up a smaller percentage of GDP. So what are we getting for all that welfare spending?

We really don't. SS, Medicare, and Medicaid is almost all of it. Food stamps right behind them, but we spend there to subsidize the grocers, we could cut that 75% and provide more food if we cut out the profiteering middlemen. "Welfare", TANF, is far far behind those.

 

[Podgy]

Some of it helping people that genuinely need it. Some of it to keep generational idiocracy tucked away from view of the educated and/or well resourced.

I'm willing to pay more in taxes for public housing away from my neighborhood. Add that to the cost of living comfortably.

 

[Podgy]

I'm guessing Medicaid is included in "anti-poverty" to get to that high a number.

And social security and Medicare are anti-poverty programs as well.

 

[Explodio Bungholio]

I think that the relatively recent idea of retiring between 55 and 65 is not healthy. I expect a reverse in that trend. I don't think it's healthy to retire that early, even if you could financially. I plan to work until I'm not able to contribute either/both mentally or/and physically. I am keenly aware that I have a rare case in that I like my job. Also, I'm in my 50's, so I cannot say what my attitude might be like in my 60's and am not judging anyone who has chosen a different path.

Hey man, more power to ya, and to each his own. But if I retire because I have enough money to do so, it's gonna happen the second I do have enough.

 

[Podgy]

Guesses as to what we are getting for all that welfare spending- fewer people on the streets, fewer people dying early due to preventable or treatable conditions, fewer kids arrested, increased education, fewer elderly in deplorable situations, etc?

I really dont know what we are 'getting' for that spending and it is so complex that I am hesitant to believe it could even be calculated in an accurate and unbiased manner.
It is a good question to ask, even if it cant actually be answered in an accurate and unbiased manner.

At the same time, if questions are being asked, why not ask why the increase in spending had to occur at all? And why not ask why income growth, which kept pace amongst socioeconomic classes for years, separated and has further separated at exponential levels?
Seems as though if lower wage growth had kept pace with higher wage growth, perhaps fewer welfare programs which serve lower wage earners would be needed.

Our wage growth beats Europe. And while I'm fine with socialized healthcare in western Europe, haven't experienced it elsewhere, we get good healthcare and because we're richer we do have access to some better care than middle-class euros have. l do think we have citizens who are not really capable of surviving without some income transfer from the government. They are too cost-ineffective to hire to do even menial tasks, something they'd do poorly without constant supervision. It's likely cheaper to take the loss and pay them a monthly allowance to avoid living around and working around responsible citizens

 

[Podgy]

We really don't. SS, Medicare, and Medicaid is almost all of it. Food stamps right behind them, but we spend there to subsidize the grocers, we could cut that 75% and provide more food if we cut out the profiteering middlemen. "Welfare", TANF, is far far behind those.

We spend about the same amount Canada spends on welfare and we spend more than they do on education as a percentage of GDP. I do agree that the system is fraught with inefficiencies which is why I simply believe "f it. Just give them money and cut out the middlemen." It's likely cheaper.

 

[pseudonym]

Good lord, you clearly have an agenda or point to make and you are going to force that point to be made, regardless of if its applicable or not.
Again- my prior post did not really show my opinion as to if I think defense spending should be an economic stimulus or not. I did not give an opinion on that. What I did do, was recognize that defense spending could be viewed as an economic stimulus.

How is it that you dont understand the difference between someone giving an opinion and someone recognizing a viewpoint that exists?
You must shoot a lot of messengers because you think they believe whatever message they deliver.

Got it, so you may or may not think government spending should be viewed as economic stimulus. You're just posting that viewpoint to acknowledge that it exists.

This is a message board. I don't know you, so I'm really not responding to you. I'm responding to your post and the viewpoints contained in it.

Government spending as economic stimulus is a general philosophy not everyone assumes to be correct. Sorry if I incorrectly assumed that philosophy is found in your posts in this thread because you are sympathetic to it. I meant no harm. Just offering a different point of view.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

We spend about the same amount Canada spends on welfare and we spend more than they do on education as a percentage of GDP. I do agree that the system is fraught with inefficiencies which is why I simply believe "f it. Just give them money and cut out the middlemen." It's likely cheaper.

I have a sample size of 1, Canadian friend whom I interact with at least weekly, usually multiple times per week. He considers himself "lucky" that a recent hernia was considered life threatening, otherwise, his time until he could get treatment was unbelievable. If you, or a loved one has had any real health issues lately, it's not uncommon in the US to wait for months to see a specialist. There are some things that are fundamentally broken. If you have means in the US, you can get better healthcare. If you do not, you are really subjugated to ER for healthcare.

 

[WilCoDawg]

"For families, Mississippi is the lowest: $177,798"

Houston we have a problem !

Mississippi Income Statistics | Current Census Data for Mississippi Zip Codes

Access current US Census income data for Mississippi ZIP codes. Compare stats with neighboring ZIP codes, counties, and cities today.

www.incomebyzipcode.com

$178k in Houston is def high-on-the-hog level, man!***

 

[WilCoDawg]

The TN numbers obviously don’t reflect living in the Nashville area. Even local kids struggle coming back home to live post-college.

 

[mstateglfr]

Our wage growth beats Europe. And while I'm fine with socialized healthcare in western Europe, haven't experienced it elsewhere, we get good healthcare and because we're richer we do have access to some better care than middle-class euros have. l do think we have citizens who are not really capable of surviving without some income transfer from the government. They are too cost-ineffective to hire to do even menial tasks, something they'd do poorly without constant supervision. It's likely cheaper to take the loss and pay them a monthly allowance to avoid living around and working around responsible citizens

I genuinely dont know what your comment in red refers to- its a perfect example of why I commented that I cant imagine an genuine unbiased analysis could be performed on what we get from government spending.
Our wage growth beats Europe in what way(s)? Total growth over X period of time? % growth over X period of time? All sectors? Specific sectors?

I provided visualized data with groups that are known and known date ranges. You respond to that with 'Our wage growth beats Europe', as if that moves the conversation forward.

If our wage growth beats Europe, but 95% of our wage growth is concentrated with the top 5% of wage earners, that sure seems like it further makes my earlier point.
^ this is a hypothetical scenario. I am not claiming its the case. I typed it to help show how that 'stat' could support both sides of a conversation.

Also- I constantly hear on here that Europe is a socialist hellhole that restricts freedoms and allows immigrants to rape and kill without consequence. I am not claiming you say or think those things, but I do find it funny that Europe is being used as a comparison for wage growth. If they are so socialist, restrictive, and hate corporate success- I would expect their wage growth to be lower.

 

[johnson86-1]

Some of it helping people that genuinely need it. Some of it to keep generational idiocracy tucked away from view of the educated and/or well resourced.

That plus a lot of it is siphoned off by bloated administration, depending on the program you're talking about.

 

[Podgy]

I genuinely dont know what your comment in red refers to- its a perfect example of why I commented that I cant imagine an genuine unbiased analysis could be performed on what we get from government spending.
Our wage growth beats Europe in what way(s)? Total growth over X period of time? % growth over X period of time? All sectors? Specific sectors?

I provided visualized data with groups that are known and known date ranges. You respond to that with 'Our wage growth beats Europe', as if that moves the conversation forward.

If our wage growth beats Europe, but 95% of our wage growth is concentrated with the top 5% of wage earners, that sure seems like it further makes my earlier point.
^ this is a hypothetical scenario. I am not claiming its the case. I typed it to help show how that 'stat' could support both sides of a conversation.

Also- I constantly hear on here that Europe is a socialist hellhole that restricts freedoms and allows immigrants to rape and kill without consequence. I am not claiming you say or think those things, but I do find it funny that Europe is being used as a comparison for wage growth. If they are so socialist, restrictive, and hate corporate success- I would expect their wage growth to be lower.

Had to rush. The top 5-10% have captured productivity gains and that's similar to what Europe has seen even with its more regulated, cradle-to-grave welfare state, something that likely suppresses wage growth. We're also still richer than Europeans and materially better off. Average household wealth in Spain and Italy, for instance, is about what it is in Mississippi, which isn't all that impressive.

"By this metric, the EU as a whole was 75% as affluent as the U.S. in 2022.

"The OECD gives less favorable, but still fathomable, figures: in 2021, the average household in the European Union had 61% of the gross disposable income of the average household in the United States."


I love Europe, btw. It's not socialist, Europeans countries are high tax market-based welfare states. I have disposable income and I spend a fair amount of time in Europe each year. I'll be back in France soon for the second time this year and back in Europe for the third time. I enjoy giving them my money. It's worth comparing the US and Europe because both became advanced, industrialized places before others. We're still materially better off although Europeans would say they like the superior lifestyle in Europe, smaller houses, maybe one family car, dorm-like fridge and no dishwasher or dryer, and the relative safety depending on where you live. Despite the large welfare state, London has more homeless than any city in America and lots of poor people and so does France and Italy, especially southern Italy. We likely have larger gap between rich and poor, not much of one, but Americans are still richer. Link and Link Zwei
Money isn't everything. I admire the French and Italian way of life. It's especially good if you're upper middle class there. Trade offs.

 

[Podgy]

Lots of productivity gains captured at the top but this still happened; Child poverty continues to decline. The top 1% gets richer but poverty continues to decline.

Child poverty in the US was stagnant — and then something changed

The economic calamity of the pandemic could have forced more families into poverty. It didn’t.

www.vox.com

 

[Podgy]

Europe typically has more cops on the street than Americans. Public transport in Europe is thus fine as long as you know where and where not to get on and off. Denmark is expensive but an orderly society. If only we could get Americans to behave like the average Dane.

 

[Podgy]

$178k in Houston is def high-on-the-hog level, man!***

The TN numbers obviously don’t reflect living in the Nashville area. Even local kids struggle coming back home to live post-college.

My sister is a realtor. She'll find a cheap house for anyone who wants one. Your neighbors aren't likely gonna be the picks of the litter.

 

[Leeshouldveflanked]

We should let Social security pay out money as it comes in. Tax all social security benefits and put those additional taxes back into Social security revenue. Maybe shift the haircuts to limit the haircut by people getting minimum benefits.





We've got a lot of low hanging fruit in education and healthcare where we can just stop doing stupid stuff to drive up costs. Tons of capable people spend their working lives doing nothing but dealing with obstacles we self impose. Let doctors from developed countries come here without having to start over in residencies. Penalize states with reimbursement rates if they have CON laws and don't allow NPs to practice on their own. Fund more residencies so that we create more doctors.

For education, do away with the department of education except for the amount of staff needed to block grant stuff to the state, without a 1,000 pages of CFR to comply with. Let each state spend the money how they want provided it's loosely qualified as education. Sure, some states will just hand it over to unions and political graft, but they're already doing that. Other states would be able to provide a much better education more cheaply.

Drastically simplify NEPA and use federal funding for infrastructure to incentivize states getting rid of NIMBY vetoes and 3rd and 4th and 10th bites at the apple. Get rid of the multiple bites at the apple at the federal level also. Once it's permitted, it's permitted.

Certainly there are lots of programs that can just be discontinued. So many grant and revolving loan funds where the administrative burden eats up too much of the benefits.



Yes, cut defense spenders

I wasn't arguing for or against anything. I listed large spending categories and cited why cutting each could hurt.
For military, I took an obvious biased slat to my comment, and then added acknowledgement that maintaining a large defense budget can be seen as beneficial.


I fully recognize there are benefits and drawbacks to increasing or decreasing spending in any of the categories.

US has sent over $175 Billion to Ukraine. But our soldiers are basically at the poverty line.

 

[WilCoDawg]

My sister is a realtor. She'll find a cheap house for anyone who wants one. Your neighbors aren't likely gonna be the picks of the litter.

Kinda defeats the “comfortable“ part in my eyes.

 

[mstateglfr]

US has sent over $175 Billion to Ukraine. But our soldiers are basically at the poverty line.

Last I checked, an overwhelming majority of that military aid money was allocated to stay within the US and be spent with US companies for goods that US workers would manufacture.

It's been a few months since I last checked. Has there been a complete 180 and the money now all goes to Ukraine?

 

[Mr. Cook]

I'm sorry, but "living comfortably" and "Mississippi" in the same sentence is (almost) laughable.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I think that the relatively recent idea of retiring between 55 and 65 is not healthy. I expect a reverse in that trend. I don't think it's healthy to retire that early, even if you could financially. I plan to work until I'm not able to contribute either/both mentally or/and physically. I am keenly aware that I have a rare case in that I like my job. Also, I'm in my 50's, so I cannot say what my attitude might be like in my 60's and am not judging anyone who has chosen a different path.

I hope to work until I’m just over 65 and I think that’s possible now that I’m a recent state retiree employed a non public outfit.

My plan in the meantime is to keep working and let the PERS pay + COLA, annuity (former deferred comp), and second retirement plan do their jobs.

My father retired when he was 70 but dabbled a little bit in my mother’s side hustle for a few years.

I would like to be bold and retire early especially since my father and his father both passed away of prostate cancer in their 70s but generally people are living longer and into their 80s and 90s.

 

[sandwolf.sixpack]

I'm sorry, but "living comfortably" and "Mississippi" in the same sentence is (almost) laughable.

Why? If you can find a good job -- which can admittedly be pretty difficult -- you can live very comfortably in MS.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Fair enough. One thing that I've been doing for years is saving for retirement and enjoying travel while I can, not knowing what the future holds. If in fact I work until some tragic diagnoses, it will not be one of those cases that all I did was work and then lose my chance to enjoy life while I could. I'm doing that now and planning for the future. I also work hard to do stay in shape physically. I want to live until I die, to the extent that my behavior can help that, and I certainly don't want some diagnosis that prematurely removes me from this earth due to something I've done/not done. I've seen that play out too.

When I retired from the state, I had a bunch of annual leave accumulated that I was used to add service time.

My current employer doesn’t roll over annual leave so I’m making sure I use it up.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I'm sorry, but "living comfortably" and "Mississippi" in the same sentence is (almost) laughable.

Yep.

Why? If you can find a good job -- which can admittedly be pretty difficult -- you can live very comfortably in MS.

Even so-called Mississippi “good jobs” tend to have below-par wages compared to national averages.

And let’s be frank, does anyone really live comfortably in Mississippi?

 

[Mr. Cook]

And let’s be frank, does anyone really live comfortably in Mississippi?

Uhhhh….”no”

 

[Seinfeld]

I hope to work until I’m just over 65 and I think that’s possible now that I’m a recent state retiree employed a non public outfit.

My plan in the meantime is to keep working and let the PERS pay + COLA, annuity (former deferred comp), and second retirement plan do their jobs.

My father retired when he was 70 but dabbled a little bit in my mother’s side hustle for a few years.

I would like to be bold and retire early especially since my father and his father both passed away of prostate cancer in their 70s but generally people are living longer and into their 80s and 90s.

I've always had similar goals where I've tried to balance some level of realism while also giving myself a chance to actually enjoy my later years of life. Even with all the advancements in medicine and science over the years, the average life expectancy of a male in the U.S. is still just 76 years. In my eyes, if you're not going to retire by 65, there's a good chance that you're not going to have much of any retirement

 

[TrueMaroonGrind]

Yep.



Even so-called Mississippi “good jobs” tend to have below-par wages compared to national averages.

And let’s be frank, does anyone really live comfortably in Mississippi?

It just depends on what you want out of life. It also depends greatly on where you live in Mississippi.

 

[thatsbaseball]

You guys claiming you can't live comfortably in Mississippi . Where do yall live ?

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Uhhhh….”no”

I love living where I live and make a good living in MS. If I had no family ties, I’d be elsewhere.

 

[sandwolf.sixpack]

And let’s be frank, does anyone really live comfortably in Mississippi?

I mean yea a lot of people really do. You sound like one of those people that thinks we don't wear shoes and everyone drives around on a tractor.

 

[sandwolf.sixpack]

I love living where I live and make a good living in MS. If I had no family ties, I’d be elsewhere.

This is probably where I land as well. There are definitely better places to live, but you can live a good, comfortable life in MS.

 

[Seinfeld]

I guess I’ll buck the trend and say that I’m not sure that the numbers are all that far fetched, especially since they’re having to lump a lot of different age groups, living situations, and other variables into one number.

Just taking a 35 year old that hasn’t saved much, here’s what the numbers look like for a guy making $82k and putting 20% into savings. I’m also assuming around $1600 for SS




And I know… yeah, but I won’t need as much as I make now in retirement, or I had a bunch already saved by the time I was 35, etc. That’s great, but again… we’re talking averages here. $82k as a single which amounts to maybe $60k after all the usual taxes and then $44k after retirement savings isn’t as much as it seems. ~$4k/mo to cover rent or a mortgage, bills, food, and hopefully a little entertainment or travel every now and then. Then if some kids or an ex get thrown in the mix, best of luck

 

[Maroon Eagle]

It just depends on what you want out of life. It also depends greatly on where you live in Mississippi.

What I want out of life is a damb good question.

I’m at a point where I’m encouraged to take time off and recharge if and when necessary since my employer doesn’t roll over annual leave.

I banked a lot of sick and annual leave when I retired from the state.

I mean yea a lot of people really do. You sound like one of those people that thinks we don't wear shoes and everyone drives around on a tractor.

LOL. It’s not quite so simple as that.

I know a lot of folks who’ve complained about inflation. I’m in a slightly better situation. I can’t say I’m comfortable but I’m getting by.

 

[Podgy]

BTW, men get screwed in retirement. Women live 6 years longer than men. Men should be able to collect early social security by age 58 and retire at 62. Women shouldn't be allowed to retire before men do. Men do more physically demanding labor as well making it harder to enjoy retirement

 

[Maroon Eagle]

You guys claiming you can't live comfortably in Mississippi . Where do yall live ?

This is probably where I land as well. There are definitely better places to live, but you can live a good, comfortable life in MS.

I think our definitions of comfortable are where we differ.

My impression is y’all are thinking place and I’m thinking along the lines of happiness.

I chatted with a friend this past Sunday. He’s a little closer to retirement age than I am.

He wants to travel and be in his Airstream.

I’m not an RV guy but like him I want to travel because there’s not much enjoyment here in Mississippi.

 

[Mr. Cook]

I mean yea a lot of people really do. You sound like one of those people that thinks we don't wear shoes and everyone drives around on a t

I think our definitions of comfortable are where we differ.

My impression is y’all are thinking place and I’m thinking along the lines of happiness.

I chatted with a friend this past Sunday. He’s a little closer to retirement age than I am.

He wants to travel and be in his Airstream.

I’m not an RV guy but like him I want to travel because there’s not much enjoyment here in Mississippi.

I'll drop my previous "snark" comments and shift gears:

This comes back to the basic premise of the definition of "living comfortably," and clickbait articles like those in the subject line are the stinkiest bait for SPS.

"Living comfortably" can and does vary for many on this board and depends on personal situations (e.g. if you have your Gen Z'ers living in your basement or not). I'm quite certain quite a few who on this board have been afforded certain "comforts" -- no surprise as many of are likely alums of MSU with education of value from our alma mater.

 

[johnson86-1]

Yep.



Even so-called Mississippi “good jobs” tend to have below-par wages compared to national averages.

And let’s be frank, does anyone really live comfortably in Mississippi?

Eh, you can live comfortably most places. Once you get above 50ish thousand population, if people can’t stand a place, the problem is usually with them, not the place.

my friends with children live pretty similarly regardless of where they live. Some of them certainly live in nicer places and some of them live in places I’d prefer not to live, but it’s basically a similar, comfortable lifestyle once you have the money. Lots of time on kids activities, some sort of social club whether country club or tennis club or yacht club, some combination of golf, tennis, hunting, fishing, and/or water skiing for recreation. The same handful of restaurants regardless of how many are available, etc.

The biggest difference to me is how much driving they have to do. The ones who live in a place where their kids can run around their neighborhood and get to some sort of activity like a club oool or tennis courts where the parents don’t have to chauffeur them everywhere and when they do, are driving 10 minutes and not 30 seem to have a much easier lifestyle.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Eh, you can live comfortably most places. Once you get above 50ish thousand population, if people can’t stand a place, the problem is usually with them, not the place.

As I mentioned below, most people in this thread are thinking place when talking about living comfortably.

But I’m not. Instead, it’s happiness.

I think our definitions of comfortable are where we differ.

My impression is y’all are thinking place and I’m thinking along the lines of happiness.

I chatted with a friend this past Sunday. He’s a little closer to retirement age than I am.

He wants to travel and be in his Airstream.

I’m not an RV guy but like him I want to travel because there’s not much enjoyment here in Mississippi.

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

Eh, you can live comfortably most places. Once you get above 50ish thousand population, if people can’t stand a place, the problem is usually with them, not the place.

my friends with children live pretty similarly regardless of where they live. Some of them certainly live in nicer places and some of them live in places I’d prefer not to live, but it’s basically a similar, comfortable lifestyle once you have the money. Lots of time on kids activities, some sort of social club whether country club or tennis club or yacht club, some combination of golf, tennis, hunting, fishing, and/or water skiing for recreation. The same handful of restaurants regardless of how many are available, etc.

The biggest difference to me is how much driving they have to do. The ones who live in a place where their kids can run around their neighborhood and get to some sort of activity like a club oool or tennis courts where the parents don’t have to chauffeur them everywhere and when they do, are driving 10 minutes and not 30 seem to have a much easier lifestyle.

I'm probably arguing semantics here, but I would think if you are "comfortable" you should be happy too. I have lived in 4 places over the last 10 or so years. Big city, suburb of same big city, small city, and a remote small town. We have only been truly happy in two of the places. The other two were strictly for career purposes and I will never go back.


Yes if all 4 had been towns of 50,000 scattered throughout the same region/culture /geography (say Mississippi and Tennessee.. Hattiesburg, Tupelo, Jackson TN.. etc) it may not be the case. But the reality is Bend Oregon and Lafayette Louisiana are so completely different even though they are roughly the same size, it's almost guaranteed most people would be much happier in one vs the other.

In a city (1,000,000 + people) you are staring at traffic, high crime, bad public schools, poor air quality, short commutes to great jobs, awesome food options, pro sports, awesome arts/concerts and many other unique pros and cons

In a suburb it's usually moderate congestion, minimal crime, moderate air quality, long commutes, great public schools, chain restaurants out the wahoo, 27 seasons a year of youth sports, and a golf cart to drive around your neighborhood.

The small city (100,000 + people) is a combo of those two.

The small rural town is the true outlier.

All that said, if you take any of those types of places and change the location the culture is completely different. The weather is different. Do you live at the beach, in the mountains, access to outdoor activities, if so what kind?


So yes, in all 4 places we had some level of comfort... Decent/safe home, some disposable income for entertainment, etc. But based on mainly geography, our happiness is 10 fold higher today. If you picked my family up right now and moved us to Atlanta GA or Hattiesburg MS or Plano TX it would be miserable as 17 for us. Literally a prison sentence. That says a lot about us sure, but also the differences in places and the happiness/comfort it affords people with different interests.