digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

How a Family of 7 Lives on $35,000/Year

thedigeratilife.com — I’ve read about America ’s Cheapest Family in various articles and posts but haven’t really seen them in action till I caught a repackaged episode of 20/20 where they were once more featured. I cannot believe how a family of seven with children ages 10 through 21 are able to pull off living on an annual budget of $35,000.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hugoguzman, on 12/03/2007, -5/+20I'm trying to implement some of these principles in my own life, although it might be a bit tough to live on a 35K budget in Hoboken, NJ ; )
    • foxhaze, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7It might be tough to live on 35k when you make 100k.
      • janeuner, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5But after 10 years of work saving 50k+ a year, you would be able to live off the interest/dividends. Maybe sooner
      • Ramble, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1$35,000 for the essentials, food and such, and save the rest or put it into paying off debts.
      • LeeSoong, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2I'm guessing they just skip subscribing to NBC shows on iTunes ?
    • XtacyOD, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3Being a NJ native I know that it could be rough surviving on 350k a year in hoboken :)
    • r0b1, on 12/03/2007, -4/+3I get it...

      They're the cheapest family in America...

      And their last name is - get this - Economides! As in economical! Lollerskates!
    • themastersb, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2They probably didn't have the fastest internet possible, 200+ channels and much money spent on games.
    • MaybellineSP, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Why would you want to do this? They should be ashamed of themselves for being so damn cheap. I feel really bad for their children. They will never find friends because no one wants to hang out with cheap people.
  • bitt3n, on 12/03/2007, -14/+92hey I know those guys! I buy all my meth from them.
    oops, did I just give away their secret
  • MikeonTV, on 12/03/2007, -26/+97Well they are clearly not spending money on condoms. 5 kids is way to much these days.
    • janeuner, on 12/03/2007, -0/+66I'd take 5 frugal kids over 1 obnoxious brat. The only people who should stop having kids are people that don't know what to do with the kids once they arrive.
      • norman619, on 12/03/2007, -2/+23Common sense is so refreshing in this place. Thank you.
        • mesoholy, on 12/03/2007, -9/+1Common sense? It's called stupidity! No child is born a brat, as a parent, you make them the way they are. As for 5 kids? It's way selfish considering the state of the planet right now! Less fcuking, more planting!
          • CedEx, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1He was planting alright... planting his seeds... of *love*
      • NJank, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2darn child labor laws...
    • adrianmonk, on 12/03/2007, -3/+10The fact that they are able to survive on $35,000 even with 5 kids would tend to indicate that, actually, if you really want to have 5 kids, 5 kids is really not way too much these days.
    • mesoholy, on 12/03/2007, -7/+1They couldn't afford condoms. They tried goat gut but failed five times.
    • umdigger, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3My question is: Why aren't the older kids working or living by themselves now. When I was 21 I was more than happy to get out of my parents house. I hear the 40 year old virgin calling.
      • diggduggjoe, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Because of all the economizing the kid never became cool.
        /sarcasm
  • numberneal, on 12/03/2007, -11/+21new york firefighters and other civil servants go through this too; they manage with food stamps, wic, and other forms of government assistance.
    • unreg, on 12/03/2007, -1/+15Did you know that a New York State trooper makes $65,000 during his first year (after training).

      I agree those who put their lifes on the line deserve a fair shake, but at the same time there is more to the equation then just salary. Many civil servants are able to retire after 20 years with a heck of a pension. And lets not get started with the medical.
    • catalysis, on 12/03/2007, -1/+195th year NYC firefighters make $86,518 salary including benefits.
    • brufleth, on 12/03/2007, -1/+7Oh and they get paid a lot more. Check the salaries of some of those civil servants. Lots of them do alright.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 12/03/2007, -4/+3The fact that some are relatively well paid doesn't mean that, on average, they are well paid. NYPD and NYFD are well paid because the cost of living in NYC is ridiculously high. For the majority of law enforcement, the salary isn't anywhere near that high, starting usually around 35k a year.

      The worst paid are emergency response technicians (ambulance guys). The median salary for an ambulance driver in the United States is $25,589.

      http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swz ...

      The salary of a police officer ranges from $32,717 to $64,536.
      http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/s ...
      • sjbdallas, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1And how much would you expect someone w/out a degree to make after taking a semester long course and passing a state exam? 25K for an EMT is pretty good since that's all it takes.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I don't give a ***** about your degree. These people save lives. They're more useful to society than 99% of the population.
    • NJank, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3let the internet be your guide:
      http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costof ...
      $65k in NYC is equivalent to only $28K in Des Moines, IA.
      • ussoldier, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1So live out of a box or your car or your abulance or firetruck while you're in NYC, and move to Des Moines (or better, India) to retire.
  • GoingPostal, on 12/03/2007, -28/+12I make 70K+ and it is just me. I couldn't imagine trying to support a family of 7 on that.
    • greenlight2001, on 12/03/2007, -4/+23Did you post just to toss out how much you make?
      • isntreal, on 12/03/2007, -14/+5I doubt it.. that's a fairly average income for anyone with a degree.
        • isntreal, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Why exactly am I getting dugg down? Do you not agree that 70k is average income for a graduate...?
        • greenlight2001, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1ignorant
      • slashbot, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2Most likely haha.
    • EBFoxbat, on 12/03/2007, -2/+14I make... hey, ***** you :(
    • slashbot, on 12/03/2007, -3/+4I agree entirely.

      I can't imagine supporting a family that large on my salary, let alone 35k
    • Gryffydd, on 12/03/2007, -7/+270 Kroner is like $12 so is that per hour?
    • atbnet, on 12/03/2007, -1/+11I know. After buying my own island of The World in Dubai, it's hard to imagine supporting much more than myself on my $7.8 million salary.
  • apollo168, on 12/03/2007, -1/+23If you can do it, go for it. If you aren't this determined to live cheaply, then don't have 5 kids. They seem to have it under control, but there's a reason they are in the spotlight; this family is exceptional. Most Americans are not this responsible.
    • chaoswings, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3I know people are going to dig me down but there is a limit to what you should do. For example they won't even go out and rent a movie they have to rent it free at the library. Or the fact that they have to buy EVERYTHING used they are living off missionary handouts.

      There is such a thing as wise spending and this is a case of it going too far. There are a lot of things that they go without and that's fine...but when you end up sitting and crying when your neighbors buy new furniture there is also the psychological and social effect to consider. Humans are afterall social animals
      • marx2k, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4I buy most of my stuff secondhand. That's ok. Renting from the library isn't a big deal either. Libraries are there for a reason. However, I don't cry when my neighbors buy new furniture. My neighbors are also probably in debt up to their eyeballs with all the new stuff they buy that I easily go without.
  • rpi22, on 12/03/2007, -1/+13I was expecting to see a picture of a cardboard refrigerator box...
  • scottpigeon, on 12/03/2007, -4/+17They cook 13-17 days worth of food at once, then freeze it until they need it. That seems kind of weird to me, and I'm not sure how it actually saves money. Maybe it saves time though.
    • robbyjo, on 12/03/2007, -0/+22It surely saves money when you can buy bulks discounted.
      • tinker123, on 12/03/2007, -1/+16If you are only in a market once a month, you are also exposed to marketing tactics less and decrease the chances of doing impulse buying.

        As far as food goes, I can't count the number of time I've spent more money to feed myself than I had to because I didn't feel like cooking after a rough day. If you have a month worth of meals, made cheaply from scratch, frozen and ready to microwave, you reduce that.

        Most of the time I make about 3-4 days worth of lunches at a time along the same lines of thinking.
    • slashbot, on 12/03/2007, -0/+12First off, cooking your own food saves money. Second, things get cheaper (per unit) when you buy in bulk.
    • marx2k, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3A lot of people do this, actually. They buy bulk food and cook whatever they're going to eat for the next week or two. It saves money by buying in bulk, but also saves some energy by not cooking every single meal, but doing it all at once.

      People do it a lot for work, also. While some people go out to eat every day at work, other people (like myself) prepare their meals ahead of time and bring it in with them and reheat them. Home made meals tend to be cheaper and healthier and preparing them in bulk takes a few hours out of one day on the weekend.
    • adrianmonk, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Actually, it was 13 to 17 meals (not days).

      Perhaps the way it saves money is that cooking from scratch is cheaper but takes more time. The more you cut down on the time it takes, the less you will be tempted to opt for (more-expensive) convenience foods.
    • sjbdallas, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2That's one thing i wish I could start doing. I know it would make a big difference in our food budget if we cut down on eating out and just took something decent out of the freezer to warm up.
    • drachemorder, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Maybe it saves money because you get so sick of leftovers by the end of the 13-17 meal period that you just can't stand to eat much of them.
  • sophiaperennis, on 12/03/2007, -3/+63Saving tip: Share your music and movies through the internets.
    • PA42, on 12/03/2007, -14/+3Saving tip: Take your food from the market without paying ???
      It would be the same principal
      • Yez70, on 12/03/2007, -4/+6How is taking a physical object the same as a digital COPY?
        Maybe we should close all the libraries too - multiple people reading the same book - it must be illegal, right?
        • PA42, on 12/03/2007, -8/+3see, the problem with your library analogy, is that libraries are legal and file sharing is illegal. Libraries only allow one paid copy (which was paid for) to be out at once. This is entirely different.

          As for your physical copy comment, they are very similar because in both cases the person who takes it, receives something that belongs to someone else without paying.
          • luchid, on 12/03/2007, -2/+4File sharing is NOT illegal.
          • PA42, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4@luchid: Sharing copyrighted material is illegal ... I think it was pretty clear that I was talking about file sharing copyrighted information.
          • CatalystGhost, on 12/03/2007, -4/+2"see, the problem with your library analogy, is that libraries are legal and file sharing is illegal. Libraries only allow one paid copy (which was paid for) to be out at once. This is entirely different."

            Libraries are legal only because they've been established for longer from a time when people didn't care. File sharing just started like 10 or so years ago.
            Also, the music in file sharing was paid for once, as well. It's just shared with a larger group of people, but even then, is generally proportional to a library's usage.
          • PA42, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3@Ghost
            No, that is incorrect. At any point within a library system, only one paid copy of a book is in use. The library pays for a book and lends out that book. No duplicating is made. It is just like lending a CD to a friend. In file sharing, it is paid for once and given to permanently keep by lots of other people. You need to think about this one again, because even the pirates will see how wrong you are.
          • CedEx, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1What would happen, if one person borrowed a book, read out loud, and those listening wrote everything down on paper?
          • PA42, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1The writer would have committed copyright infringement. Depending on the circumstances, the reader may have publicly displayed it and therefore copyright infringed.
      • Otto, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3a) "principle"
        b) It's not at all comparable because copyright infringement is different from theft. That's why they have different words to describe them.
        • PA42, on 12/03/2007, -3/+3I never said "theft" or "copyright infringement"
          I said taking something that is owned by someone else without paying. I purposely avoided that weak semantic argument.
          • Otto, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1It's not a semantic argument at all. Making a copy of a thing is a completely different act than taking a thing. The two are not remotely similar. In the context of crime, taking things is "theft". In the same context, copying things can be "copyright infringement".

            So, I was pointing out that your comparison about theft of food was invalid because it was theft and the original one was copyright infringement.

            Now, this is not a semantic argument at all, because they are really different actions which cannot be legitimately compared. It would be a semantic argument only if they were the same action using different names. Like, say, "theft" vs. "robbery".

            In any case, copyright infringement is a crime only because we agreed that it is. It is not a "natural" crime, in the sense that theft is. Taking somebody else's property is automatically a crime by the very nature of property and property rights. But copying somebody else's property deprives them of nothing, and so it is not a crime through property rights. Only considering "ideas" as "property" could give you that notion, but that is nothing but an idea itself. It's not actually true, ideas are intangible things that cannot be owned. Intellectual property is nonsense.
          • PA42, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1@otto
            How random that I checked this right as you posted, but I disagree.
            The argument isn't whether or not copyright infringement is theft. Both of those are legal definitions and I agree they are completely different.
            A "taking" is something very different than just theft. For example: in patent law, the government has a "taking" under the law when they use a patent and don't have to pay licensing fees. In this case, theft is not brought up. A taking does not always mean a permanent depriving as in the case of theft.

            You say:
            "So, I was pointing out that your comparison about theft of food was invalid because it was theft and the original one was copyright infringement."
            Look at what I original said, I said they were the same in principle. What happens to the person who lost something (either the copyright owner or the victim of theft) is not at core of issue. The core of the issue is that you are taking something that does not belong to you. To put it another way, whether the taker can take without compensation at the harm of another.

            "In any case, copyright infringement is a crime only because we agreed that it is." I disagree. Little children know it is wrong to take someone else's ideas as wrong. Kids accuse themselves of this all the time. It is only a generation of people who believe they deserve things without work (sadly I am part of said generation) that feel otherwise.

            Your feeling that IP is nonsense shows a profound intellectual immaturity and a lack of understanding for how markets work and how progress is attained. When copyrights were instituted, the amount of books written increased, just as patents hurried progress and helped get the industrial revolution going.
            I understand that pirates are somehow personally offended at paying for what isn't there's, but making an artificial difference based on incorrect definitions of "takings" and bringing the conversation to the differences between theft and copyright infringement simply denies the issue of any legitimacy.

    • chronichyjinx, on 12/03/2007, -3/+1If the supermarket was accessible threw my computer, I would....
      • KingGorilla, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4through
      • PA42, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2So Chronichyjin is worse than a common theif because he doesn't even have the balls to do it in person.
      • sjbdallas, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Where'd you throw it and how did that save money?
    • omegastaralpha, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Without piracy I would not have any entertainment that wasnt on free broadcast TV. I have high speed internet via ATT for $10 a month and thats expensive to me. I guess when you support a family of 7 on less than 30k a year after taxes like I do you gotta cut corners somehow.
      • PA42, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1by stealing? ... the only reason copyright infringement appeals to you is because it is difficult to get caught doing it. But it is essentially the same act as larceny (I know it doesn't fit the elements of the crime). It is taking something that isn't yours and not worrying about how it effects who owns it.
  • coffee200am, on 12/03/2007, -2/+58$35000!!! I wish I made that much. Ramon Noodles are getting expensive. Vienna Sausages are a delicacy. At least I got free wifi from the Holiday Inn next door.
    • adrianmonk, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6Ramon noodles? What are those -- cheap knockoff of Ramen noodles from Mexico?
      • robisfunky, on 12/03/2007, -3/+1 No, those are Ramone Noodles...and if you can't actually spell them, you probably don't actually eat them...
        • drastik21, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Actually you spell my name Ramon, I think Ramone is Italian
  • FameMoney, on 12/03/2007, -2/+16Come to Romania and you'll see more dramatic cases, same number of kids, but less money, somewhere under 10k/year.
    • tinker123, on 12/03/2007, -0/+15prices are probably lower though
    • slashbot, on 12/03/2007, -0/+8Would you care to adjust for cost of living?
    • atbnet, on 12/03/2007, -1/+9Does Romania use Euros yet? Because 10k Euros is about half a million dollars. You guys are rich!
      • alternateheaven, on 12/03/2007, -1/+110k EUR comes out to about 15k USD, we aren't that ***** yet...
        • tinker123, on 12/03/2007, -3/+2Bush still have a little bit over a full year in office. Give it time.
    • V1be, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4. I'm an American living in India doing economics research and living with a software team developing code for my startup/web app. While the Economides certainly live frugally as per living well in a well country, people here have been creating ingenious methods for "living frugally" simply by requirement for hundreds of years (unsubstantiated). One thing that is very important here is the economy of space. Houses are optimized to their full space value. There are no cultural issues with mother and son and daughter and husband sleeping in the same room. You will see 6 people squeezing into bicycle rickshaws and 20 in autos to lower the costs for everyone. Trash is burned. Toilets (holes in the floor) are "flushed," via small cups of water from the same tap to wash hands...sometimes. Rear end is made sanitary via more water as opposed to toilet paper (water is better than toilet paper anyway). People set up systems of "hang up" calling, where they let a person's cell phone or home phone ring once or a few times to signal different meeting points so that there is no phone bill. We use rechargeable lamps to optimize electricity uses. Charge the lamp during the day, and use that for light at night when you need it instead of costly electricity. There are no electricity leaks anywhere. Every plug here has switches to cut them off, default. Forget freezers - buy cheap veggies from the street and flip some bread on a small flame that burns from cheap renewable energy sources, like cow-dung. Eat one or two meals a day. Many people in this town live on less than 20 rupees a day - approx. 50 cents (less with the falling dollar).

      You can certainly call this the Indian version of frugality...or poverty. Where is the line drawn?
      • sjbdallas, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5An american moved to india to do software development? Isn't that some kind of outsourcing paradox?
        • diggsilva, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Read it again... He's living with his software team. They're doing the code as he whips them in person and pays them a fortune per day... FORTY rupees. Huzzah!
        • V1be, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1When you are bootstrapping your company, you have to be creative. One decision I made was that it's very costly to lead a development team in the US, so I decided to lead one in India to reduce project development costs at least a 1000%. (Just to note, I live in a nice place because I don't need to be "frugal" here.) The main problem everyone in tech has with outsourcing software dev is that you get poor quality - because everyone communicates with email, so naturally a product can't be developed without proper communication between the goal and the code/design. These programmers are skilled, they just lack some direction, and coming to India to watch them over and guide them was the best business decision I've ever made. And yes, it is a bit of a paradox, but it makes sense when you think about it.
    • kramo1, on 12/03/2007, -2/+0tl;dr
  • tinker123, on 12/03/2007, -1/+12This is humor piece, but sometimes people need to be hit over the head to do what they already know. You can give this to a friend, have some good laughs and get some great advice

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmAm8GNJ_IA
    • ontain, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3how sad is it that American's and their government can't get this simple concept.
      • woohhaa, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Yea America is the only country in the world with credit cards and people who can't get their ***** straight...
  • timusca, on 12/03/2007, -5/+16What the hell is a 21-year-old living at home for? Tell him to get a job and move out... there's a tip on saving money. *Note: I can't see the article at work due to iPrism. If there is something in the story explaining why the 21-year-old still lives at home, please explain.
    • tickets1st, on 12/03/2007, -3/+12I feel sorry for the guy. No matter how close a family you are, 21 years old and still at home cannot be fun.
      • milomilomilo, on 12/03/2007, -3/+21being 21 and living at home is not exactly uncommon these days.
        A while back I read a poll that said around 40% of young men and women come back to stay with their parents in their early twenties, because it is just too expensive. This is why two people raising one child often both work two jobs and still barely make the bills.

        I lived with the fams at 21. rent is hell, and it was a good idea to take care of the moms when my pops started getting ill.
        Why is our generation so ashamed of our families. So living with the fams is not "cool" and it's tough to "score".

        but it's our every man for themself mentality in this country. once you reach the arbitrary number delegated for adulthood status, living with your family is somehow a sign of failure. Unless it is completely rent free I just don't see the twisted logic in it.

        @timusca
        You have the attitude of someone whos parents gave them the line that once you're 18 you needed to leave, you were a man.
        just itching to get you out. Hell why is it even an issue? what they are living at home at 21????!!!!!?? I didn't do that so it must mean they are lazy, and they need to go.
        tell me, this arbitrary rule of how long you should be able to be in the same home as your family, what is that based on?
        • SpykerSpeed, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6I'm 21 and living at home (well I'm at school, but I live at home during the summer). It just makes sense financially for me right now. I'd start to get a little worried if I was still living at home at age 24, though. *prays for housing market to crash*
          • prophetpimp, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2how much more do you want it to crash. its already crashed enough to almost bring down the whole us economy.
        • alternateheaven, on 12/03/2007, -4/+3The longer he's at home the harder life on his own will be, thats why its better to get out at 18 and learn to fend for yourself. One day the parents will be dead and gone and he will have only himself to rely on, and if he didn't move out till 25 or 26 and parents die two or three years later then hes going to be in for a rude awakening when rent comes due but his job doesn't quite give him enough hours to cover it, or some other bill. And then you have no family to fall back on, so whats he going to do then? Its better to cut your teeth in the real world while you still have a support network than to put off what is probably the most important thing in life; learning to live on your own!
        • fadking, on 12/03/2007, -0/+12Good post. There are a lot of cultures around the globe that prize filial piety. That is to say, they respect the value of family, and in most cases, have several generations living in the same domestic setting. You're absolutely right - "Why is our generation so ashamed of our families."? It's because of marketing and consumerism. It's harder to sell you that new flat panel TV, Ikea furniture, etc, if you don't have the 2000 square foot bachelor(ette) pad. Thanks for sharing your story.
        • senatorpjt, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2There's nothing wrong with it unless you're living with your parents because you can't afford to move out. If you're single and employed, it's just smart. You're putting all that money you would have pissed away on rent in the bank. When you can't stand not getting laid anymore, then you have to move out. I moved out because of my gf, but I wish I didn't have to. She'd get tired of me living with my parents though.
        • w3b4ddict, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Guys, there is nothing wrong, shameful and it most certainly doesn't mean failure if you are in your twenties going to college and working part time and still living with your parents.

          I am 22 years old college student and working part time and still living proudly with my parents. Maybe I don't get this whole craze because I immigrated from Afghanistan when I was 15 years old and didn't let the American mainstream culture to spoil me and alter my cultural identity.

          Why does Americans make it such a big deal and why does a child have to move out when they are 18? Mind you, they are still a kid, not mature enough to live out there independently.

          Oh, yeah. I know what goes on when they move out; lots of partying, alcohol, marijuana and getting laid. But would you as a parent rather have your kid at home, knowing that when you wake up in the morning they are in their bed and safe. And another thing, at least then they wouldn't have to make an appointment for dinner with their parents.
      • sethisastud, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Is he in school? I lived at my parents house for a year after graduation while doing more school and working, and then moved to Boston. I still go to their house for a few weeks each summer...it's not that bad. Oh, and as for the whole not scoring aspect, there aren't a whole lot of (out) ***** in backwoods Michigan, so I don't see how living at my parents house is that big of a problem. Living at home after my first year of dental school saved me around $4000 in rent.
    • Otto, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Actually, I believe the average age of moving out from the parents house is now up to 20 or so, so it's not that unusual. I've known several people living with the parents until the age of 22-23 or so, if they're going to a nearby college at the time.

      *I* wouldn't have ever considered it, mind you. I was out of there on my 18th.
    • RGM89, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3Whats with the need to move out at the age of 21? Do you know how much money a person who decided to stay and live at home with their parents could rack up? Yeah its embarrassing, if people would just swallow their pride and dealt with it for a while, their wouldnt be so much needless financial struggle later on.
    • jguy584, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I agree with RGM, I had the money to move out of my house when I was 20, and the job to support it. So why didnt I do it? Because I would rather save $1000 a month, then needlessly having my own place, that was less comfortable then my parents house, all so I could tell people I have my own place.
      Talk about a ***** waste of money.
    • L0g1X, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Depends on where you live. You live in New York, Tokyo, Vancouver BC, or other places where the cost of living is so high, it's normal for people of that age to still live with their parents; especially if they went to college/university. Also, if you rent, that's throwing money away. It is better to live at your parents place until you qualify for a mortgage.
  • Trention, on 12/03/2007, -2/+7I know some families have to stretch it, but that's just silly. Give one of the kids a paper route or something.
  • slashbot, on 12/03/2007, -11/+17How about not having so many kids if you can't afford to do so?
    • Shawn4168, on 12/03/2007, -1/+11Obviously they can afford to do so. They seem to be a happy, loving family, so why not?
    • setledownslappy, on 12/03/2007, -10/+6It's apparent that a pastime for them is "*****". They deserve being on 35k a year.
      • AmusedToDeath, on 12/03/2007, -3/+3Yeah, because only dorks like you who never get any deserve a high salary.
    • sb66, on 12/03/2007, -5/+3100% agreed. If you're poor stop having kids after one or two. Its really not that difficult - they have this thing called birth control
    • theutopian, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7No, the point of the article is that they CAN afford to do so. They don't consider themselves poor. They're doing all right for themselves. Kudos to them.
  • KangoTraveler, on 12/03/2007, -4/+24wow I got to admit that this is not a family that I would want to emulate; I would rather spend all that time and energy on figuring out how to earn more, not spend less.
  • demicritter, on 12/03/2007, -11/+25America's cheapest? How about America's most free? Unshackled from all the commercialism and crap is a most freeing experience. How much more of their lives are available to them when they're not slaving away trying to earn more money, meaning that much more in taxes they'll have to pay? Enjoyment of life is NOT predicated on earning and spending massively. The bankers, politicos and entertainers would have you think so but it's a lie.
    • isntreal, on 12/03/2007, -2/+12That may be true, but struggling to make ends meet and living excessively frugal is not fun either. I know.
    • Otto, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Bah. You don't have to work hard to make more than $35k.

      And it sure is a hell of a lot easier to enjoy life when you have money than it is without it.
      • AmusedToDeath, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3That is completely untrue. An easier life does not equal a better or more satisfying one.
        • DangerMouse9, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2I don't know about you, but I enjoy coming home to the warm glow of my big screen tv after a long day of work. It's a nice way to unwind. I don't consider myself materialistic but I like to have nice things.
      • senatorpjt, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1I tried that, it turns out that enjoying life, at least for me, isn't about being able to do what you want to, it's about being able to not do what you don't want to. Results may vary.
        • Otto, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Well, that's easier with money too. It's easier to say no when you don't have to say yes.
    • rlvis, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1I don't think that more of their lives are available to them as they seem to be spending an exorbitant amount of time and effort in trying to cut costs and shopping for the best deals. As for their freedom, I think they are as shackled by their lifestyle as they would be if they had better paying jobs.
  • yuukanna, on 12/03/2007, -2/+9America's Cheapest Family... BS.
    I'm from a family of 7 and we lived on less than that. That looks pretty nice actually.
    • catalysis, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Yep, I'm from a family of 6 with a single mother who made less than that. I don't see why this is a big deal.
  • johnnygizmo, on 12/03/2007, -0/+19I support a family of 6 on just over $40k. It is not easy.
    • SpykerSpeed, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5That's admirable, you're teaching your kids about how to save money and get the most value from each dollar they earn. One day if they make more money than you, they won't be tempted to blow it all on many of the modern extravagances.
    • chronichyjinx, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3respect.
    • AtomicPepper, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2At least you still have time to Digg during work hours.
  • Lasereth, on 12/03/2007, -0/+15Man I got five kids to feed!
    • setledownslappy, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4Take them to the dentist!
    • Namakemono, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5You make me wish I had three hands!
    • frakilk, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Sounds like you have been watching Total Recall recently ;)
  • curlytree, on 12/03/2007, -6/+2Hi -- if you're having trouble accessing the site due to bandwidth issues, here is a cached copy:
    THANKS!!
    http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:YvnVgMiuCpMJ: ...
  • ronaldinho, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5That's a little extreme, but I'm not surprised it's not do-able. Simply put, don't spend unless you have to. And don't spend when you don't have the money. Spend it on necessities, not luxuries
    • ronaldinho, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Sorry guys, I added one more "not" in there, feel free to digg me down
  • KangoTraveler, on 12/03/2007, -6/+4Seriously why would you want to spend all that time and energy attempting to stretch a dollar when if you devoted the same amount of time to earning more you could double your income!
    • alternateheaven, on 12/03/2007, -3/+3and thats what 'getting ahead' is all about, they are just getting by
      • Shawn4168, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7Their house is paid off, they're not carrying a credit card balance, and they're living happily. That's more "ahead" than most Americans with twice their income.
        • mrgreen4242, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2I can't read the article at work, but if they're house is paid off and their bragging about $35k for 7 people, I'm not impressed. If my house was paid off, I could probably quit my job and live my current lifestyle just doing odd-jobs.
          • senatorpjt, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2*****, I only make $20K/year, and rent takes about a third of that. I also have a 61" TV, Cable, internet, a PS3, a MacBook Pro, a working car, and I smoke cigarettes and drink single-malt scotch. I sometimes see movies in theatres, and eat in restaurants. I'm not in debt. If I didn't have to pay rent, I might actually have money in the bank.

            If you think about that, just scraping by with $35K when the house is paid off doesn't make me think "How do they get by on so little money?", it makes me think "What are they spending so much money on?"
          • DangerMouse9, on 12/03/2007, -0/+0Exactly, if I didn't have to pay my rent or student loans I'd have an extra $1000 a month that I could be saving.
          • sekhui, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1@ senatorpit (sorry, no reply button) ' "What are they spending so much money on?" '

            Did you miss the part where it says they have 5 kids? Do you have 5 kids with your 61" TV, Cable, internet, PS3, etc...? No? Then shut up.
        • alternateheaven, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Its also still behind because its no savings for retirement, healthcare, nursing home or hospice down the road. What good is a paid off house if after your hit retirement age you can barely afford to heat, power and cook in the house?
    • scoottie, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1True, but some people don't have the education to improve. Not saying that this family cant since the father is a graphic artist and if he got a steady job and did freelance on the side it would help. But there are still some good lessons in there like not eating out or getting delivery every night. The best thing you could do is not have any credit cards and only buy stuff you have the cash for.
    • Phrag, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Over consumptions is more of the problem than a lack of earning. If more people abandoned frugal living and conservative consumption in favor of just trying to make more, we would all use and waste more, thus making the things we need more expensive. This would be a vicious cycle. If, on the other hand, more people focused on doing more with less, we would waste less and the basic necessities of life would not be so costly. Then we could have a little more flexibility in our surplus spending and a sustainable way of life.
    • cherish592, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Maybe its about meeting halfway? Saving some money for future education and income advancement, while still making the most of what you're being paid now? These people are really no different than the folks at the other extreme (mcmansions, 15 credit cards, etc). I don't think you'll be happy either way. Then again, promoting balance doesn't make for a good read, no?
  • atbnet, on 12/03/2007, -14/+20Someone needs to let this lady know her vagina isn't a clown car.
  • alternateheaven, on 12/03/2007, -6/+4A family of seven? 35k a year? but wait....they have a book out, something smells off here. If they get that 35k from just the book then they are lazy because a few jobs would put them on easy street. Or perhaps not popping out kids like a damn rabbit would have been more cost effective in the long run
    • EricWoodford, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Spending only $35k/year has nothing to do with what they make each year.
      • alternateheaven, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1If they have to be 'frugal' about it that generally infers that they have a very finite budget and must make the most of every dollar. If they make 100k a year and force themselves to only use 35k of it and live in what probably is total squalor then they are lacking in the brain department.
  • etherreal, on 12/03/2007, -1/+16I support a family of four on $30K, and live comfortably. It really isnt all that hard.
    • neuropsychguy, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7Why is etherreal being dugg down? I support a family of 4 on $20K per year (including student loan money). You could be quite comfortable (depending on where you live) on $30,000 a year.
      • slashbot, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I guess it depends on what you define as 'comfortable' as well as the cost of living.

        Even where I live (in Texas), 20k per year would be hard to get by on
        • sethisastud, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1You can't do that in Boston. $20K is the yearly on the average 2 bedroom apartment.
    • crapmatic, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2I dunno, but a lot of comments seem to get dugg down to 0 or -1 then rise up again. I think there are some Diggers that habitually digg down everything as they go to "close" each message.
    • etherreal, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2I would like to add that I am not on welfare. The only gov't assistance I receive is for my disabled sons medical needs. Even then, I am convinced the only reason that is necessary is because the programs exist. IE, if there was no medicaid, medical care would be affordable.
    • L0g1X, on 12/03/2007, -0/+0It's true, you can easily support a family of four on a 30k income as long as you live where the cost of living is low.
  • stuy486, on 12/03/2007, -2/+1I didn't know 6 comes before 5...
  • InvaderK, on 12/03/2007, -1/+0I don't think there is any way someone could do that here in Florida. The property taxes and insurance would eat up at least 1/4 of that money.
    • Shawn4168, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1But in Florida, that $35K job would pay proportionally more.
      • InvaderK, on 12/03/2007, -0/+0My comment was not talking about the job it was referencing a family living on a $35,000 income. Florida does not pay as well as you seem to think. The median household income in Florida is $40,900 before taxes. The $35,000 the article was referencing was after taxes.
    • slashbot, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1You forget welfare...
      • InvaderK, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Are these people on welfare? If so it would not be fair to parade them around as "America's Cheapest Family" as that would just encourage more people to leech of the government for having children they cannot afford. I thought the whole point of them was they were doing this without government assistance.
  • kyleforeman, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1CPU Quota, AKA Bandwidth Quota
  • john570, on 12/03/2007, -3/+4Try that in a major metropolitan area.
  • brownmajik, on 12/03/2007, -7/+3Don't breed, if you can't feed.
    • demicritter, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Such a pathetic rhyme is a crime.
  • SchnellFowVay, on 12/03/2007, -6/+46This family is useful as a statistical baseline, NOT as a proper way to live a life.

    Though the 15-year-old living-in-parents' basement quasi-hippies that have infiltrated Digg over the last 12 months will sit here and talk about how "free," how "great," and how "anti-commerical," this family is, the fact of the matter is that they are:
    1) Destroying their own economic value daily
    2) SPending copius amounts of time worrying and planning that could be spent actually earning money;
    3) squandering their precious days on earth in un-pleasant conditions (the wife crying b/c she hated their furniture, etc...); and
    4) Not experiencing all the art, culture, and experiences the world has to offer (you can't travel, see the opera, go to many museums, even go to many movies on that budget).

    It would be one thing if they were Amish - they would be foregoing the niceties of modern life for a concerted effort to avail themselves of the simplicities of pre-modern life. But they aren't. The life in a crappy house, wiht crappy food, with crappy clothes, chained down by coupons, the almight dollar, and their own desire to penny-pinch. Essentially, the are accepting all the ills of capitalism without availing themselvs of the gains. They get the worst of both worlds.

    Imagine what that kind of tight financial planning would be worth at any major corporation witha tight supply chain? If these people DID THE SAME WORK at a place that values it more (i.e. a company), the could make 3x the income and have a 10x better life. Again: SAME WORK, BETTER LIFE. That is the beauty of capitalism - it allocates labor.

    However, these people live under the constraints of capitalism (trying to pinch every bit of value out of every penny), but make no effort to improve themselves via capitalism (Trying to make more of those pennies).

    It is ridiculous.

    As I said. they are nice as a statistical baseline for what "could" be done. But it begs the question . . . why?
    • liquidpele, on 12/03/2007, -3/+3It does not beg the question. It might raise the question, or bring up the question, but it does not beg it:
      http://begthequestion.info/
      • MaxD, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Common usage dictates language. If people commonly use 'beg the question' to mean 'raise the question' or something similar and others understand what it means, then - my god, that's what it means. Language, especially English, is fluid.
    • AmusedToDeath, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7You need to ask yourself why you believe that having more money equals a better life. Your belief that wealth equates to well-being is the fundamental ill afflicting America. Having a bigger house or a nicer car or a cooler cellphone or a plasma tv or a leather sofa is not ultimately going to bring you any REAL happiness or fulfillment.

      Life is short. Why spend it whittling away your days in a cubicle trying to "get ahead" so you can buy more stuff you don't need, when instead you can just work to provide for you and your family's needs and spend a lot more time enjoying your life. I make twice what this family does, but I think they're on to something. I certainly don't think I have a happier, better life because I have more money than they do.
      • alternateheaven, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1You spend those days in that cubicle so that when you hit retirement age you actually can retire. So you can spend evenings with the spouse on a cruise ship going to wherever you always dreamed of. So that if you fall and break a hip you can pay the price of a titanium replacement. If you don't work hard today you certainly will live hard tomorrow when you are 60 and have nothing but bills and sickness with no nest egg to pay for it.
        • AmusedToDeath, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Or maybe you save loads of money for your nest egg but die at 45 from a heart attack.
      • dood, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3It sounds like all they've done is avoided one rut by living in another. I'd rather whittle my days away in a cubicle, and have money to spare at the end of the day, than work for less, and come home to consume the predetermined Meal Pouch #7.
        I do think I live a happier life, because I allow myself to enjoy the variety.
      • DangerMouse9, on 12/03/2007, -0/+0Tell that to someone working 3 jobs just to make ends meet. Ask them if they get more enjoyment out of life than they would were they to be able to work one 40-hour a week job making a little more than they make combining their 3 jobs together working 80+ hours a week.

        With more money comes peace of mind that you will be financially stable and if you wanted to splurge on a few mid-sized ticketed items to pamper yourself you can.
      • bluesnowmonkey, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Wealth can equate to well-being. With money, you can...
        1. Quit your second job and spend more time with friends/family, or whatever floats your boat.
        2. Eat healthier food.
        3. Get better medical care.
        4. Join a gym.
        5. Travel the world.
        6. Buy tickets/memberships to get into interesting places and meet interesting people.

        Pretty much the definition of well-being. Of course you can squander wealth too, but don't pretend it's useless. There's a balance to be found in dividing your effort between making more and spending less.
    • dagamer34, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3Essentially, this family has become greedier than most rich people, even when they are poor. And good god, they have NOT enjoyed life. Living debt free is an awesome goal, but the fact of the matter is that being debt-free and miserable isn't much better.
      • sekhui, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Wow, who are you to say they have NOT enjoyed life? Sure, being debt-free and 'miserable' isn't much better than being in debt, but what makes you so sure they are miserable? You just equate a lower standard of living to misery? I feel bad for you. There is much, much more to life than money, and there are numerous things out there that bring happiness that do not require a single cent, things that will bring more happiness and fulfillment than any amount of money ever could.
    • Tarnum, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1...
      5) They are forcing their "lifestyle" to their kids. Do you think teenagers enjoy wearing 2nd hand clothes? No mobile phone, no PC, no pocket money?
  • imaclatchie, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Link is down
  • vofuse, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6Saving Tip: Use hosting accounts with low bandwidth limits.
    • slashbot, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I'm starting to think people do this on purpose, in an attempt to make their site appear as if it is experiencing heavy traffic and this popular by association
      • DangerMouse9, on 12/03/2007, -0/+0Yeah, 5 people visiting and causing the site to go does not a popular site make.
  • cowsgonemadd3, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3We are a family of four and live on like 30k + a year. We finally got high speed internet for 30 bucks a month and caller id as it came with it when we bundled. We dont need no cable tv as its just a waste of time. Just buy the shows on dvd and skip the commercials. You can download a lot of tv shows on the internet from the makers website or the illegal ways which I do not suggest because of viruses and such or the RIAA.

    DO NOT eat out MUCH..... Its a waste really. You can cook in a LOT cheaper. You think that 99 cent burger is a good deal? Not really. I can buy the hamburger and everything else(bun,mustard,ketchup lettuce....) and make it for about 50 cents or so a burger. Plus its got REAL quality beef and more meat.
    • donatj, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Exactly, for as much as it costs for one person to eat at a resturant you can feed an entire family a turkey dinner and have money left over
    • exomni, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Buying a 99c hamburger is the mark of someone who doesn't know what the ***** he's doing with his money.
    • theutopian, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Well, let's see at my grocery store a pound of ground beef costs about $3.00 (the cheapest - 80/20 lean). I use about a 3rd for a burger. So, that's $1 in meat. I buy the cheapest buns - 8 for a dollar. So that's 12 cents. Kethcup is a neglible costs, it lasts a long time. So, right there is $1.12 for a burger. I usually have french fries with my burgers. Fries cost $3 for 3 frozen servings. So that brings it to $2.12. You're right, it's a pretty cheap dinner but there's no way you could make it for 50 cents. Where are you buying your meat?
      • kingsaliva, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Sams club this morning. 10lbs of 90/10 for 19.70$. Made 30 patties, 25 of them frozen. Will last me 2 months. Cant get a deal that good from Mickeys place.
      • cowsgonemadd3, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1No No. Its by the same poundage in a 99 cent mcdonalds burger. They say it has bla bla weight BEFORE its cooked.
  • donatj, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4I grew up in a family of 5 living on 27k a year, and never thought we were poor. My first job now I make more than both my parents combined.
  • exomni, on 12/03/2007, -4/+1psh, I live on an annual "income" of -$10k (that's a negative sign there) and still have enough to upgrade my PC and waste money on booze.

    You guys need to catch up.
  • mojonandha, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1http://duggmirror.com/business_finance/How_a_Famil ...
  • exomni, on 12/03/2007, -4/+1This is *****. Either those kids are lazy bastards and still don't have jobs at 21, or the total family income is more than 35k.
  • CarnageSIS, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Question is though, how many of those seven kids are going to grow up still following the practices of their parents? It's most likely, assuming the best, that they will grow up, go to college, get good paying jobs and while they may spend their money smarter they will still splurge and work so their own families do not have live without the various extras in life.

    When you live in a place where 7 people have to split $35k, then you move out on your own with a stable job making say $40k a year to take care of just yourself, that's a lot of extra money. Being tight with your money when it is a nessecity is not the same as trying to be tight when you have an excess, at that point I'd like to see those kids try to hold back on the various temptations that the rest of the world seems to be enjoying.

    I'd like to believe these kids will take the lessons they could be learning from their parents along with them, however from what I have seen in my own life I doubt it. My father grew up with nothing, my mother grew up in a family with plenty of money, at the height of our household they were making over $80k a year. So my father shops like all stores will be permently closing tomorrow, and my mother carefully watches all the money while doing her best to keep my father under control.

    Basic point, they may know how to save a dime when there are few dimes to go around, but are they going to be prepared for handling themselves in a sea of dimes?
    • Mistaxe, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I feel your sentiments here...I was raised in a 4 person household making around 15-25k (parents were self-employed) per year. Because I live in KY and the living expenses are quite low, this wasn't that much of a problem.

      After I moved out and went to college, I managed to get a job in which I make ~15-20k per year alone. I now live with 4 other guys making the same salary or slightly less in a home larger than my childhood home. Everything we own together is much nicer than my parents. It's strange, really, growing up on a mediocre budget and suddenly being able to support yourself rather well.

      I'm planning a trip to Vegas this summer with my roommates - it's not going to be a problem for any of us and, while still respecting the discipline I learned growing up in a lower-middle class family, I would hate to go back to that lifestyle.
    • cherish592, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Same here. My parents raised me fairly frugally (not as bad as this story though). I'm not incredibly reckless now that I'm on my own, but definitely have a shopping habit. My first year out of college was especially bad, because I could finally afford all the things I'd wanted so badly as a kid.

      That kind of reminds me a of a friend whose parents were overly strict about diet- no sodas, candy, EVER. They got to college and went nuts, haha. I can only imagine the potential for how screwed up these kids may be someday.
  • exomni, on 12/03/2007, -2/+10Cut the ***** about being "freed from capitalism" and "freed from commercialism", these people are SLAVES to capitalism and commercialism. They spend their time stretching their dollars, cutting coupons, practicing "savvy shopping". These people are more affected by consumerism than the man who attempts to be a productive member of society and as a consequence doesn't have to worry about cutting coupons or finding deals, and can actually enjoy the comforts and amenities of modern life: art, travel, music, fine food, education, vacation, and beautiful clothing.
  • Defuser, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2It all depends on where you live. Obviously a family of seven can't live on 35k in New York or San Francisco, but you could manage on that much quite nicely in, say, Utah or Wyoming.
    • exomni, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1You'd be the envy of all sub-saharan Africa.
      • Defuser, on 12/03/2007, -2/+1Not just them- all of Mexico would think you were filthy rich. BTW, who's the complete Tool that runs through Digging Down every comment? They really need to get some therapy.
        • DangerMouse9, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1said the man concerned about his digg rating.
  • londubh, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Is that $35K before or after taxes?
    • Defuser, on 12/03/2007, -0/+0After taxes, it states that at the first of the article. Which means they probably make closer to 45k. It's sad that we now consider 45k "poverty level".
      • roland, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0Actually with 5 kids I dont think you pay near anything in taxes except SS and medicare.
    • darkphan, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1The article said after taxes
  • Solis, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2I only make about $23k a year God, I wish I could make $35k...

    Too bad going back to school is financially impossible. Can't exactly quit my job to go to school, and even if I do night classes, I'm not quite sure I can financially afford it.
    • Defuser, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1You haven't said if you're supporting a family or not. If you're single, you absolutely CAN afford going back to school- in fact, you can't afford NOT to, given your current situation. I've never understood the people that say they "can't afford" college. There are all kinds of grants and loans out there.
      • Solis, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1I'm not supporting a family. And you might think it's easy for someone to just go to college, but I'm 26 years old, I have tons of bills, and I haven't the slightest idea on how to get a grant, scholarship, or any other kind of financial assistance.
        • DangerMouse9, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1www.google.com>search for scholarships or pell grant or federal student loans

          Search on the school of your choice for financial aid.

          It sounds to me like you're just too lazy and not very committed to bettering your life.

      • omegastaralpha, on 12/03/2007, -0/+0There are alot of grants and loans but if you have bad credit like myself the loans are out of the question and grants wont cut it.
  • guinnessstout, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1I'll just get a good job and earn more then that, thanks.
    • DangerMouse9, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1You won't get a good job with English skills like that.
    • sekhui, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1It's funny how everybody seems to think that exact same thing...and 10 years down the road they are in the same place, no better off than the next guy.
  • cleric04, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1So after I pay 35k for tuition, how am I suppose to eat?
    • Defuser, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Perhaps you could try going to a cheaper college. My tuition was less than 12k a year, and I paid for ALL of it with scholarships, student loans, and grants. Then I worked a part-time job to pay for food.
    • digudown, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Try to get scholarships and work part time.
    • JitMaster, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2paying 35K for tuition was a mistake.
    • Icetype, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1You can get a good job 40k+ just by going to community college. It's cheap and you can do it at odd hours. My roommate went to an expensive private college and wasted over 100k of his parent's money and makes lower 30k a year. Meanwhile my other roommate when to Technical college and makes mid 40's. It's ambition and experience.
  • monkeyrun, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2I can barely live off 35000 a year. Rent alone is over 14000.
    • DangerMouse9, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Get roommates if your rent is that expensive.
  • coolmike129, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Do they at least treat themselves a little? Life would seem really bland if there wasn't a little luxury and excitement (in respect to money).
  • RIMberry, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3You idiots, we live in a welfare state. That's how they get by.
  • BigBoyBoobs, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Anyone watch the show 30 days on FX (from the guy who did Super Size Me)? There was an episode on a couple living off of minimum wage and 1 accident/injury that sent him to the hospital put them in debt. $100 for a bandage? $500 for an xray?

    I doubt this family has health insurance. Also they are from Arizona. I live in Phx and your AC runs all the time so your energy bill is high. I find this $35,000 a year with 5 kids in Arizona hard to believe.

    Having said that they should be commended for finding a way to survive without going on welfare. At least they're probably down to earth unlike girls who buy $1000 designer purses every other month.
    • DangerMouse9, on 12/03/2007, -0/+0Yeah, because there's an over abundance of girls like that that come from the middle class.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.