How much would you have to be paid to run for a living?

I should note that, sure, you can probably find a way to have a family with $20k. Food stamps, subsidized housing, whatever else you want to take. Living that way is never a choice I would make - which goes back to the original question of the thread.

People that don't have enough money - in my opinion - shouldn't be having kids until they can afford to care for them. It's a drain on society.

Average wage is 67 grand in my city. Knock out the non-college grads and I'd bet it's 100,000+. Average is ok but it's not a goal amount. I think success at running plays a strong part in this question. Live on 25 grand for 6 years and be an Olympian is a posive equation.

Live on 25 grand and run 32:00 10Km in the East Cutty Bumfuuk Rotary Club for first place medal, 250 bucks,a coupon for free meal for two at the local IHOP and a kiss on the cheek from Miss Autumnal Harvest 2013...not so much.

Saul Goodman wrote:

I should note that, sure, you can probably find a way to have a family with $20k. Food stamps, subsidized housing, whatever else you want to take. Living that way is never a choice I would make - which goes back to the original question of the thread.

People that don't have enough money - in my opinion - shouldn't be having kids until they can afford to care for them. It's a drain on society.

Where I'm from, a family of 3 has to have a gross income of less than 24k and have less than 2000 in "resources" to qualify for food stamps. Resources include the value of any car that you might own, so unless you drive something real bad, you're SOL.

No one will deny that some people do make the choice to be on welfare, but many do not. They do it out of necessity. There are also many people, like my family, who made just a little too much to qualify for any of that, and had to make do with our 28k.

You should count yourself lucky that you have the ability to make the choice not to accept public assistance.

You have no reading comprehension.

There's nothing wrong with my math. I said $1000/yr for 4000 calories per day (I exercise a lot). A person only needs 1000-1500 calories per day, so that's only an additional fraction of $1000. Who's the dummy now???

I didn't forget about any of that other stuff. There are all types of healthcare programs for low income people and especially children. Even without government aid, there would still be about $2000-3000 left over after your suggested $8000 in health insurance costs for a 3 person family.

$2000-$3000 is more than enough to cover entertainment and backup money savings. Just like I accounted for before. You don't know what you're talking about. And you don't know how to read.

Your philosophy sounds pretty strong. I'd be a professional athlete if I could at least keep my current salary that I would make in an office job. Of course, I tend to spend a bit too much money on races, so as a professional athlete, I would not need to pay race fees or as much money on clothes, as I'm assuming free running clothes and shoes would probably be provided and I would not be charged race entry fees.

I like having a car and adequate health care and eating plenty of fresh produce, and living in a reasonably attractive apartment in a safe area, so trying to live near the poverty line does not appeal to me.

A couple worries would be would someone be laid off or fired from having an injury, or going through a performance slump? And spending too many hours a day training could cause me to completely burn out mentally.

445K per year would do it for me to run full time for a living.

[quote]EatsWellonaShoestring wrote:

20 bucks a week for groceries is not hard.

2 lbs Potatoes- 1 dollar

1 whole chicken-4 dollars

1 pound Hamburger-3 dollars

Dozen eggs-2 dollars

1 pound pasta-1 dollar

1 pound Rice and Beans-1 dollar

Gallon of Milk-3 dollars

Loaf of Bread-1 dollar

4 dollars worth of seasonal and/or frozen vegies.

The secret is, buy in bulk, lots of Rice and Beans and Potatoes, and stay away from Cap'n Crunch.

[quote]Darius gaiden wrote:

I priced out the food above at my local supermarket and found it had 7953 calories and cost $23.09. (See chart below). So its about $11.50/day for 4000 calories/day, which works out to $4,200 per year. Am I missing something?

Food: Cost: Calories:

2 lbs potatoes $1.98 636

1 whole chicken $1.69 960

1 lb hamburger $3.69 621

dozen eggs $1.98 960

1 lb pasta $3.59 608

1 lb rice beans $1.49 448

gallon of milk $3.19 2250

loaf of bread $1.48 1320

veggies $4.00 150

Total: $23.09 7953

I suppose we should be assuming now that you're not running for your $20k job, then? I mean after all, the point of the thread was what it would take for you to run professionally (lowball responses to which which I splintered into an observation that the lowballers obviously don't have families), right? So if you're able to still use your (laughable) estimate of $1000-$1500/yr for food for a family of three, are you now magically able to run professionally while consuming fewer calories for yourself?

I suppose I don't know how to read. I do know that (lets just cut out entertainment as a non-essential) saving $2000-3000/yr is an incredibly irresponsible way to go through life when you have a child. Sometimes people are forced into this position (or much worse) due to circumstances out of their control, but the question was 'what would it take for you to run professionally?' which implies you have a choice in the matter. If you would choose $20k with a wife and child(ren), you're an a-hole. Plain and simple.

For the record, I grew up on food stamps. My mother did not choose to make minimum wage, she had a tough road, the details of which I won't bore you with. And I don't make much money now either (less than my $120k of what it would take for me to run full-time). I high-balled my response because it would turn my hobby (that I love) into a job and would take the joy out of it for me. The extra $$ is for losing my love.

I should also note that yes, I overestimate needs and emergency funds (which I made clear in my first post). But (theoretically) isn't that what men are supposed to do? Take no chances when you have kids. They are called dependents for a reason. When you screw up or luck goes bad, they suffer.

1. I don't know why you're taking so much offense to my food costs. They make total sense. I don't need to eat 4000 calories to train for running, so I could easily cut back on that. I might only need 2500-3000 calories for running. So an additional $500-1000 for food would not be laughable.

2. Why is $2000/$3000 yr incredibly irresponsible? You keep changing your tune. You said that I should have at least 3-4 months of bill money saved up. $2000-$3000 is 3-4 months of bill money saved up.

Well said. In the US, there is a very high opportunity cost for a college educated person to skip a career for many years to run. Unless you are Top Tier National Class to start with, you are likely to make much more money with a job than running. Then the job gets steady pay raises for years. A runner puts off starting that until running is done. They are unlikely to ever catch up to their peers in salary.

And why do runners make so little? Well, read this thread. Most suckers would run for slave wages. Sponsors know this and exploit it. What if someone offered you a job at a factory for $20k? And even that amount was contingent on meeting some production numbers with no evidence that it could even be done. Most would only take that if they were completely desperate.

Saul Goodman wrote:

I should note that, sure, you can probably find a way to have a family with $20k. Food stamps, subsidized housing, whatever else you want to take. Living that way is never a choice I would make - which goes back to the original question of the thread.

People that don't have enough money - in my opinion - shouldn't be having kids until they can afford to care for them. It's a drain on society.

"In my opinion" you're painting a with a pretty fat brush there.

"Enough" money is subjective. As is "affording to care for them". Some (most?) of the best kids I ever coached came from poor families, while the most rotten little egotist brats I've ever encountered came from big money.

400K a year on duel income doesn't mean a thing if you let your kid grow up to be an underachieved, entitled, selfish little prick. There's plenty of those out there draining our society.

Lastly, my wife and her 10 brothers and sisters grew up very, very poor. Didn't take welfare even when they qualified. Now they are ALL college educated, kind, honest and contributing adult members of society.

Can you pick which one shouldn't have been born due to insufficient funds?

I'd go for somewhere in the range of 35-45k. I'm in that range now and it's not bad if you have roommates and don't eat out nonstop.

How many calories does a professional runner burn each day in your estimation? Whatever that is, I assume you're adding on to it the normal recommended calorie intake (for non-athletes)? I'm not an expert in nutrition, but if Michael Phelps consumes 10,000-12,000 calories a day (and burns half that), and if running burns significantly more calories than swimming, it seems dead wrong to say that a professional runner can consume less than 3,000 and not have their body break down at some point.

I don't know how reliable this information is but Ryan Hall says he consumes 6,000 a day:

http://www.fitsugar.com/Ryan-Halls-Marathon-Race-Diet-20415189?slide=1

Godello wrote:

How many calories does a professional runner burn each day in your estimation? Whatever that is, I assume you're adding on to it the normal recommended calorie intake (for non-athletes)? I'm not an expert in nutrition, but if Michael Phelps consumes 10,000-12,000 calories a day (and burns half that), and if running burns significantly more calories than swimming, it seems dead wrong to say that a professional runner can consume less than 3,000 and not have their body break down at some point.

I don't know how reliable this information is but Ryan Hall says he consumes 6,000 a day:

http://www.fitsugar.com/Ryan-Halls-Marathon-Race-Diet-20415189?slide=1

It's not dead wrong to consume less than 3,000 calories. 1500-2000 extra calories is plenty enough for training.

I imagine that Phelps consumes so many, because he trains for HOURS. Runners do not train for hours. Ryan Hall is training high mileage for the marathon. I would not be training for anything above a mile. Was this thread limited to marathon training?

Daily average for a guy is 2,500 or something? Plus 1500-2000 you say? I don't know. That's 4000 give or take, which is your original figure. But you count weights, plyos, stretching, seems like a stretch. But I'm not an expert so I'll concede.

Look, in theory you could live off no money, live in the woods, grow your own food, sew your own clothes, and shun modern medicine, but in practice what you're saying is really just absurd.

what about those commercials that advertise providing food and shelter for a third world kid for like a dollar a day? TECHNICALLY, you can live off of $365.25 dollars PER YEAR. So i would run for $400.00 a year, just to be on the safe side.

serious answer would be 40-50k per year since i'm single and have no illegitimate children or mortgages to pay for. 80k would be nice, but 20k is a joke. i wouldn't clean toilets for 20k a year.

gregmacd wrote:

I priced out the food above at my local supermarket and found it had 7953 calories and cost $23.09. (See chart below). So its about $11.50/day for 4000 calories/day, which works out to $4,200 per year. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something very obvious - You are shopping at the wrong supermarket.

1)What's laughable to me is that you think it's possible to feed a family of three with $1000-$1500 annually allocated to food. Where it gets into ludicrous territory is that of that $1500 max, you will also be able to find enough calories to not just live, but train as a full-time professional runner. Just over $100/month. Three people. One of whom burns an additional 2000/day as part of his job.

2)You're terrible at math. Using my examples above:

Rent - Roughly $700

Food - $100 (your numbers, ridiculous, but I'll go with it)

Ins. - $600 (my numbers, which are ridiculous as well. real insurance is more like $350/mo/person)

$1400/month. Times 4 months. With outrageously low estimates. 4 months of living expenses is $5600.

Yet you still claim that $20k can get you all the necessities and not sacrifice leisure or retirement or emergency funding? With a family of three?

Again, I'll concede that yes, you can probably find a way to make it work. Not without outside assistance of sacrificing things like healthcare (certainly college and retirement). My point is that if you choose this living for your family, you're an a-hole.

You're talking about raising kids. Yes, raising kids is something people can be good or bad at whether they're rich or poor. Though I do tend to agree with you, anecdotal evidence regarding the character of someone based on their social class is not a great argument. Areas with higher poverty rates unanimously have higher crime rates, so where are all those good, poor kids you coached? The answer is that they're overwhelmed by the majority of lower class children who resort to crime.

Godello wrote:

Daily average for a guy is 2,500 or something? Plus 1500-2000 you say? I don't know. That's 4000 give or take, which is your original figure. But you count weights, plyos, stretching, seems like a stretch. But I'm not an expert so I'll concede.

Look, in theory you could live off no money, live in the woods, grow your own food, sew your own clothes, and shun modern medicine, but in practice what you're saying is really just absurd.

You don't have to do weights, plyos. Stretching doesn't take any calories. You're just sitting there. But even if you wanted to do some weights/plyos, it wouldn't be that much additional calories.

Daily average for a guy is not 2500 calories. I don't understand your viewpoint. How is it absurd? Several of us have repeatedly stated that we have done it.