6 ms·

Is this true? The general stereotype when I lived in the UK is that the poor were mostly non-workers who subsisted based on public assistance. If true, then the

Is this true? The general stereotype when I lived in the UK is that the poor were mostly non-workers who subsisted based on public assistance. If true, then they have plenty of time. In the US this is certainly true. The lowest earning category has 30 minutes/day more leisure time than the highest. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm Anyone know where to find the UK equivalent of the ATUS?

pdpi 11y ago
Working crazy hours across three jobs to make ends meet is definitely a thing, and not at all rare.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  However, just based on my prejudices, I'd claim that those that do work crazy hours across three jobs typically do not need to go jogging, they get some exercise when moving from one job to another. They are also not necessarily the poorest in the income poverty sense, although their situation is quite clearly the most unfair.
  - pnut 11y ago
    I've got an uncle who works construction. He's adamant that his free time not be spent doing physical activity.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      That may be reasonable -- though the amount of physical activity in construction jobs also seems to vary a lot; many operators of heavy equipment such as bulldozers or cranes are actually fairly obese. Not to mention the culture of smoking (at least where I live; the difference to general population is noticeable). I do office work but commute by bike; I'm also not enthusiastic about jogging on top of that.
  - pdpi 11y ago
    > However, just based on my prejudices, I'd claim that those that do work crazy hours across three jobs typically do not need to go jogging, they get some exercise when moving from one job to another. All the hours spent in the tube and in the bus will leave you sore and aching, but that doesn't quite suffice to call it a workout.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      Still it's a lot more physical activity than sitting on a couch. Or commuting to a convenient office by car. For example, making six tube trips involves so much walking that it equals to a modest jog.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Do you have data to demonstrate this, for either the US or UK? I'm not sure what you mean by "rare", but I'd be extremely surprised if you have data showing the number of poor adults in this situation exceeds 10%.
vlan0 11y ago
It would be interesting to see the numbers. At least here in western NYS, I see many lower income people needing to take public transportation due to the lack of a vehicle. Thus, increasing their travel time considerably.
devonkim 11y ago
The numbers may be skewed by retired people which is not absolutely clear in a lot of these data points when people casually cite them online (not saying your sources are). Working poor is quite common in the US. With chronic unemployment where over time individuals face depression you would be better off correlating depression and low income with downward economic projections rather than free time. Rates of alcoholism and liquor sales may be closer approximations in areas where mental health figures are unreliable due to lack of availability among underserved communities (see: Native reservations, poor rural areas). Where I live, I might be the most depressed but so many do rather poorly economically but the region is consistently polled as rather high on happiness.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Older people (I don't have data on retired vs non-retired) are the least likely to be poor. So if the data is skewed by the retired, it's in the opposite direction. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2013/figure5.pdf https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2013... Working poor is far less common than non-working poor in the US. Non-poor people work a lot more than poor people (hardly surprising, since working brings money and makes you less poor). http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-working-poor-2013.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-working...
bryondowd 11y ago
In addition to the people working multiple part time minimum wage jobs to get by, there are other time costs associated with being poor. Poor often don't have a personal vehicle, so many hours per week can be spent on a bus, bike, or walking, especially in places with less public transport. Now the following probably doesn't apply to poor in cities, where you often have amenities in easy walking distance, but in the area I live they are quite applicable. Every time you need to go pick up groceries, you have to take public transit to the grocery store, and you can only buy what you can carry back, so you'll have to go more often than someone who can load up a trunk. Add on the fact that many low end housing rentals don't have washer/dryer units, the nearest may be miles away, so you get to take public transit with your laundry and spend a couple hours at the laundromat. Where I'm at, those two things alone could easily eat 10-20 hours of your week.
- ethbro 11y ago
  This is specifically what I was thinking about. Try commuting via public transit for 100% of your daily needs and keep a tally of how much time you spend sitting at stations or stops waiting for connections. Obviously the city and infrastructure would cause this to vary, but my experience using public bus transit anywhere in the US would be a good hour less (at minimum) of jog-possible leisure time every day. And that's if you live in a relatively convenient transit location (typically not cheap). You may be able to read a book at a stop, but you aren't jogging / spinning / doing yoga.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  If your theory were true, the poor should have less leisure time than the non-poor. Yet according to the ATUS, they don't. I'll break down why your theories are wrong. Most poor people don't work at all, and many of those who do are only part time. So this idea of "multiple part time minimum wage jobs" applies only to a very small number of people. http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-working-poor-2013.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-working... 74% of poor households actually do have a vehicle (compared to 92% of the country), so that doesn't look like it's a big factor. 65% of the poor have a washing machine (compared to 82% of the country), so again that's probably not driving this gap. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf Even if the premises of your theory were true, there would have to be some countervailing factor since the conclusion (that the poor have less leisure time) is wrong. But maybe the UK is wildly different. Can you present any data sets to demonstrate this?

pdpi 11y ago

Working crazy hours across three jobs to make ends meet is definitely a thing, and not at all rare.

ptaipale 11y ago
However, just based on my prejudices, I'd claim that those that do work crazy hours across three jobs typically do not need to go jogging, they get some exercise when moving from one job to another. They are also not necessarily the poorest in the income poverty sense, although their situation is quite clearly the most unfair.
- pnut 11y ago
  I've got an uncle who works construction. He's adamant that his free time not be spent doing physical activity.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    That may be reasonable -- though the amount of physical activity in construction jobs also seems to vary a lot; many operators of heavy equipment such as bulldozers or cranes are actually fairly obese. Not to mention the culture of smoking (at least where I live; the difference to general population is noticeable). I do office work but commute by bike; I'm also not enthusiastic about jogging on top of that.
- pdpi 11y ago
  > However, just based on my prejudices, I'd claim that those that do work crazy hours across three jobs typically do not need to go jogging, they get some exercise when moving from one job to another. All the hours spent in the tube and in the bus will leave you sore and aching, but that doesn't quite suffice to call it a workout.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    Still it's a lot more physical activity than sitting on a couch. Or commuting to a convenient office by car. For example, making six tube trips involves so much walking that it equals to a modest jog.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Do you have data to demonstrate this, for either the US or UK? I'm not sure what you mean by "rare", but I'd be extremely surprised if you have data showing the number of poor adults in this situation exceeds 10%.

vlan0 11y ago

It would be interesting to see the numbers. At least here in western NYS, I see many lower income people needing to take public transportation due to the lack of a vehicle. Thus, increasing their travel time considerably.

devonkim 11y ago

The numbers may be skewed by retired people which is not absolutely clear in a lot of these data points when people casually cite them online (not saying your sources are). Working poor is quite common in the US. With chronic unemployment where over time individuals face depression you would be better off correlating depression and low income with downward economic projections rather than free time. Rates of alcoholism and liquor sales may be closer approximations in areas where mental health figures are unreliable due to lack of availability among underserved communities (see: Native reservations, poor rural areas). Where I live, I might be the most depressed but so many do rather poorly economically but the region is consistently polled as rather high on happiness.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Older people (I don't have data on retired vs non-retired) are the least likely to be poor. So if the data is skewed by the retired, it's in the opposite direction. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2013/figure5.pdf https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2013... Working poor is far less common than non-working poor in the US. Non-poor people work a lot more than poor people (hardly surprising, since working brings money and makes you less poor). http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-working-poor-2013.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-working...

bryondowd 11y ago

In addition to the people working multiple part time minimum wage jobs to get by, there are other time costs associated with being poor. Poor often don't have a personal vehicle, so many hours per week can be spent on a bus, bike, or walking, especially in places with less public transport. Now the following probably doesn't apply to poor in cities, where you often have amenities in easy walking distance, but in the area I live they are quite applicable. Every time you need to go pick up groceries, you have to take public transit to the grocery store, and you can only buy what you can carry back, so you'll have to go more often than someone who can load up a trunk. Add on the fact that many low end housing rentals don't have washer/dryer units, the nearest may be miles away, so you get to take public transit with your laundry and spend a couple hours at the laundromat. Where I'm at, those two things alone could easily eat 10-20 hours of your week.

ethbro 11y ago
This is specifically what I was thinking about. Try commuting via public transit for 100% of your daily needs and keep a tally of how much time you spend sitting at stations or stops waiting for connections. Obviously the city and infrastructure would cause this to vary, but my experience using public bus transit anywhere in the US would be a good hour less (at minimum) of jog-possible leisure time every day. And that's if you live in a relatively convenient transit location (typically not cheap). You may be able to read a book at a stop, but you aren't jogging / spinning / doing yoga.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
If your theory were true, the poor should have less leisure time than the non-poor. Yet according to the ATUS, they don't. I'll break down why your theories are wrong. Most poor people don't work at all, and many of those who do are only part time. So this idea of "multiple part time minimum wage jobs" applies only to a very small number of people. http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-working-poor-2013.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-working... 74% of poor households actually do have a vehicle (compared to 92% of the country), so that doesn't look like it's a big factor. 65% of the poor have a washing machine (compared to 82% of the country), so again that's probably not driving this gap. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf Even if the premises of your theory were true, there would have to be some countervailing factor since the conclusion (that the poor have less leisure time) is wrong. But maybe the UK is wildly different. Can you present any data sets to demonstrate this?