4 ms·

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

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?
- bryondowd 11y ago
  Your first link is talking about a more specific group of people than I was referring to. It references about 7% of the population, people working at least half of the year who are below the poverty line. The 2013 poverty line was $11,490 for individuals, $23,550 for a family of four. I'd consider twice that to still be poor by any reasonable definition. In my area (around Atlantic City, New Jersey) you'd be lucky to find a two bedroom apartment for $1000/mo. So if a family of four crams into a two bedroom apartment, or an individual splits one with a roommate, that's half the 'poverty level' in rent. Without covering utilities, transportation, food, etc. As to your second point, I'm sorry, but I simply don't have the time to do the proper research on that one. You may be correct. I was primarily basing on anecdotal evidence from what I've seen and experienced in my local area. The statistics may also not be as clear as one would think. As I said, in my area, someone at twice the poverty level would still struggle to get by, and in many cities, I expect it is significantly more. At the same time, in many rural or semi-rural areas, housing costs become a much smaller factor, which leaves more room for things like a vehicle. Looking at the poor based on the amount of income, without looking at circumstances at an almost individual level is a difficult prospect. I will also say that it is easy to overlook things that go from a non-issue to a time and effort consuming problem when lack of resources is involved. Lack of transportation or a washer were just two examples that came to mind. Also note that if 74% of poor households have a vehicle, that means 26% do not. That is a fairly significant number, in my eyes.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    I'd consider twice that to still be poor by any reasonable definition. $47,100 is poor? If so, then basically the entire world is poor. The only nations in the world with a median family income (adjusted for cost of living) higher than $47,100 are Luxemborg, Norway and Sweden. I don't find this definition remotely reasonable. Anyway, your anecdotal evidence seems to be leading you astray. The actual stats show a) the poor have more free time for exercise or TV watching, b) they prefer TV watching to exercise, c) they don't have a job and d) when they do have a job they don't have a long commute (see table 4-24 in my AHS link). What evidence, if any, would convince you that your theories about the lifestyle of the poor are wrong?

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?

bryondowd 11y ago
Your first link is talking about a more specific group of people than I was referring to. It references about 7% of the population, people working at least half of the year who are below the poverty line. The 2013 poverty line was $11,490 for individuals, $23,550 for a family of four. I'd consider twice that to still be poor by any reasonable definition. In my area (around Atlantic City, New Jersey) you'd be lucky to find a two bedroom apartment for $1000/mo. So if a family of four crams into a two bedroom apartment, or an individual splits one with a roommate, that's half the 'poverty level' in rent. Without covering utilities, transportation, food, etc. As to your second point, I'm sorry, but I simply don't have the time to do the proper research on that one. You may be correct. I was primarily basing on anecdotal evidence from what I've seen and experienced in my local area. The statistics may also not be as clear as one would think. As I said, in my area, someone at twice the poverty level would still struggle to get by, and in many cities, I expect it is significantly more. At the same time, in many rural or semi-rural areas, housing costs become a much smaller factor, which leaves more room for things like a vehicle. Looking at the poor based on the amount of income, without looking at circumstances at an almost individual level is a difficult prospect. I will also say that it is easy to overlook things that go from a non-issue to a time and effort consuming problem when lack of resources is involved. Lack of transportation or a washer were just two examples that came to mind. Also note that if 74% of poor households have a vehicle, that means 26% do not. That is a fairly significant number, in my eyes.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I'd consider twice that to still be poor by any reasonable definition. $47,100 is poor? If so, then basically the entire world is poor. The only nations in the world with a median family income (adjusted for cost of living) higher than $47,100 are Luxemborg, Norway and Sweden. I don't find this definition remotely reasonable. Anyway, your anecdotal evidence seems to be leading you astray. The actual stats show a) the poor have more free time for exercise or TV watching, b) they prefer TV watching to exercise, c) they don't have a job and d) when they do have a job they don't have a long commute (see table 4-24 in my AHS link). What evidence, if any, would convince you that your theories about the lifestyle of the poor are wrong?