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

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?