Indeed, it appears we have the same definition of "life of leisure", but to be blunt, as someone who has worked in organizations that serve the poor, you are co

Indeed, it appears we have the same definition of "life of leisure", but to be blunt, as someone who has worked in organizations that serve the poor, you are completely out to lunch. No one is enjoying life in this country at $10K/year. The life of someone at that level is a constant barrage of worries, of harassment, of choosing between having one basic necessity of life over another. No one chooses to be there, and certainly no one would stay if they had the opportunity to exceed it. > "but available data on people below the official US poverty line certainly agrees with this general picture." You're going to have to cite specifics from that document, because all I see are labor force participation rates and income levels - there is nothing in there about people choosing not to work in favor of "enjoying leisure time". > "This describes most of the poor in the US." Really? You think the day laborer standing outside Lowe's hoping for a job has chosen to be below the poverty line, and instead has chosen a life of leisure? I'm going to state this in the most civil way I know how: you are sorely lacking in perspective - and this is after reading all of your posts in this thread so far - and for your own sake, and the sake of people you share this society with, go volunteer at a poverty or homelessness-related organization for a month. You have beliefs that are in no way grounded in reality, and the numbers you continue to cite to make your argument are between nonsensical and specious. Please find some way to experience the issues from within.