7 ms·
Because those same people are unable to make enough money to feed themselves and their families working multiple part-time/full-time jobs paying these sorts of
by d4mi3n 13y ago
Because those same people are unable to make enough money to feed themselves and their families working multiple part-time/full-time jobs paying these sorts of wages.
- dchest 13y agoIsn't it circular: workers are able to take jobs that pay less than [imaginary] minimum wage because government will subsidize their survival --> government subsidizes low-paying workers --> businesses can hire for less then minimum wage --> etc? What's the cause and what's the effect?
- qwerty989 13y agoWrong. http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-03-07%20at%203.54.49%20PM.png http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%...
- dchest 13y agoHow do you interpret this chart?
- qwerty989 13y agoThe poor in America spend a small percentage of their income on food. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/cheap-eats-how-america-spends-money-on-food/273811/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/cheap-ea...
- dchest 13y agoThanks! I haven't yet read the article you linked to, so maybe the answer is already there, but does this chart include food stamps for poor? I mean, is it (stamps + 16.1% of income)?
- smtddr 13y agoSo, because of this article you conclude that the OP is wrong to say poor people are "unable to make enough money to feed themselves and their families working multiple part-time/full-time jobs paying these sorts of wages."? Maybe they spend less because they simply can't afford to spend more? I spend less on private-jets & high-end cars than rich people do, is it because I simply don't want those items or because I can't afford it? Actually, this article appears to be saying the opposite of what you think it's saying: FTA: The short answer is that relative food costs are low and falling fast for everybody -- but they're not falling for the poor. In 1984, the poorest Americans spent 16 percent of their income to eat. The median-income family also spent 16 percent of its (slightly higher) income on food. And the rich spent the least. In the last three decades, food's share of the family budget has fallen for all but the poorest families, where it's stayed the same. So... poor people are spending _more_ on food than the rich? Whatever way one interprets this article, I don't think it can be used to to prove anything in regards to affordability of food for the poor and what else they may have sacrificed to pay for food.
- qwerty989 13y agoYes, he is wrong. The poor in America are far likelier to be overweight than starving.
- smtddr 13y agoAh, here we go. So overweight because why? Eating 99-cent menu items from fast-food menus 4 times a day and filling their homes with the cheapest industrial-processed food ever. Liters of soda, microwave-TV-dinners, huge bags of cheetos, etc. That junk isn't food, IMHO. If a low-income person wants to give their family something better, they can't afford it. Low-income, probably low-education & stressful-job(s), not enough motivation/energy after coming home from work to cook a proper meal or get exercise. Personally, I think they can't afford it in ways that go beyond just money...
- qwerty989 13y agoThis is so wrong. I'm not sure why this argument is always made when it's obviously incorrect. Beans, rice, cabbage, tomatoes, chicken, pasta, bread, potatoes, bananas, yogurt, eggs, vegetables, etc. are cheap. http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/cheap-healthy-15-nutritious-foods-about-2-dollars http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/cheap-healthy-15-... http://www.workingmother.com/food-nutrition/cheap-and-healthy-eating-tips http://www.workingmother.com/food-nutrition/cheap-and-health... http://www.fitbie.com/slideshow/20-ridiculously-cheap-and-healthy-foods http://www.fitbie.com/slideshow/20-ridiculously-cheap-and-he...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ubernostrum 13y agoAs I understand it, you are attempting to misdirect via nit-pick. The comment you are replying to essentially asserted that the minimum wage is insufficient to cover the average total cost of living, expressed through the colloquialism of "feeding themselves and their families". Your response is to nit-pick about the dollar amount the cost of food contributes to the cost of living and whether the minimum wage can provide that amount, presumably in an attempt to mislead incautious readers into believing that the minimum wage is sufficient to cover the total cost of living, when in fact it is not (it is only sufficient to cover some components of that cost). That would be a fundamentally dishonest thing to do, so I'm certain you won't be doing that here, yes?
- tzs 13y agoYou are implicitly basing your argument on the assumption that the 84% the poor are NOT spending on food is not mostly going to other necessary things, such as housing, clothing, heating, transportation, or medical care.