qwerty989

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by qwerty989 13y ago

   Again, that is not correct. Despite conventional wisdom, the poor have more leisure time than the rich. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2007/0...
2. 2.▲
   by qwerty989 13y ago

   This 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://w
3. 3.▲
   by qwerty989 13y ago

   Yes, he is wrong. The poor in America are far likelier to be overweight than starving.
4. 4.▲
   by qwerty989 13y ago

   That's not right. Taxpayers are subsidizing every industry that employs low wage workers, which is basically every industry. That includes janitors at Google and Apple.
5. 5.▲
   by qwerty989 13y ago

   How is this different from any other small business that employs entry level workers? Cashiers at Apple retail stores make small wages too. Should we go after them too?
6. 6.▲
   by qwerty989 13y ago

   The poor in America spend a small percentage of their income on food. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/cheap-ea...
7. 7.▲
   by qwerty989 13y ago

   Wrong. http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%...
8. 8.▲
   by qwerty989 13y ago

   This argument is deeply flawed. What if they were unemployed? Taxpayers would be subsidizing a lot more.