- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 25,116
- Reaction score
- 7,658
- Location
- Theoretical Physics Lab
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I've seen far too many people (that lack any sort of basic economic education) discuss some fictitious term like "liveable wage". I think it's time we let liberals define it.
What is it, people?
n 1776 Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations argued that poverty is the inability to afford, "not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without.
In the Wealth of Nations the poverty line or some livable wage doesn't mean someone gets by stacked in a room paying rent with 5 or 6 others, wearing the same clothes for 5 years, and living off of beans.
It would be someone that generally can afford rent/clothing/food and have a little left over.
Here are some other percentages that run down the things that poverty-stricken Americans own. The number in parentheses is provided for comparison. That’s the percentage of Americans living above the poverty line who own the same stuff.
■Refrigerators: 97.8 (99.5)
■Clothes washers: 68.7 (88.1)
■Clothes dryers: 65.3 (86.6)
■Dishwashers: 44.9 (73.5)
■Food freezers: 26.2 (37.5)
■Stoves: 96.6 (98.9)
■Microwaves: 93.2 (97.4)
My current wage times 5.
I'll tackle this:
Here are some other percentages that run down the things that poverty-stricken Americans own. The number in parentheses is provided for comparison. That’s the percentage of Americans living above the poverty line who own the same stuff.
■Refrigerators: 97.8 (99.5)
■Clothes washers: 68.7 (88.1)
■Clothes dryers: 65.3 (86.6)
■Dishwashers: 44.9 (73.5)
■Food freezers: 26.2 (37.5)
■Stoves: 96.6 (98.9)
■Microwaves: 93.2 (97.4)
...which translates to what, wage-wise?It would be someone that generally can afford rent/clothing/food and have a little left over.
...which translates to what, wage-wise?
Here are some other percentages that run down the things that poverty-stricken Americans own. The number in parentheses is provided for comparison. That’s the percentage of Americans living above the poverty line who own the same stuff.
■Refrigerators: 97.8 (99.5)
■Clothes washers: 68.7 (88.1)
■Clothes dryers: 65.3 (86.6)
■Dishwashers: 44.9 (73.5)
■Food freezers: 26.2 (37.5)
■Stoves: 96.6 (98.9)
■Microwaves: 93.2 (97.4)
...which translates to what, wage-wise?
I'm not sure what you get from this. When I read this
So if someone rents a place with a microwave/stove/washer and dryer/fridge/freezer but has problems getting food for those things, clothing themselves etc then they are living in poverty? What exactly does poverty look like to you? Do you have to cook your food in a fire pit after curing it to make it last longer?
As for the various amenities....a better question is...at what point do you think someone is living in poverty?
You seem to hold some dustbowl Great Depression era view of poverty. Your not in poverty into you're living in a shack with a dust floor on the prairie barely getting by on what you can grow. Have you ever walked into a house with a TV and been like "man...this is poverty". I have.
There is no such thing. What any one of you could live on may or may not be what I can live on and vice-versa.
There are also other things definitely considered "luxuries" that people often own when living below the poverty level. I was stating that, even at that level, people don't have it quite that bad.
Full-time minimum wage puts you right around...actually over...the poverty level - which apparently affords you quite a bit. That is the chief reasoning behind why I wonder why liberals are trying to squeeze the nuts of business for all this extra money. Are they wanting a PS4 and XBox One for every TV and an iPhone for every pocket? Is that 2011 Corrolla an embarassment now?
Both of which are why it's undefinable. But I get your meaning.I avoided putting it in static wage terms because of cost of living, geography, etc. I tried to word it in relative "creature comforts".
Both of which are why it's undefinable. But I get your meaning.
I've seen far too many people (that lack any sort of basic economic education) discuss some fictitious term like "liveable wage". I think it's time we let liberals define it.
What is it, people?
I've seen far too many people (that lack any sort of basic economic education) discuss some fictitious term like "liveable wage". I think it's time we let liberals define it.
What is it, people?
Ahyup. It's a term that only assuages their emotions yet has zero basis in practical reality, save as an appeal to the emotions of others.I've always considered it a made-up term that's complete bunk. The problem is that liberals and "progressives" lately keep wanting to use that term like it's real or something.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?