[Coyote]

In America, it is physically impossible to work fulltime and remain in poverty.

Again, I can't speak to Britain's malaise.

[Pants-of-dog]

In America, it is physically impossible to work fulltime and remain in poverty.

Again, I can't speak to Britain's malaise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_po ... _to_Europe

As you can see, the number of working poor is higher in the US than in the UK. Again, you are objectively incorrect.

[Coyote]

An adult working fulltime at minimum wage in the USA is already above the poverty level. So right there, I am already objectively, scientifically, and mathematically correct. End of story.

Once you add in the transfer payments that these people qualify for, you are approaching the earnings of the lower middle class.

"Working", means nothing. You have to work fulltime. A minimum of 40 hours per week.

And, as there are 168 hours in a week, I've never understood why someone who is "poor" wouldn't work during at least half of that time.

It's not like you have anything better to do. You're broke!

[Coyote]

The federal poverty level for 2013 is $11,490.

The federal baseline minimum wage is $7.25/hr.

$7.25/hr X 40 hrs X 52 weeks = $15,080.

$15,080 > $11,490

The concept of the working poor is a myth. They do not exist.

[AFAIK]

And, as there are 168 hours in a week, I've never understood why someone who is "poor" wouldn't work during at least half of that time.

I'm glad my mother didn't have to spend every waking moment at work. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

How much do babysitters and nurseries cost where you live Coyote?

[Pants-of-dog]

An adult working fulltime at minimum wage in the USA is already above the poverty level. So right there, I am already objectively, scientifically, and mathematically correct. End of story.

Not if you're trying to support a family which is the group of people we are discussing.

Once you add in the transfer payments that these people qualify for, you are approaching the earnings of the lower middle class.

"Working", means nothing. You have to work fulltime. A minimum of 40 hours per week.

You do realise that it is possible to work more than 40 hours per week and still not be considered full-time?

And, as there are 168 hours in a week, I've never understood why someone who is "poor" wouldn't work during at least half of that time.

It's not like you have anything better to do. You're broke!

Again, we are speaking of those people who have families. People with families have large demands on their time because of their families. Working 80 hours a week is detrimental to a good family life.

The federal poverty level for 2013 is $11,490.

The federal baseline minimum wage is $7.25/hr.

$7.25/hr X 40 hrs X 52 weeks = $15,080.

$15,080 > $11,490

The concept of the working poor is a myth. They do not exist.

You forgot to divide that $15 080 by the number of people in that family who are living off that income. A single parent with child would be two people with $7 540 each. That would be two people below the federal poverty level.

By the way, double posting is against the forum rules. No one will actually punish you for it as you are new to the forum, but in the future you will need to use the "edit" button and add the text to your last written post. The edit button is in the top right corner beside the "report" button.

[Coyote]

I'm glad my mother didn't have to spend every waking moment at work. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

How much do babysitters and nurseries cost where you live Coyote?

Prices can vary greatly.

But, if the cost of a babysitter is less than the earnings available through work, then the obvious choice is to work.

And, of course, we all know that single parenting is probably the greatest source of poverty, so that should be avoided as much as possible. In most cases, single parenting is the result of a choice. And that choice is an economic decision, like it or not...

[Coyote]

Again, we are speaking of those people who have families. People with families have large demands on their time because of their families. Working 80 hours a week is detrimental to a good family life.

Don't be ridiculous. It's not nearly as detrimental as living in poverty is.

Poverty destroys families. It destroys people.

[mikema63]

You realize you earlier advocated a 12 hoe workday 7 days a week as a cure for poverty?

That will destroy families.

[Pants-of-dog]

Don't be ridiculous. It's not nearly as detrimental as living in poverty is.

Poverty destroys families. It destroys people.

I have to disagree.

Anyways, you seem to have backed off from your claim that there are no working poor. According to our math, a family trying to live off a full-time minimum wage is below the federal poverty level.

[Coyote]

You realize you earlier advocated a 12 hoe workday 7 days a week as a cure for poverty?

That will destroy families.

I tire of the faux concern for families. Get real. Having a family is an economic choice. We all know where babies come from. Swans do not come divebombing out of the heavens and deposit babies into bellies!

The Clinton admin. released their findings on poverty back in the 90's:

Graduate high school, don't have children before 20 yrs, don't have children out of wedlock, and you have only an 8% chance of falling into poverty.

Fail to achieve those goals, and you stand an 80% chance of falling into poverty.

Poverty is an effect. You can't ignore the causes, in the attempt to treat the effect. Which is essentially what you guys are trying to do. To divorce the two.

[Coyote]

I have to disagree.

Anyways, you seem to have backed off from your claim that there are no working poor. According to our math, a family trying to live off a full-time minimum wage is below the federal poverty level.

Not at all. You have to take care of yourself. You do not have to have children.

Why on earth would someone only making minimum wage, with no working partner, bring a child into this world?

[AFAIK]

I tire of the faux concern for families. Get real. Having a family is an economic choice. We all know where babies come from. Swans do not come divebombing out of the heavens and deposit babies into bellies!

Perhaps for you it is an economic choice. You could send your 4 yo to work in a factory 80 hours a week to allow the family to escape poverty. Most other humans are emotional beings however. My parents chose to have children because they love children. This is the norm for all socio-economic groups.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not at all. You have to take care of yourself. You do not have to have children.

Why on earth would someone only making minimum wage, with no working partner, bring a child into this world?

I have no idea why someone would do that, if it is a decision as you say.

However, the fact that it is a bad decision does not somehow mean that people are not making this decision. They are. Thus, the working poor exist.

[lucky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_po ... _to_Europe

As you can see, the number of working poor is higher in the US than in the UK.

A quick look at that page tells me:

A household is coded as "poor" if its income is less than 50% of its country's median income.

Hence, the inter-country comparison makes no sense because they use a different poverty level for each country.

[Coyote]

Perhaps for you it is an economic choice. You could send your 4 yo to work in a factory 80 hours a week to allow the family to escape poverty. Most other humans are emotional beings however. My parents chose to have children because they love children. This is the norm for all socio-economic groups.

This is an utterly ridiculous reply. Having a child is a choice, and therefore, has economic ramifications.

[AFAIK]

And no birth rights apparently.

[Coyote]

And no birth rights apparently.

What does that mean? Rights? Of course!

Everyone has the same rights. Or they aren't rights at all, are they?

[SecretSquirrel]

the best cure for poverty is for people to stop reproducing so much. It's the only permanent cure for poverty, because any gains in productivity or wealth are quickly consumed if the population simply grows to the new carrying capacity.

In the western world this is already happening, with most advanced countries drastically slowing or even reversing population growth. Unfortunately the third world is more than picking up the slack

IN REPLY TO ORIGINAL POST:

Inheritances have nothing to do with the rights of heirs. Inheritance law is, simply put, allowing somebody (the dying person) to do what he wants with his property. Who he gifts it to is none of anybody else's concern.

[Rainbow Crow]

I tire of the faux concern for families. Get real. Having a family is an economic choice. We all know where babies come from. Swans do not come divebombing out of the heavens and deposit babies into bellies!

The Clinton admin. released their findings on poverty back in the 90's:

Graduate high school, don't have children before 20 yrs, don't have children out of wedlock, and you have only an 8% chance of falling into poverty.

Fail to achieve those goals, and you stand an 80% chance of falling into poverty.

Poverty is an effect. You can't ignore the causes, in the attempt to treat the effect. Which is essentially what you guys are trying to do. To divorce the two.

Hear hear, when are you going to stop blaming the victim and part with your money? Living off of welfare is hard, especially in the liberal northeast where it's equivalent to $15 / hour, 40 hours a week.

I wonder when liberal trust fund babies like AFAIK will donate all of their money to charity, or some of their money, or at the very least, dedicate themselves personally to community service.

What's that? Never? You're going to live off your western trust fund in Cambodia and preach at us from a place where your money will never run dry? Le surprise.

This liberalism cannot possibly be a compensation for anything. There are evil conservatives giving their time and money to people and we need an internet hero to be mean to them.