Russell asked: > >Ok, 60% of Americans don't earn enough to count as a living wage *if > >they're > >a single parent with two kids*. But there's a substantial proportion of > >people who (may) have no children but earn approx. half that sum or lesss. > > Do you have the numbers on this, or are you just claiming it? And do you > know the costs for families besides the "1 parent 2 kid" structure? I don't > mean to sound antagonistic, I'm merely curious. You seem like you're saying > "Some people have this family structure and most people couldn't support it" > Especially because your ideal family here has one person making money and > three consuming.
No, no antagonism inferred! I should have quoted sources initially, you're right. The figures quoted were arived at by the Economic Policy Institute after reviewing "dozens of studies of constitues a living wage". They're lifted from Nickel And Dimed, the book I mentioned at the end of my post. And I take both you and Erik's point that you could argue "apples and oranges" about the above stat. But what I was driving at was that for a three-person family group you'd need $14/hr to survive. And that whilst there are a lot of people who don't have to support that group, there are also a *lot* of people who earn massively less than that. As in 50% of it. And the fact that they're supporting 1/3rd the family doesn't mean they can get by on 1/2-1/3rd the income. Again, without wishing to preach, I'd highly recommend N&D. It's genuinely an eye-opener. Rik. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
