I think the fact that you can live on $9000 a year in Kentucky (let's say) is irrelevant to the realities of what it takes to live elsewhere. And I think that where you CAN live on the minimum wage, those jobs are few and far between. When I was in Livingston Texas, I heard that three hundred people applied for a minimum wage job running a cash register at the gas station, and that there was a waiting list for jobs at WalMart.
I think the fact that you might be able to get a room in a shared house for 300 a month is irrelevant if you have three children. I think that the gratuitous reference to marital status is irrelevant in view of the fact that divorce almost universally means that the children of divorce WILL be poor. I think that it is not for nothing that the minimum wage in Santa Fe is $11 an hour; and I think that even if you are paid that, you still cannot afford to live here. Hell, even I can't afford a house in Santa Fe, not one I want to live in anyway. Too many out of state millionaires. I think that some people are very concerned with the notion that somebody somewhere might be getting away with something. Dana On 6/19/07, Dinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the statement also assumes people are in some kind of stasis... that > who we are today is the same as who we were yesterday, or tomorrow. > > Which is patently false. > 8 8 8 > I'm just kidding about being poor-ish, when I say it too, BTW. I'm not > nearly > poor. > * * * > Scott pretty much nailed it, I reckon. > > On 6/19/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >Nope. But as a thinking human being capable of forming an opinion, I > > think > > >it is reasonable to assume that the day after a person with the mental > > and > > >physical capacities to earn a high school degree (no small task), they > > would > > >be able to perform in a menial job position. > > > > I can agree with that - but we're not just talking about the "day after" > > they get out of high-school. > > > > I'm still going back to the original presentation: that there's nobody > > (not even one person) that has gotten a diploma, failed to have a child out > > of wedlock and is not an addict living below the poverty level. > > > > I just don't think that's true. If we change the premise to be "at some > > point anybody that meets these criteria could live above the poverty level" > > then I would agree with the conclusion: anybody that can graduate > > high-school can perform above the poverty level - but only if they keep > > those levels of facilities. > > > > Jim Davis > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJQ Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:236860 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
