If you were to actually read the substack the original author wrote, it’s well justified reasoning. The original poverty calculation was based on the cost of food as a percentage of income of a family that is fully participating in society. The author explains though that food is a much smaller portion of our daily expenses and that the cost of fully participating in society includes significantly more expenses. So, if we still use food as a baseline, but re-evaluate it’s percentage of expenses. The new poverty line comes out to about 130k. The author also validates this by looking at the national average expenses and indeed for a family, fully participating in society with no government support, it’s around that range. But you know, continue being snarky.
Why not a million? Fuck it, make it two. 🙄
If you were to actually read the substack the original author wrote, it’s well justified reasoning. The original poverty calculation was based on the cost of food as a percentage of income of a family that is fully participating in society. The author explains though that food is a much smaller portion of our daily expenses and that the cost of fully participating in society includes significantly more expenses. So, if we still use food as a baseline, but re-evaluate it’s percentage of expenses. The new poverty line comes out to about 130k. The author also validates this by looking at the national average expenses and indeed for a family, fully participating in society with no government support, it’s around that range. But you know, continue being snarky.
The author may be right or wrong, but at least they make a real argument. You… not so much.
Why not shut up long enough to read and create an informed view of the other parties argument
I know it takes a few seconds longer then being an illiterate dummy. But you can do it champ.