• @MightyGalhupo
    link
    English
    111 months ago

    But you can be working poor and not in those conditions

    • @Maggoty
      link
      English
      111 months ago

      You mean above the assistance line? I’m willing to entertain it, but please explain.

      • @MightyGalhupo
        link
        English
        211 months ago

        I’m not sure on the exact definition of working poor, but I’d say someone who works to make just barely enough to live (aka don’t need/get assistance) but don’t earn enough for more than that and saving for when necessary utilities like fridges break down is still working poor.

        • @Maggoty
          link
          English
          011 months ago

          I don’t know. I get that it seems like being poor and it’s certainly a dangerous financial area that could make you poor. But if you’re covering all your bases then I don’t think we can say your poor.

          I know it seems like splitting a hair but if we define it like that, in general terms, then people who are just financially irresponsible would also qualify, while someone making less then them would not. I’d probably put together a basket of required goods in an area, average rent, average grocery, healthcare, average utilities for X number bedrooms (i.e. kids), etc and set that as the standard you need to be able to cover and not be poor. That way if you’re making more than those items added together we know you’re actually doing alright and we can focus elsewhere.

          In a less capitalist focused system I’d probably include funding vacations, pets, and retirement.

          • @MightyGalhupo
            link
            English
            211 months ago

            I see, I hadn’t thought of that but you make a good point.

            • @Maggoty
              link
              English
              111 months ago

              It is a contentious subject. The basket of goods is constantly argued over in policy circles. So it’s not a settled thing by any means.