A minimum standard cost of living does not include voluntary debt. Where has minimum wage ever been intended to support a family, buy a house, or save wealth? I keep asking this, and you keep dodging. Context parser failed. Some hypothetical minimum wage intended to afford home ownership?
1) Of course it does - any time one can save money by incurring debt, for example. 2)Debt, for the poor, is often involuntary For starters: Whenever your link makes sense, and isn't some guy saying silly things about poor people.
1) Parser failed - "save money by incurring debt" Again, cost of living doesn't factor the cost of money. 2) How? And how is it "often?" What does the intent of minimum wage have to do with a link that didn't even mention minimum wage? Nothing. You're just dodging a simple question.
Whatever that link had to do with this thread. So you're not engaging your higher mental faculties today. All that stuff about discounts and sales and the cost savings of covering bills and emergency payouts just went in one ear and out the other - - - It does if you are calculating a poor person's minimum cost of living. Unless you plan on playing stupid all the way to the door. As your mamma warned you: keep making your brain look like that, it will freeze in position.
You really don't know, do you? Really? Go into debt you can't afford so you can buy in bulk? Bad decision and voluntary. The poor can often negotiate waived or greatly reduced medical bills. Something about blood and turnips. No, it doesn't. I've already given you the criteria for cost of living, and you continue repeating your unsupported idiosyncratic term.
Save money by paying a little interest to get a big discount. The rich, of course, just pay cash - they can live cheaper than the poor. And often not - forcing them to borrow, pay interest, etc. Minimum cost of living, not average, was at issue. btw, since you seem to have overlooked what is common knowledge regarding the prices of stuff in poor neighborhoods compared with rich: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...lready-too-low-in-99-percent-of-u-s-counties/
Didn't find anything about a house, home, family, save, savings, or wealth in that link. You probably should have read it. Unrealistic fantasies. Something about blood and a turnip. Every cost of living is calculated for some specified standard of living. Not just an average. Fact of reality that disproportionately affects highly segregated Democrat-run cities and states.
i did. perhaps if you did your research you'd know that 11 dollars a week you could easily afford a new home with say a 30 year mortgage hell even just normal saving you could easily save the entire price for a house in under a decade. i know putting together different ideas is difficult for someone like you but try it stop you from making your self looking like an idiot. im sorry i expected you to put 2 and 2 together from know on i'll hold your hand and baby step you through information.
Not the minimum cost of living. That would be silly - you'd have defined yourself into being unable to calculate it.
Not in the link you cited, and nowhere shown as an intended purpose of minimum wage. No, I don't want to walk hand-in-hand through your vivid imagination. Yes, including a minimum standard of living. Look it up.
In which case your using different standards of living for rich and poor was an error. The calculation of a minimum cost of living would be based on a minimum standard of living. I'm fine with that. The rich can maintain that minimum standard of living - just like every other standard of living - at lower cost than the poor. They can obtain any given standard of food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, for less money than the poor would have to spend. The rich have a lower minimum cost of living.
Every standard of living costs the rich less than the poor. Including the minimum one. So their minimum cost of living is lower.
yes it does. it just requires knowing what things costed. no matter how many times you lie doesn't make it factual. i feel sorry for you. to be so pathetic to need to harm others to feel good about your place in the world.
The rich don't live a minimum standard of living, so there is no reality to that claim. No, it requires confirmation bias making up things that were not in the cited reference. Or maybe you'd like to quote them for us? It would be pathetic to make claims about your own source you're too afraid to support.
? You got me on that one. I have no idea what planet you live on, in which there exist no standards of living lower than the luxuries of the self-indulgent rich. Or rich people who take advantage of them. Meanwhile, on my planet:
i have had this explained to me by busines people before, including an economist and an economics lecturer. to keep it as simple as possible it is thus; having a larger quantity of money to spend, allows you to bargain larger amounts. by owning your own home for example(free-hold) you do not lose money on renting. you make money instead. the vast majority of the poor are renters, thus their cost of living is vastly higher than those whom own their own homes free-hold. note, not to confuse thrifty living.
Straw man. The reality is that the rich do have a higher standard of living. That doesn't say anything at all about whether lower standards exist. Bizarro world.