40% of America’s lowest-income families’ consumption goes to luxuries.
The bigger problem is American’s terrible spending habits not lack of real income.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g...
The bigger problem is American’s terrible spending habits not lack of real income.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g...
> It’s worth noting that by the specialized nomenclature of the dismal science, even eating at McDonald’s is a luxury — that is, we do it more as our incomes rise — while smoking and lottery-ticket buying are categorized as necessities.
I gave up smoking a couple of months ago after 30 odd years - I now feel rather stupid, given how clever I really am. I have never been a gambler but the parallels are very clear to me and I have a couple of friends who are gamblers and display the same stupidity. I keep my gob shut.
I do not agree with the definition of necessity implied above. Gambling and drug taking (smoking int al) are not basic requirements for life. Eating is. Eating at McDs is simply buying calories and possibly a few other basic life sustaining requirements and consuming the same. McDs may not provide you with all the nutritional requirements for a healthy life but you will get a lot of calories in. Until embarrassingly recently, the sole stated purpose of eating was calories. Brits are still not known as Limeys for nothing.
Fags and bandits can go and *////~~~~ bbbbzzzzt OFF!!!!
> For its part, the Deutsche Bank report explicitly defined luxuries as goods or services consumed in greater proportions as a person’s income increases and necessities as those goods or services that make up a smaller proportion of spending as a person’s income increases.
> It’s worth noting that by the specialized nomenclature of the dismal science, even eating at McDonald’s is a luxury — that is, we do it more as our incomes rise — while smoking and lottery-ticket buying are categorized as necessities.
If someone is spending more on food, clothing, electronics as their income rise those things are clearly discretionary.
As someone who ate well on minimum wage, you’re not going to convince me low-income families can’t afford food in America if they’re properly budgeting.
[0] http://www.ibtimes.com/us-spends-less-food-any-other-country... [1] http://www.trivisonno.com/food-stamps-charts
It's also not discretionary if at lower income levels they receive a greater share of direct food aid that isn't counted in their spending because they never exchange money or a money-denominated voucher for it.
> As someone who ate well on minimum wage, you’re not going to convince me low-income families can’t afford food in America if they’re properly budgeting.
Many of the poor:
(1) Aren't able to find work (and may not be able to work; permanent disability is a thing, and positively correlated with poverty),
(2) May not work find full time work when they work, and
(3) May be supporting non-working (and unable for age or other reasons to work) dependents on their part-time, intermittent, minimum wage income.
> For its part, the Deutsche Bank report explicitly defined luxuries as goods or services consumed in greater proportions as a person’s income increases and necessities as those goods or services that make up a smaller proportion of spending as a person’s income increases.
In other words, the whole study is complete nonsense because those definitions are ridiculous and completely detached from any sensible definition of those words.
Maybe terrible spending habits cause no lack of real income, and if everybody became responsible the economy would tank.