qwerty989

Again, that is not correct. Despite conventional wisdom, the poor have more leisure time than the rich.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2007/0...

This is so wrong. I'm not sure why this argument is always made when it's obviously incorrect. Beans, rice, cabbage, tomatoes, chicken, pasta, bread, potatoes, bananas, yogurt, eggs, vegetables, etc. are cheap.

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/cheap-healthy-15-...

http://www.workingmother.com/food-nutrition/cheap-and-health...

http://www.fitbie.com/slideshow/20-ridiculously-cheap-and-he...

Yes, he is wrong. The poor in America are far likelier to be overweight than starving.

That's not right. Taxpayers are subsidizing every industry that employs low wage workers, which is basically every industry. That includes janitors at Google and Apple.

How is this different from any other small business that employs entry level workers? Cashiers at Apple retail stores make small wages too. Should we go after them too?

The poor in America spend a small percentage of their income on food.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/cheap-ea...

Wrong.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%...

This argument is deeply flawed. What if they were unemployed? Taxpayers would be subsidizing a lot more.