• Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

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

      • MightyGalhupo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 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.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 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.