Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Food Stamps Restriction
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »BTW, up here there is no such thing as food stamps. Very few schools have any sort of food program - a small number offer a bit of extra breakfast. There are food banks through donated foods but that's it. And food is more expensive up here by quite a lot.
So you are asserting that people in poverty in Canada do not get gov't aid? Or just that it is not in the very specific form that some of it takes in the US (i.e., food assistance, school lunches).
For example, we've established that Australia (for the most part) does not have aid in the SNAP format, but instead provides non-earmarked funds that cover a variety of needs.
How does aid to needy people work in Canada, if anyone can answer? I'm reasonably certain it's not just private aid/charities.
There is some welfare. It varies between provinces
Up here in Alberta (Canada) a family of 5 could get just under $500 for a month's worth of groceries, and just over $500 to cover other bills like shelter, electrical, and and water bills, and transportation. It is something of a joke. I spend about $300 a week on food for us, over $1200/month, and that excludes some of our meat that we get from a family member's farm. Property taxes are well over $3000 a year. Heating is ridiculous in the winter. Renting would be impossible too as a below average 2-bedroom rental is over a $1000 and may not cover all bills.
One NEEDS to rely on charity to get by up here. Our food banks and drop in centres are charities.
Surprisingly, it looks like the States gets better benefits for their needy.
Based on what?
Edit: here's a pretty good comparison that indicates for poor families there's a lot more available in Canada than in the US. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/hoynes_stabile_submission_04272017.pdf0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Yet each one of these taxpayer funded services comes with restrictions and, generally speaking, people just accept it.
Whilst I'm not in the US, and clearly don't have the local knowledge, I'd be somewhat surprised if access to those was limited based on ones economic circumstances?
I'm not sure what your point is here. My point is that there are restrictions in place with all government services - why would restricting one's access to publicly-funded soda trigger people more than say a library committee deciding that they don't want to make The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn available? It's still some government body making a moral decision about what's 'good for the children'...2 -
....but now we know it could happen...
You said it yourself, one in 100 years, so it was known to be a risk before. The inherent risk doesn't increase because the risk has matured once. What I would say is that it's likely that the risk is increasing as a result of climate change, but does that just change the calculus of civil contingency planning?And it does bother me that I am giving money to people with an income ten times mine.
Quite...0 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Yet each one of these taxpayer funded services comes with restrictions and, generally speaking, people just accept it.
Whilst I'm not in the US, and clearly don't have the local knowledge, I'd be somewhat surprised if access to those was limited based on ones economic circumstances?
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Apologies, I thought it was pretty clear. Essentially how far does the imposition of restriction delve into the individual space.
A fire service will respond to an incident, rather then checking credit score. A police officer isn't going to decline to investigate certain crimes reported by certain people, based on policy. I recognise that there are both individual and structural reasons that mean it is the case, but they're not laid out in statute.My point is that there are restrictions in place with all government services - why would restricting one's access to publicly-funded soda trigger people more than say a library committee deciding that they don't want to make The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn available?
The library one is an oddity to me, essentially allowing a restriction on access to information on a moral basis is a bit bizarre. In the UK, if you want the book the library will get hold of the book. That may involve an inter-library transfer, hence a delay, but we don't restrict access. Personally speaking from about the age of 10 I would routinely get books from the adult section of the library, rather than children's. I don't recall a low income section, although given that where I grew up was pretty destitute I suspect the whole thing was.
Fwiw I may also misunderstand the nature of a library committee, is this an employee based committee, or a user-group type thing that directs the buyers?
The discussion upthread about regulated minimum wage sheds some light as well. Essentially the argument is that the business owner shouldn't be required to pay a living wage. That means that the business owner would be getting a subsidy. If the subsidy went straight to the business and was then disbursed as wage there wouldn't be a constraint on how it's spent. If it goes direct to the employee in the form of state supplement then why should it. That said I'm thinking about how we approach a living wage in the UK, which is essentially the point at which access to some state support ceases.
5 -
They should run food stamps like they run the WIC program. The food stamps can only be used for certain foods. If they want the junk, they have to pay cash out of their own pockets.5
-
I'm sure the composition of library committees varies from community to community - the one thing I would daresay they all have in common is that no one is elected to these committees. Yet as appointed bureaucrats, unanswerable to an electorate, they are able to pick and choose which books, authors, or perspectives are made available.MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Yet each one of these taxpayer funded services comes with restrictions and, generally speaking, people just accept it.
Whilst I'm not in the US, and clearly don't have the local knowledge, I'd be somewhat surprised if access to those was limited based on ones economic circumstances?
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Apologies, I thought it was pretty clear. Essentially how far does the imposition of restriction delve into the individual space.
A fire service will respond to an incident, rather then checking credit score. A police officer isn't going to decline to investigate certain crimes reported by certain people, based on policy. I recognise that there are both individual and structural reasons that mean it is the case, but they're not laid out in statute.My point is that there are restrictions in place with all government services - why would restricting one's access to publicly-funded soda trigger people more than say a library committee deciding that they don't want to make The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn available?
The library one is an oddity to me, essentially allowing a restriction on access to information on a moral basis is a bit bizarre. In the UK, if you want the book the library will get hold of the book. That may involve an inter-library transfer, hence a delay, but we don't restrict access. Personally speaking from about the age of 10 I would routinely get books from the adult section of the library, rather than children's. I don't recall a low income section, although given that where I grew up was pretty destitute I suspect the whole thing was.
Fwiw I may also misunderstand the nature of a library committee, is this an employee based committee, or a user-group type thing that directs the buyers?
The discussion upthread about regulated minimum wage sheds some light as well. Essentially the argument is that the business owner shouldn't be required to pay a living wage. That means that the business owner would be getting a subsidy. If the subsidy went straight to the business and was then disbursed as wage there wouldn't be a constraint on how it's spent. If it goes direct to the employee in the form of state supplement then why should it. That said I'm thinking about how we approach a living wage in the UK, which is essentially the point at which access to some state support ceases.
At its barest, my point is that governmental paternalism is governmental paternalism. In my state, the law says I have to wear a seatbelt if I drive on the public roadways. Much like the proposed soda restriction, the government has taken away my agency as an adult human person to make that decision for myself. Was my dignity taken away? Or do I need to be in a specific socio-economic strata to claim victimhood?2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
To a great extent, that can decide. But the reality is, they are spending other people's money, and there are always strings attached when the government/public funding is involved.
I'm not in favor of adding any more restrictions, but when on public assistance in the USA, government restrictions are part of the 'deal.'
If you've worked and paid taxes and somehow need assistance, you're not spending other people's money. It is a system set up to help people in need. It's not a way of life for everyone receiving assistance. That's what wrong with society, no one can need help at one point or another. They're not stealing their way through life, they've applied for assistance and was accepted in the program. Yes, you must be approved tor receive government assistance.
I disagree. If you're on assistance, whether you paid in to it or not, you are spending government money. We all pay in to it. But we don't all go on assistance.
When taxpayer money is being spent, I think it's reasonable to expect some restrictions.
We don't all go "on assistance" (even though there is no way of telling when you might need it) by getting food stamps, but virtually every one in America is accepting a government handout in one way or another. I haven't experienced a hurricane or natural disaster in my lifetime, but I don't begrudge the people in Houston for the billions and billions of dollars they are going to get in the future.
Public schools, libraries, roads and other infrastructure, police and fire services are also examples of "government handouts" that many of us benefit from.
Yet each one of these taxpayer funded services comes with restrictions and, generally speaking, people just accept it.
Whilst I'm not in the US, and clearly don't have the local knowledge, I'd be somewhat surprised if access to those was limited based on ones economic circumstances?
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Apologies, I thought it was pretty clear. Essentially how far does the imposition of restriction delve into the individual space.
A fire service will respond to an incident, rather then checking credit score. A police officer isn't going to decline to investigate certain crimes reported by certain people, based on policy. I recognise that there are both individual and structural reasons that mean it is the case, but they're not laid out in statute.My point is that there are restrictions in place with all government services - why would restricting one's access to publicly-funded soda trigger people more than say a library committee deciding that they don't want to make The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn available?
The library one is an oddity to me, essentially allowing a restriction on access to information on a moral basis is a bit bizarre. In the UK, if you want the book the library will get hold of the book. That may involve an inter-library transfer, hence a delay, but we don't restrict access. Personally speaking from about the age of 10 I would routinely get books from the adult section of the library, rather than children's. I don't recall a low income section, although given that where I grew up was pretty destitute I suspect the whole thing was.
Fwiw I may also misunderstand the nature of a library committee, is this an employee based committee, or a user-group type thing that directs the buyers?
The discussion upthread about regulated minimum wage sheds some light as well. Essentially the argument is that the business owner shouldn't be required to pay a living wage. That means that the business owner would be getting a subsidy. If the subsidy went straight to the business and was then disbursed as wage there wouldn't be a constraint on how it's spent. If it goes direct to the employee in the form of state supplement then why should it. That said I'm thinking about how we approach a living wage in the UK, which is essentially the point at which access to some state support ceases.
Actually, the problem is that the definition of "living wage" has changed. In most of the US, minimum wage is sufficient to provide food, shelter, transportation, and a small entertainment budget for the employee. Just as it was designed and intended to do.
It was implemented to correct the abuses of pay that did not provide sufficient resources to provide the above, and where employees were sleeping on the street, or required to accept substandard housing provided by the employer. Or worse, where the employees were not paid in money but in credits that could only be spent in the company stores and could only pay rent in company towns.
Today, there is a push to redefine "living wage" as a wage that allows one to support a family. Should we then have a minimum wage for single people... a minimum wage for married people... a minimum wage for families with children?9 -
Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.2
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.
So is it or is it not as you said above "enough to feed shelter and transport yourself". If it is... then it is in fact a living wage..VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.3 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »The library one is an oddity to me, essentially allowing a restriction on access to information on a moral basis is a bit bizarre. In the UK, if you want the book the library will get hold of the book. That may involve an inter-library transfer, hence a delay, but we don't restrict access.
Yes, same with the US. BUT, the library has limited funds, so will make choices about what to stock. Generally (to pick a better example than Huck Finn, IMO), things with literary or academic value, things that are currently popular (newer books are overrepresented in many libraries), things that are enduringly popular. That a library chooses not to stock someone's favorites (sorry, no astrology section, perhaps) may be a result of its mission and limited funds/space. You could make a similar argument for SNAP being used only for food (no toilet paper) and not for alcohol (both currently the case) and also, probably, for no soda, I suppose.
Anyway, the current model is give people funds for food and let them make a choice about their diet. Saying "eh, soda isn't really like food, it's more like alcohol" (which I don't have strong feelings on one way or another) seems a different proposed change then "people should only be permitted to buy foods that I think make up a nutrient dense diet" (which involves a heck of a lot more gov't involvement than I thought the US was currently comfortable with, but who knows -- anyway, I'm against this change).The discussion upthread about regulated minimum wage sheds some light as well. Essentially the argument is that the business owner shouldn't be required to pay a living wage.
Yes, although for the record, the US of course DOES have a minimum wage and it's supposed to be a living wage (and is closer to one if we assume no kids or 2 income earners, neither of which is currently a valid assumption in many cases). So no question that it's not, and that some employed people therefore may need to rely on SNAP.That means that the business owner would be getting a subsidy.
How is this? I do think we ought to have a minimum wage and it should be pegged to what a living wage is, but not having regulations (or having different regulations that are less costly) is not the same thing as a subsidy. (Or, redo the whole thing and just have a minimum guaranteed income and that replaces minimum wage.)If the subsidy went straight to the business and was then disbursed as wage there wouldn't be a constraint on how it's spent. If it goes direct to the employee in the form of state supplement then why should it. That said I'm thinking about how we approach a living wage in the UK, which is essentially the point at which access to some state support ceases.
Yes -- if SNAP was just wage support and not for food, there would be less limitation on how it's spent, which seems to be how it works in Australia and Canada. And that seems like more of a hands off position by the state, which is why I think it's interesting that those who seem more against regulation in some cases seem to want to regulate more.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.
So is it or is it not as you said above "enough to feed shelter and transport yourself". If it is... then it is in fact a living wage..VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
It's not. Living wage is something calculated each year by some body somewhere as to show what it costs to live in the UK. Minimum wage is what is the actual legal minimum and is less than the living wage. Thus not a living wage. Vast majority of our welfare budget goes to those in work but low paid or under-employed.8 -
VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.
Whether or not the UK minimum wage is sufficient to support a single person depends on quite a few factors, primarily their location. In many parts of the country (aka not London/commuter belt) it's perfectly possible - but probably not fun unless you're into cheap hobbies. I've done it myself so it does get on my nerves slightly when people blanketly claim the minimum wage isn't enough for a minimum living cost. It isn't in London, but that's a different claim.2 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.
Whether or not the UK minimum wage is sufficient to support a single person depends on quite a few factors, primarily their location. In many parts of the country (aka not London/commuter belt) it's perfectly possible - but probably not fun unless you're into cheap hobbies. I've done it myself so it does get on my nerves slightly when people blanketly claim the minimum wage isn't enough for a minimum living cost. It isn't in London, but that's a different claim.
I'd challenge most people to live on £7.20ph anywhere in country anymore. And I have been paid that much. The second you have to commute to work you're fubar'd. The living wage published every year I have talked about is the one for outside London. In London I think it's more like £10ph. Rest of country about £8ph.1 -
-
Rosemary7391 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.
Whether or not the UK minimum wage is sufficient to support a single person depends on quite a few factors, primarily their location. In many parts of the country (aka not London/commuter belt) it's perfectly possible - but probably not fun unless you're into cheap hobbies. I've done it myself so it does get on my nerves slightly when people blanketly claim the minimum wage isn't enough for a minimum living cost. It isn't in London, but that's a different claim.
Just as in the US(Excepting NY, DC, Seattle, LA/SF) It's quite sufficient. and in some places more than sufficient. Places like Montgomery AL, or Columbia, SC, or Abilene TX, It's sufficient for a couple on a single income, these are obviously examples, and not an exhaustive list.6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Living wage in the UK is simply enough to feed, shelter and transport yourself. Not about supporting a family too. So the minimum wage is an absolute joke because it doesn't actually meet minimums. I have no clue how that compares to the US right enough.
Which is the point/purpose of a minimum wage. And exactly as it should be.
The minimum doesn't include providing for anyone else.
My point is, our minimum wage is below the living wage. Although the government rebranded the minimum as the living wage without making it an actual living wage.
Whether or not the UK minimum wage is sufficient to support a single person depends on quite a few factors, primarily their location. In many parts of the country (aka not London/commuter belt) it's perfectly possible - but probably not fun unless you're into cheap hobbies. I've done it myself so it does get on my nerves slightly when people blanketly claim the minimum wage isn't enough for a minimum living cost. It isn't in London, but that's a different claim.
I'd challenge most people to live on £7.20ph anywhere in country anymore. And I have been paid that much. The second you have to commute to work you're fubar'd. The living wage published every year I have talked about is the one for outside London. In London I think it's more like £10ph. Rest of country about £8ph.
I currently don't make much more than £7.20ph all things considered and I save more than the gap between that and my present income, so do live on less... I'm in central Glasgow.
£7.20ph for 37.5hours gets you just over £1k a month. Take Oxford for example - a quick search gives me a couple of options for rooms with bills included up to £500 a month. Oxford is not known for being cheap, but even that would be doable with care.
I've always moved to within walking distance of my jobs so can't really comment on commute costs - to me that's more a problem with irregular hours/stability of the job than the wage, especially if one has to commute for a minimum wage job. The reality is that it will always depend on an individual situation whether a certain wage is liveable or not. I would rather see more variation in wages regarding things like location and experience/skills of the worker - the current situation means that people with a large range of different situations, skills and experience all earn the same wage and that makes no sense to me!1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
Reviewing their calculations shows some issues.
For example for a single person they show 8.85 as the "living wage for a single person" but using their numbers and the notional 37.5 hr week the actual calculation should be 7.65. Which isn't 7.20, but should the person work 40 hrs, or have a second job working a night or two on the weekend, 7.20 is well within the range for the basket as presented4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions