Originally posted by sidinz
View Post
My logic, if you want to call it that, says that people who have partners earning (say) $70,000 or over probably have a more important contribution to make to their families than wasting their precious time working for minimum wages at KFC, Pak'n'Save, or wherever. Sure, some of them will, just for something to do, and to make some contribution. But I think that many of the people who work for minimum wages and show up in those low income stats are probably stuck in the poverty trap. Likely, both partners earn lower end incomes (as enduring couples often "match"), making it essential that they both work. Of our tenants, approximately 1/3 are working individuals, and 2/3rds are (both working) couples, meaning every one of them works. But of course, that's far too small a sample, and not representative.
In fact, the stats do not give enough information for anything much more than guesswork, as all the contributions here seem to suggest, but my main question was, how many affluent people (who collect drawings rather than [or as well as] salaries) actually appear in these low income stats due to their ability to massage away their real incomes? There's no assumption in that... It's a question, but you cut that off your copy.
BTW, I found your story, and especially your website, very interesting. You obviously have ample practical ability.
Comment