From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Aug 23 2003 - 02:15:54 MDT
On Friday 22 August 2003 19:25, Spike wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robbie Lindauer
>
>
> ...Now two family members must work to support a family of
> four. Then only 1...
>
>
> Depends on what you mean by the term "support". If
> one is satisfied with the standard of living they
> had "then," one minimum salary is way more than sufficient
> to make it happen.
No, it isn't in the least sufficient. My dad managed to support a family of 7
in the 60s on about $9K/yr. We weren't well off but we ate and had a house
and such. I know of no way to support a family of 4 on the approximately 14K
today that minimum salary would bring. Certainly not anywhere around here
(bay area) and nowhere I know of anywhere in the country. Certainly not in
my home town either. If you know differently then please prove it. It
would be nice to know money could be made to go this far. It would greatly
shorten the time I can work only on what I most care about regardless of what
I can get paid for.
> We expect more now, so it should
> come as no surprise that it costs more. Earning a
> subsistence level survival is cheaper and easier now
> than ever before, and getting more so all the time.
This is not my experience in the least. Please back up these fantastic
assertions or drop them.
> One needn't even work: standing on a city streetcorner
> with a "Will Not Work for Anything" sign will get you
> all the donations needed to survive.
>
>
> ...Then, you could pay for a piece of land capable of
> sustaining your own family within 7 years by working...
>
>
> Today you can earn enough to support yourself in
> a similar manner by working only a few months.
You are speaking utter krap.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 23 2003 - 02:28:14 MDT