SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Les H who wrote (106399)6/4/2001 3:33:23 PM
From: flatsville  Read Replies (2) of 436258
 
Les--

In my opinion they've got some pretty skewed definitions. They note here,

epf.org

below the pie chart that "A child in this context is an individual living with their parents, regardless of their age."

This kind of definition is hardly helpful.

And uh, geez, how the hell they defined "head" or "head of family" isn't even explained.

So in other words, there could be a household with one older person, any number of adult offspring 25+ years old all with dependent children and only one of those persons (presumable the one older person) would be counted as a "head" or "head of family" because the adult offspring have been defined-away as a "child/children?"

And this tells us what?

Well, nothing as best I can determine. We already know many low wage earning families have to double, triple and even quadruple up to survive.

So...just define them out of existence as families and it makes the numbers look so much better (and I presume the case for a higher minimum wage so much weaker.)

Very clever...Thank for the heads-up...LOL...I had not seen this kind of argument yet. It's been a few years for me on this issue.

Good gawd, no wonder "child" makes-up 35.1% of the above chart.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext