Nothing said here yet about a single low income worker family with 4 kids to feed and clothe plus rent to pay.

Even with one child it can be difficult, especially if there are transport costs to get to work and back.

Get rid of the cashed up snobs on this thread for a start, eh!

So JF Aus says "Nothing said here yet about a single low income worker family with 4 kids to feed and clothe plus rent to pay."

Well here's something I'll say to this then: Why did they choose to have 4 kids? Why didn't they have only as many children as they can comfortable afford?

The man could have had the snip or the women have her tubes tied after one or two children. Surely in this day and age everyone knows about family planning and knows that they have different means and methods to choose from.

For a couple, who both contribute income- even if both are on low income with only one full time and the other part time, raising one child is not all that hard. Ok, so they won't be able to go the movies each week nor eat takeaway/dining-out every other day and some of their furniture will be second hand but the family will certainly not be in anything close to what you could call poverty (poverty in the sense that they barely have enough have shelter, clothing nor food to survive).

Unfortunately people live in this dream land where they think that if someone else has something (even if they worked their whole life for it) then it is only fair that they should have it to.

thinkabit more.

If economists of the world were doing the job they are supposed to do there would be enough business and employment and income for all willing to work towards prosperity and peace.

Whatever happened to the populate or perish agenda? LOL

JF Aus: your last post read a lot like left-wing-loser talk.

In typical "Nothing is ever my responsibility, so my misery must be someone's fault" thinking you immediately blame just one group in society, ie. economists, as cause of all the world's problems because they're not doing their job.

Well, I've got news for you: many economists are doing their "job" very well. Their job is to make those who employ them, ie: wealthy people, richer by assessing and predicting the economic activity of the various industries and regions in the world.

It's not the job of economists to create employment for the useless, envious unmotivated, self-centered no-hopers that abound.

If people want or need some help to improve their lot, then the best place for them to start is by helping themselves. eg: They could enroll in a course to improve their skillls or they could move to an area that has plenty of employment.

Thinkabit,

What area or region of the world has plenty of properly paid employment?

JF Aus,

What to you is "properly paid employment"?

For me, the proper price for anything, be it a good, service or labour is that which results when supply meets demand in a free market. Basically, as long as each side of an employment contract is free to offer, accept or counter-offer the terms which deal with the amount paid and the hours worked, then that is properly paid employment.
This means that in the case of employment at low wages, impediments to a market determined price, such as minimum wages, leads to improperly paid employment. Another case of improperly paid employment, but on the other end of the scale, is caps on wages/salaries such as the salary cap in sports like the NRL.

In addition to removing barriers to open negotiation, the rates of pay and the type of work agreed upon in any employment contract should be publicly available (withholding the names of the employees, but not the employers). Eg: a central government web-site which is searchable by employer name/business number should be provided. This allows potential employees to vet employers before applying for a job.

Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that people should receive an adequate amount to live a high quality life. In Australia, in my experience for a single person this would be about $500wk. For a person working a 40hr/wk this is about $13.00/hr (before tax). So, if someone is earning less than this then the Government should make up the difference (ie: subsidise wages) provided the that the subsidy is less than half this wage (ie: the subsidy is a max of $6.50/hr).

Lastly, people whose wages are subsidised can additionally "bank" the same amount to go towards further training, be it safety/machinery tickets, TAFE couses, Uni ,etc. Eg: if someone is receiving a $4/hr subsidy then they also receive $4/hr for each hour worked towards a course for improving their skillset to make them more employable, so after a year they will have accumulated about $8000 which can be spent on government approved courses).