Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 17:17:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <tim@ppp6564.on.sympatico.ca> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: ac199@hwcn.org, "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-chat@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970723170643.17671D-100000@ppp6564.on.sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <199707232052.OAA15194@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > I disagree. I live in Montana, where we have one of the lowest
> > > income/family in the nation. And, due to it's 'ruralness' we haven't
> > > kept up with the 'standard' with two working parents, so most two-parent
> > > families leave one of them at home *in spite* of their low-income. This
> > > is mostly due to what's acceptable from being a parent, and what's not
> > > in rural America.
> >
> > There is a certain minimum that is acceptable. I still think that
> > for many they would be below that minimum if only one parent was
> > working.
>
> What is that minimum? 8K/year? I know a family of 5 (mom, pop, and 3
> kids all under 12 who live on that now.)
Meeting this minimum means more than just "living". You know I
can't define this minimum, but somewhere between having nothing and
having everything lies an acceptable minimum.
I think that rather than trying to put this "minimum" in physical
terms, it might be best to use psychological ones. Is it when money
starts ordering your life?
I suppose what you're trying to argue is that it's possible to put a
monetary value on the value of one parent staying home. I guess I
can live with that.
--
tIM...HOEk
OPTIMIZATION: the process of using many one-letter variables names
hoping that the resultant code will run faster.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970723170643.17671D-100000>