So I got to the part of my (liberal biased) political science book that discusses the poverty line. I had trouble getting an exact estimate on how many people were at or below the line (I'm assuming because it wouldn't seem as high if they did that), but it did show that a severe number of blacks and Mexicans where below it, and of course more single people (particularly single parents were below it).

The poverty line is $20,000. How they get that is by taking a family of four's food expenses for a year and multiplying by three. I think that this is biased. While I think it is very very very hard to live on 20k in a family of four, and I agree that that is a very realistic number (two parents working minimum wage 30 hours a week would pull about that in a year), but I do not agree that that is the poverty line for a single person. Do they divide that number into a third? or even by half?

If it were divided into a third the person would make roughly $6,600 a year and work about 22 hours a week at minimum wage ($6). If it were divided by half, they would make roughly 10k a year, and they would work 32 hours on minimum wage of $6. That would meet the poverty line, if you were single.

So my question is this: If minimum wage puts a person above poverty (if they work full time) then why are there impoverish (healthy) people? Can they not find work? And, if they can not find work, then wouldn't supply side reaganomics be the best solution? Meaning that we should give money to businesses in order to create more jobs for people. This is the total opposite of what democrats seem to want. They prefer to go at it with a demand side approach by giving people more money to spend.

__________________
So your logic is that if we are not there, the number will go down... That makes perfect sense... not.