integration

Unless someone is starving, spending more on food as income rises is discretionary. A proper food budget is stable, it should not change as someone earns more money.

As someone who ate well on minimum wage, you’re not going to convince me low-income families can’t afford food in America if they’re properly budgeting.

Does “disrespectful” instead of “offensive” satisfy your need to play semantics?

It’s a better definition of luxuries.

If someone is spending more on food, clothing, electronics as their income rise those things are clearly discretionary.

40% of America’s lowest-income families’ consumption goes to luxuries.

The bigger problem is American’s terrible spending habits not lack of real income.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g...

Maybe you don’t realize but this name is offensive to Buddhists...

It’s like an insurance company calling itself “Gospel”

Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t it true that we don’t know what elementary particles are made of? In other words, doesn’t it appear that matter is both continuous and discrete, and that we could concievably find particles that comprise elementary particles... and so on? Is there a name for this paradox?