If your theory were true, the poor should have less leisure time than the non-poor. Yet according to the ATUS, they don&#x27;t.<p>I&#x27;ll break down why your theories are wrong. Most poor people don&#x27;t work at all, and many of those who do are only part time. So this idea of &quot;multiple part time minimum wage jobs&quot; applies only to a very small number of people.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bls.gov&#x2F;opub&#x2F;reports&#x2F;cps&#x2F;a-profile-of-the-working-poor-2013.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bls.gov&#x2F;opub&#x2F;reports&#x2F;cps&#x2F;a-profile-of-the-working...</a><p>74% of poor households actually do have a vehicle (compared to 92% of the country), so that doesn&#x27;t look like it&#x27;s a big factor. 65% of the poor have a washing machine (compared to 82% of the country), so again that&#x27;s probably not driving this gap.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.census.gov&#x2F;prod&#x2F;2008pubs&#x2F;h150-07.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.census.gov&#x2F;prod&#x2F;2008pubs&#x2F;h150-07.pdf</a><p>Even if the premises of your theory were true, there would have to be some countervailing factor since the conclusion (that the poor have less leisure time) is wrong.<p>But maybe the UK is wildly different. Can you present any data sets to demonstrate this?