>  what it really costs is approximately 60% of the annual minimum
> wage, and we currently have over 60% unemployment.
>
> But the comparison in costs is interesting, isn't
> it?
>
It certainly is. Surely there is a health economist who can tell us what
else we need to know: is the % of the annual minimum wage a good
indicator? Would average family income be better?
I just had an interesting comment with my ds, who is in a
limited-enrollment university program (B.Phil. in Leadership Studies, a
label that embarasses him.) He is struggling to keep on his budget, and
I commented that I assumed that most of his classmates weren't quite as
preoccupied by finances. He said there was one other student in the
class who was: "You know, the one I told you about, whose mother is an
LLLL." Sigh.
It makes you wonder a bit about who can afford to buy formula;
fortunately, as it says in the WAB, in the case of breastfeeding, the
"best" is affordable.
Jo-Anne Elder-Gomes, PhD, volunteer, creative writer, high earning
potential but rather low level of ambition right now...

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html