Yeah. It is clearly possible. I don't know why I read it as 60th percentile instead of 60% of median
After reading my comment. You are right, it is not impossible.
However, it still is not a good indicator for minimum wage.
IMO, minimum wage should be based on expenses. That is, it should cover what you need to live a decent life.
That definition is based on other's income. Imagine you live in a country where housing is 1€/month and food is 0.10€/month. The rest of the costs scale accordingly. Yet it is an incredibly rich country and the median income is 10000€/year. Would you say that a yearly wage of 120€/year is risk-of-poverty? It's 0.001% of the median income, yet it can provide for 10 years of housing in 1 year of work.
Great. We used the same definition, that's good.
Now, can you explain to me what minimum wage do you think would make it so minimum wage is safe from poverty according to that definition?
What is the definition of safe from poverty?
What I found was this:
The at-risk-of-poverty rate is the share of people with an equivalised disposable income (after social transfer) below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income after social transfers.
By that definition, it is not possible to have a minimum wage "safe from poverty". Since the minimum will always be below the median.
Donald Trump faces new Articles of Impeachment over Iran strikes
"full attendance"
The fact that some 300 people with the best salaries and most prestigious jobs in the country can't be presumed to all attend their job is completely incredible to me. Especially on occasions of such importance such as a presidential impeachment.
The planet does not care about taxes either.
The reason per person footprint is important because we can't just turn off all pollution. We have to gradually reduce it.
You can't just say to your country "by the way, we just banned fossil fuels", that will just result in you dead and a pro-pollution guy being in charge of the country next day.
The way to reduce pollution is to get more output from the same input. That is, efficiency.
Private jets are incredibly inefficient and are used by an extremely low percentage of the population. There's no reason to keep that 1.8% just to satisfy 0.0001% of the population.
It is not only an issue due to forever growth. Birthrates are so low in some places (like Japan), that the new generations will just be crushed by the (economic) burden of the older ones.
Older people don't contribute much to the economy, but they spend a lot. It's just how it is. Older people are usually less healthy, and less healthy people eventually consume more resources than they can provide. This burden means that the younger generations will demand change to the government, and that will make retirement either worse or harder to achieve. Which will lead to the old days of working until you drop dead. Or distopian-like situations where old people willingly die to not be a burden, or even worse, they are killed by the government.
And as you say, immigration just fixes the short-term effects. That future is inevitable with birthrates so low. Inmigrants usually adopt to the birthrate of the country very fast.