5 ms·
Something is wrong about the author's numbers here. The Consumer Expenditure Survey the author cites says the 25-34 year old that spends 37.1% of their salary
by pedanticfreak 16y ago
Something is wrong about the author's numbers here.
The Consumer Expenditure Survey the author cites says the 25-34 year old that spends 37.1% of their salary on housing is only making $58,946 per year, NOT $100,000 per year.
Whether intentional or not, the survey is being misrepresented to the benefit of the author's argument.
- doyoulikeworms 16y agoGood catch. There are a few other bits that bothered me as well. The employer's contribution to retirement is counted as a gain in Australia, but the employer's matching Social Security contribution in the US is ignored. It also assumes that a car is absolutely necessary in the US. I live in the Bay Area, and I haven't driven my car in any material sense in 4 months (by choice). Regardless, it's pretty obvious that one can earn six figures in the US, but choose to live within the means of a bartender in an Australian tourist trap. Which provides more disposable income?
- pedanticfreak 16y agoThere are other troubling inconsistencies as well. But I decided to stop there. I only want the author to go back and fix his numbers, I don't want to write the article for him. Without a doubt, this whole thing is a poor abuse of statistics. It doesn't take a genius to figure out you can make $100,000 and keep a lot in the bank by living like someone who makes $30,000. Which, by the way, there are quite a few of those people in the United States.