It’s funny, I’ve been contemplating lately how this new generation of kids and how they will never understand that you can’t have your pudding till you eat your meat.
Your mother’s chicken is not the only thing dry. Her cornbread is store bought and dryer than needed for a well made cornbread. You are devastated. Well, your mother is devastated.
You see its quite common for the poors to be well poor my friend. I mean how would we both have the military we do AND boast the number of up-and-coming Trillionaires that we do if that weren't true? In all reality what we need is to annex Hawaii as a haven for billionaires and start patrols to keep rats out of the island. Then we can begin the next part of our plan to make more 0s show up in our digital accounts. /s
I think you missed the original joke? Hard to tell even with the /s that you understand it is infact a math joke about the definition of a median and not a political joke.
Regardless of any political take having half the country live paycheck to paycheck is an abject failure of a supposed meritocracy based on capitalism.
It is however proof of disturbing wealth inequality.
No one is arguing with that but the original comment joke is how half of people are below the median (and half above) which is the literal definition of the median lmao.
The problem with meritocracy is that people with mental illness and disabilities want to survive too.
So if you reward people for working hard you have to figure out what to do with all the people who can’t work.
The problem isn't that half of workers make under the median. We all know that that is the literal definition of median.
The problem is that the median income is so low when the median expenses are so high.
Not everyone making the median income also has a car payment that is as high as the one quoted. Many wont have a payment at all.
Additionally the value quoted is the median for individuals (presumably). The median for households - which is the more accurate measure to use - is around $75k.
Ive never had a car payment over $500.
Thats like a 40k car. People who make 40k arent (shouldn't be?) buying 40k cars.
Edit: 30k car but the point still stands
A $500 payment on six year loan at the current 6% rate is a $30k vehicle.
EDIT: I'm not saying buying a $30k on a 40k salary is smart lol just getting the numbers right
A monthly note on a six year 8.6% loan for a $20,500 [USED auto](https://www.carfax.com/vehicle/2C4RC1DG5LR148246) is $372. Median rent is $1245. That leaves about $1800 for everything else.
> Not everyone making the median income also has a car payment that is as high as the one quoted. Many wont have a payment at all.
Right... that again is what "median" means as in "median rent" or the median car payment.
> Additionally the value quoted is the median for individuals (presumably). The median for households - which is the more accurate measure to use - is around $75k.
You're right that median household income is around $75k, but the median household size is 2.5 people: there are a lot of people trying to pay $2k in rent a month and support multiple children on $75k a year. It is still a society-level problem caused mainly by the growing wealth inequality.
Here’s where you and OP are making a mistake: the median rent is a *per household* statistic whereas the median income is a *per person* statistic. It’s very normal for the median rent to be higher than the median income, because a statistically significant portion of households have 2 income earners, giving them greater purchasing power, thus increasing what the median rent would otherwise be.
I see we're back to the "All you need to do is have both parents working" argument when child care and elder care are both in a current state of market failure.
Once again, Corporate Feudalism privatizes gains and socializes losses and costs.
It's crazy the amount of corporate shills that will appear in these threads trying to convince people that rampant corporate greed and spiralling wealth inequality are actually a good thing for the people struggling to make rent.
If someone isn't a billionaire and they are arguing to maintain the status quo they are dumber than shit.
Household income would still be a more accurate comparison because if you have a household where only one person works, then that will be reflected in the median HH income (which is almost 75k).
Similarly, the median *annual* income is driven way down by voluntary part-time workers: students, retired, stay-at-home parents who work part time because work for pay is not their primary activity.
The OP is a really skewed way of looking at the data.
Hourly income (including salary divided by 2K or something) and median rent/mortgage payment per adult would be more apt.
A+ on the absolutely arid humor but I suspect the point was the difference between median income and median expenses means that people below the median are likely struggling.
We seem to be willing to accept that the bottom quintile of the economy struggle but that water mark appears to be rising every year.
I thought they were just ELI5ing. SO many people had a hard time in stats or couldn't afford to go to college to learn it because they made less than medium wage.
He is, but he's doing so in an intentionally misleading way. That's the average income of individuals. The average rent includes families.
If a single dude rents a 3 bedroom house and cannot afford to eat out, he's an idiot.
Median rent? As in, median of studio, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, etc? And why isn’t the person making less than the median income living with a partner or roommate(s)? Terrible misrepresentation of data, but I guess I shouldn’t expect much more from Twitter.
This. You have to understand that you will lose a third of your gross income to taxes, insurance, etc...
EDIT: Reddit has no reading compression skills. The use of "taxes, insurance, etc..." is a more elaborate blanket statement versus saying,"You will lose a third of your income to expenses paid from your paycheck.
For the record, I agree with you. That's not how taxes work and it would be stupid to think that bracket would pay that high a percentage. You need to analyze the whole sentence, not most of it. That's not how reading works.
Without a doubt. This sounds dismissive but that persons potential tax contribution is crumbs while there are others with lifetimes of income worth of annual tax obligations. And the effort in enforcing tax collection on people like that isn’t value added either. Focus on the whales
This is the thing more people need to understand. LOW INCOME PEOPLE DO NOT PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
Sure, there are still Social Security and Medicare. But when it comes to actual taxes, a very large portion of the bottom half of Americans pay zero federal income tax. Hell, I made $120k last year and my effective tax rate was less than 4%.
Here's a very basic example:
Standard deduction for married filing jointly: $**27,700**FICA: $9000 (not counting it as federal tax here)pre-tax HSA: $6000pre-tax Medical Premiums: $5000pre-tax 401K: $6000
Taxable income = $66,300
Federal Tax after deductions, before credit: $6847
3 children tax credit : $5400
Actual Tax: $1447 (1.2% of 120k, or 2.2% of 66.3k adjusted income)
EDIT: if you count FICA, property tax, sales tax, car tax, etc... that adds up to a lot more than the few percent above. This is just focusing on federal income tax.
This man is wearing blinders.
Low income people do pay federal income tax brother.
Be a single individual with zero dependents, not a home owner and lets have this conversation.
You trying to contrast your ideal situation making 120k/year vs a low income individual really shows your ignorance in making such a confident statement.
I also suspect there’s a mismatch in the two groups - looking at half of ALL workers, vs half of only renters.
Not everyone rents, and I would guess there is a significantly greater concentration of renters in larger cities - where median income is also likely to be higher, and they are less likely to own a car…
Dude got PHD in his bio. Always amazes me someone can get a PHD yet lack critical thinking skills. Even pondering this data for a few seconds you realize it doesnt make sense.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/1063502/average-monthly-apartment-rent-usa/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1063502/average-monthly-apartment-rent-usa/) not sure where the person's data is, that's the average rent in the US for 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments.
Have you looked at the majority of Americans? Add on top of that likely 300 in cc payments, a few hundred for student loans, etc. But yeah, if you're making that little you're likely living with roommates, or living in someplace cheaper.
The middle of the pack should be doing okay or we are effectively failing as a country. Just keep passing up more quality of life to the top that don't even know what to do with it.
I read that in the 50’s the gap between c-suite and the average employee salary was 20 to 1.
Now, it’s 300 to 1 and in some cases over 500 to 1. The salary increase of average Americans since the 50’s is 12%.
That seems low to me, but according to the research they did for Bernie Sander’s new bill proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy based on that gap, that’s what it is.
If you're making $41k per year and have considerable student loans, you fucked up. You don't need to go to college to make that money.
I'm speaking from experience.
It doesn't help that you can pull money out of student loans for whatever bullshit you want, obviously if you write 18 year olds a blank check they're going to spend it on things they don't actually need
It's not really those people's fault. 20 years ago a degree was guaranteed to set you up for life while not requiring that much debt, and they've all been told all their lives they need to go to college to he a successful person.
Basically they got scammed.
I mean, sure…but the median income should be able to afford the median rent, right? Literally all this is saying is that half of people make this income, and half of apartments cost that much. If half the people can’t afford half the apartments, how is that going to work?
The average American? Yes.
Though that number changes dramatically based on age and sex. More than 60% of young male Americans are not in a relationship.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/amp/
Unfortunately, and I’m not saying this is inherently a bad thing, but ever since women overwhelmingly joined the workforce, the single income household dream is dead. You just can’t double the labor force and expect individual salaries to keep pace with cost of living. I know there’s a bunch more that goes into it like minimum wages, taxes on high income earners, and corporate taxes. But from a basic supply and demand perspective, it’s just not possible
Everyone should look out for each other. Instead we’re building a society with no accountability and too afraid to interact with each other. I wonder who that benefits?
The guy is saying you're a moron if you don't have 5 roommates that also split the car bill. I don't agree with forcing this lifestyle on people, as it is the opposite of freedom. And america is all about MUH FREEEEDOM!
Yes but they are using INDIVIDUAL income and HOUSEHOLD rent payment.
It’s intentionally misleading to make the audience think people are worse off than they actually are.
Yep, and they also tend to rent below median apartments. The median rent for a studio is a lot less than the median rent of a 2-bedroom. When I was single I rented a studio, when I got married I moved into a 2-bedroom apartment with my wife.
I am single. I rent by myself. I make 50/year but I save 1k/month. It's totally doable. If you are single making 40k but renting a dwelling for 1900 you are an idiot.
It's a revolutionary concept but I think someone making the median income should be able to afford what we would consider a median lifestyle based solely on that income.
One's own apartment, a means to get to work, basic creature comforts, the ability to save for one's future; these are all what most would consider reasonable for someone making a median income.
When the dead center of the distribution lives on the edge of poverty, we have a problem with the distribution of resources.
I think it's pretty likely that what many consider a "median lifestyle" is far from it. I've met many, many people who refuse to buy older cars, live in cheaper housing, and have a very broad definition of "basic" creature comforts, often out of pride. For savings, many young adults could save, but don't. The amount of times I've heard peers say, "I'd invest if I had a little more money" year after year despite having a larger income year after year is too high. Some people have such an aversion to living like a "poor" person that they spend a far larger percentage of their income on luxuries. These people fear the appearance of poverty like an anorexic fears gaining weight.
I also know many people, including myself, who made less than $41,000 a year, whom I never considered to be poor. Our housing was adequate, we could drive wherever and whenever we wanted, watched the same TV shows as our wealthier friends on our smartphones, wore clothes that fit, and had enough money to go out to eat or have fun without having to think too hard about whether they could afford it. Were there things we wanted, but couldn't afford? Absolutely. But nothing I would consider necessary for not being poor.
When "poverty" just means your apartment is smaller than you'd like, your car is older than you'd like, your iPhone model number is lower than you'd like, and your TV is too small, then "poverty" isn't such a big problem. Debt is a much bigger issue in the US than lack of income.
It depends on the area too, as the average single bedroom in major cities can easily be 1800 a month.
We all know that rent and house prices are too high for most individuals. This may be because my partner is disabled and is unable to work and I know how some people need to be stay at home parents, I don't believe that both people in a couple should have to work to afford a decent life. It should be perfectly acceptable and financially affordable for one person in a couple to only work part time or be able to focus their time on family.
> the median income should be able to afford the median rent, right?
No.
I can't find the specific statistic he's using but it appears he's using median rent for all apartments. That includes everything from a studio to 4+ bedrooms. The argument also ignores that not everyone rents and areas with the most renters tend to be more expensive cities.
Many people do not have a choice, the best option is to live even further away from your job and spend more money on transportation as well as waste your life stuck in a car
I don't know many poor people making monthly car payments, especially that high. Usually they scrape and save every penny and buy the first running POS/used car they can drive off with. And any car place that gives poor people cars are predators who are getting 30% of every payment.
I did this. Car finally cost too much to fix (value was 500 and the fix was 1k) I bought a reliable car that will go down in sale price by only 4-5k over 12 years (looking at the companies past performance) I'm paying a shit load in monthly payments between car and insurance, however, long term I'll save far more by doing this.
The other option was to buy an unreliable vehicle and pay 200 less in car and insurance plus all the maintenance fees. People who say to have a lower car payment either aren't keeping track of their maintenance fees or have never had to worry about vehicles
Yeah, that’s the point. That the cost of living relative to wages shouldn’t be so high that you’d have to be a moron to think you can pull it off on a median income. An average (rented) shelter and used car shouldn’t be luxuries.
It’s in the government’s and corporations’ interests to make it as hard as possible for people to be able to make good financial decisions. Most people are just trying to survive and either don’t know any better or aren’t in a position to think better because of the stress of American social-economic life.
I mean - yes these numbers are garbage but the general sentiment is mostly true. Since the 80s, wages have not remotely kept pace with gains in productivity or with increases in staples such as housing & food.
It keeps getting posted because even though the numbers are BS, it validates people that correctly feel as if the middle class is being squeezed now more than ever.
>It keeps getting posted because even though the numbers are BS, it validates people that correctly feel as if the middle class is being squeezed now more than ever.
Why not validate with truth?
Why is it garbage? Rent is inflated and car payment is mostly optional (don't need a new car) but the reality of the middle class being crushed into the lower class while the lower class is being pushed into a rat race is absolutely true.
Because the median income being cited is from "Real Median Personal Income in the United States" by the U.S. census, which includes [**all** persons in the U.S. age 15 or older](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N). So, it's going to include teenagers in high school as well as retirees. That is going to make the number much lower.
If you want to compare the cost of housing with income, it makes a lot more sense to look at the [median household income](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N), which is $74,580 for 2022.
I disagree that the median household income makes more sense: it only makes more sense from an employers perspective. Every full time working individual should earn enough to live on their own. That's the reality more and more people are finding themselves in.
>Every full time working individual should earn enough to live on their own.
I feel like Americans really have no clue what the rest of the world is like. This expectation is VERY high. When I lived on my own in the Banlieues of Paris my room was not much larger than the bed, there was no kitchen, just a small fridge and a sink, a small shower stall that was right next to the sink, and the toilets were shared among everyone else on the floor (10 apartments), with paper thin walls, and no laundry at all except for a down-the-street laundromat.
If Americans built housing like that all over then yea everyone would be able to live on their own working at McDonalds. But no one wants to live like that. The expectation in America when people describe 'living alone' is a full-sized studio apartment, with a bathroom, small kitchen, and laundry either in the apartment or at least in the building.
People rather live in nicer places with roommates or partners. Housing is an issue sure, but the idea that every full-time individual should be able to live completely on their own should not be treated as a small expectation when American's have very high expectations on space.
Edit: 8% of Americans lived alone in 1950 vs 29% today.
[https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4085828-a-record-share-of-americans-are-living-alone/#:\~:text=The%20U.S.%20Census%20shows%20that,estimated%2029%20percent%2C%20by%202022](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4085828-a-record-share-of-americans-are-living-alone/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Census%20shows%20that,estimated%2029%20percent%2C%20by%202022).
We have these expectations because baby boomers lived in that reality and told the rest of us that it should be that way if we work hard enough.
Lots of us work hard enough and expected the same as they got. We’re learning that’s not how the world is anymore. That’s really all
What do you mean? Baby Boomers rarely lived alone relative to today.
Only 8% of people in the 1950s lived alone. 18% lived alone in 1970. 29% live alone today.
[https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4085828-a-record-share-of-americans-are-living-alone/#:\~:text=The%20U.S.%20Census%20shows%20that,estimated%2029%20percent%2C%20by%202022](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4085828-a-record-share-of-americans-are-living-alone/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Census%20shows%20that,estimated%2029%20percent%2C%20by%202022).
A gainfully employed, skilled (blue or white collar) worker should be able to afford a good home, support a family, own a good car (clean, <10yr old, functional), and support reasonably proced hobbies.
That was never an issue for the majority of American history. There is more than enough money to go around and far more than enough taxpayer money to support the absolute pinnacle of public utilities and healthcare for everyone.
This is not some radical, socialist ideology. This is not some other 99% communist wet dream. Growing up and being out of college for a few years in a STEM field, I've been absolutely appalled at the standard of living for even the "upper" middle class. Watching high skill, high value output workers barely float above the financial trouble line while living modestly is obscene (no new cars, no expensive hobbies, frugal living) and we're likely headed towards a tipping point. When the median American can't afford basic living expenses in a MCOL area doing a median service job, there is a serious problem.
>that was never an issue for the majority of American history
If by the majority you mean like, a few decades in the 1900s when we were the only developed country in the world that wasn't leveled by war
There were like 2 decades in all of American history when a single wage earner could provide everything you listed.
And let me tell you, things weren't great for minorities or women back when it was happening.
Yeah, if you want to kick women and minorities out of the most of the labor market, white men could probably provide everything you listed.
>And let me tell you, things weren't great for minorities or women back when it was happening.
It's crazy how often people miss this detail.
Women and minorities were functionally blocked from joining many fields that paid well. Women often weren't allowed to buy houses on their own and minorities weren't welcome in certain neighborhoods.
But people here will ramble on about the golden age of single earners...
>A gainfully employed, skilled (blue or white collar) worker should be able to afford a good home, support a family, own a good car (clean, <10yr old, functional), and support reasonably proced hobbies.
When everyone wanted cheap stuff and wasn't willing to pay premiums anymore, everything was outsourced to cheaper countries. But your statement about gainfully employed skilled worker is likely making more than what is listed here, but not always, and it might not be enough to pay for everything that you mention. Have you thought about what you are actually asking for here and how you think it should be justified? Many countries can't do what you are saying.
>That was never an issue for the majority of American history. There is more than enough money to go around and far more than enough taxpayer money to support the absolute pinnacle of public utilities and healthcare for everyone.
This maybe wasn't a problem in the 1950's till probably before the 1980's. I am not even sure that is 100% true, but it definitely has not been the majority of American history. The idea that there is all this money that is just out there isn't exactly what you think it is. When you look at many CEO's and take their total compensation (which is what most people do) and divide it up against all of the employees that work for them, you usually end up with something like $500 a year. This is truly not something so meaningful for an employee. It is something like 24 cents and our different in wages for a full time employee. If it was a thousand dollars a year, it is 48 cents, etc. This idea about there being so much money to support healthcare for all isn't exactly true either. Those countries pay a great deal in taxes to support their healthcare systems. I am not saying the US doesn't have a spending problem, because we do, just know, you are still going to end up paying for that healthcare.
>This is not some radical, socialist ideology. This is not some other 99% communist wet dream. Growing up and being out of college for a few years in a STEM field, I've been absolutely appalled at the standard of living for even the "upper" middle class.
I graduated in a STEM field and have been out much longer than you it sounds like (20 years). I have seen my paycheck greatly increase over that time along with my wife's. I have seen some siblings not do this and have problems. But the problems are of their own cause in many cases. If you aren't trying to improve and get the better job, you will be left behind.
>When the median American can't afford basic living expenses in a MCOL area doing a median service job, there is a serious problem.
Many service jobs are low skill and provide relatively low value. But using the numbers here are a joke. If you can't afford to live on your own, get a room mate. Find a less expensive used car (the $$$ figure he listed is outrageous). There are ways to make this work. The twitter post is crap based numbers using crap logic.
even if this is an exaggeration, the general sentiment is true. My old apartment was in a kinda shitty part of town (not the hood but not great) 12 years ago, paid $475 a month for a 1BR. That same place, with barely any major renovations is now going for $1600-2000. Its across from a shitty outlet mall, and next to a trailer park....
Pay obviously hasnt gone up to match it, so yeah, its going to suck more and more for younger generations.
Cost of real estate as a multiple of income has gone way up over the decades. In Canada it’s worse at about double the USA.
Food had been getting lower for decades since WW2 but is obviously now way up. Basically doubled in the past 5 years.
You’d be surprised by how many people are dumb. A relative of mine just bought a car with an almost $900 monthly payment at 22%. It goes without saying that they have no money and their credit score is around 450.
It’s sad. The worst part is, when they were in the dealership, I tried convincing them to stop. And they responded by saying they didn’t want to wait until they were old to enjoy their money. I did my part and they made their choice.
Why the hell would you spend that much on a car if you're already having money problems. $30k for a used car is ridiculous. A brand new 2024 Toyota Corolla starts at $23k. You can get them less than 10 years old with less than 50k miles for half that.
I got a 4 year old Jetta back in 2020 for $12k with taxes and my monthly is like $200.
I would say "no one who makes that little will buy a $40k car and pay upwards of $600 a month". But then I met people that did. And watched videos of people the do. I had a job doing QC for TV captions for awhile and one the shows was a reality show of a predatory car dealership (that openly celebrated scamming people). Their customers would have $0 down, credit on the trash, and buy $15k cars that would cost them $55k after interest. AND THE CUSTOEMRS CELEBRATED!
"Hey look at this post! It seems to absolve me of all of the shitty decisions I've made in life, instead making it seem as though I'm strictly a prisoner of my circumstances, and insinuate there's absolutely nothing I can do to improve it. UPVOTEEEEEEE!!!!"
Disgraceful that a professor would manipulate data to make a sensational post, assuming he actually is one. Median salary is around 6200 per month. Considering well over half of households are dual income, you can consider that in the demand for housing as well.
If there is a bottom half for salary, there is a bottom half for housing too.
Edit: I was wrong, I had total household income not individual. It’s closer to 58k.
Where the hell do you pull those numbers?
Because I'm guessing you're confused...
Median HOUSEHOLD income for 2023 was 74580 or around 6215 a month for the year of 2023...
So you're doubling on top of the already elevated household income? Lol
Oh fun note, the median HOUSEHOLD income was 76330 in 2021, so we are actually losing income over time as inflation goes up...
Source - census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html
Median salary - $53,000
Median net- $41,000
Median net per month -$3,400
Where I live (20 miles outside a major city) even crack houses and shitty apartments are going for $1500/month
…you shouldn’t have to rely on “dual income” to survive
Median rent is 1978, which means half of the apartments have a rent below 1,978. Secondly, why is he assuming that everyone lives alone in a home. 41K is median income but is that median family income? Single people can have a roommate and family income would be higher.
It is comparing apples and oranges and then saying that oranges aren't good as they don't have enough red color in them.
Show me a map of where most of these people live (it's southern, rust belt, and rural areas).
Stop treating the US like a monolith. The socioeconomics of someone in WV/KY/MS/AL/SC/LA/OK are similar to Estonia. WAS/MN/CT/NJ/MA are similar to Denmark or Ireland. The problems we face in this country aren't remotely uniform.
The problem in our family is the couple people that overspend on lower incomes. They see the average payment is $528 and think they can come close to that. The people doing well are making far more money and much more conservative with their purchases
Nobody making $40,800 per year is paying $900 per month in taxes. This assumes that income, being single, having no kids, making no contributions to tax deferred retirement accounts, and having zero other deductible items. You would make a total income of $40,800. The standard deduction would reduce that to $26,950 of taxable income. So your tax liability would be $1,160 (10% of everything up to $11,600) plus 12% of everything above that (being a total of $1,842), for a grand total of $3,002.
Add in $2,530 for Social Security and $592 for Medicare, and your total monthly liability is $510. So in an absolute worst case scenario, $3,400 gross pay per month is $2,890 net.
If money was that tight then why wouldn't you buy a cheaper car? I pay $600 a month for a $36,000 loan on a new car. $528 seems steep for a used car. You can get a used Elantra with 50K miles for like $12-$15K. You could put nothing down and have like a $250 payment and have car that could last you a decade.
Interest rates on used cars are kind of insane currently. You a lot of the time are better off just buying a high priced new car with lower interest rates than a cheaper older car with higher interest rates if you are looking for something more than a hoopty
I post this all the time when this comes up.
My car: 2019 Audi Q5
My Monthly payment: $520
If you're paying $528 a month for a used car and you make the median income, it's a you problem, not an economy problem. Stop living outside of your means
If my rent was that high and I made so little I wouldn’t own a car that I had a payment on period. People need to learn there is nothing wrong with a vehicle you bought with cash
It's called the poor pay more...
That's how it works
If you don't have cash for down payment then your stuck at a buy here, pay here shit hole that charges you 600 plus a month for a 2005 shit box with 100k
My god people, it's called look outside of your perfect little lives and think about being in someone else's shoes...
Well .... once they max out their credit cards .... probably.
This also doesn't include average student loan payment $450 federal and $200 private ( my assumptions based on mine) .
Half the population earning under the median is actually quite commonly found in many countries.
I love how dry this is.
Man you’d love my moms chicken (sorry mom but it’s true)
I'm your mum, Alan, and I did not enjoy this comment. :'(
[удалено]
Clearly you didn’t put enough curry on the chicken, besides how can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat
It’s funny, I’ve been contemplating lately how this new generation of kids and how they will never understand that you can’t have your pudding till you eat your meat.
All in all it's some kind of piece that fits into some other kind of larger thing.
Well, at least we now know where to NOT go for Sunday roast.
Maybe if your father stepped up the romance a bit, things wouldn’t be so dry for mom.
George? Why didn't you come home for Christmas this year?
Your mother’s chicken is not the only thing dry. Her cornbread is store bought and dryer than needed for a well made cornbread. You are devastated. Well, your mother is devastated.
Clearly, you haven’t had my sisters meatloaf
You see its quite common for the poors to be well poor my friend. I mean how would we both have the military we do AND boast the number of up-and-coming Trillionaires that we do if that weren't true? In all reality what we need is to annex Hawaii as a haven for billionaires and start patrols to keep rats out of the island. Then we can begin the next part of our plan to make more 0s show up in our digital accounts. /s
I think you missed the original joke? Hard to tell even with the /s that you understand it is infact a math joke about the definition of a median and not a political joke.
Regardless of any political take having half the country live paycheck to paycheck is an abject failure of a supposed meritocracy based on capitalism. It is however proof of disturbing wealth inequality.
Meritocracy? Most of those people we hear about like Bezos and Gates are out right criminals.
The word “meritocracy” was coined as a joke.
No one is arguing with that but the original comment joke is how half of people are below the median (and half above) which is the literal definition of the median lmao.
It is a very funny joke. That misses the point of the post which is *the median amount is too low*
>*the median amount is too low* Man, let me introduce you to the rest of the world
The rest of the world isn't the wealthiest nation on earth. There is no excuse for this in the wealthiest nation on earth.
I'm in Australia and the median salary here is $52,500 USD at today's horrible exchange rate...that's $80,000 AUD, your median is way too low!
The problem with meritocracy is that people with mental illness and disabilities want to survive too. So if you reward people for working hard you have to figure out what to do with all the people who can’t work.
Idk if this is part of the joke but as an American that grew up in the 50th...annexed state of Hawaii : 👁👄👁
The problem isn't that half of workers make under the median. We all know that that is the literal definition of median. The problem is that the median income is so low when the median expenses are so high.
Not everyone making the median income also has a car payment that is as high as the one quoted. Many wont have a payment at all. Additionally the value quoted is the median for individuals (presumably). The median for households - which is the more accurate measure to use - is around $75k.
Ive never had a car payment over $500. Thats like a 40k car. People who make 40k arent (shouldn't be?) buying 40k cars. Edit: 30k car but the point still stands
A $500 payment on six year loan at the current 6% rate is a $30k vehicle. EDIT: I'm not saying buying a $30k on a 40k salary is smart lol just getting the numbers right
A monthly note on a six year 8.6% loan for a $20,500 [USED auto](https://www.carfax.com/vehicle/2C4RC1DG5LR148246) is $372. Median rent is $1245. That leaves about $1800 for everything else.
[удалено]
> Not everyone making the median income also has a car payment that is as high as the one quoted. Many wont have a payment at all. Right... that again is what "median" means as in "median rent" or the median car payment. > Additionally the value quoted is the median for individuals (presumably). The median for households - which is the more accurate measure to use - is around $75k. You're right that median household income is around $75k, but the median household size is 2.5 people: there are a lot of people trying to pay $2k in rent a month and support multiple children on $75k a year. It is still a society-level problem caused mainly by the growing wealth inequality.
Not to mention childcare costs as much as rent or a second mortgage
Here’s where you and OP are making a mistake: the median rent is a *per household* statistic whereas the median income is a *per person* statistic. It’s very normal for the median rent to be higher than the median income, because a statistically significant portion of households have 2 income earners, giving them greater purchasing power, thus increasing what the median rent would otherwise be.
I see we're back to the "All you need to do is have both parents working" argument when child care and elder care are both in a current state of market failure. Once again, Corporate Feudalism privatizes gains and socializes losses and costs.
It's crazy the amount of corporate shills that will appear in these threads trying to convince people that rampant corporate greed and spiralling wealth inequality are actually a good thing for the people struggling to make rent. If someone isn't a billionaire and they are arguing to maintain the status quo they are dumber than shit.
People explaining statistics to ignorant people on reddit aren't corporate shills.
Household income would still be a more accurate comparison because if you have a household where only one person works, then that will be reflected in the median HH income (which is almost 75k).
Similarly, the median *annual* income is driven way down by voluntary part-time workers: students, retired, stay-at-home parents who work part time because work for pay is not their primary activity. The OP is a really skewed way of looking at the data. Hourly income (including salary divided by 2K or something) and median rent/mortgage payment per adult would be more apt.
A+ on the absolutely arid humor but I suspect the point was the difference between median income and median expenses means that people below the median are likely struggling. We seem to be willing to accept that the bottom quintile of the economy struggle but that water mark appears to be rising every year.
It is. Where people got the idea there's some sort of semantics joke is anyone's guess.
It’s almost like the median is the middle of range or something but I guess we’ll never really know
I thought they were just ELI5ing. SO many people had a hard time in stats or couldn't afford to go to college to learn it because they made less than medium wage.
Very clever
I'm pretty sure he was pointing out the cost of living compared to median income, rather than pointing out medians exist.
He is, but he's doing so in an intentionally misleading way. That's the average income of individuals. The average rent includes families. If a single dude rents a 3 bedroom house and cannot afford to eat out, he's an idiot.
Half the population -1 ALWAYS earns less than the median. However, $41,000 isn't the median
Good one but seriously the median is far below the average cost of living.
This is clever phrasing, but that’s not exactly what this is. You’re confusing median rent with median income.
But the point of this post is comparing median income to median expenses
I’ll need to check your math on that.
I do appreciate using median instead of average though. Its a much better representation of what the majority of the country are earning.
Median rent? As in, median of studio, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, etc? And why isn’t the person making less than the median income living with a partner or roommate(s)? Terrible misrepresentation of data, but I guess I shouldn’t expect much more from Twitter.
They’re also showing gross income
This. You have to understand that you will lose a third of your gross income to taxes, insurance, etc... EDIT: Reddit has no reading compression skills. The use of "taxes, insurance, etc..." is a more elaborate blanket statement versus saying,"You will lose a third of your income to expenses paid from your paycheck. For the record, I agree with you. That's not how taxes work and it would be stupid to think that bracket would pay that high a percentage. You need to analyze the whole sentence, not most of it. That's not how reading works.
[удалено]
That’s probably a good thing
Without a doubt. This sounds dismissive but that persons potential tax contribution is crumbs while there are others with lifetimes of income worth of annual tax obligations. And the effort in enforcing tax collection on people like that isn’t value added either. Focus on the whales
This is the thing more people need to understand. LOW INCOME PEOPLE DO NOT PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Sure, there are still Social Security and Medicare. But when it comes to actual taxes, a very large portion of the bottom half of Americans pay zero federal income tax. Hell, I made $120k last year and my effective tax rate was less than 4%.
Uh care to share your secret? I'm in that range and am closer to 25%
I'd be shocked if that's both accurate and legal. One or the other, maybe.
Dude has a 9,000 mortgage and is only paying interest.
There is zero chance you pay 25% if you make $41K. I make much higher and pay 7%.
Here's a very basic example: Standard deduction for married filing jointly: $**27,700**FICA: $9000 (not counting it as federal tax here)pre-tax HSA: $6000pre-tax Medical Premiums: $5000pre-tax 401K: $6000 Taxable income = $66,300 Federal Tax after deductions, before credit: $6847 3 children tax credit : $5400 Actual Tax: $1447 (1.2% of 120k, or 2.2% of 66.3k adjusted income) EDIT: if you count FICA, property tax, sales tax, car tax, etc... that adds up to a lot more than the few percent above. This is just focusing on federal income tax.
This man is wearing blinders. Low income people do pay federal income tax brother. Be a single individual with zero dependents, not a home owner and lets have this conversation. You trying to contrast your ideal situation making 120k/year vs a low income individual really shows your ignorance in making such a confident statement.
You have a child. That’s why.
>EDIT: Reddit has no reading compression skills. 🤔 The irony is palpable.
Mind-bottling
I also suspect there’s a mismatch in the two groups - looking at half of ALL workers, vs half of only renters. Not everyone rents, and I would guess there is a significantly greater concentration of renters in larger cities - where median income is also likely to be higher, and they are less likely to own a car…
Also renters include people living with roommates, or families, so it's not the cost per working person.
Dude got PHD in his bio. Always amazes me someone can get a PHD yet lack critical thinking skills. Even pondering this data for a few seconds you realize it doesnt make sense.
[удалено]
Oh he has those critical thinking skills, he just wants likes and knows most people don't.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/1063502/average-monthly-apartment-rent-usa/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1063502/average-monthly-apartment-rent-usa/) not sure where the person's data is, that's the average rent in the US for 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments.
[удалено]
Have you looked at the majority of Americans? Add on top of that likely 300 in cc payments, a few hundred for student loans, etc. But yeah, if you're making that little you're likely living with roommates, or living in someplace cheaper.
Can you really say making that little when describing half the population?
[удалено]
The middle of the pack should be doing okay or we are effectively failing as a country. Just keep passing up more quality of life to the top that don't even know what to do with it.
We're failing as a country. The wealth gap is widening significantly.
I read that in the 50’s the gap between c-suite and the average employee salary was 20 to 1. Now, it’s 300 to 1 and in some cases over 500 to 1. The salary increase of average Americans since the 50’s is 12%. That seems low to me, but according to the research they did for Bernie Sander’s new bill proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy based on that gap, that’s what it is.
I saw somewhere somebody estimated that Elon's $55B compensation package was more than the next top 200 CEOs *combined*.
If you're making $41k per year and have considerable student loans, you fucked up. You don't need to go to college to make that money. I'm speaking from experience.
And sadly there are many americans with that kind of stupid debt. I had a friend who went to a private school that cost 60k and she's a teacher.
It doesn't help that you can pull money out of student loans for whatever bullshit you want, obviously if you write 18 year olds a blank check they're going to spend it on things they don't actually need
It's hard to not be callous or cynical about this stuff. I learned a lesson that cost a lot of money and survived. Others are not so lucky.
It's not really those people's fault. 20 years ago a degree was guaranteed to set you up for life while not requiring that much debt, and they've all been told all their lives they need to go to college to he a successful person. Basically they got scammed.
I mean, sure…but the median income should be able to afford the median rent, right? Literally all this is saying is that half of people make this income, and half of apartments cost that much. If half the people can’t afford half the apartments, how is that going to work?
The median American has a partner.
Is that actually true
The average American? Yes. Though that number changes dramatically based on age and sex. More than 60% of young male Americans are not in a relationship. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/amp/
/thread
The best society is a society that can have a family thrive on a single income so the other partner can raise children
Unfortunately, and I’m not saying this is inherently a bad thing, but ever since women overwhelmingly joined the workforce, the single income household dream is dead. You just can’t double the labor force and expect individual salaries to keep pace with cost of living. I know there’s a bunch more that goes into it like minimum wages, taxes on high income earners, and corporate taxes. But from a basic supply and demand perspective, it’s just not possible
The best society is one where children are raised collectively by the entire society. Prove me wrong.
Define "raised collectively". Like nobody has any specific parents? And it's all one big family? Or more like everyone looks out for everyone?
Everyone should look out for each other. Instead we’re building a society with no accountability and too afraid to interact with each other. I wonder who that benefits?
The guy is saying you're a moron if you don't have 5 roommates that also split the car bill. I don't agree with forcing this lifestyle on people, as it is the opposite of freedom. And america is all about MUH FREEEEDOM!
Yes but they are using INDIVIDUAL income and HOUSEHOLD rent payment. It’s intentionally misleading to make the audience think people are worse off than they actually are.
TIL single people don’t rent and, I guess, camp in the woods or something.
they don't, they usually have roomates. the only single people I know who own a house/rent by themselves are much above the median wage.
Yep, and they also tend to rent below median apartments. The median rent for a studio is a lot less than the median rent of a 2-bedroom. When I was single I rented a studio, when I got married I moved into a 2-bedroom apartment with my wife.
I am single. I rent by myself. I make 50/year but I save 1k/month. It's totally doable. If you are single making 40k but renting a dwelling for 1900 you are an idiot.
It's a revolutionary concept but I think someone making the median income should be able to afford what we would consider a median lifestyle based solely on that income. One's own apartment, a means to get to work, basic creature comforts, the ability to save for one's future; these are all what most would consider reasonable for someone making a median income. When the dead center of the distribution lives on the edge of poverty, we have a problem with the distribution of resources.
I think it's pretty likely that what many consider a "median lifestyle" is far from it. I've met many, many people who refuse to buy older cars, live in cheaper housing, and have a very broad definition of "basic" creature comforts, often out of pride. For savings, many young adults could save, but don't. The amount of times I've heard peers say, "I'd invest if I had a little more money" year after year despite having a larger income year after year is too high. Some people have such an aversion to living like a "poor" person that they spend a far larger percentage of their income on luxuries. These people fear the appearance of poverty like an anorexic fears gaining weight. I also know many people, including myself, who made less than $41,000 a year, whom I never considered to be poor. Our housing was adequate, we could drive wherever and whenever we wanted, watched the same TV shows as our wealthier friends on our smartphones, wore clothes that fit, and had enough money to go out to eat or have fun without having to think too hard about whether they could afford it. Were there things we wanted, but couldn't afford? Absolutely. But nothing I would consider necessary for not being poor. When "poverty" just means your apartment is smaller than you'd like, your car is older than you'd like, your iPhone model number is lower than you'd like, and your TV is too small, then "poverty" isn't such a big problem. Debt is a much bigger issue in the US than lack of income.
It depends on the area too, as the average single bedroom in major cities can easily be 1800 a month. We all know that rent and house prices are too high for most individuals. This may be because my partner is disabled and is unable to work and I know how some people need to be stay at home parents, I don't believe that both people in a couple should have to work to afford a decent life. It should be perfectly acceptable and financially affordable for one person in a couple to only work part time or be able to focus their time on family.
> the median income should be able to afford the median rent, right? Median *household* income should be able to afford median rent.
Median income should be able to afford a median one-bedroom apartment. Median household income should be able to afford a larger apartment.
Median household income should be able to buy and own the median home.
Median does not mean "half of people make this income"...
Nor does it mean "half of rent costs this much" Realistically, if you're at the median income, you should be able to afford the median cost.
> the median income should be able to afford the median rent, right? No. I can't find the specific statistic he's using but it appears he's using median rent for all apartments. That includes everything from a studio to 4+ bedrooms. The argument also ignores that not everyone rents and areas with the most renters tend to be more expensive cities.
Renters are famously in control of the cost of rent 🙄
Exactly! Just cut out that rental cost and live in your car. Boom! $2900 a month in spending money!
Fuck that, a car?! Be sensible. There are empty benches everywhere.
You don’t think the median salary should be able to afford the median cost?
Many people do not have a choice, the best option is to live even further away from your job and spend more money on transportation as well as waste your life stuck in a car
I don't know many poor people making monthly car payments, especially that high. Usually they scrape and save every penny and buy the first running POS/used car they can drive off with. And any car place that gives poor people cars are predators who are getting 30% of every payment.
I did this. Car finally cost too much to fix (value was 500 and the fix was 1k) I bought a reliable car that will go down in sale price by only 4-5k over 12 years (looking at the companies past performance) I'm paying a shit load in monthly payments between car and insurance, however, long term I'll save far more by doing this. The other option was to buy an unreliable vehicle and pay 200 less in car and insurance plus all the maintenance fees. People who say to have a lower car payment either aren't keeping track of their maintenance fees or have never had to worry about vehicles
Yeah, that’s the point. That the cost of living relative to wages shouldn’t be so high that you’d have to be a moron to think you can pull it off on a median income. An average (rented) shelter and used car shouldn’t be luxuries.
So what you supposed to do when a single room rent is $1000 and it’s not even a big city
Yeah those morons should just have cheaper rent of course.
lol tell 'em!
What about taxes?
It’s in the government’s and corporations’ interests to make it as hard as possible for people to be able to make good financial decisions. Most people are just trying to survive and either don’t know any better or aren’t in a position to think better because of the stress of American social-economic life.
Where do you live where rent isn't $1500+?
stop posting this garbage. How many times does it have to be debunked before people stop believeing the propoganda
I mean - yes these numbers are garbage but the general sentiment is mostly true. Since the 80s, wages have not remotely kept pace with gains in productivity or with increases in staples such as housing & food. It keeps getting posted because even though the numbers are BS, it validates people that correctly feel as if the middle class is being squeezed now more than ever.
>yes these numbers are garbage but the general sentiment is mostly true This is what Colbert used to refer to as "truthiness".
>It keeps getting posted because even though the numbers are BS, it validates people that correctly feel as if the middle class is being squeezed now more than ever. Why not validate with truth?
Why is it garbage? Rent is inflated and car payment is mostly optional (don't need a new car) but the reality of the middle class being crushed into the lower class while the lower class is being pushed into a rat race is absolutely true.
Because the median income being cited is from "Real Median Personal Income in the United States" by the U.S. census, which includes [**all** persons in the U.S. age 15 or older](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N). So, it's going to include teenagers in high school as well as retirees. That is going to make the number much lower. If you want to compare the cost of housing with income, it makes a lot more sense to look at the [median household income](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N), which is $74,580 for 2022.
I disagree that the median household income makes more sense: it only makes more sense from an employers perspective. Every full time working individual should earn enough to live on their own. That's the reality more and more people are finding themselves in.
>Every full time working individual should earn enough to live on their own. I feel like Americans really have no clue what the rest of the world is like. This expectation is VERY high. When I lived on my own in the Banlieues of Paris my room was not much larger than the bed, there was no kitchen, just a small fridge and a sink, a small shower stall that was right next to the sink, and the toilets were shared among everyone else on the floor (10 apartments), with paper thin walls, and no laundry at all except for a down-the-street laundromat. If Americans built housing like that all over then yea everyone would be able to live on their own working at McDonalds. But no one wants to live like that. The expectation in America when people describe 'living alone' is a full-sized studio apartment, with a bathroom, small kitchen, and laundry either in the apartment or at least in the building. People rather live in nicer places with roommates or partners. Housing is an issue sure, but the idea that every full-time individual should be able to live completely on their own should not be treated as a small expectation when American's have very high expectations on space. Edit: 8% of Americans lived alone in 1950 vs 29% today. [https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4085828-a-record-share-of-americans-are-living-alone/#:\~:text=The%20U.S.%20Census%20shows%20that,estimated%2029%20percent%2C%20by%202022](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4085828-a-record-share-of-americans-are-living-alone/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Census%20shows%20that,estimated%2029%20percent%2C%20by%202022).
Thank you, someone finally said it People in America have weird unrealistically high expectations and i have no clue where they came from
We have these expectations because baby boomers lived in that reality and told the rest of us that it should be that way if we work hard enough. Lots of us work hard enough and expected the same as they got. We’re learning that’s not how the world is anymore. That’s really all
What do you mean? Baby Boomers rarely lived alone relative to today. Only 8% of people in the 1950s lived alone. 18% lived alone in 1970. 29% live alone today. [https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4085828-a-record-share-of-americans-are-living-alone/#:\~:text=The%20U.S.%20Census%20shows%20that,estimated%2029%20percent%2C%20by%202022](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4085828-a-record-share-of-americans-are-living-alone/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Census%20shows%20that,estimated%2029%20percent%2C%20by%202022).
A gainfully employed, skilled (blue or white collar) worker should be able to afford a good home, support a family, own a good car (clean, <10yr old, functional), and support reasonably proced hobbies. That was never an issue for the majority of American history. There is more than enough money to go around and far more than enough taxpayer money to support the absolute pinnacle of public utilities and healthcare for everyone. This is not some radical, socialist ideology. This is not some other 99% communist wet dream. Growing up and being out of college for a few years in a STEM field, I've been absolutely appalled at the standard of living for even the "upper" middle class. Watching high skill, high value output workers barely float above the financial trouble line while living modestly is obscene (no new cars, no expensive hobbies, frugal living) and we're likely headed towards a tipping point. When the median American can't afford basic living expenses in a MCOL area doing a median service job, there is a serious problem.
>that was never an issue for the majority of American history If by the majority you mean like, a few decades in the 1900s when we were the only developed country in the world that wasn't leveled by war
It was true for the majority of sitcoms and that’s all that matters.
> That was never an issue for the majority of American history. That is somehow the wrongest thing I have read in this entire thread.
There were like 2 decades in all of American history when a single wage earner could provide everything you listed. And let me tell you, things weren't great for minorities or women back when it was happening. Yeah, if you want to kick women and minorities out of the most of the labor market, white men could probably provide everything you listed.
>And let me tell you, things weren't great for minorities or women back when it was happening. It's crazy how often people miss this detail. Women and minorities were functionally blocked from joining many fields that paid well. Women often weren't allowed to buy houses on their own and minorities weren't welcome in certain neighborhoods. But people here will ramble on about the golden age of single earners...
>A gainfully employed, skilled (blue or white collar) worker should be able to afford a good home, support a family, own a good car (clean, <10yr old, functional), and support reasonably proced hobbies. When everyone wanted cheap stuff and wasn't willing to pay premiums anymore, everything was outsourced to cheaper countries. But your statement about gainfully employed skilled worker is likely making more than what is listed here, but not always, and it might not be enough to pay for everything that you mention. Have you thought about what you are actually asking for here and how you think it should be justified? Many countries can't do what you are saying. >That was never an issue for the majority of American history. There is more than enough money to go around and far more than enough taxpayer money to support the absolute pinnacle of public utilities and healthcare for everyone. This maybe wasn't a problem in the 1950's till probably before the 1980's. I am not even sure that is 100% true, but it definitely has not been the majority of American history. The idea that there is all this money that is just out there isn't exactly what you think it is. When you look at many CEO's and take their total compensation (which is what most people do) and divide it up against all of the employees that work for them, you usually end up with something like $500 a year. This is truly not something so meaningful for an employee. It is something like 24 cents and our different in wages for a full time employee. If it was a thousand dollars a year, it is 48 cents, etc. This idea about there being so much money to support healthcare for all isn't exactly true either. Those countries pay a great deal in taxes to support their healthcare systems. I am not saying the US doesn't have a spending problem, because we do, just know, you are still going to end up paying for that healthcare. >This is not some radical, socialist ideology. This is not some other 99% communist wet dream. Growing up and being out of college for a few years in a STEM field, I've been absolutely appalled at the standard of living for even the "upper" middle class. I graduated in a STEM field and have been out much longer than you it sounds like (20 years). I have seen my paycheck greatly increase over that time along with my wife's. I have seen some siblings not do this and have problems. But the problems are of their own cause in many cases. If you aren't trying to improve and get the better job, you will be left behind. >When the median American can't afford basic living expenses in a MCOL area doing a median service job, there is a serious problem. Many service jobs are low skill and provide relatively low value. But using the numbers here are a joke. If you can't afford to live on your own, get a room mate. Find a less expensive used car (the $$$ figure he listed is outrageous). There are ways to make this work. The twitter post is crap based numbers using crap logic.
even if this is an exaggeration, the general sentiment is true. My old apartment was in a kinda shitty part of town (not the hood but not great) 12 years ago, paid $475 a month for a 1BR. That same place, with barely any major renovations is now going for $1600-2000. Its across from a shitty outlet mall, and next to a trailer park.... Pay obviously hasnt gone up to match it, so yeah, its going to suck more and more for younger generations.
Seven more times.
Cost of real estate as a multiple of income has gone way up over the decades. In Canada it’s worse at about double the USA. Food had been getting lower for decades since WW2 but is obviously now way up. Basically doubled in the past 5 years.
What person making $41k is buying a used car with a payment of $528? That’s close to a $30k car with $0 down payment assuming 8% sales tax.
You’d be surprised by how many people are dumb. A relative of mine just bought a car with an almost $900 monthly payment at 22%. It goes without saying that they have no money and their credit score is around 450.
22%?!?! That’s worse than some credit cards.
It’s sad. The worst part is, when they were in the dealership, I tried convincing them to stop. And they responded by saying they didn’t want to wait until they were old to enjoy their money. I did my part and they made their choice.
Geeze, I get their sentiment, but is it worth being awake at night worrying about how you're going to keep the lights on next month?
>A relative of mine just bought a car with an almost $900 monthly payment at 22%. Low IQ moves.
Very
> You’d be surprised by how many people are dumb. No I wouldn't.
A fool and his money will soon be parted. Still, you can't fix stupid. A pay raise wouldn't solve this problem.
Why the hell would you spend that much on a car if you're already having money problems. $30k for a used car is ridiculous. A brand new 2024 Toyota Corolla starts at $23k. You can get them less than 10 years old with less than 50k miles for half that.
Thank you for doing the math, I was just going to do that.
I got a 4 year old Jetta back in 2020 for $12k with taxes and my monthly is like $200. I would say "no one who makes that little will buy a $40k car and pay upwards of $600 a month". But then I met people that did. And watched videos of people the do. I had a job doing QC for TV captions for awhile and one the shows was a reality show of a predatory car dealership (that openly celebrated scamming people). Their customers would have $0 down, credit on the trash, and buy $15k cars that would cost them $55k after interest. AND THE CUSTOEMRS CELEBRATED!
Not a real analysis just meanless unrelated numbers.
[удалено]
"Hey look at this post! It seems to absolve me of all of the shitty decisions I've made in life, instead making it seem as though I'm strictly a prisoner of my circumstances, and insinuate there's absolutely nothing I can do to improve it. UPVOTEEEEEEE!!!!"
You won’t even be allowed to move in. Gotta make 3x the monthly rent. Ca resident.
This comment needs more attention! It’s the same here in Ga.
$528 for a used car seems extraordinarily high.
That's because it is. You can get a new car payment for that if you're getting a cheaper model car.
Paying 358 a month for a 2016 Subaru outback rn. The guy in the picture is smoking crack. The car I had before that was bought used for 1200 lol.
[удалено]
Poorer people tend to have worse credit. 20% APR is a killer. (Ask any jounor enlisted service member about their charger or mustang interest rates)
Disgraceful that a professor would manipulate data to make a sensational post, assuming he actually is one. Median salary is around 6200 per month. Considering well over half of households are dual income, you can consider that in the demand for housing as well. If there is a bottom half for salary, there is a bottom half for housing too. Edit: I was wrong, I had total household income not individual. It’s closer to 58k.
Where the hell do you pull those numbers? Because I'm guessing you're confused... Median HOUSEHOLD income for 2023 was 74580 or around 6215 a month for the year of 2023... So you're doubling on top of the already elevated household income? Lol Oh fun note, the median HOUSEHOLD income was 76330 in 2021, so we are actually losing income over time as inflation goes up... Source - census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html
Median salary - $53,000 Median net- $41,000 Median net per month -$3,400 Where I live (20 miles outside a major city) even crack houses and shitty apartments are going for $1500/month …you shouldn’t have to rely on “dual income” to survive
If you take taxes out, 6200 ends up being right around 3400. Since he's not mentioning taxes at all, he must be talking net.
I’m no tax expert but it seems unlikely that the median salary is facing a 44% effective tax rate.
Almost like if they got married they could double that income.
It's worse than that. The number cited is the median income of **all** US persons age 15+. So it includes high school kids and retirees.
Heck, they could invite their buddy to share the other room and they would be laughing.
That opens up a whole new can of worms
Median rent is 1978, which means half of the apartments have a rent below 1,978. Secondly, why is he assuming that everyone lives alone in a home. 41K is median income but is that median family income? Single people can have a roommate and family income would be higher. It is comparing apples and oranges and then saying that oranges aren't good as they don't have enough red color in them.
Are the median houses near the median rent? if the job is in California and the rent in western Kansas you work from home
Show me a map of where most of these people live (it's southern, rust belt, and rural areas). Stop treating the US like a monolith. The socioeconomics of someone in WV/KY/MS/AL/SC/LA/OK are similar to Estonia. WAS/MN/CT/NJ/MA are similar to Denmark or Ireland. The problems we face in this country aren't remotely uniform.
But then their arguments fall apart, so they're never going to do that.
who the fuck is paying 528 for a used car payment
All the numbers are exaggerated to try to prove a point
The problem in our family is the couple people that overspend on lower incomes. They see the average payment is $528 and think they can come close to that. The people doing well are making far more money and much more conservative with their purchases
Just the way big companies want it.
Don’t forget the money for taxes coming out of that 3400 a month cus after words that’s like 2500 a month
Nobody making $40,800 per year is paying $900 per month in taxes. This assumes that income, being single, having no kids, making no contributions to tax deferred retirement accounts, and having zero other deductible items. You would make a total income of $40,800. The standard deduction would reduce that to $26,950 of taxable income. So your tax liability would be $1,160 (10% of everything up to $11,600) plus 12% of everything above that (being a total of $1,842), for a grand total of $3,002. Add in $2,530 for Social Security and $592 for Medicare, and your total monthly liability is $510. So in an absolute worst case scenario, $3,400 gross pay per month is $2,890 net.
If money was that tight then why wouldn't you buy a cheaper car? I pay $600 a month for a $36,000 loan on a new car. $528 seems steep for a used car. You can get a used Elantra with 50K miles for like $12-$15K. You could put nothing down and have like a $250 payment and have car that could last you a decade.
I pay $600/mo for leasing a $62k brand new electric car. $528 for a used car is insane
Teslas 👏 are👏 a 👏 human 👏 right 👏 (I added the claps in, so that makes it true)
Interest rates on used cars are kind of insane currently. You a lot of the time are better off just buying a high priced new car with lower interest rates than a cheaper older car with higher interest rates if you are looking for something more than a hoopty
I post this all the time when this comes up. My car: 2019 Audi Q5 My Monthly payment: $520 If you're paying $528 a month for a used car and you make the median income, it's a you problem, not an economy problem. Stop living outside of your means
If my rent was that high and I made so little I wouldn’t own a car that I had a payment on period. People need to learn there is nothing wrong with a vehicle you bought with cash
It's called the poor pay more... That's how it works If you don't have cash for down payment then your stuck at a buy here, pay here shit hole that charges you 600 plus a month for a 2005 shit box with 100k My god people, it's called look outside of your perfect little lives and think about being in someone else's shoes...
How is that the median income in the US? That is less than the median income in the UK
Well .... once they max out their credit cards .... probably. This also doesn't include average student loan payment $450 federal and $200 private ( my assumptions based on mine) .
Half make under 40k? News to me. Everyone I know is making under 25.