• Spacehooks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I couldn’t get link to work but I think you are looking at house hold. I looked up individual and it was 35.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Are you talking about the poverty line that moves with the number of kids you have or the median? They are two different measurements and the Poverty line for families with kids goes above the median.

  • Batting1000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    On another note, when the dude that makes your kids isn’t the one that writes your paychecks… I’m not saying that some women have it easier in terms of advancing their career, but when they’re family, or they have made themselves family, they have job security over the ones who didn’t. That’s just the way I see it. Then again, my resume is over two pages from trying to piece together part time jobs, and having left jobs where I was having great success in my jobs duties, but “wasn’t a good fit”. That’s code for “didn’t put out”, I guess.

  • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    "Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.”

    ― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

  • thorbot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Is this actually true? Independent, self-supporting people? Or is this skewed by all the people living with their parents still?

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Shower thought: What if the journalists drawing attention to these problems are using twisted headlines to get the message past the same corporate masters? That the very voice of media is under the same yoke, struggling to get the word out?

    • Soggy@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      If you want to be pedantic about how different countries abbreviate names and include Central and South America I bet the given figure is still accurate.

      Do you correct people who say “Germany” instead of “Deutschland”? No, just typical USA hatred?

      • hypoproteinosis96@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Bro our healthcare is eons better than yours mate… “Much more than half?” LMAO

        Sure you “make” more, but the cost living in CA/MX are far far far cheaper than you dorks can even fathom.

        Rise up or shut up.

        • Obi@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          What on earth are you on about? BTW I’m European. I simply stated a fact about the metric being discussed, not sure how that elicits your reaction.

    • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      /* Ignore my other comment if it’s not deleted for you yet *

      This is specifically for combined household rate, which is different from individual earnings in that, well, it’s for two people and not a measure of how much the “average” American makes

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The median net compensation for American workers in 2019 was $34,248.45, which is less than $35,000. So, the claim in the screenshot is apparently accurate for individuals. Granted, household income is a better indication of socioeconomic standing for people with spouses.

      • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Maybe, but that would also be dishonest, because nobody is asking children why they are not having kids and not buying homes.

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Oh I agree. They started with a premise and went about getting the numbers to match it, which is at best lousy journalism. I’m just theorizing about their methodology.

    • Skasi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      That’s “Household income”. Household income is the most useless and skewed statistic I can think of when it comes to equality and actual income per person.

      In my mind rich people can afford to live in different homes. Poor people can not afford to do so. That means if 8 poor people who each make eg 10k a year share a household then their household earns 80k. Now if 8 less-poor people who each make eg 40k a year are split over four households then their households also make 80k each.

      So now there’s 4 households of 2 people each that make as much as 1 household of 8 people. Here statistically 100% of households make exactly 40k. Regardless 50% of those 16 people still make less than 35k a year.

      In reality people inside one household have different incomes, which means even among the 4 slightly richer households in the example above some inhabitants would probably make less than 35k.

      One question I have is how do household-statistics count people who have multiple houses? If a rich person owns 10 houses, then does it count as 10 households who earn >35k? I hope not.

      • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Fantastic points! I totally missed that household part of it but I agree that judging based off household is a really distorted view of individual financial position.

        Do you have data on individual incomes?

        • Skasi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t have any data. My goal was not to provide data but to call out the absurdness of creating statistics for abstract things like household incomes.

        • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          To think of household income, think of how you file taxes. You don’t claim roommates in your taxes, theyre not your household. If you and a significant other file jointly, that’s your household.

          The stat isn’t as ridiculous as the other person claims

          • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            !tomalley8342@lemmy.world posted the definitions used in the census survey above

            A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is also counted as a household.

      • alvvayson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        People with multiple homes typically have one home that counts as their residency and those living in that house count as a household.

        Other homes are secondary or recreational homes and are not counted to have residents.

        Sometimes, rich people will claim to live in one home in a low income tax jurisdiction, while actually spending more time in a high income tax jurisdiction. This is tax fraud and the most recent famous case I can think of is Shakira.

        • Skasi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Alright that makes sense. Is there any benefit to living together vs living alone as far as taxes are concerned? I suppose a couple owning two houses and each person claiming to live in a different house (ie two households) would still skew statistics.

          • alvvayson@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            It depends on jurisdiction.

            In most countries, living together has a slight tax advantage. In some countries it has a disadvantage.

      • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It does! And one billionaire with a wife live-in sex worker (remember; they cannot love) erases thousands of dual-income partners living in poverty

        • Skasi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          It does!

          Are you sure that it does? Some other people are claiming that it does not and I honestly have no idea who is correct. Do you have a source for this?

          • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Okay so here’s what I remember from 4th grade (salt it heavily; that was decades ago and I had to flake on statistics class):

            There are 3 kinds of ‘average’: The mean: values of all the things added together, divided by number of things

            Median: take the… I think the mean, but maybe highest and lowest, then find the actual number in the data set closest to it

            Mode: number that occurs most often in the data set.

            Pretty sure this uses mean. That’s the common one. Look what happens to that data when you remove extreme outliers, or just the top 1%.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Household income doesn’t mean you and all your roommates. If you’re single and you have 3 roommates, your household is still just you for the purpose of calculating household income. If two families share a house, then each respective family has their own household income.

        • Skasi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          So what about young adults who can’t afford their own house and live with their parents or some other relatives? Are they excluded from these statistics? Do they count as a household consisting of only one person? Are they completely ignored in this statistics?

          The PDF itself doesn’t specify these things. Nor does it confirm your claim. Maybe some of the data referred to in the many footnotes does. Wikipedia and Google results didn’t really answer those questions either, they only confirmed that there are many different ways to model a household.

        • tomalley8342@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you’re single and you have 3 roommates, your household is still just you for the purpose of calculating household income.

          Where did you hear this brother?

          https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html#household

          A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is also counted as a household.

            • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              That’s adding to the confusion and seems like a weird gotcha, we’re talking about the census as the person posted above as a source. The people who are confused and wrong seem to be stuck on tax filing status for some reason, I’m hoping obfuscation isn’t the goal.

              • horsey@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Where did anyone get the idea that the statistic cited in the OP comes from the census?

                • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  …I’m going to lean on the side of this being trolling unless you’re just lost or not following the full conversation. We are in a comment chain discussing what friend_of_satan@lemmy.world replied to OP with. No one is implying the OP image is census data, people are using the census data to dispute the OP image’s claims. I feel breaking it down further is redundant since you can just scroll back up and read all the replies.

  • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I will only ask you why you don’t do something about it instead of just begging corporations.

  • OwlPaste@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    But we need those billionaires, they taught me that tricke down pussanomics work and they are doing me a favour by paying me less!

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    My idea of becoming rich isn’t a fancy mansion… It’s having enough for all of my essentials and having plenty left over…

    Ya know, what used to be normal?