> More diversity in outcomes in the US, but also better in the median.
To be fair, the median household in the US doesn't have that much more disposable income if taking healthcare and child care costs into account, especially if they're simultaneously expected to save up a 1-2 year buffer and maybe more if they want a comfortable retirement.
But for the top 20%, which includes many tech workers, the difference is larger.
Do people that make the median household income in the USA feel secure? If they don't, your statistic is irrelevant. And in my experience they don't, especially if they live in higher cost of living areas where most of the tech jobs are.
> the median income in the US is $19k (net) per year, and about $15k (net) per year in Europe
That's off by close to half. The median income in the US is around $37,000 [1], the median full-time income is around $53,000 [2] and the median US household income is up over $70,000 [3].
It's also worth noting that those median incomes are paying low tax rates on that income (typically ~15%-20% including federal + state + local + fica, depending on the location).
I'm not disagreeing that there is a "lower class" of Americans that face these circumstances. What I'm disagreeing with is the article's implication that the median American somehow shares this plight. The article ignores a crucial fact: that the "median income" does not represent the "median American." The "median American" makes over $50,000 at age 35+. The "median income" reflects everyone just starting out in their career, etc. That's the basic fallacy of the article. We imagine someone with kids making $30,000 and how hard that would be. And then we see that the median income is $30,000, and are shocked to think that somehow half of all people must be in those "dire" financial circumstances. But someone making $30,000 with kids to support is in fact far below the median. The median family income in the U.S. is $73,000.
Your point about health insurance also contradicts reality. Excluding people covered by Medicare and military health care, 70% of Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance. That covers, on average, 86% of premiums for the employee and 75% for dependents. Many Americans don't have health insurance, of course. But the median American does. The person making $30,000 and getting "gouged on health insurance" out of that amount is far below the median.
> This is not even counting the fact that Americans work more for less
That's simply false. The median income in the U.S. is about 10% higher than Sweden (and much higher than the U.K. or France or Germany). Do Swedes get 36 extra days off each year to compensate? (No they don't.) Disposable income at the median is even higher in the U.S. because Sweden has extremely high tax rates on the middle class. The poor in Sweden, on the other hand, are much better off thanks to those taxes on the Swedish middle class.
If you measure by median household income, the US is towards the top. So when you see a statistic that says more than 50% of US households live paycheck to paycheck, that’s a choice, because the median US household doesn’t have to live paycheck to paycheck.
Not disputing this at all, but I read some stats recently that the average American household income is so offset by the higher earners that the median income is something like 2 or 3 times less than the average. I imagine this cuts both ways. Do you recall if the language used was median or average?
It doesn't work when you're comparing incomes, but it does work when you compare incomes minus costs.
Having a higher median income is all well and good, until you find it all eaten by education, healthcare, and transportation costs... In addition to less financially denominated costs. [1]
But eh, if you didn't need to take care of your kids, or yourself, you could theoretically afford more iPhones.
[1] Having lived in Canada, and the US, I can't put an exact dollar value on the stress of, for example, having to deal with the American healthcare system, but its non-zero.
Real US median household income hasn't budged much since the mid 60s ($35-40k, inflation adjusted), and I think that's on the back of more hours worked, lower job security, etc.
Health is better, and people are better educated, but it's just not paying off for the average household.
Yeah, my bad. My comment is very US-centric. At the same time, cost of living is likely much higher in the US, so that also makes a difference in the comparison.
No, its not, its about $65K. Though Google’s Knowledge Graph pulls a snippet about the structurally higher median family income if you search for median household income.
To be fair, the median household in the US doesn't have that much more disposable income if taking healthcare and child care costs into account, especially if they're simultaneously expected to save up a 1-2 year buffer and maybe more if they want a comfortable retirement.
But for the top 20%, which includes many tech workers, the difference is larger.
reply