3 ms·

Why is household income such a common statistic to use - it seems like it doesn't tell us much unless you at least normalize it by the number of earners in the

Why is household income such a common statistic to use - it seems like it doesn't tell us much unless you at least normalize it by the number of earners in the house and the cost of rent? For example - I'm pretty sure large numbers of people living together and sharing rent is way more common nowadays than it used to be. From 18 - 25 (I'm 27 now) I was always living in a house with at least 3 other people (usually 4-5), because that was literally the only way I could afford to pay rent if I wanted to eat as well and I'm still splitting rent 50/50 with one other person now. Most of us were working (low paid) full time jobs, so our total household income would have been pretty big - but this situation is obviously not at all an improvement over what we had a few decades ago when one minimum wage full time income could afford their own house and a full belly.

p1necone 6y ago
Really unless I'm missing something increasing average/median household income could be an indicator of housing availability getting worse, not better.
refurb 6y ago
Average household size has been decreasing significantly and is at a low as of 2019. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/hh-6.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...
- dpkonofa 6y ago
  Does that include children under 18, though? If so, then they're not counted in the income calculation. That means the problem is worse, not better.
  - refurb 6y ago
    "The term "size of household" includes all the people occupying a housing unit."[1] And household income is all income earned, including those down to 15 years old.[1] Plus, the report breaks out individual income as well and the numbers are similar. [1]https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-docume...
waheoo 6y ago
Because households only buy one vacuum cleaner. It probably is a dated stat but it's still useful. Going down the more individualized path also has problems
- baskire 6y ago
  And a household pays a single rent. This means I’m average ppl can afford 6% increase to rent. Afford might be poor choice of word though
op03 6y ago
Yup long long way to go to - https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html
ACow_Adonis 6y ago
It's used (historically) because household income is one of the best determinants of living standard for a great majority of individuals under "typical" living conditions. I.e. if you have one high income earner, married to a low income earner, supporting one or two no income earners living together in a household, its inaccurate to split those out and consider or calculate those statistics as individuals. Most households historically live a lifestyle more akin to pooling and sharing income and resources. But, as you rightfully point out, when I was calculating them, we also tended to use equivalised-household incomes (to take into account the different resources and structures used by the number of children vs adults living together). 'Course you also then have to worry about things like imputed rent and drawing on access to capital/resources that don't turn up in economic or monetary flows. The short answer for why its used is probably like most economic statistics: its calculable and easily available and people think they understand it (even if they don't).

p1necone 6y ago

Really unless I'm missing something increasing average/median household income could be an indicator of housing availability getting worse, not better.

refurb 6y ago

Average household size has been decreasing significantly and is at a low as of 2019. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/hh-6.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...

dpkonofa 6y ago
Does that include children under 18, though? If so, then they're not counted in the income calculation. That means the problem is worse, not better.
- refurb 6y ago
  "The term "size of household" includes all the people occupying a housing unit."[1] And household income is all income earned, including those down to 15 years old.[1] Plus, the report breaks out individual income as well and the numbers are similar. [1]https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-docume...

waheoo 6y ago

Because households only buy one vacuum cleaner. It probably is a dated stat but it's still useful. Going down the more individualized path also has problems

baskire 6y ago
And a household pays a single rent. This means I’m average ppl can afford 6% increase to rent. Afford might be poor choice of word though

op03 6y ago

Yup long long way to go to - https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html

ACow_Adonis 6y ago

It's used (historically) because household income is one of the best determinants of living standard for a great majority of individuals under "typical" living conditions. I.e. if you have one high income earner, married to a low income earner, supporting one or two no income earners living together in a household, its inaccurate to split those out and consider or calculate those statistics as individuals. Most households historically live a lifestyle more akin to pooling and sharing income and resources. But, as you rightfully point out, when I was calculating them, we also tended to use equivalised-household incomes (to take into account the different resources and structures used by the number of children vs adults living together). 'Course you also then have to worry about things like imputed rent and drawing on access to capital/resources that don't turn up in economic or monetary flows. The short answer for why its used is probably like most economic statistics: its calculable and easily available and people think they understand it (even if they don't).