23 ms·
This data is not congruous with the national household expenditure survey. In 2019, the average American household earned $71 thousand after taxes. Of that 17%
by dcolkitt 6y ago
This data is not congruous with the national household expenditure survey. In 2019, the average American household earned $71 thousand after taxes. Of that 17% in aggregate was spent on shelter, and 6.2% on rent (this is a little complex because it commingles renters with owners). 36% of households were renters.
In 2000, the average American household earned $42 thousand after taxes. Of that 17% was spent on shelter and 5% on rent. 34% of households were renters.
Therefore relative to average incomes, the cost paid by the average American renter has only increased by about 17% on a national level since 2000. Since the Consumer Expenditure survey includes the entire country, it seems highly likely that the study in the link is cherry-picking specific metros to get headline results.
https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables.htm https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables.htm
- neogodless 6y agoThe article actually specifies > Across the largest 50 cities
- dcolkitt 6y agoEven this methodology doesn't add up. About one third of American households are in the 50 largest metro areas. If income-pegged rents increased in that group by 175%, but only 17% nationally, then that would imply that rents outside the largest metros decreased by 60%. That seems highly implausible. Either this study has to be wrong (or highly misrepresented) or the BLS Consumer Expenditure survey is wrong. Consider that the BLS survey is a huge sample size, with carefully controlled data, developed over decades, I'm trusting it.
- rebelos 6y agoNo serious person looks at average income numbers when doing this sort of analysis. In fact, in this domain (and many others), any coarse-grained summary statistic misses far too much nuance to have much practical utility.