3 ms·

> You conviniently left out all the good parts of the economy: unemployment is at all-time lows, inflation is down (but still not at 2%), consumer spending is a

> You conviniently left out all the good parts of the economy: unemployment is at all-time lows, inflation is down (but still not at 2%), consumer spending is at an all-time high. On the ground here we were at 3 typical incomes to make basic bills in Jan 2022. As of this month we're solidly at 4 incomes to meet those same bills. Most of that jump occurred this year.

temende 3y ago
Do you mind clarifying - do you mean 4 incomes for the same number of people? i.e. are you or people you know taking multiple jobs, is that what "4 incomes" means?
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > do you mean 4 incomes for the same number of people? Yes. > are you or people you know taking multiple jobs That would work too, providing there enough hours in the week to work 4 full time jobs. One person earning 4x a typical income would also be able support themselves.
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
In this context, "typical" would normally mean something very close to "median", US household median income is about $71k/year. You're saying you need $280k to meet basic bills? Perhaps by "typical" you meant something closer to "near minimum" ?
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  I mean typical as in a rate of pay that would be available to the most possible people.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    That's a very unusual metric to use for this purpose. Essentially the "mode" of the income distribution. I'm not saying you're wrong to use it, it's just a little strange. The mode of most distributions doesn't tell you much about the distribution as a whole, which might be just fine in this case. OTOH, the median is the number for which half the households in the country earn more and half earn less, and whatever the merits of the mode might be, I still think that's a fairly significant value too.
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      It's a measurement intended to bring focus on the most common economic experiences - something that disconnected metrics aren't very good at.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        I applaud the focus. I am just not sure that the mode is the best way to do that. There is something compelling about "the income that the most people make". But I think "the income that is right in the middle of what everyone makes" has a slight edge for me in this respect. Anyway, it's a good thing to focus on, regardless of the metric chosen.
        WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
        > I applaud the focus. I am just not sure that the mode is the best way to do that. I'm not pitting it against BoL Statistics metrics. I use it to better communicate how the largest swath of the public experiences the economy.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        After another day, I think I realize my issue with using the mode. The actual mode is going to be a single number, not a range, and it will correspond to very few people's incomes. To be usable in the way you mean, you need to add a range to it, and the size of that range is up for debate (mode +/- 1000? 2000? 10,000 ? etc)
        WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
        >But I think "the income that is right in the middle of what everyone makes" has a slight edge for me in this respect. I get that. However, that income doesn't reflect the largest bracket of the working population.
  - ac29 3y ago
    The rate of pay available to the most possible people is minimum wage. Its covers 100% of (legal) jobs. So, are you saying your expenses are 4x minimum wage?
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      > The rate of pay available to the most possible people is minimum wage. It isn't because so few employers pay that. The most available rate of pay would be closer to 10 or maybe 12 an hour.

temende 3y ago

Do you mind clarifying - do you mean 4 incomes for the same number of people? i.e. are you or people you know taking multiple jobs, is that what "4 incomes" means?

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> do you mean 4 incomes for the same number of people? Yes. > are you or people you know taking multiple jobs That would work too, providing there enough hours in the week to work 4 full time jobs. One person earning 4x a typical income would also be able support themselves.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

In this context, "typical" would normally mean something very close to "median", US household median income is about $71k/year. You're saying you need $280k to meet basic bills? Perhaps by "typical" you meant something closer to "near minimum" ?

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
I mean typical as in a rate of pay that would be available to the most possible people.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  That's a very unusual metric to use for this purpose. Essentially the "mode" of the income distribution. I'm not saying you're wrong to use it, it's just a little strange. The mode of most distributions doesn't tell you much about the distribution as a whole, which might be just fine in this case. OTOH, the median is the number for which half the households in the country earn more and half earn less, and whatever the merits of the mode might be, I still think that's a fairly significant value too.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    It's a measurement intended to bring focus on the most common economic experiences - something that disconnected metrics aren't very good at.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      I applaud the focus. I am just not sure that the mode is the best way to do that. There is something compelling about "the income that the most people make". But I think "the income that is right in the middle of what everyone makes" has a slight edge for me in this respect. Anyway, it's a good thing to focus on, regardless of the metric chosen.
      - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
        > I applaud the focus. I am just not sure that the mode is the best way to do that. I'm not pitting it against BoL Statistics metrics. I use it to better communicate how the largest swath of the public experiences the economy.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        After another day, I think I realize my issue with using the mode. The actual mode is going to be a single number, not a range, and it will correspond to very few people's incomes. To be usable in the way you mean, you need to add a range to it, and the size of that range is up for debate (mode +/- 1000? 2000? 10,000 ? etc)
      - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
        >But I think "the income that is right in the middle of what everyone makes" has a slight edge for me in this respect. I get that. However, that income doesn't reflect the largest bracket of the working population.
- ac29 3y ago
  The rate of pay available to the most possible people is minimum wage. Its covers 100% of (legal) jobs. So, are you saying your expenses are 4x minimum wage?
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    > The rate of pay available to the most possible people is minimum wage. It isn't because so few employers pay that. The most available rate of pay would be closer to 10 or maybe 12 an hour.