4 ms·

> but not that uncommon Taking in nearly double over the average household income is, by definition, uncommon.

by timewizard 2y ago

yimby2001 2y ago
I think that’s a pretty average income for a couple with two children
- jwiz 2y ago
  Median household income is like $80k
- novemp 2y ago
  In San Francisco, maybe.
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    Yeah but the OP lives there, and many people around them make similar or more, so it seems normal. This is incredibly common in many parts of life, humans gonna human I guess.
alabastervlog 2y ago
JFC HN, I hedge and demure about as much as I reasonably can without distractingly and pointlessly (anyone can Google) turning the post into a dissertation on median household income percentiles and still someone complains. This is poor reading, and poor posting. The first year of that, about 20% of households were around our level of income or higher. We could have covered $1,500 in daycare without much trouble at a somewhat lower level of income, so say 25% could cover $1,000/m without driving themselves into a really, really bad place financially, provided they’ve not already committed that to other things (expensive car payments, they have very young kids in daycare, whatever) Neither 20% nor 25% are uncommon. If you’re thinking “well that’s just coastal cities dragging the stats up” then check stats on 3rd-tier but not-notoriously-poor cities and see what they look like. In the flyover state city fitting that description we lived in at the time, the local household income percentile distribution roughly matched the national one. That’s a TAM of people who can afford $1,000/month for something they really want of, what, 50 million or more adults in the US? And that’s at full sticker price, which few are paying. How much more than one-in-five before a category of person is not uncommon?
- timewizard 2y ago
  > and still someone complains. That you perceive it as a complaint is hilariously ironic. I'm just telling you that your notions of "common" are wrong. You are attempting to use your economic situation to justify the outcomes for others. That, my friend, is poor posting. > about 20% of households This is super easy. 1 out of 5 is "not common." You can be as parsimonious as you like it doesn't change the ground reality that there are fewer people like you than there are people like you. > How much more than one-in-five before a category of person is not uncommon? Weird hill to die on. There's nothing wrong with or your economic situation except your expectation that other people share it. Which they generally don't.
  - phil21 2y ago
    1 in 5 is certainly not uncommon by any reasonable interpretation of the term. 20% of the US is an absolutely massive market many could only dream to begin to address as a customer base. That said, even that is not really all that useful. Anyone who is motivated can get these drugs for around $500-600/mo via programs that exist for the vast majority of the population. That roughly halves the cost comparisons here. Very few folks who want these drugs have zero options other than to pay full retail.
  - Atheros 2y ago
    He didn't say 1 in 5 is common. He said 1 in 5 is not that uncommon. He's right. If 1 in 5 people in 1991 have a computer in the house, having a computer is not that uncommon.
    - mckn1ght 2y ago
      This is a circular argument. In order for it not to be, you need to show how “having a computer in the house in 1991” is already a not uncommon thing for that to then apply to 1 in 5 not being uncommon.

> but not that uncommon Taking in nearly double over the average household income is, by definition, uncommon.

yimby2001 2y ago

I think that’s a pretty average income for a couple with two children

jwiz 2y ago
Median household income is like $80k
novemp 2y ago
In San Francisco, maybe.
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  Yeah but the OP lives there, and many people around them make similar or more, so it seems normal. This is incredibly common in many parts of life, humans gonna human I guess.

alabastervlog 2y ago

JFC HN, I hedge and demure about as much as I reasonably can without distractingly and pointlessly (anyone can Google) turning the post into a dissertation on median household income percentiles and still someone complains. This is poor reading, and poor posting. The first year of that, about 20% of households were around our level of income or higher. We could have covered $1,500 in daycare without much trouble at a somewhat lower level of income, so say 25% could cover $1,000/m without driving themselves into a really, really bad place financially, provided they’ve not already committed that to other things (expensive car payments, they have very young kids in daycare, whatever) Neither 20% nor 25% are uncommon. If you’re thinking “well that’s just coastal cities dragging the stats up” then check stats on 3rd-tier but not-notoriously-poor cities and see what they look like. In the flyover state city fitting that description we lived in at the time, the local household income percentile distribution roughly matched the national one. That’s a TAM of people who can afford $1,000/month for something they really want of, what, 50 million or more adults in the US? And that’s at full sticker price, which few are paying. How much more than one-in-five before a category of person is not uncommon?

timewizard 2y ago
> and still someone complains. That you perceive it as a complaint is hilariously ironic. I'm just telling you that your notions of "common" are wrong. You are attempting to use your economic situation to justify the outcomes for others. That, my friend, is poor posting. > about 20% of households This is super easy. 1 out of 5 is "not common." You can be as parsimonious as you like it doesn't change the ground reality that there are fewer people like you than there are people like you. > How much more than one-in-five before a category of person is not uncommon? Weird hill to die on. There's nothing wrong with or your economic situation except your expectation that other people share it. Which they generally don't.
- phil21 2y ago
  1 in 5 is certainly not uncommon by any reasonable interpretation of the term. 20% of the US is an absolutely massive market many could only dream to begin to address as a customer base. That said, even that is not really all that useful. Anyone who is motivated can get these drugs for around $500-600/mo via programs that exist for the vast majority of the population. That roughly halves the cost comparisons here. Very few folks who want these drugs have zero options other than to pay full retail.
- Atheros 2y ago
  He didn't say 1 in 5 is common. He said 1 in 5 is not that uncommon. He's right. If 1 in 5 people in 1991 have a computer in the house, having a computer is not that uncommon.
  - mckn1ght 2y ago
    This is a circular argument. In order for it not to be, you need to show how “having a computer in the house in 1991” is already a not uncommon thing for that to then apply to 1 in 5 not being uncommon.