• Nevoic
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is explicitly just for full-time workers. There are links on that website that show the numbers for part-time workers, which are far, far lower. The ~40k number we were posting was the average for all workers.

    It’s important to remember that 39.5 hours a week is part time, and a lot of low-wage jobs keep employees under full time to lower benefit requirements. So all those types of jobs aren’t included in your calculation. It’s better to do the median of all workers.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The 40K number is for all workers above the age of 15

      I don’t know about you, but I earned little income until my 20s, so if you include dependents, there’s a quite a few people with no income. While they only bring the midpoint down, it’s also not a fair point of comparison

      • Nevoic
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        None of these sources include people with no income in statistics about worker income.

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          My buddy worked at an ice cream parlor part time after school. He was included into the statistics because he was a worker over 15. But he was also a dependent who lived with his parents.

          So when you say half of workers make X, it includes dependents who work like 10 hours a week.

          • Nevoic
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yeah, and it includes doctors making 900k a year. Medians are good because they ignore the extreme ends. It is a literal fact that half of workers in America make under 41k a year. Maybe that fact is uncomfortable, but it’s an actual fact so it’s something you’ll have to deal with.

            It seems you don’t actually disagree with anything I’m saying though.

            • iopq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              But it’s not useful because the household income is over 70K

              It makes it sound like half of people are supporting themselves making 40K, but that’s not the case

              • Nevoic
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                To pretend like it says nothing about the state of the country is a complete joke.

                Over half of people 18-29 are living with their parents, because you can’t live on your own and save up for a house on the median income anymore. Hell, before I got laid off I was making 130k a year and still didn’t move out because I knew at any point I could be let go (which is exactly what happened we got bought out and massive lay offs followed), and didn’t want to throw all my money away renting.

                People can’t support themselves on 40k a year, so they’re not. More people than ever are dependent on others to live, because they aren’t being paid enough to live. I have friends (we’re all in our mid 20s) who are making around the medium income. Two of them recently got let go, and were back living with their parents inside of a month because they weren’t able to save any money between rent, food, and other basic necessities to live.

                • iopq@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Yes, because a lot of areas with good jobs vote against new housing, which causes increased rents and house prices.

                  This is a true problem with society, not the amount that people make, but that they have to spend most of it on housing instead of the recommended 30%

                  • Nevoic
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    The issue is the ratio. A medium salary could get you a medium priced house 60 years ago. This is no longer the case, not even close.

                    Nobody cares what the actual number is. As long as median matches median, and spending power stays where it was in the 60s (or ideally improves, though that dream is dead), then that’s good.

                    Wage growth stopped happening for the past half century. This isn’t good. Capitalists have been hoarding metric fuckloads of wealth, and it hasn’t trickled down (nobody in their right mind ever thought it would, but we now live in the world that conservatives 50 years ago wanted, and it’s failing miserably).