American Exceptionalism -- Interesting Article

[Steely Glint]

How do you take into account the differences in the amount in the length of the average working week in Europe and the US? See this

[Loki]

How do you take into account the differences in the amount in the length of the average working week in Europe and the US? See this

How is that relevant to the cost of living or spending power? Plus there is a diminishing rate of return for hours worked. Every additional hour you work is likely to produce less than the previous one, which means you get paid less for it.

[Steely Glint]

Because you're working out the differences using per capita income & GDP.

Every additional hour you work is likely to produce less than the previous one, which means you get paid less for it.

I don't think many people get paid on a piece rate these days.

[Loki]

Because you're working out the differences using per capita income & GDP.

What's your point? How does purchasing power change if someone works fewer or more hours? We're comparing median incomes here...

I don't think many people get paid on a piece rate these days.

Explicitly, no. Implicitly, yes. Over the medium term, salaries are based on productivity, and productivity goes down with every hour worked (more sharply after 5-6 hours a day)

[LittleFuzzy]

Fun game:

Look at this:

http://www.mercer.com/costoflivingpr#top_50

Look at the 2009 ranking of London. Look at the 2009 ranking of New York.

Then look at the 2008 ranking of London, and the 2008 ranking of New York.

Then think about the differences between the cost of living in, say, Alabama and New York and between London and, say, rural Yorkshire.

It doesn't really have any bearing on your argument, but I look at that list and I think something is rotten in the state of Denmark. The idea that the cost of living in San Francisco is lower than the cost of living in Los Angeles suggests to me that something is wonky, or they're looking at some very specific factors of strictly limited geographic borders for cities which makes the comparison exercise somewhat meaningless.

[Loki]

"The significant changes from last year are due to massive swings in exchange rates, with many currencies at their weakest in years against the U.S. dollar, during the March 2009 survey period. Because of this, New York moved up 14 spaces to No. 8 from No. 22. London dropped to No. 16 from No. 3 as the pound dropped as low as 1.37 against the U.S. dollar during the study period. Six months earlier, one pound was worth $1.86."

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/06/mos...ily-costs.html

[Steely Glint]

What's your point? How does purchasing power change if someone works fewer or more hours? We're comparing median incomes here...

Yes, but when I say something like "that doesn't take into account shit like health-care" and you say "ah, but look at all the extra monies teh Americans have to spend on that stuff", then average working week is a factor.

[Loki]

Yes, but when I say something like "that doesn't take into account shit like health-care" and you say "ah, but look at all the extra monies teh Americans have to spend on that stuff", then average working week is a factor.

I don't get it. No, it's not a factor, because we're talking about purchasing power...

[Steely Glint]

To clarify, the $15-20k figure you quoted on the other page was *just* the difference in American spending power, and not the difference in spending power + the higher American average income?

[Loki]

To clarify, the $15-20k figure you quoted on the other page was *just* the difference in American spending power, and not the difference in spending power + the higher American average income?

By spending power, I mean the amount of disposable income people have (after taxes) when adjusted for differences in prices. The amount of hours they work doesn't really enter the equation. The only argument you could make is that people who work more don't have the time to enjoy the money, but that's not really relevant to what is being said here.

[Khendraja'aro]

No, it wouldn't be more representative of the average; the average is more representative of the average.

Here's a pretty chart with median household income though (adjusted for purchasing power):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

US - $50k
UK - $39k

If we're talking about spending power, then no, it isn't. The difference between the upper and the lower quartile would be interesting, too.

[Hazir]

I just read that on average Dutch person has to work 15 minutes to buy a Big Mac. What's the time where you live?

[agamemnus]

Well I actually think the median is quite good for a single number statistics. But it doesn't tell anything about the low level workers. It actually tells you more about the middle-class. It could easily be possible that 45% of the population are working-poor and the rest is well paid, the median will still be quite good as it's only the 50%/50% boarder that counts.

Partially right, C-.

In statistics, and also in most developed economies, the median is also very close to where the vast majority of the data points reside. In the US, we have been losing the standard income bell curve. It is widening at the bottom incomes, which actually means that the median is a better indicator of typical income (typical income is NOT necessarily "middle class"). A non-symmetric bell curve is what underdeveloped countries have and it shows inefficiency in the system and immobility between classes.

While I'd like to believe the article, its data is outdated. The US has been losing class mobility (FACT sustained by government data) since at least the 1980s.

[earthJoker]

Partially right, C-.

In statistics, and also in most developed economies, the median is also very close to where the vast majority of the data points reside. In the US, we have been losing the standard income bell curve. It is widening at the bottom incomes, which actually means that the median is a better indicator of typical income (typical income is NOT necessarily "middle class"). A non-symmetric bell curve is what underdeveloped countries have and it shows inefficiency in the system and immobility between classes.

While I'd like to believe the article, its data is outdated. The US has been losing class mobility (FACT sustained by government data) since at least the 1980s.

I give you a 1 for not understanding the problem. (you started to give marks)

I just said that the median is good for a middle class description, you just proving my point "the median is also very close to where the vast majority of the data points reside".
But this is not really interesting if you want to know about the poor/low level incomes. My example with the 45% poor was just a hypothetical one.

Actually to come back to your statement. You assume that the median is a good measurement because you have some knowledge of the distribution of the salaries. But the claim that the US has higher amount of low salary jobs would lead in a different distribution and not in a lower median.