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 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
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Hope is the denial of reality
Because you're working out the differences using per capita income & GDP.
I don't think many people get paid on a piece rate these days.Every additional hour you work is likely to produce less than the previous one, which means you get paid less for it.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
What's your point? How does purchasing power change if someone works fewer or more hours? We're comparing median incomes here...
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)I don't think many people get paid on a piece rate these days.
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
"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
Hope is the denial of reality
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
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?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
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?
Congratulations America
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.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt