• meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah this is so wrong. I read stats claiming only the top 30% make $70k annually or more. That’s basically $4k a month take home. Given rent and bills, that actually likely leaves people with like $1,500 for food and other. Given the cost of food, I can’t see anyone eating on a budget of $200 a month. Even eating moderately costs about $400-500 and you’re likely making most of your meals from scratch.

    And that’s the top 30%. What are the other 70% living like? Because I buy a dozen eggs, some milk, a loaf of bread and I’m down like $20.

    • saigot@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you are looking at individual income where household is more appropriate. The median after tax household income is 68k. So that’s still 50% doing worse, but it’s a little better than you make out.

      • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry how is 68k annually per household better than 70k per person? Your figures make the situations worse.

        • saigot@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          70k per household is the top 50% of renters not the top 30 like you say.

          • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes but out of a household of 4, you’d theoretically have two people earning $70k annually if per person right? So your stats half the household incomes but only drop the population by 15% give or take. Thats far more bleak.