It was nice to learn of all this bullshit. Thank you.

Yeah. It is clearly possible. I don’t know why I read it as 60th percentile instead of 60% of median

After reading my comment. You are right, it is not impossible.

However, it still is not a good indicator for minimum wage.

IMO, minimum wage should be based on expenses. That is, it should cover what you need to live a decent life.

That definition is based on other’s income. Imagine you live in a country where housing is 1€/month and food is 0.10€/month. The rest of the costs scale accordingly. Yet it is an incredibly rich country and the median income is 10000€/year. Would you say that a yearly wage of 120€/year is risk-of-poverty? It’s 0.001% of the median income, yet it can provide for 10 years of housing in 1 year of work.

Great. We used the same definition, that’s good.

Now, can you explain to me what minimum wage do you think would make it so minimum wage is safe from poverty according to that definition?

What is the definition of safe from poverty?

What I found was this:

The at-risk-of-poverty rate is the share of people with an equivalised disposable income (after social transfer) below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income after social transfers.

From https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary%3AAt-risk-of-poverty_rate

By that definition, it is not possible to have a minimum wage “safe from poverty”. Since the minimum will always be below the median.

So tell me. What are those hidden taxes?

What type of corporate parasitism are you referring to that hurts Americans more than Europeans?

That’s fair. Although I need to point out that the title literally says “more than 1 in 4” which makes it kinda funny.

Ignoring all the taxation is theft bullshit, my original question is how is america so expensive that living wages are considered 8x of the highest minimum wages of europe (Less than 20k).

America has lower taxes than any European country. So that cannot be the answer.

Europeans also buy little glasses for Timmy and such. I don’t think the price of those kind of things is much different. Same for utilities, phone and TV. The one I’m most uncertain about is utilities, but I believe electricity at least is usually cheaper in america.

The car one is fair. Although it’s true that in Europe there’s also tons of people on cars, public transit is at least a valid option, unlike in much of the US.

Taxes is not though. Taxes in america are usually way lower than in Europe.

So transportation+healthcare are the only expenses that are clearly more expensive in america. Housing being highly dependant on location is hard to compare nation-based. And it’s also the biggest component. I’d be curious to see the actual “living wage” difference between two places, one Europeans and another American with similar housing prices.

Why is the cost of living so incredibly high in the US?

It cannot be because of consumer goods. Because both Europe and the US have similar prices for those since they are made by international companies.

It cannot be food, the US is a big exporter of food. And those exports go to countries with lower costs of living.

It cannot be vacations. You could “just” fly to Europe and have european vacation prices.

Is it just housing and healthcare?

I’m surprised they at least know they have a problem. I would think these companies would just say “look how the sales numbers haven’t changed, that means that we were correct in doing the AI thing. Without it, sales would be sinking into the ocean!”

“full attendance”

The fact that some 300 people with the best salaries and most prestigious jobs in the country can’t be presumed to all attend their job is completely incredible to me. Especially on occasions of such importance such as a presidential impeachment.

The planet does not care about taxes either.

The reason per person footprint is important because we can’t just turn off all pollution. We have to gradually reduce it.

You can’t just say to your country “by the way, we just banned fossil fuels”, that will just result in you dead and a pro-pollution guy being in charge of the country next day.

The way to reduce pollution is to get more output from the same input. That is, efficiency.

Private jets are incredibly inefficient and are used by an extremely low percentage of the population. There’s no reason to keep that 1.8% just to satisfy 0.0001% of the population.

And how are women pushed out of “man jobs”?

And how are we fixing that?

Is it bosses that aim to have male coworkers turning down women? How is that different than bosses wanting artificially 50/50 turning down men?

Is it not being represented in advertising? How is that different than what happens now. Where most advertising displays just women? Or if there is both a man and a woman, the woman is usually centered in the picture or doing a more important/powerful role.

By “encouraging” women in the workplace, what you see is things being done to men that you complain was done to women.

IBM fell. Ford fell. Facebook (the social media site, not the company) fell. Yahoo fell.

Sure, they haven’t stopped existing, but their relevance is nowhere near their peak. There’s no such thing as “too big to fall”.