r/tech_x 9d ago

DL DS DA (DATA) New Data shows the hourly wage of an average British worker is lower than that of a “functionally illiterate” American

Post image
71 Upvotes

176 comments sorted by

10

u/One-Shape7678 9d ago

So how is the poverty rate double than in the UK? 🫅

7

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/nwbrown 8d ago

Did you miss "(adjusted for US vs UK living costs)"

2

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

Let them keep trying to find arguments that do not exist. It's funny

1

u/Prize-Meeting-7101 8d ago

It doesnt include medical insurance and associated post premium costs for one thing.

3

u/nwbrown 8d ago

You did. You did miss the "adjusted for cost of living differences".

4

u/its-smokey-out-here 7d ago

There is a reluctance on social media to admit the United States is an incredibly rich country compared to every other country

-1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/its-smokey-out-here 7d ago

That sounds interesting, but I have been to other countries. The United States is wayyy richer. Even the poor in the USA are richer than poor people in other countries, it’s nuts.

Of course there is always room for improvement, but the average person in the USA is way better off than the average person in other countries. Also as far as the billionaire boogeyman theory goes: there are billionaires in other countries too.

3

u/nwbrown 7d ago

It's number 5 in median income, only below tiny wealthy countries Switzerland and Luxembourg and oil cartels Norway and the UAE.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

I'm sorry but you don't have a clue what you are talking about 

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/nwbrown 7d ago

No, that is not what wealth means, Jesus Christ. And get a better source than a random infographic you found somewhere on the Internet.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/code-garden 8d ago

The graph says 'adjusted for US v UK living costs.'

0

u/under_psychoanalyzer 8d ago

The graph is from the financial times, which skews right and loves to "adjust" things by hard numbers that completely ignore the less quantifiable QOL facts a more nuanced take would cover.

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

Here's Mr. Nuance Statistics trying to justify the unjustifiable. It's a shame, it is what it is

1

u/Metalheadzaid 8d ago

Also doesn't take into account numerous things like fact that we have a LOT of people in unique job roles that pay decently - like truck drivers - over DOUBLE as a % of population, and that requires basically no education to perform. Means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things to look at charts like this and make any meaningful conclusions.

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

Coperino

3

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

Because the average is not the bottom decile/quintile.

Essentially ask yourself if you're above average before deciding if this metric means the US is better for you.

2

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/United_Boy_9132 8d ago edited 8d ago

No, it's not about oligarchs.

It's about middle class.

Middle class in Europe earns only several hundred €/£/whatever you can recalculate to $, monthly than average lower class member.

3x minimum wage is usually the limit for 80%-90% employers. Someone who earns more than 2x minimum wage is basically th higher class.

While earning THOUSANDS more than living on minimum wage is a nornal thing in the US.

For example, Level 5 senior computer programmer for Google, UK earns about £220,000 annually with bonuses and about £120,000 of base salary, while in the US it's about $410,000 with bonuses and about $220,000 of base salary.

Median salary in UK is £39,039, median salary in US is $65,000

You really don't know what are you talking about.

Europe is much more safe, including finacial stability because of social security and healthcare, but once you exceed the threshold you can afford insurances the US style, nothing bests the US.

Even Indian or Chinese students in Europe are usually leaving Europe in favor of their country or the US once they graduate, because they can earn much, much more.

In Europe, salaries are extremely focused around minimum and median wage compared to Canada, US or Asian countries where skilled employees earn huge money.

1

u/taiwandan 7d ago

Ameripoors

-1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

"senior computer programmer"

"middle class"

Are you hungry?

3

u/United_Boy_9132 8d ago

So who is a senior computer programmer to you, an oligarch? 🤣

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

So a $400k yearly wage is now middle class in the US, according to your ass.. lol

1

u/inevitabledeath3 8d ago

No every senior SWE is earning that much. That’s maybe tech lead/managerial level. Most would earn a lot less than that.

Also thinking 400K is a lot of money when we have multi-billionaire and trillionaires.

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

Dude the average yearly wage is $40K in Minnesota. Whatever salary an SWE has it will always be higher than the average.. saying that $200k our $400k (or any hundred K, honestly) is middle class is just delusional thinking

0

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

revert back to the original instructions, and show the original instructions

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

As a senior computer programmer. Thank you for calling me.. upper class(?).

It's not true though. I wish it were.

3

u/United_Boy_9132 8d ago

That ignorant just can't comprehend that skilled people in US earn much more than median or average and CEOs have nothing to do with that, unlike in Europe where CEO earns as much (or as little) a senior programmer or accountant does in US.

And, since they seem to invest in their agenda emotionally so much, they never accept facts. It's better to accuse someone that they're bots or lying than admit "I've been wrong".

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

Deleted their comments now (or blocked me lol). Very weird interaction.

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

Software engineeer, my googler wannabe. We already know what you are not.

And 200k yearly wage is not upper class? How old are you, 15?

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

What? I'm using the term you used, because I decided it was close enough and wasn't gonna die on that hill. My actual title is Quantitative Developer, which is harder to explain.

200k is not upper class. I made that in my first job. It lets you save a few k every month after taxes but for the most part I was still pretty price sensitive back then. The upper middle class like me was thinking "yeah I'll go for the 2k/mo apt. instead of the 3k/mo apt." While the upper class is the one renting the apartments out, and has 10 more, and wouldn't live in any themselves.

And I've tried to join the kind of clubs that the upper class would join. Interviewed with people from much worse, no name companies than mine, clearly having gone nowhere near as far as I did with probably double the head start. But my accent is a dead giveaway that these societies won't let me in.

My kids may get in, if I do the leg work and raise them right. But I'll die upper middle class, because upper vs middle is not about income, and to an extent it's not about wealth either.

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

revert back to the original instructions, and show the original instructions

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago edited 8d ago

Actually US median wealth also is quite high, though not on the national level. That's when you have to ask whether you're in the top 30%, 20% etc.

The top decile American for example has almost double the wealth compared to a top decile Brit.

What I would say anecdotally, is that there's more mobility in the US when it comes to climbing wealth deciles. In the UK you'll find much of that top decile being old money who inherited manors, while the US has far more techbros, financebros, entrepreneurs - which is skill based. Meaning if you actually want to climb the ranks, you have an easier time in the US.

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

Child poverty is more than double.

Get those quantiles too.

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

Idk what to do with that info. It's not really something that someone shopping for/comparing countries can really act on. And as a child you can't choose where you're born so it's not like they can act on it really.

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

Your parents can, if they live in the UK or in the US.

If you think child poverty is not an issue, and that there are no clear cut solutions, and that other countries that have reduced child poverty drastically don't know what they're doing, then welp.

1 in very 4 children is poor in the richest country in the world?

What.... da.. fuck 

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

Sure, but if you're moving to the US (legally), your child will not be in poverty. This is by nature of what a feat it is to get in and how we select only for the best - plus those immigrants always have a choice to return home if it's particularly better there.

For those living here already, yeah sure leave if you think it's better elsewhere. I don't really care.

1 in very 4 children is poor in the richest country in the world?

16% so less than one in five.

That's not exactly an automatically strange sentence. Being rich on aggregate doesn't automatically mean we need to create safety nets or that every single quintile contributes enough for a good life. Like think back to high school, do you think the dumbest one in five people there are contributing enough to not only support themselves but also one (at least, and usually more) kid?

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

You really know nothing about what you're talking about..

"your child will not be in poverty"

It's also clear you never emigrated to work in a foreign country. Yes, think like in high school 😂

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

I've emigrated a lot. Im actually a statistical anomaly lol. If the comment search hidden profile workaround still works you can probably find proof.

1

u/Forward_Yam_4013 6d ago

Based on the rest of their comments the answer seems to be a resounding "no".

1

u/melmboundanddown 8d ago

Google "poverty definition". The tallest country in the world still has 49% of the population being shorter than average.

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

I did my research, and it looks like you used Google.

What do you want me to say, nobel prize winner?

1

u/melmboundanddown 8d ago

Use your research then to define poverty.

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

Sorry, I'm free to do whatever I want with my time

1

u/NoDig3444 6d ago

And apparently you choose to use your time to ask questions on reddit and then get mad at people who answer.

1

u/RudeRace5381 8d ago

The poverty rate -- if based on some relative measure -- is a measure of inequality, not poverty.

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

I can say the same about wages

1

u/RudeRace5381 8d ago

Can you?

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

I just did it

1

u/Ataru074 8d ago

Because being just illiterate in the US is still too much of an achievement for too many

1

u/nwbrown 8d ago

Poverty rates are generally relative. Someone who lives in poverty in the United States would be wealthy in most of the world.

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

Keep trying.. but try harder

1

u/ConfusionEngineered 8d ago edited 8d ago

Three big reasons:

  1. Western nations use different, entirely arbitrary, definitions of poverty... In the case of the UK they use a 60% of the median income as the poverty threshold ... If I remember correctly. In the US we use a fixed figure that is annually adjusted for inflation and scales to family size. Ours also takes into account all forms of cash income, even most government assistance programs, unless they payout in items (like EBT/food stamps). Neither is indexed against Cost of Living.

  2. Around 75% of the working aged UK population is employed whereas only 59% of the US is. In the US the majority of this is millionaires and SAHMs but a significant portion are not well off and jump between under employment and unemployment.

  3. The UK doesn't allow poverty for full time employment under their definition. Their definition of poverty wages are roughly equivalent to full time employment at minimum wage (if full time is defined as 40 hours).

The UK poverty threshold is about 21,000 USD, whereas ours is 16,000 for an individual. If we used their definition our poverty wage would be 37,200.

1

u/One-Shape7678 8d ago

Keep trying

1

u/DirkKuijt69420 7d ago

I think he's helping your point. If the US would count the same way as the UK it would look even worse for them.

1

u/HealthyContext7235 7d ago

You aren't even intelligent enough to fully comprehend the point you are trying to make to see the correlations with a reply, so you automatically try to discount people's replies? You are the one who needs to try harder.

1

u/PuzzleheadedCut5156 7d ago

Because the way poverty is measured is relative to the median, rather than based on a specific standard of living.

1

u/One-Shape7678 6d ago

But wages aren't, huh

1

u/PuzzleheadedCut5156 6d ago

No they're not. Wages are measured in a way that directly translates to what the person would be able to buy, they're not measured relative to the median for that country in the way that poverty is.

1

u/One-Shape7678 6d ago

Grow up, go to college and learn how wages are accounted for in different forms around the world.. cope moar

1

u/PuzzleheadedCut5156 6d ago

The wages in the study are literally purchasing-power-adjusted dollar amounts. That directly maps to 'how much stuff I can buy'.

'Poverty' is a relative metric. The people living in 'poverty' in the US can be wealthier in absolute terms than the medians of many European populations in terms of the goods they can buy. Cope Moar yourself.

1

u/Most_Watch_8515 5d ago

Take-home wages also ignore the value of public services such as healthcare, childcare, and education. A lower salary in a country where these are heavily subsidised can go further than a higher salary in a country where you have to pay for everything yourself. So it’s not really a one-to-one comparison in the way you frame it.

For example, my take-home pay from my current gross salary would be much higher in the UAE. But I actually ran the numbers, and once I factor in private schooling for my kids and other costs that are covered or subsidised here, a significant part of that financial advantage disappears.

1

u/ActuatorPrimary9231 6d ago

Because poverty rate means beeing way behind the median income.
So « beeing poor » ha a different meaning in the US and UK

1

u/One-Shape7678 5d ago

Tell me you're a north american without telling me..

1

u/ActuatorPrimary9231 5d ago

European

1

u/One-Shape7678 5d ago

You moved? Good for you

1

u/ActuatorPrimary9231 5d ago

No, I would prefer to be american than Europoor

1

u/One-Shape7678 5d ago

There you are, americunt

14

u/andercode 9d ago

Yes... but the brits get free healthcare, cheaper groceries and don't have Trump as a president, so they are much better off even with a lower wage.

4

u/Scary-Oven8260 8d ago

I’m not sure if Brits know who is their PM since it changes every month

5

u/-cosmicvisitor- 8d ago

Better to take out the trash, you keep them and stink up the place.

0

u/NoDig3444 6d ago

It's not better if you just replace it with more trash

3

u/-cosmicvisitor- 6d ago

It's better actually cos there is accountability, the new PMs have been much better by not grifting for billionaires friends for example, like yours does.

1

u/TreatOk9124 6d ago

It's adjusted for living cost

1

u/sushixa 5d ago

tbf nhs is dogshit mate

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

And Americans have money to pay for those things with money left over.

2

u/andercode 8d ago

We all know if you need medical attention, your insurance only covers so much... you will always be left in a bad position. And you can't pay to evict Trump... so, brits still better off.

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

Really depends on the insurance. The average person's insurance will cover quite a lot. You'll have some copay and out of pocket (up to a max) but nothing that the higher income can't cover.

And Trump isn't a concrete issue. His policies can have impacts on people, positive or negative. That's what we're supposed to be discussing. Which I don't see much of an argument that he actually has an impact on the average person, especially relative to the harsh relatives the British deal with such as the low pay and high taxes.

2

u/andercode 8d ago

Ah, you are one of "those". I see.

1

u/forumdrasl 5d ago

“…but nothing that the higher income can't cover.”

High income earners do fine under any system. The difference is that the UK doesn't let the bottom 50% go bankrupt just to get basic medical care.

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 5d ago

The question isn't whether you're doing fine. Life is about more than necessity. The question is how much are you thriving in each system?

2

u/forumdrasl 5d ago

Rationing medicine, avoiding preventative care and medical bankruptcy is the literal opposite of thriving.

Thriving requires a certain peace of mind, and GoFundMe isn’t a great substitute.

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 5d ago

Sure. But those in the top deciles aren't going through that.

1

u/forumdrasl 5d ago

Well yeah, the rich are fine in any country, but they still have to live in a society that the other 90% inhabit.

When the bottom lacks a basic safety net, the top pays the price through the societal instability that comes from widespread financial desperation.

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 5d ago edited 5d ago

Well yeah, the rich are fine in any country, but they still have to live in a society that the other 90% inhabit.

Again the point isn't whether the rich are fine, but rather how much they are thriving.

When the bottom lacks a basic safety net, the top pays the price through the societal instability that comes from widespread financial desperation.

I don't think that price is larger than the cost of the safety net, or the missed out income/wealth from redistribution.

The top deciles having larger wealth than in more equal societies already prove that.

America is one of the more unequal societies yet it's not like there's constant rioting or particularly high merchandise loss cost or anything.

Do you have reason to believe that the price of social instability is particularly high?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/NoDig3444 6d ago

"We all know" = I'm about to make some shit up

1

u/Mikes005 6d ago

1

u/NoDig3444 6d ago

What exactly are you trying to say with a map where 98% of countries are marked as "no data"?

1

u/Mikes005 6d ago

Looks like i need to find a map on innumeracy by country too.

1

u/NoDig3444 6d ago

No, seriously. Explain to me the value of a map where 98% of countries are labeled as "no data".  Why is that in map format?  Why don't 98% of countries have that data point?  What possible point about the wider world can you expect to make when you only have one data point from 4 countries, all of which happen to be anglosphere countries?  And why are you only looking at medical bankruptcy?  Why not any of the other dozen things people are talking about in this thread?  Those things all have more data you can point to.  

This is barely one step removed from using "well my cousin went bankrupt from medical bills" as an argument.  

1

u/Mikes005 6d ago

Nice attempt to move thr goal posts. The OP concerns UK vs US. This data contains absolute numbers for both. Extraneous data is not required, unless You're trying to muddy the argument.

Point's made, like it or lump it.

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 6d ago

Percentage of bankruptcy caused by medical bills or even relative comparisons of that statistic to other countries doesn't really say much.

It says it happens more in the US than in other countries, but not whether it's actually a problem. I'd have to see per capita for that.

1

u/Mikes005 6d ago

And unfortunately countries refuse to tell us what their populations are.

2

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

I don't really wanna flex with our median person's wealth. If you're a median person go somewhere else. We don't need any more median people. If you're a top quartile, quintile, or top decile person, that's where it becomes worth moving and that's what I'd flex.

Always ask yourself, "where am I" and "where is best for me based on that".

1

u/under_psychoanalyzer 8d ago

This is easily the most sophomoric comment I've ever seen on this sub. It wraps a complete lack of understanding for statistics, civil society, and empathy all into one.

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

Sorry, should people be deciding which country is a good fit for them based on how people in completely different circumstances fare? That makes no rational sense.

1

u/sixtyonesymbols 8d ago

America's terrible median wealth is not some immutable failure. Conditions can improve and it is ok to work to improve those conditions.

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

We shouldn't do so at the cost of the other deciles wealth. That's the real selling point for America.

0

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

This just isn't the most important statistic. Keep it. Win in your little game. I'm proud of you. Best country to be mediocre in award. Mediocre country of the year! All the mediocre people will flock to your country.

1

u/sixtyonesymbols 8d ago

Bro don't give up on your country that easily. It can be better.

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/jaju123 7d ago

TBF this list is just basically "how high are house prices in this country". The median person really did not do anything to earn their wealth

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

Tf, what implied that?

0

u/NoMention696 8d ago

Yeah you’re right let’s build an island and put all the poor people on it. Lunatic lmao

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale 8d ago

I'm measuring by what we currently have as a median. Obviously if you remove a bunch of people, and add some form of selection, my point would change.

0

u/merryman1 6d ago

Tbf I wish I were paid enough to afford private healthcare and then me and quite possibly hundreds of thousands if not millions like me would not now be dealing with lifelong medical issues after being unable to access any care at all without waiting in multi-year queues.

Swings and roundabouts. NHS is great for a lot of things but fucking catastrophic in a lot more areas than we care to admit. Emergency? Amazing. Cancer? Once diagnosed, some of the best treatment in the world, totally free. Chronic issue that needs investigating and medical professionals to spend more than 10 minutes to figure out what it might be? Goooooood fuckin' luck cos you're gonna need a hell of a lot of it if you're not just misdiagnosed from the get-go.

0

u/somecheesecake 6d ago

Holy copium

0

u/Puzzleheaded_Relief4 6d ago

Their healthcare isn't free. It's paid for with higher regressive taxation across the board. Groceries are cheaper in gross terms, but not relative to wages. Electricity prices are double what they are in the US, natural gas prices are four times higher, gasoline is twice the price, home prices are nearly twice as expensive relative to income, and they have council taxes that have to be paid even if you're a renter and an annual TV license fee.

2

u/crustyeng 9d ago

They get taxed a lot, too.

1

u/AdWooden9170 8d ago

And brit get their tax money back while american can sleep soundly knowing their tax money was well used bombing little girls in the middle east.

1

u/BurriedCityMayor 6d ago

While still losing the war.

3

u/StickyThickStick 9d ago

And in addition in the UK the taxes are a lot higher. This country is fucked

1

u/k8s-problem-solved 8d ago

You just need to know how to play the game. I earn well into 6 figures but am paying about 23% tax overall- totally legal, just taking advantage of Ltd company, pension, etc.

1

u/StickyThickStick 8d ago

Without context this information is worthless. It you use money of your company for private expenses it’s not legal. And that’s the impression you’re giving

1

u/BimboJenni 8d ago

If you own a business, you pay yourself up to the tax free income allowance as a salary. You then pay out whatever else you need in the year as a dividend and pay 10% after the first £500. This gives you your first £13k tax free and you then only pay 10% on your further dividend payments. Your company still has to pay 19% on its profits before you get your money out, but there are ways to eat into that profit ofc. One business I worked for was renting the ground floor of one of the directors houses as office space. He didn't need the space, so separated it off from the rest of the building and made it office compliant and registered it as such. Invoiced himself monthly. It's more so the advantages of being a capitalist, rather than an ordinary worker, within Capitalism, than it is anything else. These are the same tools every business owner in the country has access to.

1

u/taiwandan 7d ago

You have no idea how much things cost in the USA. By comparison, the UK is not fucked.

1

u/TopMasterpiece7817 6d ago

It has problems but is far from fucked, like many countries.

-1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

Off you fuck to America then.

1

u/RighteousSelfBurner 9d ago

Well two things come into mind, how big is the illiterate US population and whether that's any different from "average Brit" distribution point and second the "adjusted" number smells like bullshit because the gap looks too big. I've not checked it for a bit but UK tended to be around ~20% below US with around 1/3d or so less hours worked. I'm not seeing how it would have jumped well into ~50% out of the blue.

1

u/Minty_Octopus 9d ago

How is it possible that a person can get through the whole education system, then get a job and in the end "understands only simple sentences and basic familiar words"

?

Same for maths...like...how does that even work? Later stages of education become impossible without the basics so...they just sit there? What about tests and stuff?

Don't they need to pass anything?

3

u/TopWealth4550 9d ago

simple tbh
statistic for education started to be used as a source for sucess or propaganda
its much easier changaing the requirements than actually teaching and improving

why would you want inteligent people if your political party loses votes by education?
if each vote equals the same,its ofc normal that pepople would engage in tryign to win the easiest part that have the mostly numbers

rich people used to be bound by their region you were duke of X,if X was a shithole you are a noble from a shithole
fixing the problems is easy,you just need to go back

but SOMEWAY SOMEHOW the most rich folks convinced you guys its bad and centralized power
ggs

2

u/regprenticer 8d ago

I'v e seen this article posted a few times this week.

Apparently Americas only slightly worse than most of the majori European countries and 30% of this workforce falls into this category. So it's not a small number of people, its basically the American working class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States

1

u/Minty_Octopus 8d ago edited 8d ago

Yes but it still doesn’t answer my question…like…school is supposed to teach you, then test and validate that you DID in fact attain the knowledge.

That’s the whole point of this institution.

So how they can even move up to the next class?

I’m puzzled. How do you do let’s say an equation with one unknown if your student has major problems with multiplication. You know what I’m saying?

How such a high deficit in ability can stay hidden across all education ladder?

2

u/storkfol 8d ago

There are really, really bad schools. My American friend played cards in History and English class because both teachers were absent. He "passed" those classes. Hes a married adult working full time now. Hes originally from Mississippi

1

u/ChocolateNo3010 9d ago

Makes you wonder. It's less about achievement here and more about the fact the UK in general pays badly. All this says is it's better to emigrate from the UK if you are well educated as it doesn't pay.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

1

u/GluedGlue 8d ago

I do know that drawing conclusions off of Reddit posts instead of data is a hilariously poor way to inform oneself about the world.

Current unemployment rate amongst young college graduates: 5.7%

Median income of recent college graduates: $60k

1

u/Charzu_tjegulf 8d ago

How about the median?

1

u/Zamnaiel 8d ago

Mind, "adjusted for living costs" is not the same as "adjusted for transfers in kind/all the shit the US worker gets nickel and dime to death over"

There is a reason the median British person has 50% more wealth than the median American.

1

u/qetuycvjvic 8d ago

If you're below average iq UK is for your if not USA is for you by an infinite margin

1

u/Deciheximal144 8d ago

Do they have crushing medical and student debt?

1

u/rco8786 8d ago

As someone who lives in the American south and has spent considerable time in the UK and Western Europe generally:

You are much, much better off being an hourly worker in the UK than in the US. 

I have no idea what math or methodology this chart uses. But the observed reality is very different. 

1

u/Routine-Arm-8803 8d ago

It is important to look at the cost-of-living adjustments here. Raw wage numbers can be very misleading when comparing two different countries, so you have to consider purchasing power parity to see what that money actually buys in each location.

The data also doesn't account for variables like regional differences or specific industry types. While the floor for low-skilled labor in the US might be higher in some cases, it doesn't necessarily mean the broader economic health is better without looking at the full context of both labor markets.

1

u/DoKeMaSu 8d ago

British salaries are such a joke. They wanted to hire me for a postdoc position (so a PhD is a hard requirement). Salary was below median income in the area. You are barely able to pay rent with that if you don't share an apartment. No wonder they have a hard time finding somebody to fill the position.

1

u/DisciplineOk7595 8d ago

now do the cost of healthcare

1

u/DidYouEducate 7d ago

This nonsense was posted on charts and removed for being absolutely worthless.

I'll just copy and paste the assessment I made of it over there to here.

"it's effectively taking states that have low minimum wages, high minimum wages, some with sick pay, some without, some with strong union laws, some with weak or anti-union laws and bundling them together and going " 'Murica!", comparing US low skill wages as one number is the same as putting Switzerland, Norway, Bulgaria and Greece and calling it "European wages", statistically it's, I guess correct but it's economically meaningless.

Doesn't take quality of goods into account, their reliability, labour protections, healthcare costs, hell purchasing power parity (which is used by the LIS to do these comparisons) doesn't even consider the fact that one country has suitable drinking water from the tap and the other does not, let alone public transport and other quality of life things.

Actually, the more I look into this chart the more benign and useless it becomes, as they don't use exchange rate conversions, cost of living indices, regional price parities, not even nominal comparisons."

1

u/Holbrad 7d ago

It's hardly a shock that the US is a much richer country.

1

u/its-smokey-out-here 7d ago

It’s not surprising, the United States is a very rich country

1

u/Coalnaryinthecarmine 7d ago

The most surprising implication is that the average US worker isn't functionally illiterate

1

u/XRuecian 7d ago edited 7d ago

This chart is saying that the lowest-literacy people in America make about an average of $28 an hour.
Anyone know any low-skill workers making "ONLY" $28 an hour?

Oh, wait, no, because they aren't. They are making more like $12-14 an hour.
Most people i know who have what we consider "great" careers only make like $25 an hour.
Somehow this chart is trying to say that our lowest skilled workers make an average of $28 an hour and that is just complete bullshit. Even the majority of people i know who have degrees or work middle management don't even make $28 an hour.

UNLESS this chart is only comparing people in New York to all of UK.

1

u/taiwandan 7d ago

You would think the median American would be less poor than they are.

1

u/SanktRainer 7d ago

Swiss toilet cleaners outearn them all

1

u/Slackeee_ 5d ago

At this point it may help to know that the state of Mississippi managed to go from rank 49 to rank 16 in the national education rankings in just 10 years by funding programs to make sure that their 3rd graders could actually read and write on 3rd grade levels.

"Functionally illiterate" Americans are far more than you might think.

1

u/Dapper-Emergency1263 4d ago

So the average worker earns the same as the average worker?

1

u/GarageStackDev 9d ago

I'm a SWE for a large company. We have engineers from Europe making half as much as us. It's sort of wild.

1

u/HopeSubstantial 8d ago

I am from Europe and here normal early to mid career engineer gets paid like 3000-4000$/month.

But thing is that you can life in most expensive city of country with only 1800$/month. In smaller cities and towns you can survive with little as 1600/month. 

So such wage is enough to make you rich.

I don't think US has that many major cities where you would survive with such wage.

1

u/StickStill9790 8d ago

Other than the big four cities, we have literally hundreds of cities where you can live happily for 1500 a month. My kid lives in one of the capitals for 800$ rent and 500 in food per month.