Nitpicks and writing style aside (who posts charts without context?), the napkin math checks out to me as legit.
Here’s the thing all the detractors keep missing by nitpicking one data point or another: this author is talking systems, not products. Sure, the technologically inclined could get their phone cost down to that of an MVNO and a refurbished Android handset for $30/month, but most people aren’t that capable. Most people pay AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile - it’s why they’re the “big three”, after all. Same with home broadband, which nitpickers ignore in that $200 estimate the author makes; even if you qualify for subsidized internet, the waffling of the FCC combined with the hostility of carriers means most folks won’t even be able to get it or keep it.
And this is why I’m ultimately disappointed that the article is flagged, because for all the specific nitpicking done here in the comments, the author pre-empts those nitpicks in the piece. When you talk about systems at scale, you abandon precision for ranges, specifics for patterns, details for trends. Any idiot can point out that ahkshually, rent is only $R amount in this specific town that overbuilt two-bedroom units, and ahkshually, you can save on phone costs by using an MVNO, and ahkshually the government uses figure $P to measure poverty now.
The author lays out the most compelling argument yet of the brokenness of America as an economy. It drags the fiscal cliffs of poverty out into the daylight for all to see, with hard numbers of income versus expense to drive home how fucking impossible it is to survive and thrive in America today. It makes a compelling argument out of data and systems analysis that not just corroborates my own math, but also my lived experiences with poverty. He rightly calls out how the present system points to fancier phones, nicer cars, bigger homes, and bigger paychecks while yanking the rug out from under the working class in the form of crippled social services and non-existent price controls, leading over time to the modern era where the survival essentials are too expensive even on six figure salaries in most cities and towns. He doesn’t even pitch a solution, knowing that would detract from the argument (“SHIT IS BROKEN BY DESIGN”), leaving that to readers to figure out.
Look, most of HN think themselves as armchair savants, but we’re emphatically not. We’re also not particularly special, either, just lucky. The present system does not reward hard work, it punishes it. It is absolutely infuriating to see others receive aid and assistance for working less than I do, until I realize they’re also simply surviving by avoiding the cliffs that would tilt them to ruin. I wasn’t mad because they got help, I was mad because I didn’t.
That, I think, is what the author was trying to shift perspective on. Even if you make the big bucks, unless you’re a single income pulling down $200k+ outside a major metro area (which, let’s face it, HN readers represent a disproportionately large amount of said individuals), you’re still struggling. We’ve built a system around erroneous benchmarks that have gone unchecked and unaddressed for so long that everyone has optimized against them to keep more for themselves at the expense of others, and there is no pretty way out of it.
The core premise (benchmarks are broken), might be correct, but the poverty benchmark he uses is a bad example. The OPM and SPM (supplemental poverty measure, developed in 2009-2012), disagree by less than 10%; and the latter takes into account many of the criticisms in the article.
The author uses MIT Living Wage numbers to argue that should be the new "poverty" benchmark - an absurd proposition. Those might be reasonable middle class numbers. He also implies that the benchmark historically represented what is now covered under that $140K calculation - also false; it took ~$9000 in 1966 to cover a "basic standard of living" for a family of 4 with 1 earner; inflation adjusted, that's around $90,000 today. If you add in SS/Medicare taxes (3% then, 15% today), that puts you at ~$100K-105K.
Using the same MIT Living Wage numbers and taking Essex-Princeton NJ as the area (roughly what the author used), you end up with $99,922 as the living wage for a single earner, 4 person household - almost exactly the same as the household back in 1966.
Were there more jobs in 1966 that paid $9000/year versus jobs that pay $100K today? That's the real story you're looking for.
Here’s the thing all the detractors keep missing by nitpicking one data point or another: this author is talking systems, not products. Sure, the technologically inclined could get their phone cost down to that of an MVNO and a refurbished Android handset for $30/month, but most people aren’t that capable. Most people pay AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile - it’s why they’re the “big three”, after all. Same with home broadband, which nitpickers ignore in that $200 estimate the author makes; even if you qualify for subsidized internet, the waffling of the FCC combined with the hostility of carriers means most folks won’t even be able to get it or keep it.
And this is why I’m ultimately disappointed that the article is flagged, because for all the specific nitpicking done here in the comments, the author pre-empts those nitpicks in the piece. When you talk about systems at scale, you abandon precision for ranges, specifics for patterns, details for trends. Any idiot can point out that ahkshually, rent is only $R amount in this specific town that overbuilt two-bedroom units, and ahkshually, you can save on phone costs by using an MVNO, and ahkshually the government uses figure $P to measure poverty now.
The author lays out the most compelling argument yet of the brokenness of America as an economy. It drags the fiscal cliffs of poverty out into the daylight for all to see, with hard numbers of income versus expense to drive home how fucking impossible it is to survive and thrive in America today. It makes a compelling argument out of data and systems analysis that not just corroborates my own math, but also my lived experiences with poverty. He rightly calls out how the present system points to fancier phones, nicer cars, bigger homes, and bigger paychecks while yanking the rug out from under the working class in the form of crippled social services and non-existent price controls, leading over time to the modern era where the survival essentials are too expensive even on six figure salaries in most cities and towns. He doesn’t even pitch a solution, knowing that would detract from the argument (“SHIT IS BROKEN BY DESIGN”), leaving that to readers to figure out.
Look, most of HN think themselves as armchair savants, but we’re emphatically not. We’re also not particularly special, either, just lucky. The present system does not reward hard work, it punishes it. It is absolutely infuriating to see others receive aid and assistance for working less than I do, until I realize they’re also simply surviving by avoiding the cliffs that would tilt them to ruin. I wasn’t mad because they got help, I was mad because I didn’t.
That, I think, is what the author was trying to shift perspective on. Even if you make the big bucks, unless you’re a single income pulling down $200k+ outside a major metro area (which, let’s face it, HN readers represent a disproportionately large amount of said individuals), you’re still struggling. We’ve built a system around erroneous benchmarks that have gone unchecked and unaddressed for so long that everyone has optimized against them to keep more for themselves at the expense of others, and there is no pretty way out of it.