1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Wage by itself may not be indictive of quality of life.
In some countries, medical costs are a major cost for people while it is hidden under a subsidy in other countries.
Housing prices can vary wildly and may be partially influenced by government policy.
No. Because with a minimum wage in place, a higher number for this indicator would be associated with higher unemployment.
I think it's a great idea. And all the people in this thread pointing out it wouldn't be perfect are ignoring the glaring imperfections of "household median".
Its certainly difficult to judge the qwuabity of life by any measure
Amen, Brother 🙏
It's not a bad measure but I don't think it's the best, I'm currently working my way through Spirit Level and so I think some measure like the Gini coefficient would be important.
I think that median income, Gini coefficient, poverty rate and something like the human development index would give a decent overall picture. I don't think a single metric really does the job.
What
Why would the lowest full time annual wage be the best measure of anything to do with an economy?
Economies are huge. No one single data point on the spectrum of wages is the best measure of a anything
It would however be amazing to have a high floor for individual equity.
Why not do the lowest, at the very least there's a median which is disproprotionate already. Might as well be logarathmic or whatever
Why have a median then, middle class?
The lowest are likely to have serious issues and not be particularly helpful (how well the paperboy, special needs cashier etc is not particularly representative or useful.)
We also have measures that capture most of what you're looking for there in the poverty rate.
What might be helpful is stuff like the interquartile ranges (think medians but more of them) or specific medians e.g., what's the median for the bottom twenty, bottom forty etc.
Measures at the extremes are rarely very helpful except for arguing in ignorance or bad faith.
I mean, you'd also need to take into account cost of living, the rate of un/under employment, hours worked per week, working conditions in general, and a bunch of other stuff.
The lowest wage might tell something about the most shitty boss and the most desperated worker.
But it does not tell anything about an economy.
