74 pointsby uneven94343 hours ago6 comments
  • stuxnet79an hour ago
    Note that some of the entries here are clearly outdated. I've cycled through some "global south" countries that I'm familiar with and what's shown may have been true maybe 15-20 years ago. GDP has 4x since then and at the same salary level the lifestyle is either equivalent or better than the richer countries.
  • onraglanroadan hour ago
    To give context on my other comments, where I live in Scotland, median full time wage is around $55k.

    You can live a perfectly comfortable life on that; you don't have to worry about bills or medical expenses, and you can afford to get a mortgage and buy a house (probably costing around $300k or so)

    That's why I'm surprised about people from a richer nation saying they can't afford things.

    • Pooge14 minutes ago
      > That's why I'm surprised about people from a richer nation saying they can't afford things

      If you had the same salary in Switzerland or Luxembourg which, believe it or not, is not impossible, there would be a lot of items that you can't afford. Salary is important but cost of living matters as well. Granted, inside the same country, figures could change drastically but people tend to live where there are lots of job opportunities where it's more expensive.

    • DontchaKnowit10 minutes ago
      How can you afford a 300k mortgage at 55k a year. That would be a very large percent of monthly pay right?
  • forshaper2 hours ago
    I've generally loved this site. Wondering what other distributions could be made so visual, where people near the top complain about the people just above them.
  • smusamashahan hour ago
    Click the Families dropdown. There are many other things, including beds, pets, toys and teeth.
  • joncpan hour ago
    Whoa, nice reminder of how filthy rich I and almost everyone I know are.
  • qurren2 hours ago
    It's interesting that $14000/month is "rich" on this website, and some people earning $100/month actually own houses.

    Meanwhile people making $50000/month in San Francisco can't afford a house because half of it is taxed away and housing is astronomically expensive.

    • tjohnsan hour ago
      You have it backwards. Housing is astronomically expensive in San Francisco precisely because there are so many people with high incomes bidding against each other.

      When you have a highly inelastic supply (constrained by zoning laws, density limits, and geographical boundaries), prices rise to the maximum margin of what the highest-income buyers are capable of paying.

      Regarding taxes: Since taxes apply to all local high-earners equally, it doesn't change their relative purchasing power against one another in the local housing market. If taxes were suddenly halved, that extra liquidity would be priced into the next bidding war, driving home prices even higher.

    • EPWN3D2 hours ago
      I promise you that someone in SF making $50k/month can comfortably afford a very nice house.
      • qurren2 hours ago
        I promise you not. Houses here cost $2M+ for something livable and $1M for something with mold and other safety issues.

        When half that $50K gets taxed, half of what's remaining has to be saved up for retirement in a place that deeply discriminates against age, you don't have much left to save up for buying a $2M house.

        • skissanean hour ago
          > half of what's remaining has to be saved up for retirement in a place that deeply discriminates against age, you don't have much left to save up for buying a $2M house.

          Buying a $2M house is saving for retirement. Owning your own home in retirement is a massive financial win. And if you own a home in an expensive market, you can sell it, buy one in a more affordable market, and then the difference is unlocked retirement savings.

        • onraglanroad2 hours ago
          Ok, I made my other comment before seeing this but I find it very difficult to believe you can't find something reasonable for far less.
          • arjiean hour ago
            It’s untrue. Unstated assumptions are the quality of housing desired and location desired. In practice, because of the rent/price ratio being low here in SF most people will be taking a downgrade when going from rent to 1.25x that as mortgage after putting down $300k for a $1.5m.

            It is true that the marginal rate can be very high, though, so heuristics based on pre tax income break down at these numbers. The place we live in costs $7k/mo but to buy it we’d have to spend $450k and then $9.5k/mo.

          • qurrenan hour ago
            Nah it's the reality here. I'd say minimum income to safely own housing here is $100K-150K/month. OR cash already saved for the home, in which case income doesn't matter.

            Yes, lots of households make that much, especially people at e.g. Nvidia with unvested appreciated RSUs.

            Yes, the US economy is that badly fucked.

            And the people on mortages were brainwashed into buying something they can't afford, and in for a foreclosure disaster when the economy corrects.

            • polairsciencean hour ago
              In every thread about housing people on HN post wildly outlandish claims about expenses that belie their totally out of touch perspectives. If you make 100K a month (the lower bound of what you just wrote). Let's say you put 25K into retirement. You eat out every meal so 4K food/living budget. That leaves 60K (I'll give you 10K slush fund for savings money or as a general keeping-up-with-the-jones' fund).

              60K per month will pay a 4.5 million dollar mortgage. 4.5 million will buy you some of the nicest houses in the bay that aren't mansions. See:

              https://www.realtor.com/news/unique-homes/midcentury-modern-...

              You are either insane, or out of touch in a way that makes you insane. Of course, you can get a much cheaper very nice condo and "safely" squirrel away phenomenal amounts of cash savings. Expecting to own a high end house in a dense metro are on its own, is a pretty insane expectation.

              • qurrenan hour ago
                > 60K per month will pay a 4.5 million dollar mortgage

                A mortgage is NOT owning! So many people are poisoned by this propaganda promoted by American society and banks. They prey on the masses by infiltrating the public with this live-on-borrowed-money ideology.

                Your 60K/month may end NEXT month and become 0/month if you are subject to the next round of Zuck's layoffs, or you end up stack ranked and PIPed at Amazon due to internal politics. One of these things happen and poof you're in the 0th percentile of income.

                In the bay area, if you want a $4.5M home, you need to have $4.5M in cash or liquid assets. Period. Otherwise you're risking a foreclosure disaster if you accidentally say something wrong in a leadership update meeting, or if this AI heyday comes crashing down.

                Borrowing money does not mean you own something, and is a very American way of doing things.

                • DontchaKnowit12 minutes ago
                  Pretty sure lending is common thw world over
              • nostrademonsan hour ago
                Don't forget taxes. In that bracket, in California, you're paying 50% of your income in taxes, and so $100K/month is actually $50K/month.

                I think OP is overselling the point, but not by nearly as much as people think.

                • toasty2289 minutes ago
                  It's 2026 on a self proclaimed big brain forum and people still don't understand basic things like tax brackets... A sight to behold
                • Symbiote28 minutes ago
                  That's not how tax brackets work.

                  The effective tax would be about 26%.

              • onraglanroadan hour ago
                Thanks for your comment. It makes a little sense that the average person might struggle with costs in the US, but it doesn't make sense that the highest earners do.
              • cliglotan hour ago
                > Expecting to own a high end house in a dense metro are on its own, is a pretty insane expectation.

                High salaries and an industry boom over the last decade created a sort of whiny arrogance amongst software developers, and particularly those of Silicon Valley. They desperately want to see themselves as the elite.

                Of course the elite get their mansion where they want. They are entitled to it.

            • kbelderan hour ago
              You can't make many national judgements based on the economics of the Bay Area. It's much more sane in nearly every other area (with some other outliers, such as New York City).
            • tenuousemphasisan hour ago
              You're shifting the goal posts, but I'll bite... what is 'safely' owning a home, to you?
        • dwa3592an hour ago
          I am not even sure if you are being sarcastic.

          https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/80-Prentiss-St-San-Franci...

          check this out.

        • tjohnsan hour ago
          [flagged]
    • onraglanroad2 hours ago
      If your net pay is $7000 per month you absolutely can afford to own a house, you're just being fussy about the house you want.
      • burner420042an hour ago
        Does the website reference net or gross monthly income?

        Edit:

        So the numbers are not a direct exchange rate to USD.

        Q: How were dollar values assigned to households? A: The households’ door numbers represent the consumption values (US dollars) that each adult in the household has per month. This figure comes from a combination of the household’s self-reported consumption and income levels. We then checked the official cost of living data in each country to adjust the values for purchasing power parity (PPP) and converted the value into US dollars. Read more about how we assigned the Dollar Street values here.

      • jltsirenan hour ago
        Its more about where you want to live.

        I'm not familiar with the situation in San Francisco. But in Santa Cruz, the cost to own with a 20% down payment is ~50% higher than the rent for the same unit. If you can't afford a substantially higher down payment, you're not really in the market for a home.

        With $7k/month after tax, you would probably be renting an 1br, or maybe a cheap 2br. But your income is not high enough to buy anything, unless you start looking for homes well outside the town.

      • jt2190an hour ago
        The housing market is highly dependent on the job market so no, it’s not “being fussy”, it’s “I need to live here so I can have a job and income”. Unless you’re suggesting that people should quit their jobs and go get that cheap house in the middle of nowhere?
        • onraglanroadan hour ago
          What does the person who fixes your toilet do? Or prepares your meal? Or basically lives the Fight Club life?
          • aianus24 minutes ago
            Depressingly, they bought a house in 1995 before the prices exploded. You need a 94th percentile income in Toronto to barely qualify for the average house.
          • qurrenan hour ago
            If they didn't tax everyone so damn much, it would work out.

            They fix the toilet for $200, I need to earn $400 to have that $200, and the toilet repair person gets to keep $100 after their taxes.

            $400->$100 in one go. Government keeps $300. Make that make sense.

      • drivebyhootingan hour ago
        If you’re gonna have kids, fussy means: * have decent schools * not covered in lead or asbestos * not next to a highway
        • qurrenan hour ago
          +

          * in an area not going to get shot or mugged

          * structurally earthquake safe so that we don't die

      • qurren2 hours ago
        You're not going to save up for a $1-2M house very fast on $7000/month, when you also have to live off that $7K, pay rent, pay medical bills, and save up for retirement expenses.
    • tenuousemphasisan hour ago
      Globally, $14k/mo is unbelievably, obscenely rich.