We did. It was a total bore, starring a chief boor.
1 Like
I had fun
Yes, a single person with a $X income is richer than a family of 4 with a $X household income.
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=median+income+by+household+size
It costs less to live in Knoxville, TN than it does to live in Washington, DC. A person making $X in Knoxville is richer than a person making $X in DC.
99% sure that is what will eventually happen. Any other solution is more complicated.
Also no estate tax in Canada and no capital gains tax on primary residence appreciation so no tax bite
Note that my post was replying to twig, who seemed to think ma’s numbers were too low.
And, I was prompting a definition of “Po”. It seems that some people here equate it with “rural”.
Oops. Just saw the Seahawks logo and instinctively replied!
When I tried Googling, I kept getting state data because the information is used for gov’t programs that vary by state. And, I only got medians.
I was looking for a distribution, not just medians, for the country as a whole, like MA’s table. So, I asked you because you seemed to be sure of your numbers. You apparently didn’t find a source either.
So the “Po” is any place with a cost of living less than DC? Here’s something for “Regional Price Parities” from the BEA Real Personal Consumption Expenditures and Personal Income by State, 2020 | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
Housing, mainly.
Then, if can live farther away from DC, you’ll have to drive in to DC. (Assuming you work there. No real reason to live near DC otherwise.) And that will take time away, which is also a cost.
1 Like
I’ve always defaulted to accepting this line of thinking, but I don’t think I do anymore. I suppose I can get behind the idea that we should consider if the household has one or two adults, but I don’t think we should adjust our idea of ‘rich’ based on the number of kids somebody has. Having kids is an expense people chose to have. Having multiple cars is an expense other people chose to have. You chose how to allocate your wealth/income, and one of those choices can be children.
You also can’t just double a single persons income. Double that for two people goes further as costs don’t scale 1:1.
We’re talking about rich though. Not quality of life, and certainly not happiness.
Rich is a monetary measure. So yes, if you have more expenses than otherwise, you’re gonna be less rich. And having kids is an expense.
Being less rich doesn’t mean you’re worse off, it just means you’re less rich.
I suppose you can claim that kids are an asset, like buying an expensive car. I don’t know how many parents actually think that way. Most parents I know want to kill their kids.
No, it’s just common sense.
No, I didn’t say that either. 
Sorry, I’m not really up for defining terms that have been in common parlance on this & the predecessor site for two decades now.
It’s “common sense” that more workers is correlated with higher incomes. There may be some correlation with more kids, because people may look at their incomes before they have kids, but it seems to me that some don’t.
I was looking for actual numbers, which seemed to be the thing you were challenging with MA.
Regarding “Po”, I see it used but never defined. NDTF above seems to have a common definition, but that is NYC, not DC.
put it on a “know it when I see it” basis
Kids are definitely an expense that reduce how rich I feel, although I don’t think of them as an asset… more like I volunteered to be a fiduciary for a non-profit
Coming up with some Jeff-Foxworthy-worthy bon mots.
But, then, all of his bon mots apply.
To some extent, I suppose. But certainly the number of adults should be relevant. One could debate the kids either way.
1 Like
Pretty dangerous statement given the diversity of backgrounds of people on this site.
What’s “common sense” in the 'Po probably wouldn’t make much sense in an urban environement.
And vice versa.
From the article: -
Require greater density
Land is not being used efficiently across Ontario. In too many
neighbourhoods, municipal rules only allow single-family
homes – not even a granny suite. Taxpayers have invested
heavily in subway, light rail, bus and rail lines and highways,
and the streets nearby are ideally suited for more mid- and
high-rise housing. Underused or redundant commercial and
industrial buildings are ripe to be redeveloped into housing
or mixed commercial and residential use. New housing
on undeveloped land should also be higher density than
traditional suburbs, especially close to highways.
I heard very similar sentiments from an Ontario youtuber I like -
