Kate Middleton’s ‘luxury’ birth cost less than the average U.S. birth

Re:Kate Middleton’s ‘luxury’ birth cost less than the averag... by throwaway84742 on Wednesday April 25, 2018 @03:16PM (#16925035)

And taxes are much higher, too, and goods are significantly more expensive as well.

We’re talking about skilled, professional labor specifically, and boy, professionals are getting screwed over there. Here in the US you can afford a decent lifestyle on a doctor or SWE salary even if your spouse doesn’t work. I don’t know what folks in eg London do. Shit’s crazy expensive in London.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kate Middleton’s ‘luxury’ birth cost less than the averag... by lsc on Wednesday April 25, 2018 @03:50PM (#16925365)

But how are things different for the poor? The per capita gdp isn't as different as the salaries for skilled labor, so I wonder if the poor make more over there or if there is something I am missing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kate Middleton’s ‘luxury’ birth cost less than the averag... by throwaway84742 on Thursday April 26, 2018 @01:55AM (#16929160)

Well, $22k in London is “the poor”.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kate Middleton’s ‘luxury’ birth cost less than the averag... by lsc on Sunday April 29, 2018 @02:33AM (#16950945)

Huh. In San Francisco, USD$30K/year puts you above the 20th percentile, below the 40th percentile for a household - I mean, I guess, sure, that seems poor but it's not uncommon. two people making USD$30K/yr would be getting close to the median.

(median household income in SF is USD$75K/yr. I don't see how you could live in SF on that money without serious rent control or owning your place, but fact is it's the median household income. Come to think of it, I know a fair number of people in that situation; making under $75K/yr and living in a rent-controlled place.)

Interestingly, median household income in london, as far as I can tell, is GBP40.000 which is like USD$55K - which isn't nearly as large a difference as I see in, say, SWE wages.

[ Parent | on HN ]