Hacker News Reader

Comment by garbawarb | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that many Americans are so bogged down in expenses that they don't feel wealthy despite their median wealth. For example, it's basically assumed that you must have a car and pay its high recurring expenses, including ancilliary expenses like having a home big enough to have a parking space.

View on HN

Being completely car dependent is to me a fundamental problem in much of both countries, and the advantage USA has is that the cost of running a car (or often 2 especially for a family) takes a smaller part of a middle class salary. In UK , Europe, many countries outside of N America you're just not forced to own a car in the same way. That's not just extra costs when you've got a family, but a source of isolation for people that are old or disabled. (Not to discount the many other wonderful fantastic things about life in N America. :) )

It's not like Americans are all buying X so they can't afford to buy Y - there isn't really a major category of consumption where the US median is below the OECD median. If the US had a higher savings rate, then people could smooth out consumption more (build up savings some years, draw them down in bad years or in retirement), and maybe enjoy more psychological security. But it doesn't really make sense to say that Americans are unusually "bogged down in expenses" and yet have more goods and services in every significant category.

I read through your example but couldn't find the problem. This all sounds good to me.

To me it's want versus need. A lot of people feel like they're forced into things like that and don't feel wealthy despite being wealthy by any objective measure.

I think that's an indication of a successful society. How people feel about their wealth isn't something society should be responsible for. It's a personal, philosophical, and maybe spiritual struggle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com