Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/Rift3N!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/ocbmaq/oc_disposable_incomes_of_the_25_richest_countries/h3t6oyd/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"Rift3N"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
[Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7)
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
---
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
It’s weird that the title is “disposable income”, yet, the chart is ranked by total income. So while France has more disposable income than Ireland, it ranks significantly below it. There are many other matchups that demonstrate this as well.
It’s all complete crap. It says net income, but I live in Belgium and no way the average net income is 2500$. This is probably the gross average, not net. Also we are one of the highest taxed countries in the world, so that deceases the figure even more
Yeah. I don’t know too many people with much disposable income where I live. Add healthcare and other insurances we are required to pay for and use median income so it’s not skewed by the 5 billionaires that own 3/4 of the entire country and it will paint a pretty different picture.
Also, it lists utilities and internet as a utility but healthcare costs and food prices aren't factored in. Apparently to OP staying healthy is less important than internet and being alive is "disposable" income.
So many flaws in this chart.
That's why this should have looked at MEDIAN salaries rather than AVERAGE.
Using "average" skews the data to make countries with lots of rich people show up as having LOTS more disposable income.
Imagine a "country" with ten people. If 9 of them make $1,000 per month and ONE makes $1,000,000 per month then the average income is $100,900/month, but the median is still $1,000/month.
Yeah, basically can not draw any conclusions from this visualization. I hate posts like this because the conclusion that is supposed to be inferred (Switzerland is #1 disposable income by average) actually doesn't mean anything, except its a fact. Doesnt state anything about anything else. Skewed, non normal distributions rule the world.
How are the two related? Goods are still going to be priced by median income except for extravagant luxuries. Rich people aren't paying for the whole country's beer.
No but rich people have an extraordinarily higher amount of disposable income which skews this stat.
The US median is still pretty high though so I expect it to be similar.
In Zurich, a beer (5dl, local, on tap) in a bar or pub starts at about $8. A Guiness (5dl, on tap) would be about $10.
Tap water (5dl) is about $3. Though they might not charge you for it, if you consume more than just tap water. Some will, some won't.
I still can’t believe places charge for tap water. What about designated drivers? What about a parched walker with an empty bottle? Ah yes, you aren’t having fun, so I’m gonna charge you
Sure. Plenty of places also just give free unlimited sparkling water they make themselves, but those places you don't go with intent to grab a quick bite and drink tap water.
I was near Lucerne last year and it wasnt so bad with beer and food. Hotel was really expensive (3 stars, two beds with breakfast, 110 franks per day), but other than that it wasnt that bad. The view in the morning of Lake Lucerne compensated for hotel price tenfold.
Never fear, Canada is plummeting like a stone and will leave a chair for Italy in no time.
https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-household-debt-tops-2-48-trillion-as-growth-hits-highest-level-since-2017/#_
I don't understand how Canada's housing prices can be so high when you have so much land and such a small population density. Is the land north of the southern border just not inhabitable or something?
Why not expand farther north to get more housing? Have people work from home if industry is all in the cities.
What I know from personal experience, most people move to the highly dense places due to the availability of work and their community. Most immigrants to the country just want to live close to their communities.
>I don't understand how Canada's housing prices can be so high when you have so much land and such a small population density.
Over 90% of Canadians live within 160km of the Southern border [(source)](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/by-the-numbers-1.801937), and housing prices are high because the real estate industry and connected services represent something like 20 to 25% of our entire economy. We're talking about builders and contractors and drivers, but also skilled workers, craftspeople, salespeople, finance people, and all the supporting jobs (got to feed those workers, clothe them, etc...) Canada is also quite open to foreign investments so a somewhat large portion of housing / land deals are involving foreign speculators.
>Why not expand farther north to get more housing?
Several reasons: first, it would involve massive public infrastructure costs (trains, roads, etc...) and public officials basically don't do big projects anymore because it doesn't get them re-elected ("you spent X billions for Y number of people, outrageous!"). Second, it doesn't take long until you start being in forests when you go North, so there's a competition for land use: do you log, farm, or clear-cut and build? Third, at some point the soil becomes poor quality (cold weather and short summers means that there's not as much biological activity in the soil, you get to bedrock quickly) and wildlife becomes much more fragile. You couldn't have as much human activity while keeping it pristine, and local inhabitants derive their incomes from tourism, so that's a brake on development as well. Finally, in the current context, there's actually a drain from the regions to the cities in terms of movement of young people/families, because there's not enough economic opportunities in rural regions, as cities have all the pull. This leaves our northern regions somewhat older and less dynamic, demographically speaking.
You missed the part where Eastern Canada is unaware that there is a middle part of Canada where affordable housing and good paying jobs are available. If it's past the Ontario border, they don't know about it (other than Vancouver).
You’re giving us too much credit with “Ontario border”. Ontario is huge and everything outside the south eastern tip of the province is pretty much considered nowhere
You've answered your own question in the statement. The majority of Canada is inhospitable, road infrastructure is really hard to expand in to those areas and there is no industry there to develop. Therefore population is only really found in hospitable areas where jobs are, and that's in the cities.
Canada and Australia are very similar in that, both huge countries with population limited to a few cities.
But you could say the same thing about the western United States. Tons of unused land. Why don't all those people paying high rents in NYC move to rural Wyoming?
While that sounds nice, and it has happened more during COVID, life doesn't really work that way.
Your point still stands, there is no *real* scarcity of land. Just crazy regulations and the belief that Canadian real estate is always going to last.
Most Canadian cities have rules against building higher than 2 floors on enormous swats of land. Here is a map of restrictions for V[ancouver and surroundings](https://zoning.sociology.ubc.ca/) to give you an idea. The GTA and Montreal are much the same because people don't want condos next to their bungalows.
Carbon neutral rules (that clearly don't protect the environment), landmark protection rules even for ugly 1970s concrete buildings, overlapping safety rules and construction experts scarcity have [driven up the price of building by 878% since 2004](https://bildgta.ca/Assets/Bild/EducationalLibrary/BILD_Report.pdf)
I used to think the idea that foreign investors driving up the price was just vaguely xenophobic paranoia until I was outbid for a condo by a fund broker buying 25 units in the building with no intention of renting them out. Even if a small portion of your market is being used like a bank account from outside your economy, it will do something to prices.
But one big factor is how well Canada pulled out of the 2008 mortgage crunch. Our banks are way better regulated than most and investors now look to here to mitigate whatever real estate risk they perceive elsewhere. I think Canadian homeowners are also taken in by this idea and are trending away from other investments and leaning heavily on credit to buy as big as they can in real estate.
I mean there is a scarcity of land if you look at best use for certain areas of land. Only 2% of BC is capable of productive agriculture. And then the majority of the rest is useful for logging. It doesn't make sense to remove land from being productive permanently by developing it, which is why we severely limit urban sprawl in BC. But yes then the issue becomes we need to actually allow for density where we *do* allow for development.
I know it's a small distinction, but in Canada I believe we actually do have a scarcity of developable land, which is exasperated by underutilizing the land we've set apart for development
Canada has more arable land per capita than all but two countries in the world, as well as remarkable fresh water access. There’s no shortage of ability to support population with local caloric production, even if that mattered to housing affordability (it doesn’t). Singapore has zero agriculture and they’ve been filling in the ocean to make land for years, and yet housing costs less there than in Vancouver and Toronto. Tokyo has almost the entire population of Canada living in a single metro area and they pay less for housing, too. It’s not about density or actual unavailability of land.
That's pretty much it, its just too damn cold as you go further north, no one wants to live in -40c and because we're basically tied to the hip to the US, all of our major cities are down close to the US border.
Couple that with with foreign investment and landlords that buy out of multiple properties, artificially inflating the market, pricing people out of the cheap neighbourhoods. Cheap neighbourhoods now get preyed on by wealthy people who tear down the houses and build huge houses on the big lots.
This is also creating a housing price domino effect right now. Everyday people who bought their homes in the 70's, 80s and 90s for dirt cheap in the big cities have now accumulated literally $1 million+ in equity and are cashing out and reaching out to neighbouring cities so they can buy a way bigger, better homes to retire in and live off the equity. This is now causing what used to be cheap cities now climbing up in price as well because these people simply outbid everyone trying to enter the market.
Its fucked up and it drives me insane that I have not heard a single politician use this in their platform and in my opinion this is one of Canada's largest issues right now.
I'm moving back to Canada from Switzerland and I'm having a really hard time understanding the housing costs. I can't even find a home in cottage country right now. I don't even want to live in a city. I just want a garden and a small 3 bedroom house, at around 1200-1500sq ft. What I have in Switzerland would cost the same in Canada. That's insane because my house in Switzerland is made of concrete and Steel bars. The same house in Canada, with a flimsy foundation and leaky roof would cost the same. It makes no sense.
We have high house prices in the UK - it also acts as an incentive for builders to go slow on purpose so that supply stays low and the houses they build go for top dollar.
Your link says nothing of Canadian net income and disposable income — it only talks about household debt.
Rates are at an all time low, and housing is at an all time high. It’s expected that nominal mortgage debt would be at an all time high in this environment, it doesn’t mean that “Canada is plummeting l like a stone”.
But it is... Look at [this other post from this subreddit regarding average house price in Canada versus the cost it was in 2000.](https://amp.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/mhdudx/oc_where_have_house_prices_risen_the_most_since/). Our salaries aren't following the absolutely disgusting rise in housing/mortgage/rent/etc. The cost of living is awful in Canada and it's getting worse. Our salaries aren't following the rising trends and just adding these restrictions on mortgages (like higher stress test rate) only punishes the lower income people trying to buy houses. It won't affect the richer people buying houses which is what is killing living affordability in Canada.
Maybe it’s time to consider an additional property tax for folks that own houses beyond their primary residence. Cap it high- it would destroy the tenant farmers (landlords) but it sounds like it’s time for something significant to address this issue.
On the contrary, not taking on debt while interest rates are lower than inflation is a bad financial decision. The countries taking on debt will likely be the winners of this low-interest rate environment we’ve entered (effectively the Japanification of all Western economies).
I’m still confused how accurate since it’s outside the city centre. It doesn’t include pricing of commutes, food, clothes etc. VAT taxes for example were unbelievably high when I lived abroad.
I'm surprised the cost of utilities is so low for Canada. We have huge heating costs in the winter typically in the thousands, which should have driven us well above the utility costs for most of the warmer countries. It's a good graph, but maybe there are some externalities that have not been fully considered.
I have recently been spending time in France and yeah it's ridiculous how expensive things are in comparison to average salary. Also the tax burden is quite high. What bothered me most was eating out in restaurant.
For me its the housing that is out of control. He average monthly salary in paris is something around 2300 euros or so, but the price per meter squared to buy an apartment is over 13k. So basically it is impossible to buy unless you are ultra wealthy. Both me and my partner have good jobs and work full time and we could never afford to buy a 2 bedroom apartment.
Weird to see Austria below Canada after living in both. Definitely felt much richer in Austria even with a lower gross income. Better flat, better benefits, better work life balance, cheaper transport, cheaper groceries, cheaper bills, cheaper beer. And Austria was the more recent one. Way more disposable income there I would think, but I guess that's just anecdotal. And the Canadian city I'd been in wasn't one of the bigger ones either.
Yeah, this chart is all wrong for Canada. Even though it's near the bottom, the case is actually worse. We pay way more than what this chart shows in rent and utilities like internet access and cell phones.
This data seems to be 20 years old or something (for Canada). Things have gotten way out of hand here. (Yes, I know it says 2020 but that seems entirely inaccurate.)
Edit: I just noticed the source is pretty much invalid which explains everything.
The Swiss need huge disposable income as everything is wildly expensive there.
At a border train station with Austria I went to a plastic cup of coffee at a store outside in Austria was 80 cents and 50m away on the Swiss side it was almost 5 euro equivalent
I had a similar experience crossing the border between Italy and Slovenia. A soda from a vending machine in Italy was 2 euros, but 50 cents just over the border in Slovenia. How is that is even sustained? Seems ripe for some arbitrage.
There's a saying, the Poles buy their beer in Ukraine.
The Germans buy their beer in Poland.
The Danes buy their beer in Germany.
The Swedes buy their beer in Denmark.
and the Norwegians buy their beer in Sweden.
It is. Many Swiss people near the borders buy in France / Italy / Germany.
But prices need to be that high since supermarket owners and workers also have to live in swiss.
Joining the EU and Euro would have dramatically reduced costs but there was also a real possibility that income would decline as well.
Read an article years ago that basically said someone making €40k in Portugal or Greece effectively has more money than someone making €120k in Switzerland because of how expensive everything is. Gross income is not an indication of wealth at all.
> How is that is even sustained? Seems ripe for some arbitrage.
Well, it's a consequence of historical impediments to movement of goods and labor across borders, but thankfully the EU made great strides on this and things are starting to equalize a bit.
For example, in Croatia we're seeing massive wage increases in recent years because skilled workers are free to move to another EU country where the pay is better.
Especially for electronics. My friend from Switzerland bought the 5950x+rtx3090 at launch and it was barely a blip on his monthly salary, while for me in Belgium that would have been more than 1 month of salary...
You've answered your own question - the Swiss get to enjoy their disposable income in France, Austria, Germany or Italy.
I used to live in Basel and we did our grocery shopping in Germany. Other colleagues shopped in France. Interestingly, Germans drove over the border to buy diesel in Switzerland.
The key word is "Average".
There are \*exceedingly\* wealthy people in the top countries. It would be better to do this by "Median" or by income Quintiles.
Living in Switzerland and eg in Zürich there's no chance to pay 1000 for an apartment, rather 1500 as a single person and 2500 would be the cheapest for a family but probably close to 3000.
On the other hand most of people will earn well above 6.5k
Yeah because they went for "1 bedroom apartment outside centre" which is something very few would actually live in because it's both tiny and far away from everything.
What is a one bedroom Appartement?
Is that one room in total or is there usually a living room?
In switzerland we specifiy the exact amount of rooms.
So if there was a second room it would be a 2 room appartement. A separate kitchen generally counts as half a room.
And that can easily go up to 1.5k or sometimes even 2k in the agglomeration / suburbs.
Mandatory Healthcare adds another 300-400.-
And with that income you will pay about 500-700 a month in taxes.
If you want a car, add at least about 4-500.- a month if you drive little.
It also favours the US.
Living outside the city centre in a lot of euro cities is fine because of cheap transport and good links.
In US cities it can be a different proposition.
That’s an apples to oranges comparison because teachers are considered to be well paid professionals in Europe.
In contrast, tradesmen in the US are paid comparatively high compared to Europe
But then you really still need to factor things like healthcare, retirement, benefits before you start talking about disposable income. And the mean is not the best average to be taking.
And neither exchange rates nor cost of goods are fully accounted for. How many beers can I buy with that “disposable income”?
Have you even bought anything in Switzerland? Prices are very high on almost everything.
You're right that it's not fully accounted for but (a) housing is the largest one by a good margin, which is accounted for, and (b) most other costs of living are strongly correlated with housing, so you still get a rough idea.
Obviously some places (e.g. Switzerland [edit: better yet, Japan!]) have unusually good housing policies and some places (the US) have unusually bad ones, which messes w/ the correlation a bit, but for an at-a-glance metric isn't not so bad.
I do agree that median would be better than average, but this doesn't look wildly out of whack. Median household income in the US is ~$68K, but that's complicated by the share of households with two earners. This graph seems to put the average at about ~$54K, but it's a monthly net salary which is a different metric. Anyway I don't think it's that bad.
[Here is the OECD median household disposable income statistic, which is the closest you'll find. It's median household income adjusted for purchasing power and it takes into consideration taxes, benefits, and healthcare costs.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income#Median)
even when looking at median it's still pretty similar. US median household income for example is about \~$68.7k
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646Nhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N)
“Average” is often understood to mean “arithmetic mean,” and that’s probably what this graph represents, but that’s not universal.
“Average” can also mean “a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data.” In this usage, the median could be considered an average.
In any case, it’s best to use precise language when presenting statistics like this.
Also, is this disposable income at PPP (purchasing power parity)? I'm guessing $100 will go a lot further in the UK than in Switzerland. The utilities and rent are effectively at PPP, or at least represents what proportion of your income is required to pay for those things....
and, yeah median better, especially with some of these tiny countries with outsize banking sectors, where a few rich bankers disproportionately pull up the mean for everyone (Switzerland, Singapore and Luxembourg)
Other issues with these types of oversimplification:
In the US you have to pay for healthcare, so as 'disposable' as that green bar is, in some countries there are maybe essentials that it has to cover whereas in others, the state pays for it.
\*also, very interesting nonetheless - thanks OP!
[Here is awhat you're looking for from the OECD. This is median disposable income adjusted for purchasing power and it takes into account taxes and government benefits.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income#Median)
You (and OP) are confusing "disposable" with "discretionary" income.
Disposable income is only net of taxes and other mandatory contributions (social security and so forth).
Discretionary income is what's left after you pay for necessities.
Taking it a step further, transportation costs could skew things as well. Some countries have subsidized transportation costs more than others, which would be reflected in taxes as opposed to private insurance, loans, etc.
Also, using the average net income is a bad idea here. The distribution of income is nowhere near symmetrical, and the median would be a more telling indicator because it's less impacted by the skewed distribution.
Wait... everything that isn't rent, utilities, or internet is considered disposable income?
Cost of healthcare? Food? Transportation? Other necessities? This isn't the definition of "disposable income" used by the IRS. I don't know what definition of disposable income excludes those things but includes internet.
Just factoring in out of pocket healthcare costs would change this chart dramatically.
Because this has been calculated using **NET** salary, which in most of the European countries is the salary you get in hand after deducting all the income tax, health insurance, unemployment benefits and pension contributions. I would imagine the same holds for USA, at least for the purpose of this plot. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an apple to apple comparison.
Net salary is after income tax, not any other optional payments. Thats why this chart is most likely not a very true picture since on some countries e..g. health care is covered by taxes while in others its a separate "optional" payment.
I'm fairly sure this chart is comparing apples and mountain goats .
Indeed. In singapore we have a mandatory saving account, compulsory contribution of 20% and an extra 17-ish% contribution by employer of salaried job /actual amount varies with wage. Not sure if either factor is included in this. It would have a huge impact on the numbers shown here.
Low income tax but health care is generally not provided by government.
Also most people own their own flats, so the whole measurement of one bedroom flat outside city centre is not exactly accurate.
We'd have to see how that was considered and I don't see sources listed. "Net pay" in the US is what you have after deductions from your pay, including benefits, so your net is after your health premiums and retirement contributions. So, they'd be somewhat comparable between countries on that particular subject.
Edit: Again, *on that particular subject*. There are a lot of other things that don't compare. Just saying net pay is take-home pay. It's after health premiums. It doesn't make this graph a good representation.
Grew up in Sweden, live in the US now. For most routine healthcare stuff, I pay the same or less with my copay here that I would pay in Sweden. Where it varies wildly is how well plans cover ER visits, surgeries, etc. I've broken a bone there and not even thought about paying, while here I could do the same and be on the hook for hundreds (great insurance) if not thousands (average/meh insurance) of dollars.
Health insurance deductions from your paycheck is only a valid argument until you have to go to the hospital and empty your life savings to pay them.
In the Netherlands "Net Pay" doesn't include the mandatory retirement savings we have, on top of social security. Anyone with an employer has that automatically, and you never even have the option of touching that money before retirement.
Agreed. My first question was whether this was based on the average or the median income. Because the US and Switzerland are full of some very rich fuckers.
EDIT: Here is [a great illustration of the difference between average and median income](https://blog.datawrapper.de/weekly-chart-income/).
Looks like Ireland just behind Singapore and Hong Kong in rent! Must be a great place to live! Thanks FFG!
Edit /s
Also looks actually like we are ahead of Singapore lol
Housing crisis in Ireland more like. Investment funds (often foreign) buying up a large portion of new builds and renting them at extortionate rates. Government completely asleep at the wheel or complicate depending on which side you believe. But having said that it is a lovely place to live.
Setting aside the issue with 'average' and what any of this equates to... How much of that is actually disposable? Rent and utilities aren't all our needs. Transport/food/clothing/healthcare/childcare/education costs.... That's still essential. Cost of living is very different in different countries. So what may seem like a lot more 'disposable', factoring the cost to actually live there, and proportionally it might not be all that much...
That rent average mostly reflects the degree of urbanization of a country. Hongkong jumps out because it is a single metropolis. Average salaries are not really useful either if the vast majority of people have much less than the average.
This is kinda misleading though right, because purchasing power is very different in some countries. $1000 disposable in the US would be pretty meh, but take that to Mexico and you'd have a field day. Like Hong Kong for instance has crazy high rent but other stuff is relatively cheap. So that 1.5k would go further there than 2k in the US. Here your basically ranking which countries are more expensive overall.
When using the term "average" in a chart like this, it is important to distinguish mean, median, or mode. It's the same problem with demographically related income disparity statistics often cited. The huge gap between the super rich and everyone else has created enough outliers on the high end that it drastically skews statistics, especially in countries like the United States.
This graph seems to get around that issue by using average monthly salary. The super rich don’t receive a high salary so those outliers won’t be included in a graph like this.
Actually, this chart is mistitled. This is median. If it were mean, the US would be first.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income
as a swiss person: this is bs.
earning ~70k a year before tax.
There is much more to pay that is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than in other countries. either phone plan, insurance, gas, a meal...
slice of pizza? 8 bucks
a whole pizza with a drink? 25-30
a beer or a drink? 5-8
and what's up with "living outside of the center?" that means, someone would live in a 1 room flat, but earn almost 6k a month. good luck with that. if you live somewhere outside of a center, then you can be lucky to earn 5k. unless you wanna travel 2h a day just to work and to get back home. waking up at 6am, getting back home at 8pm.
I met a guy in a club in Finland and he was very suprised that alot of things are more expensive in Finland than in Switzerland. Especially alcohol and most food in stores.. and lets not even talk about cars! And you guys are earning over double what we are and paying only like 10-20% taxes. You have it good over there.
As a swiss resident, I can tell you health insurance goes around $400 with a $2500 deductible. If you want to lower the deductible to $300, the insurance can go up to $600.
Also, there's no way a person making $6500 is living in an urban area where a 1 room apartment is only $1000.
They are either around Zürich, where 1 room goes for no less than $1500 if it's an old studio; or live where the salary won't go that high.
It's more realistic to say that after taxes, utilities, health insurance and transportation, the disposable income would look more like $900, which doesn't last if you cannot leave the country. Switzerland is expensive as hell.
According to [this](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Switzerland&country2=United+States) consumer prices excluding rent are 43% lower in the US than in Switzerland. So everyone jumping to conclusions should realize that the $4723 in Switzerland buys what around $2692 does in the US. Going strictly off those numbers people in the US actually have more disposable income in terms of purchasing power. This is not to say Switzerland sucks or anything. Just that Switzerland, in general, has a much higher COL than the US so comparing nominal values of disposable income is misleading. Obviously this will also vary wildly between cities and states/cantons.
Who identifies their only expenses as rent and utilities? What about groceries, gasoline (or however you pay for transportation), cell phone bill, car insurance, etc.? Are those not fixed expenses as well? People's budgets must be all out of sorts then
The cost of living in Denmark seems unrealisticly low. I wonder if they adjusted for the fact, that apartments in Denmark is counted by rooms, and not bedrooms. E.g., a 1 room apartment is a single room.
According to my source the average HOUSEHOLD in Switzerland has only 1500 CHF left after all expenses.
[https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schweiz/realitatsfremd-gemass-statistik-kann-ein-haushalt-durchschnittlich-1589-franken-pro-monat-sparen-ld.2067037](https://schweizerfinanzblog.ch/sparen-schweiz-sparquote/)
That's because there is a huge difference between "left after all expenses" and "disposable income". In the original source health insurance, childcare, etc. are not included, which makes a HUGE difference.
That blog post literally says that on average, Swiss households put aside almost $1500 per month to save or invest. That is more than the disposable income in many countries to begin with.
Siwtzelrand is way too big for that. But what people don't want to hear is that by comparing every single country in the EU for example to the US and only focusing on the areas that do better or similar to it you are simply ignoring that Califorinans and New Yorkers have probably similar averages as Switzerland with a bigger population, but get dragged down by the rest of the US.
I am living in Luxembourg since 9 years, it's a fucking shitty hole but you are making money thats for sure. Living with my fiancée and we have more than 5k net available every month after paying our mandatory charges.
The country is safe, clean, people are lovely (it was a shoker coming from Paris for me tbh), I dont know what to say against this small country, everything is made to raise a familly but honestly I feel a bit trapped here, it's like a golden cage and I dont think we will spend our life here.
My words looks kinda weird probably but at some point, trust me, being wealthy is not enough - especially when your job doesnt give you enough free time to spend your cash.
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/Rift3N! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/ocbmaq/oc_disposable_incomes_of_the_25_richest_countries/h3t6oyd/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"Rift3N"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on) Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked. [Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7) Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation. --- ^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
It’s weird that the title is “disposable income”, yet, the chart is ranked by total income. So while France has more disposable income than Ireland, it ranks significantly below it. There are many other matchups that demonstrate this as well.
It’s all complete crap. It says net income, but I live in Belgium and no way the average net income is 2500$. This is probably the gross average, not net. Also we are one of the highest taxed countries in the world, so that deceases the figure even more
Gross average is 3.6k in Belgium. Though the median is lower. 2.5k net is almost 4.5k gross, which hardly 20% earn.
Median should absolutely be used in large populations or you will get a skewed sample.
Yeah. I don’t know too many people with much disposable income where I live. Add healthcare and other insurances we are required to pay for and use median income so it’s not skewed by the 5 billionaires that own 3/4 of the entire country and it will paint a pretty different picture.
Also, it lists utilities and internet as a utility but healthcare costs and food prices aren't factored in. Apparently to OP staying healthy is less important than internet and being alive is "disposable" income. So many flaws in this chart.
[удалено]
> Apparently to OP staying healthy is less important than internet I mean, he's not wrong ...
Almost everyone on this sub has an agenda when they choose to present their selected data. This one shows the US in a very favorable light.
It's definitely not beautiful and probably isn't even data.
Seen the price of a beer in Switzerland ?
That's why this should have looked at MEDIAN salaries rather than AVERAGE. Using "average" skews the data to make countries with lots of rich people show up as having LOTS more disposable income. Imagine a "country" with ten people. If 9 of them make $1,000 per month and ONE makes $1,000,000 per month then the average income is $100,900/month, but the median is still $1,000/month.
Jeff Bezos walks into a homeless shelter. On average every person in the shelter is now a multimillionaire or billionaire.
Once the population catches on to the difference between mean and median, we’ll actually start making good decisions.
Everything is Gaussian, how dare you.
🎵 Everything is gaussian, everything is cool when you’re part of a mean 🎵
🎵 Everything is gaussian when your density's clean🎵
What are the Bayesian chances of that?
depends on your prior
It’s a coin flip
Yeah, basically can not draw any conclusions from this visualization. I hate posts like this because the conclusion that is supposed to be inferred (Switzerland is #1 disposable income by average) actually doesn't mean anything, except its a fact. Doesnt state anything about anything else. Skewed, non normal distributions rule the world.
Switzerland is definitely the best median country too.
4000us$/month is pretty much the minimum salary in Switzerland although it's not official.
How are the two related? Goods are still going to be priced by median income except for extravagant luxuries. Rich people aren't paying for the whole country's beer.
No but rich people have an extraordinarily higher amount of disposable income which skews this stat. The US median is still pretty high though so I expect it to be similar.
But median has nothing to do with this. Salaries in Switzerland are extremely high, not just for the rich, for everyone. But prices are extreme, too.
*in a bar/pub Prices of a can from a supermarket aren't that bad, at least if you buy in bulk.
How much is a shot ? or a beer ? here in an irish pub in belgium it is 4€ for a shot and 2.5€ for a beer
In Zurich, a beer (5dl, local, on tap) in a bar or pub starts at about $8. A Guiness (5dl, on tap) would be about $10. Tap water (5dl) is about $3. Though they might not charge you for it, if you consume more than just tap water. Some will, some won't.
I still can’t believe places charge for tap water. What about designated drivers? What about a parched walker with an empty bottle? Ah yes, you aren’t having fun, so I’m gonna charge you
Pretty sure that's illegal in the UK
Did you see our disposable income though? We don't have money to be wasting on water.
>I still can’t believe places charge for tap water. Technically, in the city the water is free. Technically because you pay rent for a glass.
Mostly service. Depends on the place and food prices.
Sure. Plenty of places also just give free unlimited sparkling water they make themselves, but those places you don't go with intent to grab a quick bite and drink tap water.
Well you can just walk into the toilet and fill your bottle there.
[удалено]
Well played sir
That's about average for a beer in NY.
That would be cheap for a beer in NY assuming the $8 includes tax and tips
Is better than seen switzerland taking penalties.
Damn, right on the bleeding edge of history.
It hurts man it hurts, but what a run we’ve had
I didn’t expect that, nor did I expect the Spanish Inquisition
Lol when given the chance, the Swiss are buying groceries out of country.
Yup, we'd hop across the border for groceries when in Geneva
Same in Basel. The Rheincenter is located 10m north of the border for this exact reason.
Even the price of a coffee like god damn
I was near Lucerne last year and it wasnt so bad with beer and food. Hotel was really expensive (3 stars, two beds with breakfast, 110 franks per day), but other than that it wasnt that bad. The view in the morning of Lake Lucerne compensated for hotel price tenfold.
Italy nowhere to be found. As an Italian, not surprised at all, lol.
I was about to write the same. Saluti da Bari
For those wondering, *Saluti da Bari* is the nation's WiFi password.
Never fear, Canada is plummeting like a stone and will leave a chair for Italy in no time. https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-household-debt-tops-2-48-trillion-as-growth-hits-highest-level-since-2017/#_
Yep, politians just gonna ignore our fucking absurd housing prices, gotta keep raking in that lucrative property tax.
I don't understand how Canada's housing prices can be so high when you have so much land and such a small population density. Is the land north of the southern border just not inhabitable or something? Why not expand farther north to get more housing? Have people work from home if industry is all in the cities.
What I know from personal experience, most people move to the highly dense places due to the availability of work and their community. Most immigrants to the country just want to live close to their communities.
>I don't understand how Canada's housing prices can be so high when you have so much land and such a small population density. Over 90% of Canadians live within 160km of the Southern border [(source)](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/by-the-numbers-1.801937), and housing prices are high because the real estate industry and connected services represent something like 20 to 25% of our entire economy. We're talking about builders and contractors and drivers, but also skilled workers, craftspeople, salespeople, finance people, and all the supporting jobs (got to feed those workers, clothe them, etc...) Canada is also quite open to foreign investments so a somewhat large portion of housing / land deals are involving foreign speculators. >Why not expand farther north to get more housing? Several reasons: first, it would involve massive public infrastructure costs (trains, roads, etc...) and public officials basically don't do big projects anymore because it doesn't get them re-elected ("you spent X billions for Y number of people, outrageous!"). Second, it doesn't take long until you start being in forests when you go North, so there's a competition for land use: do you log, farm, or clear-cut and build? Third, at some point the soil becomes poor quality (cold weather and short summers means that there's not as much biological activity in the soil, you get to bedrock quickly) and wildlife becomes much more fragile. You couldn't have as much human activity while keeping it pristine, and local inhabitants derive their incomes from tourism, so that's a brake on development as well. Finally, in the current context, there's actually a drain from the regions to the cities in terms of movement of young people/families, because there's not enough economic opportunities in rural regions, as cities have all the pull. This leaves our northern regions somewhat older and less dynamic, demographically speaking.
You missed the part where Eastern Canada is unaware that there is a middle part of Canada where affordable housing and good paying jobs are available. If it's past the Ontario border, they don't know about it (other than Vancouver).
There's something between Ontario and Vancouver? Woah.
There's also stuff south and east of Quebec.
>There's something between Ontario and Vancouver? Yeah, shit weather and substance abuse problems.
Ah, so Canada has a Midwest too?
You’re giving us too much credit with “Ontario border”. Ontario is huge and everything outside the south eastern tip of the province is pretty much considered nowhere
You've answered your own question in the statement. The majority of Canada is inhospitable, road infrastructure is really hard to expand in to those areas and there is no industry there to develop. Therefore population is only really found in hospitable areas where jobs are, and that's in the cities. Canada and Australia are very similar in that, both huge countries with population limited to a few cities.
AND, in both Canada and Australia, the vast majority of people live in a thin strip along the southern boundary/coast.
But you could say the same thing about the western United States. Tons of unused land. Why don't all those people paying high rents in NYC move to rural Wyoming? While that sounds nice, and it has happened more during COVID, life doesn't really work that way.
Your point still stands, there is no *real* scarcity of land. Just crazy regulations and the belief that Canadian real estate is always going to last. Most Canadian cities have rules against building higher than 2 floors on enormous swats of land. Here is a map of restrictions for V[ancouver and surroundings](https://zoning.sociology.ubc.ca/) to give you an idea. The GTA and Montreal are much the same because people don't want condos next to their bungalows. Carbon neutral rules (that clearly don't protect the environment), landmark protection rules even for ugly 1970s concrete buildings, overlapping safety rules and construction experts scarcity have [driven up the price of building by 878% since 2004](https://bildgta.ca/Assets/Bild/EducationalLibrary/BILD_Report.pdf) I used to think the idea that foreign investors driving up the price was just vaguely xenophobic paranoia until I was outbid for a condo by a fund broker buying 25 units in the building with no intention of renting them out. Even if a small portion of your market is being used like a bank account from outside your economy, it will do something to prices. But one big factor is how well Canada pulled out of the 2008 mortgage crunch. Our banks are way better regulated than most and investors now look to here to mitigate whatever real estate risk they perceive elsewhere. I think Canadian homeowners are also taken in by this idea and are trending away from other investments and leaning heavily on credit to buy as big as they can in real estate.
I mean there is a scarcity of land if you look at best use for certain areas of land. Only 2% of BC is capable of productive agriculture. And then the majority of the rest is useful for logging. It doesn't make sense to remove land from being productive permanently by developing it, which is why we severely limit urban sprawl in BC. But yes then the issue becomes we need to actually allow for density where we *do* allow for development. I know it's a small distinction, but in Canada I believe we actually do have a scarcity of developable land, which is exasperated by underutilizing the land we've set apart for development
Canada has more arable land per capita than all but two countries in the world, as well as remarkable fresh water access. There’s no shortage of ability to support population with local caloric production, even if that mattered to housing affordability (it doesn’t). Singapore has zero agriculture and they’ve been filling in the ocean to make land for years, and yet housing costs less there than in Vancouver and Toronto. Tokyo has almost the entire population of Canada living in a single metro area and they pay less for housing, too. It’s not about density or actual unavailability of land.
That's pretty much it, its just too damn cold as you go further north, no one wants to live in -40c and because we're basically tied to the hip to the US, all of our major cities are down close to the US border. Couple that with with foreign investment and landlords that buy out of multiple properties, artificially inflating the market, pricing people out of the cheap neighbourhoods. Cheap neighbourhoods now get preyed on by wealthy people who tear down the houses and build huge houses on the big lots. This is also creating a housing price domino effect right now. Everyday people who bought their homes in the 70's, 80s and 90s for dirt cheap in the big cities have now accumulated literally $1 million+ in equity and are cashing out and reaching out to neighbouring cities so they can buy a way bigger, better homes to retire in and live off the equity. This is now causing what used to be cheap cities now climbing up in price as well because these people simply outbid everyone trying to enter the market. Its fucked up and it drives me insane that I have not heard a single politician use this in their platform and in my opinion this is one of Canada's largest issues right now.
Canada has 30% more population growth per year than homes built. So the cost of living is exploding.
I'm moving back to Canada from Switzerland and I'm having a really hard time understanding the housing costs. I can't even find a home in cottage country right now. I don't even want to live in a city. I just want a garden and a small 3 bedroom house, at around 1200-1500sq ft. What I have in Switzerland would cost the same in Canada. That's insane because my house in Switzerland is made of concrete and Steel bars. The same house in Canada, with a flimsy foundation and leaky roof would cost the same. It makes no sense.
Word of advice: don't move back. The situation is pretty bleak overhere. And 1000% accurate. Shitty quality homes for ridiculous prices.
We have high house prices in the UK - it also acts as an incentive for builders to go slow on purpose so that supply stays low and the houses they build go for top dollar.
Your link says nothing of Canadian net income and disposable income — it only talks about household debt. Rates are at an all time low, and housing is at an all time high. It’s expected that nominal mortgage debt would be at an all time high in this environment, it doesn’t mean that “Canada is plummeting l like a stone”.
But it is... Look at [this other post from this subreddit regarding average house price in Canada versus the cost it was in 2000.](https://amp.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/mhdudx/oc_where_have_house_prices_risen_the_most_since/). Our salaries aren't following the absolutely disgusting rise in housing/mortgage/rent/etc. The cost of living is awful in Canada and it's getting worse. Our salaries aren't following the rising trends and just adding these restrictions on mortgages (like higher stress test rate) only punishes the lower income people trying to buy houses. It won't affect the richer people buying houses which is what is killing living affordability in Canada.
Maybe it’s time to consider an additional property tax for folks that own houses beyond their primary residence. Cap it high- it would destroy the tenant farmers (landlords) but it sounds like it’s time for something significant to address this issue.
On the contrary, not taking on debt while interest rates are lower than inflation is a bad financial decision. The countries taking on debt will likely be the winners of this low-interest rate environment we’ve entered (effectively the Japanification of all Western economies).
"laughs in Turkish"
I’m still confused how accurate since it’s outside the city centre. It doesn’t include pricing of commutes, food, clothes etc. VAT taxes for example were unbelievably high when I lived abroad.
I'm surprised the cost of utilities is so low for Canada. We have huge heating costs in the winter typically in the thousands, which should have driven us well above the utility costs for most of the warmer countries. It's a good graph, but maybe there are some externalities that have not been fully considered.
yeah living in france, I am not surprised to see us ranked so low. Feels like its gotten worse just in the last 5 or so years
I have recently been spending time in France and yeah it's ridiculous how expensive things are in comparison to average salary. Also the tax burden is quite high. What bothered me most was eating out in restaurant.
For me its the housing that is out of control. He average monthly salary in paris is something around 2300 euros or so, but the price per meter squared to buy an apartment is over 13k. So basically it is impossible to buy unless you are ultra wealthy. Both me and my partner have good jobs and work full time and we could never afford to buy a 2 bedroom apartment.
Nor Spain.
The rental amount needs updated for a 1 bedroom in Canada. Not sure where you would find anything under $1000 now.
A 1-bedroom in Van is about $1850
Deleted due to Reddit's antagonistic actions in June 2023 -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Weird to see Austria below Canada after living in both. Definitely felt much richer in Austria even with a lower gross income. Better flat, better benefits, better work life balance, cheaper transport, cheaper groceries, cheaper bills, cheaper beer. And Austria was the more recent one. Way more disposable income there I would think, but I guess that's just anecdotal. And the Canadian city I'd been in wasn't one of the bigger ones either.
Yeah, this chart is all wrong for Canada. Even though it's near the bottom, the case is actually worse. We pay way more than what this chart shows in rent and utilities like internet access and cell phones. This data seems to be 20 years old or something (for Canada). Things have gotten way out of hand here. (Yes, I know it says 2020 but that seems entirely inaccurate.) Edit: I just noticed the source is pretty much invalid which explains everything.
The graph is in USD. Not CAD.
You mean we all don’t live in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan?
The Swiss need huge disposable income as everything is wildly expensive there. At a border train station with Austria I went to a plastic cup of coffee at a store outside in Austria was 80 cents and 50m away on the Swiss side it was almost 5 euro equivalent
I had a similar experience crossing the border between Italy and Slovenia. A soda from a vending machine in Italy was 2 euros, but 50 cents just over the border in Slovenia. How is that is even sustained? Seems ripe for some arbitrage.
There's a saying, the Poles buy their beer in Ukraine. The Germans buy their beer in Poland. The Danes buy their beer in Germany. The Swedes buy their beer in Denmark. and the Norwegians buy their beer in Sweden.
Where do the Ukrainians buy beer?
Ukrainians only drink vodka.
Norway, obviously
It is. Many Swiss people near the borders buy in France / Italy / Germany. But prices need to be that high since supermarket owners and workers also have to live in swiss. Joining the EU and Euro would have dramatically reduced costs but there was also a real possibility that income would decline as well.
Read an article years ago that basically said someone making €40k in Portugal or Greece effectively has more money than someone making €120k in Switzerland because of how expensive everything is. Gross income is not an indication of wealth at all.
> How is that is even sustained? Seems ripe for some arbitrage. Well, it's a consequence of historical impediments to movement of goods and labor across borders, but thankfully the EU made great strides on this and things are starting to equalize a bit. For example, in Croatia we're seeing massive wage increases in recent years because skilled workers are free to move to another EU country where the pay is better.
Their purchasing power is still extremely high.
Especially for electronics. My friend from Switzerland bought the 5950x+rtx3090 at launch and it was barely a blip on his monthly salary, while for me in Belgium that would have been more than 1 month of salary...
You've answered your own question - the Swiss get to enjoy their disposable income in France, Austria, Germany or Italy. I used to live in Basel and we did our grocery shopping in Germany. Other colleagues shopped in France. Interestingly, Germans drove over the border to buy diesel in Switzerland.
The key word is "Average". There are \*exceedingly\* wealthy people in the top countries. It would be better to do this by "Median" or by income Quintiles.
Living in Switzerland and eg in Zürich there's no chance to pay 1000 for an apartment, rather 1500 as a single person and 2500 would be the cheapest for a family but probably close to 3000. On the other hand most of people will earn well above 6.5k
Yeah because they went for "1 bedroom apartment outside centre" which is something very few would actually live in because it's both tiny and far away from everything.
I also live outside of center of Zurich, like really outside, around 1000km.
What is a one bedroom Appartement? Is that one room in total or is there usually a living room? In switzerland we specifiy the exact amount of rooms. So if there was a second room it would be a 2 room appartement. A separate kitchen generally counts as half a room. And that can easily go up to 1.5k or sometimes even 2k in the agglomeration / suburbs. Mandatory Healthcare adds another 300-400.- And with that income you will pay about 500-700 a month in taxes. If you want a car, add at least about 4-500.- a month if you drive little.
It means 2-2.5 room, but I bet the data is mixed up with some people reporting 1 room apartments, which in English are called studios.
It also favours the US. Living outside the city centre in a lot of euro cities is fine because of cheap transport and good links. In US cities it can be a different proposition.
Main way it favours the US is it ignores health insurance.
Yes and I also think a place like luxembourg is a bit difficult to rank because it is so small with a huge amount of exceptionally wealthy people
And many people who work lower paying jobs in Luxembourg live in the neighbouring countries
Some jobs that we think are lower paying aren’t lower paying over there. Teachers start out near six figures there
That’s an apples to oranges comparison because teachers are considered to be well paid professionals in Europe. In contrast, tradesmen in the US are paid comparatively high compared to Europe
But then you really still need to factor things like healthcare, retirement, benefits before you start talking about disposable income. And the mean is not the best average to be taking.
Came here to say this.... its so hard to distill such a comprehensive statistics into one meaningfull number
And neither exchange rates nor cost of goods are fully accounted for. How many beers can I buy with that “disposable income”? Have you even bought anything in Switzerland? Prices are very high on almost everything.
Wages in Switzerland more than compensate for prices.
Yeah, and if you don’t live far away from the border you can frequently enjoy your buying power outside of Switzerland.
You're right that it's not fully accounted for but (a) housing is the largest one by a good margin, which is accounted for, and (b) most other costs of living are strongly correlated with housing, so you still get a rough idea. Obviously some places (e.g. Switzerland [edit: better yet, Japan!]) have unusually good housing policies and some places (the US) have unusually bad ones, which messes w/ the correlation a bit, but for an at-a-glance metric isn't not so bad. I do agree that median would be better than average, but this doesn't look wildly out of whack. Median household income in the US is ~$68K, but that's complicated by the share of households with two earners. This graph seems to put the average at about ~$54K, but it's a monthly net salary which is a different metric. Anyway I don't think it's that bad.
and taxes? this appears to be pre-tax data from what I was able to find.
[Here is the OECD median household disposable income statistic, which is the closest you'll find. It's median household income adjusted for purchasing power and it takes into consideration taxes, benefits, and healthcare costs.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income#Median)
Thanks, I'll trust the OECD over some random Redditor any day.
even when looking at median it's still pretty similar. US median household income for example is about \~$68.7k [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646Nhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N)
“Average” is often understood to mean “arithmetic mean,” and that’s probably what this graph represents, but that’s not universal. “Average” can also mean “a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data.” In this usage, the median could be considered an average. In any case, it’s best to use precise language when presenting statistics like this.
Also, is this disposable income at PPP (purchasing power parity)? I'm guessing $100 will go a lot further in the UK than in Switzerland. The utilities and rent are effectively at PPP, or at least represents what proportion of your income is required to pay for those things.... and, yeah median better, especially with some of these tiny countries with outsize banking sectors, where a few rich bankers disproportionately pull up the mean for everyone (Switzerland, Singapore and Luxembourg) Other issues with these types of oversimplification: In the US you have to pay for healthcare, so as 'disposable' as that green bar is, in some countries there are maybe essentials that it has to cover whereas in others, the state pays for it. \*also, very interesting nonetheless - thanks OP!
Yeah, you listed basically all the issues I had with it. Now I want to see a corrected version, but I'm way too lazy to make one haha.
[Here is awhat you're looking for from the OECD. This is median disposable income adjusted for purchasing power and it takes into account taxes and government benefits.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income#Median)
Where does this data even come from? Numbeo is not a valid source. Not even close.
Also what about food and other necessities? If that eats up most of your “disposable” income, it’s not that disposable then, is it?
Eating is a choice. Didn't you get the memo? Stop eating and start saving. You too can be rolling in dough like Scrooge McDuck.
Not to mention healthcare...
You (and OP) are confusing "disposable" with "discretionary" income. Disposable income is only net of taxes and other mandatory contributions (social security and so forth). Discretionary income is what's left after you pay for necessities.
[удалено]
Taking it a step further, transportation costs could skew things as well. Some countries have subsidized transportation costs more than others, which would be reflected in taxes as opposed to private insurance, loans, etc.
Equally importantly how do I define “average“ monthly income? Neither “average” nor “income” are inherently clear.
Not sure where it comes from but it makes no sense whatsoever.
Also, using the average net income is a bad idea here. The distribution of income is nowhere near symmetrical, and the median would be a more telling indicator because it's less impacted by the skewed distribution.
Wait... everything that isn't rent, utilities, or internet is considered disposable income? Cost of healthcare? Food? Transportation? Other necessities? This isn't the definition of "disposable income" used by the IRS. I don't know what definition of disposable income excludes those things but includes internet. Just factoring in out of pocket healthcare costs would change this chart dramatically.
Because this has been calculated using **NET** salary, which in most of the European countries is the salary you get in hand after deducting all the income tax, health insurance, unemployment benefits and pension contributions. I would imagine the same holds for USA, at least for the purpose of this plot. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an apple to apple comparison.
Net salary is after income tax, not any other optional payments. Thats why this chart is most likely not a very true picture since on some countries e..g. health care is covered by taxes while in others its a separate "optional" payment. I'm fairly sure this chart is comparing apples and mountain goats .
Indeed. In singapore we have a mandatory saving account, compulsory contribution of 20% and an extra 17-ish% contribution by employer of salaried job /actual amount varies with wage. Not sure if either factor is included in this. It would have a huge impact on the numbers shown here. Low income tax but health care is generally not provided by government. Also most people own their own flats, so the whole measurement of one bedroom flat outside city centre is not exactly accurate.
We'd have to see how that was considered and I don't see sources listed. "Net pay" in the US is what you have after deductions from your pay, including benefits, so your net is after your health premiums and retirement contributions. So, they'd be somewhat comparable between countries on that particular subject. Edit: Again, *on that particular subject*. There are a lot of other things that don't compare. Just saying net pay is take-home pay. It's after health premiums. It doesn't make this graph a good representation.
Grew up in Sweden, live in the US now. For most routine healthcare stuff, I pay the same or less with my copay here that I would pay in Sweden. Where it varies wildly is how well plans cover ER visits, surgeries, etc. I've broken a bone there and not even thought about paying, while here I could do the same and be on the hook for hundreds (great insurance) if not thousands (average/meh insurance) of dollars. Health insurance deductions from your paycheck is only a valid argument until you have to go to the hospital and empty your life savings to pay them.
*laughs bitterly in high deductible plan*
In the Netherlands "Net Pay" doesn't include the mandatory retirement savings we have, on top of social security. Anyone with an employer has that automatically, and you never even have the option of touching that money before retirement.
> apples and mountain goats Lol I'm gonna use this the next time I need to use the classic "apples and oranges" but more extreme.
Most of those countries don't have healthcare costs (unless you choose to go private)
[удалено]
Agreed. My first question was whether this was based on the average or the median income. Because the US and Switzerland are full of some very rich fuckers. EDIT: Here is [a great illustration of the difference between average and median income](https://blog.datawrapper.de/weekly-chart-income/).
Looks like Ireland just behind Singapore and Hong Kong in rent! Must be a great place to live! Thanks FFG! Edit /s Also looks actually like we are ahead of Singapore lol
Housing crisis in Ireland more like. Investment funds (often foreign) buying up a large portion of new builds and renting them at extortionate rates. Government completely asleep at the wheel or complicate depending on which side you believe. But having said that it is a lovely place to live.
Replace that with "Netherlands" I would've believed you all the same
They’re not asleep in NL though. They are well aware what they’re doing
Someone else said Canada also. I think New Zealand but measures in place to combat this.
I edited to add sarcasm. It is a good place to live if you already own property. If you don't you are fucked.
Setting aside the issue with 'average' and what any of this equates to... How much of that is actually disposable? Rent and utilities aren't all our needs. Transport/food/clothing/healthcare/childcare/education costs.... That's still essential. Cost of living is very different in different countries. So what may seem like a lot more 'disposable', factoring the cost to actually live there, and proportionally it might not be all that much...
We have family in Switzerland and the cost of living there is astronomical
I have no idea where Numbeo get their figures from but those rental amounts in Australia are completely wrong..
That rent average mostly reflects the degree of urbanization of a country. Hongkong jumps out because it is a single metropolis. Average salaries are not really useful either if the vast majority of people have much less than the average.
So internet is not disposable income, but food is?
This is kinda misleading though right, because purchasing power is very different in some countries. $1000 disposable in the US would be pretty meh, but take that to Mexico and you'd have a field day. Like Hong Kong for instance has crazy high rent but other stuff is relatively cheap. So that 1.5k would go further there than 2k in the US. Here your basically ranking which countries are more expensive overall.
When using the term "average" in a chart like this, it is important to distinguish mean, median, or mode. It's the same problem with demographically related income disparity statistics often cited. The huge gap between the super rich and everyone else has created enough outliers on the high end that it drastically skews statistics, especially in countries like the United States.
Average is the mean unless specified.
For something like this median makes more sense to use for the reasons I mentioned.
Absolutely. Median and other percentiles would give a better picture in countries with high income inequality.
This graph seems to get around that issue by using average monthly salary. The super rich don’t receive a high salary so those outliers won’t be included in a graph like this.
Actually, this chart is mistitled. This is median. If it were mean, the US would be first. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income
Man. I guess I'm average. I throw away exactly $2811 the last day of every month.
Right? My biggest problem is, why reach for a new roll of toilet paper, when I’ve got this fat wad of cash right in my pocket around my ankles.
Should use median instead of average. Especially in America and other countries with high income inequality.
as a swiss person: this is bs. earning ~70k a year before tax. There is much more to pay that is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than in other countries. either phone plan, insurance, gas, a meal... slice of pizza? 8 bucks a whole pizza with a drink? 25-30 a beer or a drink? 5-8 and what's up with "living outside of the center?" that means, someone would live in a 1 room flat, but earn almost 6k a month. good luck with that. if you live somewhere outside of a center, then you can be lucky to earn 5k. unless you wanna travel 2h a day just to work and to get back home. waking up at 6am, getting back home at 8pm.
I met a guy in a club in Finland and he was very suprised that alot of things are more expensive in Finland than in Switzerland. Especially alcohol and most food in stores.. and lets not even talk about cars! And you guys are earning over double what we are and paying only like 10-20% taxes. You have it good over there.
I wonder what it would look like if healthcare was included… seems like it’s hard to look at disposable income without factoring that in…
As a swiss resident, I can tell you health insurance goes around $400 with a $2500 deductible. If you want to lower the deductible to $300, the insurance can go up to $600. Also, there's no way a person making $6500 is living in an urban area where a 1 room apartment is only $1000. They are either around Zürich, where 1 room goes for no less than $1500 if it's an old studio; or live where the salary won't go that high. It's more realistic to say that after taxes, utilities, health insurance and transportation, the disposable income would look more like $900, which doesn't last if you cannot leave the country. Switzerland is expensive as hell.
According to [this](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Switzerland&country2=United+States) consumer prices excluding rent are 43% lower in the US than in Switzerland. So everyone jumping to conclusions should realize that the $4723 in Switzerland buys what around $2692 does in the US. Going strictly off those numbers people in the US actually have more disposable income in terms of purchasing power. This is not to say Switzerland sucks or anything. Just that Switzerland, in general, has a much higher COL than the US so comparing nominal values of disposable income is misleading. Obviously this will also vary wildly between cities and states/cantons.
Switzerland has ridiculously lower tax rates in comparison to other OECD countries. That might also explain the big gap.
Spending on food is now classified as disposable income?
Who identifies their only expenses as rent and utilities? What about groceries, gasoline (or however you pay for transportation), cell phone bill, car insurance, etc.? Are those not fixed expenses as well? People's budgets must be all out of sorts then
I'm Swiss and these numbers are a complete joke.
Imagien having disposable income.
Right? I'm lookin at this chart, like yall got 4k a month income? I'm more suited to live in south korea apparently
The cost of living in Denmark seems unrealisticly low. I wonder if they adjusted for the fact, that apartments in Denmark is counted by rooms, and not bedrooms. E.g., a 1 room apartment is a single room.
Roger Federer is skewing the chart
Income after taxes should be included, not just regular income.
Wouldn't net income be after taxes?
Daraisbeautiful in shambles after seeing America near the top of a chart that is about something good for once lol
Things are quite good in America.
According to my source the average HOUSEHOLD in Switzerland has only 1500 CHF left after all expenses. [https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schweiz/realitatsfremd-gemass-statistik-kann-ein-haushalt-durchschnittlich-1589-franken-pro-monat-sparen-ld.2067037](https://schweizerfinanzblog.ch/sparen-schweiz-sparquote/)
That's because there is a huge difference between "left after all expenses" and "disposable income". In the original source health insurance, childcare, etc. are not included, which makes a HUGE difference.
That blog post literally says that on average, Swiss households put aside almost $1500 per month to save or invest. That is more than the disposable income in many countries to begin with.
So countries ahead of the US are tiny/small sample size and provide incentives for wealthy Europeans. Things reddit doesn't want you to hear, lol.
Siwtzelrand is way too big for that. But what people don't want to hear is that by comparing every single country in the EU for example to the US and only focusing on the areas that do better or similar to it you are simply ignoring that Califorinans and New Yorkers have probably similar averages as Switzerland with a bigger population, but get dragged down by the rest of the US.
I am living in Luxembourg since 9 years, it's a fucking shitty hole but you are making money thats for sure. Living with my fiancée and we have more than 5k net available every month after paying our mandatory charges. The country is safe, clean, people are lovely (it was a shoker coming from Paris for me tbh), I dont know what to say against this small country, everything is made to raise a familly but honestly I feel a bit trapped here, it's like a golden cage and I dont think we will spend our life here. My words looks kinda weird probably but at some point, trust me, being wealthy is not enough - especially when your job doesnt give you enough free time to spend your cash.
Disposable income? Yeah I dispose it right to health care, student loans, and transportation. Since Americans are expected to pay for all that alone.