• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What do you think of this pie chart (average US household expenses)?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
RyanPaulShaffer said:
I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, but I'm sure the study took into account people who pay very little/nothing for insurance and people who pay more/a lot for insurance to come up with the average.

I was just posting proof to back up my claims that my numbers weren't "anecdotal" and were pretty close to the truth for the "average" middle class American.
Click to expand...

your numbers are anecdoctal. KFF's are not. just because your numbers come close to KFF's doesn't mean your numbers aren't anecdotal. it means that you're close to average for what they measured: family care.

not all households are families. i'll bet you dollars to donuts that single-person households (which are included in the pie chart but don't fall under family insurance plans in the KFF numbers) have significantly lower insurance costs than family households.
 
ElFenix said:
your numbers are anecdoctal. KFF's are not. just because your numbers come close to KFF's doesn't mean your numbers aren't anecdotal. it means that you're close to average for what they measured: family care.

not all households are families. i'll bet you dollars to donuts that single-person households (which are included in the pie chart but don't fall under family insurance plans in the KFF numbers) have significantly lower insurance costs than family households.
Click to expand...

🙄

My numbers were close to the average, as proved by the study, hence, not "anecdotal" but true AKA facts.

I already discussed single coverage with Genx87 multiple times in the thread. The single member insurance plans are also listed on the link to the study I provided. Yes, they are significantly cheaper...a fact which I mentioned many pages ago. What is your point?

The chart from the OP also specifically states that the chart is based off of an "average" household size ("Number of persons in consumer unit: 2.5") of 2.5 people...in other words, a family (or at least multiple people living together), not a single person.

Seriously, you posted a random wiki link trying to "LOLingly" dismiss my claims, and my claims were validated by hard data. Please stop spinning to try and justify your flippant dismissal of my (true) comment.
 
Last edited:
ProfJohn said:
It is a shame that they took out the piece paid to taxes. Pretty much ruins the whole chart due to that.
Click to expand...

(You beat me to it!)

Exactly, between that distortion and omitting HC costs subsidized by the employer, the chart is kind of faulty.

Fern
 
RyanPaulShaffer said:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

"The average cost of a family policy offered by employers was $13,375 this year, up 5% from 2008, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust survey found. By comparison, wages rose 3% over that period, the study said.

As insurance costs increase, workers are also picking up a larger share, the survey found. The average employee with family coverage paid 26% of the premium, the study found, but 41% of companies said they are "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to increase the amount employees pay for coverage in the next year."

26% (the average % an employee pays for family coverage) of $13,375 is $3477.50. Divided by 12 months to get the monthly premium amount that the employee pays is about $290. Very close to what I pay.

Oops...looks like my numbers are pretty close to average according to what studies show. "Anecdotal" indeed.
Click to expand...

You don't know what the word anecdotal means.
 
RyanPaulShaffer said:
Seriously, you posted a random wiki link trying to "LOLingly" dismiss my claims, and my claims were validated by hard data. Please stop spinning to try and justify your flippant dismissal of my (true) comment.
Click to expand...

my "lol" was in a different post. the wikipedia link was the usage of the word anecdotal. maybe you should read it. or, here's something simpler for you, the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdotal
note definition number 3:
based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation:anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...
your evidence provided before you posted the KFF numbers was in all ways anecdotal. i never questioned whether your data was true. it still is anecdotal, you just have the happy circumstance of being average. congratulations.


RyanPaulShaffer said:
I already discussed single coverage with Genx87 multiple times in the thread. The single member insurance plans are also listed on the link to the study I provided. Yes, they are significantly cheaper...a fact which I mentioned many pages ago. What is your point?

The chart from the OP also specifically states that the chart is based off of an "average" household size ("Number of persons in consumer unit: 2.5") of 2.5 people...in other words, a family (or at least multiple people living together), not a single person.
Click to expand...
when calculating average households they include single people living by themselves as households. that's a big reason why the average family plan cost and the average household plan cost differ.
 
Last edited:
ElFenix said:
my "lol" was in a different post. the wikipedia link was the usage of the word anecdotal. maybe you should read it. or, here's something simpler for you, the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdotal
note definition number 3:
Quote:
based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation:anecdotal evidence.
your evidence provided before you posted the KFF numbers was in all ways anecdotal. i never questioned whether your data was true. it still is anecdotal, you just have the happy circumstance of being average. congratulations.

and, as i noted, there are various reasons why the KFF numbers and the numbers provided in the chart can differ and both be correct.
Click to expand...

Posting "lol" then a random wiki link doesn't leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. It sure sounded like you were trying to dismiss my numbers; numbers which turned out to be true. All I was doing was validating my claims and that my numbers weren't just randomly pulled out of the air. I only used myself as an example of what's closer to average, and lo and behold, it was true.

Would you consider the link I provided to fall under a "systematic scientific evaluation"? Or is the study "anecdotal" as well?
 
seems wrong.
$63k annual income would mean $50k after taxes. article states $49638 annual expenses which means they have some savings leftover, which we know does not exist in this country.
 
RyanPaulShaffer said:
Posting "lol" then a random wiki link doesn't leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. It sure sounded like you were trying to dismiss my numbers; numbers which turned out to be true. All I was doing was validating my claims and that my numbers weren't just randomly pulled out of the air. I only used myself as an example of what's closer to average, and lo and behold, it was true.

Would you consider the link I provided to fall under a "systematic scientific evaluation"? Or is the study "anecdotal" as well?
Click to expand...

random? did you bother clicking on the link? it was quite intentional. it's not like i typed in gibberish into google and copied the first link.

and again, it's not that your numbers aren't true, it's that your numbers are anecdotal. there is a difference.

i already said KFF's numbers aren't anecdotal. of course, i presume that KFF's surveys are properly conducted and therefore scientific. i could be wrong on that.
 
Last edited:
BlahBlahYouToo said:
seems wrong.
$63k annual income would mean $50k after taxes. article states $49638 annual expenses which means they have some savings leftover, which we know does not exist in this country.
Click to expand...

Yep, because credit card bills aren't listed either. So when you accidentally go "above" the average you are forced to gaining debt and then repaying that with it's interest.
 
BlahBlahYouToo said:
seems wrong.
$63k annual income would mean $50k after taxes. article states $49638 annual expenses which means they have some savings leftover, which we know does not exist in this country.
Click to expand...

I am assuming that number is derived from tax information. Which means avg household income after taxes.
 
CycloWizard said:
This. It would make people uncomfortable and see how much better off they'd be if they weren't having a large chunk of their work taken by force and squandered on the political equivalent of hookers and blow.
Click to expand...

Then they should include the portion their employer pays for their healthcare too.
That would make people uncomfortable too.
 
senseamp said:
Then they should include the portion their employer pays for their healthcare too.
That would make people uncomfortable too.
Click to expand...
No, because the chart is showing the income of the family, not expenditures of the company. I think the system of employers subsidizing insurance is stupid, but it has nothing to do with this. The government is directly taking money away from families after they have earned it whether the family wants to pay the taxes or not.
 
dullard said:
What seems out of line with the car portion? $3k per year on car purchases seems reasonable. If you buy car (new or reasonably good condition used) every 5 years, you'll be right around there. $2k for gas (remember this is two drivers) seems reasonable. Two drivers would drive about 24k miles, which would use over 1000 gallons, so $2k in gas is normal. What is left is $3k for repairs, maintanence, insurnace, bus/train/plane tickets, etc. That doesn't seem too high. Two people with insurance would be $1k-$2k depending on the cars and the location. That leaves only $1k-$2k for all repairs and other transportation costs including airplane tickets. One family plane trip a year will easilly eat that up.
Click to expand...

Only the truly rich can buy a car every few years. Everyone else who isn't a high roller can only afford a car every 10-15 years.
 
GTaudiophile said:
I know this sounds quite liberal of me but...

1) Like NYC, every menu item should have the calorie count listed next to it.
2) I would seriously like to explore the idea of a fast-food fat tax on everything from potato chips to french fries to Coca-Cola, etc. Every cent earned goes to some massive healthcare fund. I mean, can we really have a healthcare debate without looking at one of the biggest root causes of disease in this country?
Click to expand...

$0.0005 per calorie + 0.00025 per saturated fat calorie + 0.00025 per sugar calorie (for foods categorized as "junk")?
 
Last edited:
Hacp said:
Only the truly rich can buy a car every few years. Everyone else who isn't a high roller can only afford a car every 10-15 years.
Click to expand...

You have a seriously fucked up definition of "high roller".

What yearly salary (for a single male with no dependents) would constitute the bottom line, above which you are considered a "high roller"?
 
Genx87 said:
Doesnt your wife have some pre-existing condition and you lost your job????




I know what the cost of my family plan is and it is 120\month with double my deductible. Basically double up my plan.
My wife works for a not for profit health provider. About as close as one gets to being a public employee without being one 😀
Click to expand...

Why don't you get on her health insurance. then?
 
Genx87 said:
Closed to only employees 😉
Click to expand...

That explains why it's so damn cheap !!! Does that provider have to be the first line of care in a non-emergency, as well? i.e. you have to go to the doctor at work before you can see any other doctor?

I am somewhat surprised that they don't allow you to cover others in your family for cost though (i.e. pass their reduced group costs through to you).
 
Last edited:
GTaudiophile said:
I know this sounds quite liberal of me but...

1) Like NYC, every menu item should have the calorie count listed next to it.
2) I would seriously like to explore the idea of a fast-food fat tax on everything from potato chips to french fries to Coca-Cola, etc. Every cent earned goes to some massive healthcare fund. I mean, can we really have a healthcare debate without looking at one of the biggest root causes of disease in this country?
Click to expand...

You can get fat eating to much of about anything.
 
Hacp said:
Only the truly rich can buy a car every few years. Everyone else who isn't a high roller can only afford a car every 10-15 years.
Click to expand...

eh?

(Hint for RyanPaulShaffer: Anecdotal evidence to follow)
My wife and I are able to afford a car every five years even though we are 4 years out of college, have a mortgage payment and student loans. Bought the first one while we were still in college and will be getting a new one this summer. Granted it won't be a BMW or a Jag but you can still get a pretty nice car for around $18,000 and the first one 5 years ago was an 05 civic with 12,000 miles on it
And with her being a teacher and me a lowly Junior Network Admin its not like we are rolling in cash - but maybe your definition of truly rich is different than mine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top