That doesn't matter a slightest if people can't afford housing. Income is indeed disposed, without much to show off.
Disposable income means income after taxes. It does not include any expenses, housing, health care, or otherwise.
from the OECD website:
> Income includes wages and salaries, mixed income (income from self-employment and unincorporated enterprises), income from pensions and other social benefits, and income from financial investments. It is less taxes on income, wealth, social security contributions paid by employees, the self-employed and the unemployed, interest on financial liabilities, and the change in net equity of households in pension funds.
A bit of a clearer explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...
The reason why the US has such high disposable income is because Americans have to pay for so much more out of pocket than other OECD countries do. Once you factor in health care, education and other social services that are cheap or free elsewhere, Americans are generally worse off than many OECD countries.
The Oxford dictionary states "income remaining after deduction of taxes and other mandatory charges, available to be spent or saved as one wishes."
Mandatory charges, to most people outside of this HN thread, are their bills and other common expenses. Mortgages, utilities, school and incomes taxes, etc are considered mandatory charges.
I'm not saying this to argue with you. Ya'll are welcome to interpret it how you like. But if you don't consider this perspective, you are going to misunderstand what other people intend to express when they use the term disposable income.
> It may include near-cash government transfers like food stamps, and it may be adjusted to include social transfers in-kind, such as the value of publicly provided health care and education.
Additionally from the OECD website:
> Household adjusted disposable income additionally reallocates "income" from government and Non-Profit Institutions Serving Households (NPISHs) to households to reflect social transfers in kind. These transfers reflect expenditures made by government or NPISHs on individual goods and services, such as health and education, on behalf of an individual household.
So you have at least one other person who uses the word like that.
I suppose you can live on the street, or move in with relatives.
On that note, you can also choose not to pay your taxes, but you'll also have to deal with those consequences.
not based on the data
change in median housing prices as per Zillow, since 2017
Minneapolis: +50% https://www.zillow.com/home-values/5983/minneapolis-mn/
Omaha: +80% https://www.zillow.com/home-values/40152/omaha-ne/
St Louis: +62% https://www.zillow.com/home-values/6891/saint-louis-mo/
KC: +94% https://www.zillow.com/home-values/18795/kansas-city-mo/
OKC: +68% https://www.zillow.com/home-values/33225/oklahoma-city-ok/
Des Moines: +68% https://www.zillow.com/home-values/17759/des-moines-ia/
Milwaukee: +119% https://www.zillow.com/home-values/5976/milwaukee-wi/
Indianapolis: +103% https://www.zillow.com/home-values/32149/indianapolis-in/
Little Rock: +38% https://www.zillow.com/home-values/52998/little-rock-ar/
etc.
The housing market in Madison, Wisconsin is crazy. I sold my house 8 years ago, and now its estimated value is 70% higher than my selling price. I know a lot of people in the area who are despondent about the prices.
almost any major city these days housing is much more expensive than it used to be relative to income
Edit: That can never change either, in aggregate, so it’s literally futile to complain about it in general terms.
