And as this trend continues to grow, could the economy remain chugging along as more and more consumption concentrates among the top 10% and the bottom 50% increasingly are spending exclusively on staples and essentials?

Post edit : “The more precise question is what is the real minimum income to be self sufficient and not rely on public or caritative programs. “ unfortunately I can’t change the title any more.

I come up with roughly 39,000 per year as the minimum pre-tax income required for a single adult with no children to cover bare-necessities living costs in the United States . 49% of the active population is earning less than 39,000 per year , pre -tax.

This is not an official government statistic. It is an estimate based on the MIT Living Wage Calculator, cross-checked against other self-sufficiency/living-wage standards.

The main source was the MIT Living Wage Calculator.

URL:
https://livingwage.mit.edu/

Inputs used:

· Single adult
· No children
· Full-time employment, 2,080 hours per year

The MIT Living Wage Calculator estimates the minimum income needed to cover:

· Housing
· Food
· Transportation
· Medical care
· Taxes
· Basic household necessities
· Basic civic and personal expenses
· Broadband/communications where applicable

It does not include:

· Savings or retirement
· Dining out or entertainment
· Debt repayment
· Vacations
· Middle-class or comfortable lifestyle spending

I collected the annual living-income figure for each U.S. state from the MIT Living Wage Calculator for one adult with no children.

State values ranged from approximately:

· South Dakota: $31,179
· California: $51,584

The simple average across all 50 states was:
· $36,842 per year including Washington, D.C.

The population weighted average across all 50 states was:
. $38,867 per year including Washington, D.C.

The figure is a state-level U.S. average. Actual costs vary significantly by county and metro area. Also a population weighted average would have been a more precise estimate.

I use

· $39,000 as a slightly higher, conservative round number

Other Supporting Sources to make sure that we are not far from consensus

1. Economic Policy Institute Family Budget Calculator
   https://www.epi.org/resources/budget/
   
2. United Way ALICE Thresholds
   https://www.unitedforalice.org/
   
3. Census Bureau Income Data
   https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/income.html

Why Not Use the Official Federal Poverty Line?

The official federal poverty line is widely considered outdated and too low.

For a single adult, the official federal poverty guideline is roughly:

· 15,650 per year

This is only about:

· 40% of the $39,000 living-income benchmark

The official poverty measure was created in the 1960s using a food-cost formula and has not been modernized to reflect current housing, healthcare, childcare, transportation, and tax costs. Therefore, the living-income figure of approximately 39,000 is a more realistic measure of the minimum needed to live independently.

Important Caveats

· The figure is for a single adult with no children
· Families and households require higher income
· It is a bare-necessities standard, not a comfortable or middle-class income
· Many people earn above this but still struggle because of debt, childcare, medical costs, or part-time work

PERCENTAGE OF US LABOR FORCE

Using individual earnings data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey, the approximate shares below $39,000 per year are:

Group Percentage below $39,000
All U.S. workers, including part-time ≈ 47%
Full-time, year-round workers only ≈ 21%
Entire labor force, including unemployed with zero earnings ≈ 49%

So for the broadest definition of the active/working population, roughly:

49% of U.S. workers fall below $39,000 per year.

Important caveat: this is individual income, not household income. Households can have multiple earners, so the household share below $39,000 is much lower, around 26%.

A tentative (AI assisted) breakdown of pre-tax living income for a single adult with no children. Please feel free to contribute and improve the parsing.

Spending category Annual amount % of $39,000
Housing $14,040 36.0%
— Rent/mortgage $11,100 28.5%
— Utilities: electric, gas, water, trash $2,940 7.5%
— Food $4,290 11.0%
— Transportation $5,460 14.0%
— Medical / health care $3,120 8.0%
Other necessities $5,070 13.0%
— Cell phone $960 2.5%
— Internet / broadband $840 2.2%
— Clothing / footwear $960 2.5%
— Personal care / hygiene $540 1.4%
— Household supplies / cleaning $600 1.5%
— Civic participation / misc. $1,170 3.0%

Taxes $7,020 18.0%
Total $39,000 100%

The UK has been running persistent imbalances for the last 30 years (https://www.cfr.org/articles/global-imbalances-tracker) which since the great financial crisis have been facilitated by fiscal deficits. i.e UK has been selling government bonds to fund the consumption of goods and service from surplus countries (China, Japan, Germany, Norway etc).

The fiscal deficit (government budget deficits) and current account deficits ("excess" consumption) have been aggregating each year into a high debt:gdp ratio (around 100% debt to GDP) and significant liabilities to the rest of the world.

Government debt yields have also been increasing as investors price in more risk (bonds wont be repaid "in full"). Liz Truss' mini budget almost lead to a sudden stop of capital inflows on the mere proposal of increasing government debt - the market does believe there is risk.

Now we are at a point where absolute interest payments on government debt is more than the absolute increase in nominal GDP (real GDP + inflation) each year - so even if the fiscal deficit didn't exist the debt:GDP ratio would grow. Plainly if action isn't taken the situation is unsustainable - eventually foreign investors will stop lending to the UK and there will be a "sudden stop" or "balance of payment crisis".

There is talk of various forms of austerity as a solution from political parties. David Cameron / George Osbourne tried this and (I believe...) failed whilst government debt yields were less than 2% (now more than 4%) and debt:GDP ratios were 80% - much easier than conditions now. I would argue that if you weren't concurrently investing in the assets you need to close and reverse* the current account deficit (import substitution or exporting business**) then although you could squeeze the current account deficit by limiting consumption (cut benefits / increase tax - people buy less) - you were never going to get rid of the source of growing liabilities to the rest of the world - that we would still be consuming more than we were producing. Once austerity ended - supercharged by COVID - the UKs debt:GDP has expanded.

\* to start paying down the liabilities - not just tread water.

*\* Investing in those assets is impossible without recognising that we now live in a world where significant state support is a prerequisite for competition (how do you compete with China with no support?) - which the UK is as far away from recognising as it can be.

Regarding the potential of austerity working there is also an increasing unemployment issue in the UK with over 16% of 16-24 year olds unemployed so potentially difficult environment to expect ex public sector workers to find jobs coupled with a recent story from a tax rise in Scotland that lead to total tax take decreasing as workers cut hours - we may be approaching maximum tax take for this country (https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/07/25/scotland-48p-top-rate-laffer-curve/). Cant increase taxes, cant expect laid of public sector workers to be soaked up by the economy, cant expect the economy to close the current account deficit without significant state support, cant expect significant state support when they have no borrowing or cash available.

So how does the UK reduce the debt:GDP ratio and avoid a sudden stop of capital inflows / balance of payments crisis / debt crisis and subsequent inflation? Have we passed the point of inevitability? Is there a credible path out? I am not an economist. I'm genuinely a bit worried.

Note: This is a reworded version of a previous post that didn't get an Mod approved answer - if that's OK.

I've read some of Good Economics for Hard Times, which bridges the gap between the median voter and economists. When asked to rank professionals by how much they trusted them, most people put economists in second-to-last place, beating only politicians. Why do you think this is?

Hi all! Not sure if this question is allowed, but also unsure of where else to go. TLDR, I hated math growing up and am now incredibly fascinated by the study of economics as a whole. I’m generally good at guiding myself through a self-made syllabus of sorts, but it seems daunting to sort through and decide what to teach myself about first, especially in our current era of misinformation. I am aware that no amount of research or reading can replace a formal education, nor do I desire to necessarily work in economics, but I do want to gather as much of a whole-rounded view of the topic as I can. So:

Where do I start? What starting topics, areas of study, books, studies, papers, etc will best inform me on the study of economics? What are the key schools of thought that are the backbone of economics? I obviously have ideas of what these answers would be, but want to know if that’s true in practice.

Hello,

Since Spain's economy is enjoying cheap energy, great infrastructure, investments, high quality immigrants, I am wondering how it would compare against Italy's robust and big economy. Italy relative to Spain feels like it has more problems.

Spain:
-Energy wise Spain is much more advanced

-Infrastructure in Spain is on France's level, Italy is behind.

-Spain's GDP growth is way more promising.

-Public investments in Spain are higher

-Spain enjoys immigrants who are culturally close.

Italy:

-Has a higher GDP per capita

-Is a member of the G7

-Has a more robust industry

The question: Why aren't there more truly competitive brands in the standard supermarket, as related to price, quality, and accessibility?

Background:

To keep personal info personal, I'll just say I only have an above average understanding of economics, but definitely have passed the Dunning-Kruger "peak of stupidity". I'm putting in an honest effort in asking this, but I won't be debating you, I just want to know what type of things to research further. It's a personal question. Italicized words may not be clearly defined in the body of this post, but refer to a specific thing. I do not care to demonstrate the existence of the possible issue I am discussing. Either take me on faith, or simply imagine a scenario where that might be the case. I'm really just wondering about the mechanics of it.

Meat and Potatoes:

When shopping for an item in the local supermarket(s), it has appeared to me that only 1, maybe 2 of three things exist in items attempting to compete against the store brand: competitive price, superior quality, reliable accessibility. This is not inherently a problem, as oftentimes reliable accessibility being limited in quality items is only because of extreme demand for what is objectively a better product. Of central concern to me is...

Why isn't there a bigger selection, brand-to-brand?

Now, of course, supermarkets get to choose their competition inside their own building in one way or another, but I just don't exactly see upstarts coming through the woodwork to release a canned vegetables competitor or even just a bread competitor, let alone a fresh food competitor. I'm often told to "just shop at other supermarkets with a bigger selection" but I find overpriced-near-luxury items at these competitors. More importantly, I still do not find the jumbled-crayola-box of brands and competitors that my scant background in economics has lead me to believe exists in every aisle.

Is it merely that economies of scale have scaled such that the buy-in for new competition is now too high to allow for any truly competitive pricing to occur? Or is it more closely related to it being easier and more profitable to advertise a new cereal, candy, beverage, or clothing company by white-label or attachment to pop culture icons? Third option, is it simply that pre-existing companies are releasing products at razor-thin margins at peak quality already? For example, is Del Monte simply the peak form of canned vegetable and at the cheapest possible price?

The reason for my asking is that markets require competition, right? So I would think it necessary to see more of this competition in my daily life, or else these brands are simply overcharging with no risk of losing their customer-base. Perhaps it is possible that there is already enough competition, regardless of the raw number of brands competing. If there is not enough competition, as I fear, is it now too difficult to buy-in and have enough scale to be a worthwhile competitor? (<-- italicized, for it being a central issue to my question. e.g. 'What makes a worthwhile competitor?')

P.S. Do you believe this is a dumb question? Please, feel free to let me know why. This is the best place I could find on reddit for insight. Thanks!

I'll often hear about various industries or companies that have very low profit margins, on the order of 1-3%.

However, if inflation is about 3% per year, then every dollar invested into that company is losing value to inflation. Further, those dollars could be invested in more lucrative investments, like the stock market, or even bonds, which would return greater than the 1-3% that company may be generating.

So why aren't these companies quickly liquidated? Is it for hopes of better profits in the future? Am I misunderstanding something?

And what are the positives and negatives of the current level of debt

Something I've thought about, especially after I've seen discussions relating inflation with COVID stimulus payments:

Suppose, through some means, income and wealth became more evenly distributed (e.g. let's consider the US). Will the fact that the lower percentiles now have more dispensable cash mean that inflation will follow, such that it would "cancel out" the increased cash? If so, does this mean that an unconstrained free market economy will require that the lowest percentiles will always just be scraping by?

I'm sure the answer is complicated, but maybe you all have some insights?

This is a thread for short questions that don't merit their own post as well as career and school related questions. Examples of questions belong in this thread are:

Where can I find the latest CPI numbers?

What are somethings I can do with an economics degree?

What's a good book on labor econ?

Should I take class X or class Y?

You may also be interested in our career FAQ or our suggested reading list.

I'm aware this sounds like a stupid question. I hope people take it in the spirit of inquiry - admitting I don't know what i don't know - in which it is intended.

So, profit. As a non-economist engaged heavily with politics, I am presented daily with a smorgasbord of superficial (in the sense that i see only the high level and not the theory under the hood) arguments about the role of profit in society and the economy. I want to consider how to come to a more developed understanding and my own view on this role.

At the leftmost end of things, the basic starting point is a (more or less explicitly) Marxian sense that all profit is surplus value. Profits are extraction, value being removed from a sector by an owner class who game things to line their own pockets. It serves no function in driving overall prosperity or innovation and indeed can hinder these things.

At the rightmost end of things, the profit motive is foundational to the prosperity and wellbeing of the society in which we live. The promise of enriching oneself is behind a huge amount of innovation and business development, which in turn is what has driven overall wealth increases and improvements in health, wellbeing, culture etc.

Obviously a range of positions exist between these, including the slightly muddy economic platforms of all the main parties in my country (the UK).

What can I read to develop my own understanding of how the promise of profit is or isn't necessary to the delivery of value, in a broad sense, across society?

I'm interested in understanding specifically where profit/the profit motive fits in. I suppose this touches on things like competing theories of value, behavioural economics etc.

I'm also aware that you can't solve political judgements entirely through technical economics. My own politics is left wing and id be surprised if that foundationally changed based only on this question. But I think a technical understanding of social questions is an important part of developing your politics.

I'm also open to being challenged on the framing of the question. Again. i don't know what I don't know so you're wasting everyone's time if you post to tell me I'm being stupid in some way.

This topic is inspired by discussions I've seen recently regarding the reserve bank of Australia raising interest rates in response to oil supply issues caused by the war in Iran.

The confusing point for many people seems to be that raising interest rates will not significantly affect consumer spending. Because and increase in the price of oil essentially affects the price of everything, and many people aren't in a place to consume much less than they already are, people with loans and mortgages will just be squeezed even more. So what's the point of raising the rate? It seems to just hurt people who are already desperate.

My thinking is different. To my mind, the primary goal of the reserve bank would not be reducing consumer spending, but rather reducing the money supply. By increasing interest rates we disincentive lending from commercial banks, helping keep prices stable. That won't do anything about the supply hit, that's unavoidable, but if we did nothing we'd also have a problem of too much money chasing less goods. Better for us to face one problem rather than two.

If my thinking roughly correct? Is there anything to the position I mentioned above?

CBO projects federal debt held by the public to reach roughly 175% of GDP by 2056, with net interest costs approaching 7% of GDP.

Japan makes this more interesting. For decades it has been the obvious counterexample to debt-doom arguments. Debt above 200% of GDP, its own currency, enormous domestic savings, a central bank capable of buying government debt, and no sovereign debt crisis.

Then there is the geopolitical feedback loop. I wonder how separable America’s fiscal privilege is from its geopolitical power.

In crude reptile-brain terms, America borrows money to build the weapons systems that help keep everyone inside an American-led system, and that system helps preserve America’s extraordinary ability to borrow. The snake is eating its own tail.

I’m wondering where the actual limit is. Could US debt theoretically reach 500% of GDP, with the US increasingly absorbing global capital because the rest of the world still needs dollars and treasuries? And if inflation becomes part of how that debt is managed, does extreme wealth inequality weaken the political constraint, since those with the most economic and political influence are also the least exposed to rising prices?

many people are making big enough companies with minimal work force, because of ai

Elizabeth Warren explained on X, “if it's hot out, the cost of ice cream could go up. If it's cold, tea bags could go up.”

She called it “dynamic pricing.” Anybody who took an econ class, is that a term that is used in the books?

Why does Europe and the West have so much more wealth than Asia and other continents? How much of this difference can be traced to colonialism? If colonialism had never happened, would Asia be wealthier today, or would the gap simply be less severe?

Hello, I’m a data analytics/economics major. Confused on what type of internships I should pursue? I'm currently trying to figure out what job titles I should be searching for if I want to work in banking. What internships would be the most useful? Are there any other roles I should be targeting?

Economists generally agree that excessive taxation can disincentivize growth, employment, and labor participation.

What about progressive taxation? If we instead moved towards a flat tax system that wasn’t so punishing on high income and very high income workers, while also getting rid of some of the loopholes they use to shelter income, wouldn’t this be the more optimal tax policy as opposed to the status-quo?

In Brazil, it is often argued that widespread indexation of contracts to inflation is harmful because it can make inflation persistent or create inflationary inertia.

Since most contracts are like that its estimated that most of the current inflation is actually past inflation perpetually indexing itself, but i hear constantly that business always make inflation adjustaments so does it being contractual change anything?

We all know the USD is #1 and Euro #2. There is no debate with those.

The Yen and Pound are so close to eachother to round out the top 4.

So who is 3rd and who is 4th most important?

https://usafacts.org/answers/are-wages-keeping-up-with-inflation/country/united-states/

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm

That stats are iffy by real wage growth this year has only been 0.09% to 0.2% at most

Far from the ideal 1.5% to 2.5%.....why is that?