How The Average U.S. Consumer Spends Their Paycheck - Infographic

With healthcare at only 5.7%, only a 0.3% points higher than Entertainment, I simple don't see where the healthcare crisis is.

You're right. You don't. Maybe I can help. Consider the growing number of Americans who are unable to afford any kind of health insurance or health care whatsoever. Guess how much they pay for healthcare. ZERO. Because that is what they can afford. There is a good side to this. As soon as these people die becasue they can't afford health care, the percentage of people who can goes up. Just think. If we can get, say 18-20 million Americans to just die, then the ones that are left can have better lives. (satire)

If we can get, say 18-20 million Americans to just die, then the ones that are left can have better lives.

Calm down we are working on it, haven't you heard of single payer or government option? The President has already promised us rationing...err...reform it's just a matter of time.

smurph222, you obviously have a difficult time reading. I clearly don't believe the DOL data and stated such.

I can't speak for you, but I spend approx $9,198 per year for health care for 3 people. That's $3,066/person, 3x what the DOL is showing.

As for the 18-20million, I thought the number was closer to 50million.

Or and here is a thought. Since there are approx 300million people in the US and only 50m uninsured. 16.7% of the population is about to drive 13.9% of the US economy.

As you already state the $50,233 is a median number. The $62,556 from the same Census Bureau is the mean income.

Comparing mean expenditures to median income is pointless, apples to oranges and tells us nothing. A median is not a 'factual' average, the word average is commonly known to refer to a mean. Making your comparison is just pure spin.

Actually, Kyle, using median income is a better indicator. Half the people earn more and half less. By using "mean" people with huge incomes skew the average. These people spend more for entertainment than many people earn.

Actually, Kyle, using median income is a better indicator. Half the people earn more and half less.

Exactly, and if we are presented with a family who earns 13k over the median then we are dealing with more than half of American families (a majority) who earn less than the represented family.

Better indicator for what? They are different, have different purposes and uses.

To know what most American's spend I would prefer a median indicator but that isn't what was given. However to just plug in median income and compare it to a mean analysis is bogus. Median expenditures are different just like median income is different.

That the article used the word average doesn't make it factually incorrect which Brian also suggested because what they used a mean is in fact an average.

To dispute the article it should be said, the article uses a mean instead of a median and I feel a median measure would more accurately reflect the American population than a mean. But instead we got more spin of a different variety. There are all sorts of things wrong with that graph, but that's always what you get when trying to reduce complex ideas into a simple graphic.

As you already state the $50,233 is a median number. The $62,556 from the same Census Bureau is the mean income.

Comparing mean expenditures to median income is pointless, apples to oranges and tells us nothing. A median is not a 'factual' average, the word average is commonly known to refer to a mean. Making your comparison is just pure spin.

The median is much more representative of the typical US family. Because it's closer to where everyone is concentrated.

No one uses average income for anything involving economic analysis. And there's a reason for that.

You base your home purchase on median income. You go 3X what the median income of Americans is and that's what the median home price should be.

Comparing "Mean" expenditures to a "typical" American Families Expenditures is pointless. This chart includes the ultra rich and wealth concentration at the top. Which operates in different rules than the rest of us. They spend less % on fuel, utilities, health insurance. At lower incomes, things like a car, insurance, gas make up a larger piece of the pie.

Therefor, most of that chart is misleading. Because the "average" American looking at it is unlikely to relate if they break down their actual budget.

That the article used the word average doesn't make it factually incorrect which Brian also suggested because what they used a mean is in fact an average.

Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233 [US Census Bureau]

Your chart shows an above-average family. You have to consider the relative percentage of families earning a combined $63,091 per year and realize that a large majority of American families earn much less than that.

If we use the same expenditure chart and subtract those expenses from the factual avarage family income, then that family is left with $595 dollars at the end of the year.

I find nothing wrong with that statement. Yes, you can argue that it is not "statistically valid" to take the median income and subtract the mean purchases. But that's not the point Brian was making.

I believe he is saying the "typical" or even "real-average" American family cannot relate to such expenses as these purchases don't reflect their budgets. It's highly likely they spend more on utilities, fuel, car expenses, insurance, etc than shown on that graph.

Saying the "average" income is 63k is beyond misleading. Is it the statistical average? Yes. But it just shows that the wealth is supremely concentrated at the top in this country.

It also includes the ultra-poor and people without any sort of house or transportation or healthcare. It kinda, y'know, averages out.

It doesn't average out though. If it did, the average would equal the median.

The disparity exists because the wealth is very concentrated at the top in this country. Otherwise the average would be 13k greater than the median.

It's just misleading in the sense that if you say "average american family" in the sense of describing the average US family. Statistically I'm sure it's true, it's just not applicable to a bunch of Americans.

Honestly, the differences between the median family making $53 and the mean family making $63 is, what, like $8k after taxes? A tidy sum, to be sure, but not wildly different in terms of percentages.

Well, since median is around 50 (not 53) after taxes the difference is around 10k dollars a year.

As far as percentages go, they may not be far off, but then again, 10k could be a vast difference in some choices. Owning or renting, used car or new, eat in or eat out.

Though the use of the term average is certainly statistically valid. Americans who view themselves as an average american probably don't match up very well. I wonder what the bell distribution would look like and how many deviations they find themselves away, also what % of Americans are 1 deviation away from the standard.

Looking at the sponser for that site, the other graphics they employ I seriously doubt the mean was used for some political reason I have a feeling they used the mean simply because they wanted to use the word 'average' in the graphic.

I'm surprised there was no category for debt as their product is selling debt consolidation loans but perhaps the labor department didn't report on that.

I'm as big a fan as anybody for pretty pictures but some concepts are just too complex to break down that way. Even if it used median, even if it reported tax burdens, and everything else it still would not be a proper way to study any of the political issues being referred to in the thread. It's best use is to make us think more about expenditures not to try and draw up policy.