[pedanticfreak]

Something is wrong about the author's numbers here.

The Consumer Expenditure Survey the author cites says the 25-34 year old that spends 37.1% of their salary on housing is only making $58,946 per year, NOT $100,000 per year.

Whether intentional or not, the survey is being misrepresented to the benefit of the author's argument.

[doyoulikeworms]

Good catch. There are a few other bits that bothered me as well.

The employer's contribution to retirement is counted as a gain in Australia, but the employer's matching Social Security contribution in the US is ignored.

It also assumes that a car is absolutely necessary in the US. I live in the Bay Area, and I haven't driven my car in any material sense in 4 months (by choice).

Regardless, it's pretty obvious that one can earn six figures in the US, but choose to live within the means of a bartender in an Australian tourist trap. Which provides more disposable income?

[pedanticfreak]

There are other troubling inconsistencies as well. But I decided to stop there. I only want the author to go back and fix his numbers, I don't want to write the article for him.

Without a doubt, this whole thing is a poor abuse of statistics. It doesn't take a genius to figure out you can make $100,000 and keep a lot in the bank by living like someone who makes $30,000. Which, by the way, there are quite a few of those people in the United States.