[nickthemagicman]

I think they're using the median instead of the mean for exactly this reason. It's a more robust measure central tendency.

Looking at those rental prices it looked very accurate to me.

The real problem is why would they compare minimum wage with median rental prices?

Both are distributions.

[danaris]

Because many, many people are paid minimum wage: wages are not the same kind of distribution as prices.

I don't know exact figures, but I'm absolutely certain that if you plotted the distribution of wages, you'd see a hugely disproportionate number at or just above the minimum wage. Y'know, because there's an artificial pressure (the law) preventing anyone from paying less.

Housing prices, meanwhile, are not subject to the same kinds of constraints. They likely follow a much more normal distribution (though not, I suspect, a normal distribution in the statistical sense).

[bombcar]

Everything I'm seeing indicates there's a "hump" starting at minimum wage and increasing to an amount around $20 an hour, where it begins dropping again, but I've only found state-wide graphs such as https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2018/sep/images... (Australian)

I guess a minimum of 15 and a hump at 20 would be "at or just above" but 25% is a decent amount.

[danaris]

Well, and remember that in the US (which is where the article is about), minimum is less than half that.