Loading ...
Pause for a moment for a sponsor!
The Tiki Web Group
Disclaimer: Unless specifically mentioned in the post, we have no clue where this picture came from. Know where it came from? Post the link in the comments, and reap the glory! All comments are the sole possesion of the commenters and do not reflect the opinions or values of MCS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
May 7, 2012 at 12:59 am
400 a week? You could get an upscale apartment for that or rent a house. You know, a not a piece of shit house.
May 7, 2012 at 1:23 am
I think you didn’t look at the image long enough to understand the point.
What the image seems to be trying to convey (albeit in a confusing way) is the perception a kid would have if you offered him a salary of $400 a week, that he’d be imagining he could buy a huge house and have fancy cars, whereas an adult would supposedly think they’d only be able to afford a lowly hovel at the same wage.
Otherwise, it just doesn’t make sense, as the alternative interpretation (which you seem to have chosen) is that “kids” and “adults” get charged different amounts of rent based solely on that distinction.
tl;dr- $400 /wk is not the cost of pictured items, but the perception of what can be purchased by 2 different groups of people on a given wage.
May 7, 2012 at 1:36 am
To a kid living at home who otherwise has no living expenses, $400 a week is a lot of money. When you have to pay rent, utilities, insurance, food, etc. $400 a week is near poverty.