I think it's more just an example of the flawed methodology. Like, it assumes a 4-person household, right? Two adults, two kids. If the kids need full-time childcare, it's because the parents must both be working full-time, right? Otherwise presumably one or the other of them could take care of the children at least some of the time. But where can you pay two adults for full-time work and only hit $31,200? Is there anywhere that actually pays a $7.50 minimum wage? Even in states where that's technically the minimum by law, you can't hire somebody for that. I live in one such state. KFC advertises $17 an hour on the sign outside.
And the kids must be young enough that they're not in school, if the childcare figures are to be plausible. $32,773 for two kids? I'm not remotely in a low cost of living area, but you're not paying that kind of rate even for twin newborns. It's less than half that for after school care.
The problem is that it's taking average figures as though people who are financially struggling are paying average costs for things. That's never been the case. People who don't have money have always had to be careful about how they spend it.
It's a decent point that "3x food costs" is likely too low a benchmark. But it doesn't come close to justifying 16x.
And the kids must be young enough that they're not in school, if the childcare figures are to be plausible. $32,773 for two kids? I'm not remotely in a low cost of living area, but you're not paying that kind of rate even for twin newborns. It's less than half that for after school care.
The problem is that it's taking average figures as though people who are financially struggling are paying average costs for things. That's never been the case. People who don't have money have always had to be careful about how they spend it.
It's a decent point that "3x food costs" is likely too low a benchmark. But it doesn't come close to justifying 16x.