If your point is based on empirical data, why is it entirely absent of any empirical data?
You have some low-rent, reductionist argument about Grenada and Ethiopia and arbitrary lines being drawn. But in your rush to get to the sanctimony, you skipped the part where you actually understand the premise before commenting on it.
I originally wrote in this thread because I thought it was irresponsible to suggest that loan repayment made it impossible to have a decent standard of living, or raise kids, or buy a house.
The 'average household' statistic was used as evidence to illustrate that a large number of people live financially viable lives on that income.
Please read the previous two lines several times before your next comment.
'decent standard of living, raise kids, or buy a house' <-- What that requires is ENTIRELY subjective. You selected a statistic and used that to declare vets could do that. What I'm saying is, your statistic is not relevant. I'm not even saying I disagree with your conclusion (that vets can have a decent standard of living).
The average household income in the US is an arbitrary line you've decided to use for an amount of money that makes a decent standard of living possible. What is considered a decent standard of living varies dramatically from country to country as well as location to location within the US.
Singapore has a median household income that is 1/2 of the US. Are you suggesting that they don't have enough to raise a family and have a place to live?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
Even in the US - we see dramatic differences from state to state. The median income in Mississippi is *literally one half* of what it is in New Hampshire (
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/statemedfaminc.html).
It varies even more wildly within a given state (6x!). Compare:
Kenilworth, IL - median income 228k.
Decatur, IL - median income 37k.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Kenilworth-Illinois.html
http://www.city-data.com/city/Decatur-Illinois.html
Median income statistics vary way too much to use them without additional information. Your own criteria, (decent standard of living, or raise kids, or buy a house) is entirely subjective. You could have just as easily used the poverty line as determined by the US Government as the line in the sand (
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09computations.shtml). More than that amount, and the US government thinks you have a decent standard of living. Or, you could have taken the median income in some other country and said, 'Hey - they have a decent life earning X, you only need X'.
Beyond that, vets who are facing student loans/income concerns are a very specific subset of the population. Right or wrong, currently, there are things that hold true for this subset that make the median household income even less of a worthy statistic (and that's saying a lot, after all of the above).
There is a strong correlation between a given students level of academic success and the academic success of their parents. Vets are very successful academically (top 4% of the US population).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/apr/26/university-school-grades-child-background
As whole, their parents have significantly more academic success than the general population. And again, without trying to debate whether this is good or bad, right or wrong, education is VERY strongly tied to income.
The more educated your parents are (again, as a whole) the more income they have.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/edandearnings.htm
Even standardized testing is strongly correlated with your parents income.
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/sat.shtml#income
Bottom line on this is two fold....
First, the majority of vets are raised in houses with above median household incomes (and that largely influences how you define a 'decent standard of living').
Second, all vets, have shown a commitment/ability far beyond that of the average American (the majority of Americans do not complete an undergraduate degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States). Certainly, it is comparable to doctors and lawyers. I have friends who are both, and none of them feel like they have too much money. They would say they have a decent standard of living. Compared to *that* definition of decent, a vets salary is not going to provide it.
http://blog.mdmep.com/2010/01/04/the-problem-with-veterinary-salaries/
So yes, vets either can or cannot have a decent standard of living, depending on what your definition of 'decent' is. But the median household income in the US really doesn't have more merit than any other number.