[JohnnyBrevo]

On “average” wages: The chart uses a typical/median (net) hourly wage, not the mean. Means are pulled up by high earners, and many HN readers sit above the median. so your personal “hours to basics” will look lower than the chart. Using the mean would systematically understate hours for the typical worker, especially in unequal countries. Also note: the index assumes a single renter; couples/roommates or employer subsidies will reduce hours per person.

[rnd33]

The wage structure is very flat in my country, the average wage is only around 15% higher than the median. The median wage is very livable on. For essential or basic needs I would estimate you would only need ~70% of the median wage.

I appreciate that I could be biased, and my guesses could be off, but we're talking about almost a factor two here. If the numbers would be correct the average person does not even have enough money for the minimum essentials every month, which is extremely far from what I see and hear.

[mickeymounds]

You’re right to sanity-check. Our number is hours of pay needed for a single renter on a new lease, not hours actually worked.

Using your own anchors: if essentials ≈ 70% of median net pay and an effective month is ~140 paid hours (vacation/holidays), then hours = 0.7 × 140 ≈ 98h — nowhere near 200h.

So why would our Nordic rows show >200h? Likely method artifacts:

Rent input: we used current market 1-BR rents (upper bound). Many people have in-place/regulated rents, own, or share, which slashes hours per person.

Hour divisor: some wage series forced monthly ÷ 160–168h instead of ~140 effective hours → inflates the ratio ~10–20%.

Geography mix: capital-city prices vs national wages can overstate costs.