>Housing is considered unaffordable if a person spends more than 30% of their income on housing costs—sometimes called being in housing stress.
How does this compare to the overall population? This feels like one of those rules of thumb from a bygone era where housing was cheap and affordable, but today is no longer valid. It's obvious that the authors of the article is trying to push the narrative that teachers are underpaid, but using this contrived way of arguing (ie. housing is "unaffordable" for them according to this arbitrary cut-off, therefore they're underpaid) rather than straightforward metrics (eg. "they make x% below people with the same education levels") makes me think they're trying to mislead.
How does this compare to the overall population? This feels like one of those rules of thumb from a bygone era where housing was cheap and affordable, but today is no longer valid. It's obvious that the authors of the article is trying to push the narrative that teachers are underpaid, but using this contrived way of arguing (ie. housing is "unaffordable" for them according to this arbitrary cut-off, therefore they're underpaid) rather than straightforward metrics (eg. "they make x% below people with the same education levels") makes me think they're trying to mislead.