That was a suspiciously high number to me, 130k a year is comfortable for 4 people. The reasoning is flawed. First, I don't know anyone who spends 5% of their household budget on food, even people who cook at home every meal. But more importantly, the rough measure distorts the picture the less someone spends on food.
Think about it, if food, the only actual thing you need to stay alive, is only 5% of your income, what the fuck are you spending 95% of it on? Clothes? Seems to me, a significant chunk of it would have to be discretionary spending. If food is 100% of your income, you don't say that the poverty line is 1x your food budget, you say "I'm homeless." Similarly, if food is 0.1% of your income, you don't say you need 100x your food budget just to make ends meet, you say "I'm sp fucking rich that what I need to stay alive is so post scarcity I can spend a negligible amount of my income getting nutrition and sustenance". The measure itself skews badly and tells you nothing *unless you keep the measure the same, regardless of changes in trends.* And then, it only tells you something about relative changes. It doesnt actually tell you how someone is doing, no matter how you calculate it.
