I know it's quite attractive to compare one-dimensional statistics internationally, and I won't say it has no uses. But it can also be misleading and we have to be careful about understanding the appropriate context.
For example, there is no word on comparing household income on a purchasing power parity basis. You'd want to reflect prices, which may be higher/lower.
There is no word on the fact household sizes in the region in and around Scandinavia are typically very low, quite a bit lower than the US. (fewer dependents, lower required income for the same standard of living).
There is no word on average vs median statistics, the former favouring less equal countries like the US in the statistics, but the latter painting a more accurate picture of the typical household.
There is no word on expense requirements. Yes, direct social transfers (e.g. rental assistance) would be part of the disposable income statistics. But indirect subsidies (e.g. social housing rents, substantially below market rate, or universal healthcare insurance premiums far below market rates, or universal tertiary education costs far below market rates) are not part of these statistics.
For example, the fact university is free in Denmark, is absolutely not part of the household income. The fact public healthcare is free in Denmark, is not part of household income statistics. Yet the quality of both is very good.
There is also no word on the differential interest rates. For example, Denmark currently has negative mortgage rates. Obviously that increases household debt. But any additional household mortgage debt for example is actually creating a net income for these very same households. You can debate whether these interest rates signal economic issues, that's a fair discussion, but the point still stands that 'not all household debt is equal'. You cannot say 'high debt is worse', when many EU countries have interest rates from -0.5% to - 1.5% and the US has interest rates of 2 - 3%, and compare them.
Same with net worth, it all ties in to every other aspect of the welfare state. In the US you have a minimal welfare state and thus must accumulate net worth for retirement, kids' education, medical copayments etc etc. In many North/west EU countries education, healthcare, housing is all free or strongly subsidised and publicly funded, requiring much lower accumulations of private net worth to attain the same quality of life.
In short, the data you cite is not incorrect, but your conclusions are shortsighted and need far more interpretation and context to approximate the truth of the matter.
For example, there is no word on comparing household income on a purchasing power parity basis. You'd want to reflect prices, which may be higher/lower.
There is no word on the fact household sizes in the region in and around Scandinavia are typically very low, quite a bit lower than the US. (fewer dependents, lower required income for the same standard of living).
There is no word on average vs median statistics, the former favouring less equal countries like the US in the statistics, but the latter painting a more accurate picture of the typical household.
There is no word on expense requirements. Yes, direct social transfers (e.g. rental assistance) would be part of the disposable income statistics. But indirect subsidies (e.g. social housing rents, substantially below market rate, or universal healthcare insurance premiums far below market rates, or universal tertiary education costs far below market rates) are not part of these statistics.
For example, the fact university is free in Denmark, is absolutely not part of the household income. The fact public healthcare is free in Denmark, is not part of household income statistics. Yet the quality of both is very good.
There is also no word on the differential interest rates. For example, Denmark currently has negative mortgage rates. Obviously that increases household debt. But any additional household mortgage debt for example is actually creating a net income for these very same households. You can debate whether these interest rates signal economic issues, that's a fair discussion, but the point still stands that 'not all household debt is equal'. You cannot say 'high debt is worse', when many EU countries have interest rates from -0.5% to - 1.5% and the US has interest rates of 2 - 3%, and compare them.
Same with net worth, it all ties in to every other aspect of the welfare state. In the US you have a minimal welfare state and thus must accumulate net worth for retirement, kids' education, medical copayments etc etc. In many North/west EU countries education, healthcare, housing is all free or strongly subsidised and publicly funded, requiring much lower accumulations of private net worth to attain the same quality of life.
In short, the data you cite is not incorrect, but your conclusions are shortsighted and need far more interpretation and context to approximate the truth of the matter.