Top
Best
New

Posted by bear_with_me 4 hours ago

MIT Living Wage Calculator(livingwage.mit.edu)
147 points | 203 commentspage 2
bumby 3 hours ago|
Anecdotally, I found some of the costs like food and food to be inflated.

When I looked at the methodology, some is based on consumer surveys so it may be more reflective of over-consumption. In other words, it prices in what people want or what they’re used to, not what they need. The counterpoint is that maybe some wealthy countries should be pricing in a higher quality of life, but the “living wage” then becomes a bit of a misnomer.

jandrewrogers 2 hours ago||
Anecdotally their numbers are significantly higher for my city than what I actually spend in some categories. I am not frugal by any stretch of the imagination, you would have to be pretty careless and/or irresponsible to hit some of those numbers. On the other hand, the living wage is below the actual minimum wage in some cases.

If you look at US BLS and Federal Reserve studies on such things, they make a distinctions between what people actually spend on ordinary expenses and when people can no longer afford those categories of expenses.

An interesting artifact is that incomes across the 15-40th percentile range in the same city don't save much money but still have enough money to pay for all ordinary expenses. That is a wide range of incomes for people nominally spending their entire income on the same things. What actually seems to happen is that average people spend excess income on upgrading their lifestyle until they hit the 40th percentile, at which point the average person starts saving some of their additional excess income.

cwillu 3 hours ago||
Yes, that's what makes it a living wage instead of a poverty wage, let alone a starvation wage.
bumby 3 hours ago||
The larger point I’m making is the “living wage” may be built on an idea that the assumed consumerist norm is ideal.
hackable_sand 1 hour ago||
Like food and shelter?
siavosh 2 hours ago||
If you enter in a US city, another takeaway from the rendered table is that U.S. living standards (measured economically) continued to improve for some time after the 1970s despite weak wage growth largely because *more households relied on two earners instead of one*. While productivity kept rising, the gains were increasingly captured at the top and not shared with the workers. Of course that buffer is now long gone, but wages haven't kept up.
pertique 2 hours ago||
Can anyone speak to the reliability of using metropolitan statistical areas for something like this? Having lived across on both sides of the tracks in a few, grouping them for something like this seems like an interesting choice. One that I probably wouldn't agree with, but I'm out of my depth
cbdevidal 3 hours ago||
The problem with defining “living wage” is you must trust that the person defining it has your best interests in mind, and is calculating it while including _your_ needs.

For example, you don’t want me to be the one to define “living wage.” I’ve been a prepper/bushcrafter for 20 years… the ACTUAL “living wage” is _zero_. There are innumerable resources all around you if you know how to find and use them.

clircle 3 hours ago||
The standard of living that one could afford with a "living wage" looks to be very very low. Like, 0 vacations and no house low, for my metro area.
NewJazz 3 hours ago||
Yes, this is supposed to be the number at which you aren't going to go into (medical, auto) debt, make rent/utilities each month, and not starve. It is by no means intended to represent a life containing any luxuries.
falcojr 1 hour ago||
And for my area it is very high. I live in a cheap midwest town and according to this, the difference between here and San Francisco is only 30k a year.
amelius 3 hours ago||
Basically a "ramen profitable" calculator.
thewillowcat 2 hours ago||
This calculator says that the median household in my county is not making a living wage, which is ridiculous on its face.
0xbadcafebee 3 hours ago||
There is something wrong with the transportation cost. I live in a poor rural county, and it says the 0-child transportation cost is $10k+. People's trucks here don't even cost that much, and they don't drive far. I see it counts as 2 working adults, but it's still grossly inflated.
NewJazz 3 hours ago||
Are you factoring in fuel, repairs, maintenance, registration/taxes, and insurance? As well as depreciation?
bumby 3 hours ago||
I questioned that too, but vehicle costs are based off surveyed data. So if the average 2 adults have a car payment, insurance, fuel, and repair costs, it’s probably reflected in their data. To me, that’s different than saying “a reasonable mode of reliable transportation”
nearbuy 1 hour ago||
I don't think it's appropriate to use the average vehicle costs for the living wage. It overestimates how much people on that wage spend on their vehicles.

For example, the average new-vehicle price in December 2025 was about $50,000. But people earning the living wage mostly aren't buying that kind of car. They could buy a new car for less than half that, or buy a used car. Or they may choose to take public transit.

reactordev 3 hours ago||
Housing data is flawed. Even if you’re single, no kids, you’re limited to what is available and 1 bedrooms in my state can’t be had for less than $1500/mo anywhere in the state. Yet this says housing costs annually would be $12000. How? I think the data this is based off of is super stale.
Aurornis 2 hours ago||
> Yet this says housing costs annually would be $12000. How?

Having roommates is extremely common.

There are also a lot of room-for-rent situations that don’t show up on the websites listing apartments. If you’re tapped into local networks of younger people there’s always someone with a room for rent or a group of friends looking for someone to take over a room in a house they’re renting together. Not helpful for someone in their 50s moving to a new city, but for young people living on a budget this is just how it works and has for a long time.

reactordev 2 hours ago||
Roommate listings are for $1000/mo. I still think it’s grossly under what a typical person would need.
Aurornis 2 hours ago||
Read the second half of my comments: You're not going to find these roommate situations on public websites. The publicly listed ones are intentionally high.
NewJazz 3 hours ago|||
I'm guessing it uses the cost of a studio for a single person.
reactordev 3 hours ago||
Which can’t be had for less than $1500/mo here. Studio/1bed are the same.
Exoristos 3 hours ago|||
I never rented a 1-bedroom apartment until I was married. A studio/efficiency is fine for singles, or even a room.
reactordev 3 hours ago||
Studio/1bed are the same thing here. It’s the same price, same sqft.
trollbridge 3 hours ago||
It's basically out of date, since the housing market has changed so rapidly.
skulk 3 hours ago|
For Phoenix[0] it shows $44 for 1 adult 1 child, but $42 for 2 adults 1 child with 1 adult working. Is this because of a child tax credit or something?

[0]: https://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/38060

ahussain 3 hours ago||
I was wondering this too. I assume it’s because child care costs are lower when one parent isn’t working(?)
lelandbatey 3 hours ago||
No, it's because their model puts dollar values on the labor contributed by non-working adults w/r/t raising children. So in that case, it could be that 1adult1child is slightly higher because of the need to pay for childcare, while the food/insurance/clothing etc of the additional adult in 2adult1child is offset by the fact that the non-working adult will conduct childcare and thus that expense goes away.
matuszeg 2 hours ago|||
But then why is the number higher for 2adult1child (1 working) when compared to 2adult1child(both working). wouldn't child raising costs get added back in once both are working?
Jtsummers 1 hour ago||
> In households with two working adults, all hourly values reflect what one working adult requires to earn to meet their families’ basic needs, assuming the other adult also earns the same.

From the page itself, first paragraph. Double the value under 2 adult (both working) to get the estimated household income.

skulk 3 hours ago|||
right. kind of obvious in hindsight.
More comments...