Posted by bear_with_me 6 hours ago
By my estimations, it's not a great calculator. $2.5k/month for all housing costs. I'm not saying it's not possible to find a studio + utilities but that's not a fun place to live. No AC, no insulation, built for a different climate which was 70 years ago, laundromat or (hopefully) coin-op laundry in building, likely near busy roads (101, el camino) or train tracks with no sound insulation, still extremely car dependent (which is included in this calculator - gas/electricity, taxes, and cars in CA are very expensive), etc. Again, doable but competitive market and not a fun one. You'd be guaranteed to NEVER own any property at that income. Until we have some public housing utopia, I'd say ownership should be accounted for in a living wage. Otherwise, you're gonna get evicted when retirement hits.
Its calculation on taxes seems off to me as well. https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-paycheck-calculator#... Says $72308 in San Mateo, CA gives you $55793 - not $59791. You'd have to make close to $80k/yr to get the amount they suggest to live.
This calculator does not include retirement savings, emergency saving, etc. It just assumes you'll comfortably live paycheck to paycheck until you die and never save a dime. In our country, you will not be getting $60k/yr post tax from social security. So, this is a stupid calculator unless you plan to never retire or never experience job loss (max payout is $450/week for unemployment in CA), etc.
It doesn't include those things because those aren't the things that are covered by a "living wage". Living wage sounds like something good, but it's literally just enough to cover what's needed. Can you afford housing, childcare, medical care, transportation for work, etc. It's a low bar, not a good target, for a society to try to hit. It means people at that wage shouldn't be going hungry or without shelter, but they won't necessarily be thriving.
The thing I want to see next would be the sister calculator: what it would take for a business of X size employees, Y revenue, Z other expenses, to increase wages to these standards.
This feels like it would help to close that gap. Give a business owner a concrete path to take. Just saying something is broken isn't going to get it fixed.
Just typing all this I think I have my weekend project lined up.
Thanks MIT!
If you live in a large city, then it works great.
According to Wikipedia[1] median household income in the US and Norway is only about a quarter of your 160 kUSD.
I'm pretty sure that most of the people living near me in Norway are not high earners but I don't see any signs of starvation either.
That highly depends on your definition of "need" and where you live. If you're in a city with ludicrous cost of living, like San Fransisco, then sure. But, that's also why people commute, or just choose to go somewhere cheaper. It's somewhat shocking seeing how much higher the standard of living is, with much less income, outside the big cities.
That feels pretty close to accurate.
How is 1 adult + 3 children at $107.95 and 2 adults + 3 children at $63.97
5 people could require more money than 4. You could say in the 2nd case it's $63.97x2 but that doesn't make any sense either because the table also has 1 adult 0 children $29.31 and 2 adults 0 children at $41.81. Clearly they are not doing 2x to that $41.81 as it would be more than the $29.31 at 2x
Was this AI generated?
And the non-working adult is taking care of children, so reducing childcare expenses.
First row, for https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06075
| 1 adult | 2 adults (1 working) |
| 0 Children | 1 Child | 2 Children | 3 Children | 0 Children |1 Child | 2 Children | 3 Children |
| $29.31 | $61.37 | $83.72 | $107.95 | $41.83 | $50.47 | $54.77 | $63.97 |
1 adult + 0 children = $29.31
2 adults + 0 children = $41.83
1 adult + 3 kids = $107.95
2 adults + 3 kids = $63.97
Also, two adults (assuming married) will pay lower taxes than one adult for the same income. That's another ~30k difference per year in the breakdown table for the 3 children case. If your tax burden is lower, you can afford a lower wage while bringing in the same net.
EDIT: Tax rates in the US are roughly half (except for high income earners, way beyond these living wage estimates would be relating to) when you're married versus single.
https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brac...
Check out the 22% bracket on that page, the range is doubled for married people filing joint versus single. That's a huge savings each year. Tax savings of two married people and any number of kids is a major contributor to why the living wage drops when someone gets married versus is single with the same number of kids.
2. Did you look in the costs breakdown? You'll probs find your answers there.
3. I am guessing having a spare adult to take care of 3 children instead of paying for childcare is probably the difference.
See the first row in this table: https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06075
Compare 2 adults (1 working) 3 kids to 2 adults (both working) 3 kids
First off, you'd expect it to be
1 adult = X
2 adults = X + X(0.?)
Similarly for kids
1 kids = Y
2 kids = Y + Y(0.?)
3 kids = Y + Y(0.?) + Y(0.?)
But instead, under 2 adults 1 working we see
1 adult = $29.31 (from one adult)
2 adults = $41.83 (so X + X * 0.42)
2 adults 1 kid = 50.47
2 adults 2 kids = 54.77 (so + $4.30)
2 adults 3 kids = 63.97 (so + $9.19)
Then you can also compare 1 adult 3 kids with 2 adults both working + 3 kids
1 adult + 3 kids = $107.95
2 adults (both working + 3 kids) = $55.67
1 adult + 3 kids = $107.95
2 adults (both working + 3 kids) = $55.67x2 ($111.34)
Again, these are nonsense numbers.