MIT Living Wage Calculator • Hacker News Board

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#101

Post by Jtsummers » Mon, Feb 09, 2026, 9:11 PM UTC

kccqzy wrote: post #53

prepend wrote: post #10

I don’t think this is very accurate. In my county the “living wage” is $26.50 for a single adult with no children. Many young people I know live on much less than this. This is more like “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.” Which of course, people would like to have but certainly isn’t required to be comfortable. For example, transportation costs are $9000/year and housing is $20000/year. Thes…

Ultimately in all these calculators there has to be a threshold that determines whether something is needed for “living” or not. And that varies highly by the individual. The calculator suggests $5,021 for food, but for me I’d only shop at high-end grocery like Whole Foods and buy organics whenever possible. That’s clearly not enough. On the other hand it suggests $1,792 for internet and mobile which is about double…

> Then it claims medical costs of $2,890. For a fit individual with good employer-provided health insurance, that figure should be almost zero.

No, it won't be almost zero because they're including health insurance premiums in that figure. Few jobs in the US cover 100% of the premiums for their employees.

>> The cost of health care is composed of two subcategories: (1) premiums associated with employer-sponsored health insurance plans and (2) out-of-pocket expenses for medical services, drugs, and medical supplies.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#102

Post by ChadNauseam » Mon, Feb 09, 2026, 9:12 PM UTC

jrajav wrote: post #45

prepend wrote: post #10

I don’t think this is very accurate. In my county the “living wage” is $26.50 for a single adult with no children. Many young people I know live on much less than this. This is more like “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.” Which of course, people would like to have but certainly isn’t required to be comfortable. For example, transportation costs are $9000/year and housing is $20000/year. Thes…

> This is more like “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.” Which of course, people would like to have but certainly isn’t required to be comfortable. This is a debatable goalpost. It seems more reasonable to me to assume that meeting basic shelter needs includes having a private room to oneself. The only reason to argue otherwise is to try to drive down the wage further, and is that at all neces…

> It seems more reasonable to me to assume that meeting basic shelter needs includes having a private room to oneself

Why would that be reasonable? College students and young adults usually have roommates. I don't feel it's inhumane.

> The only reason to argue otherwise is to try to drive down the wage further

Another reason to argue otherwise is because you care about the truth. Even if you and I agree on the ends, if you use the means of exaggerating or stretching the truth to get there, you are never on my side. Saying that you need to not have roommates to live is an exaggeration.

> Renting a private room was possible on nearly any wage 50 years ago

You will never find any data to support that because it isn't true. 50 years ago, flophouses were common. You would share a bedroom room with others, with shared kitchen and bathroom between multiple bedrooms. In college, I lived in a housing-coop network where we slept two to a room. 50 years ago, they slept 4 or 6 to a room in my exact house.

> and the only reason it seems out of reach for many now is because purchasing power has been slowly stagnating for decades, while housing costs have soared in recent times

This is true. But there is a very natural reason why. Look at nearly any US city, and see how many more jobs there are in that city than there were 50 years ago. Then look at how many more homes there are in that city than there were 50 years ago. You will see that the number of new jobs far exceeds the number of new homes. The result is that wealthier people bid up the housing, while poor people are forced to live outside the city and commute. So why have no new houses been built? It can't be helped by the fact that building new homes is illegal. (e.g. buildings with 3 or more apartments are illegal in 70% of san francisco.)

Please direct your anger in the right direction! It's not generally the case that billionaires own thousands of homes, hoarding them while the poor live on the street. It's more often the case that the population has increased while the number of homes in places people want to live has stayed the same. The *only* solution is to increase the number of homes in places people want to live. Raising the minimum wage, taxing the rich, fighting corporations, adding rent control laws, none of that will help solve the root of the problem, the growth rate of homes in cities is far slower than the rate of people wanting to live there!

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#103

Post by bradlys » Mon, Feb 09, 2026, 9:12 PM UTC

losvedir wrote: post #77

jrajav wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is more like “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.” Which of course, people would like to have but certainly isn’t required to be comfortable. This is a debatable goalpost. It seems more reasonable to me to assume that meeting basic shelter needs includes having a private room to oneself. The only reason to argue otherwise is to try to drive down the wage further, and is that at all neces…

Having a private room is not the same as living alone (having a private apartment/house). I think it's reasonable for young people to have flatmates and share an apartment, for example.

A living wage shouldn't be based upon what wages a student could be comfortably living on for a couple years before they get their $500k/yr new grad quant job. It should be based upon what people could live on comfortably indefinitely.

It's not "student wage". It's not "struggling young person" wage. It's "living" wage. It's for living - at any age.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#104

Post by digiown » Mon, Feb 09, 2026, 9:12 PM UTC

losvedir wrote: post #77

jrajav wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is more like “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.” Which of course, people would like to have but certainly isn’t required to be comfortable. This is a debatable goalpost. It seems more reasonable to me to assume that meeting basic shelter needs includes having a private room to oneself. The only reason to argue otherwise is to try to drive down the wage further, and is that at all neces…

Having a private room is not the same as living alone (having a private apartment/house). I think it's reasonable for young people to have flatmates and share an apartment, for example.

A minimum wage should not necessarily afford you a median home, that's why it's called a minimum. But for a functional developed nation I argue it should afford you a private room or a very small apartment. Ideally the cost between the two wouldn't be that different, but due to decades of building restrictions the latter does not really exist. This isn't true in Japan for example, where you can find arbitrarily small apartments at correspondingly low prices.

A living wage is for living indefinitely, not just surviving. That should afford more comforts like a reasonable amount of space, a car if needed, and saving for retirement or emergencies.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#105

Post by sdellis » Mon, Feb 09, 2026, 9:13 PM UTC

changoplatanero wrote: post #47

burkaman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single nation on Earth has mandatory paid vacation, except for the United States and three tiny islands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_b... . Edit: And looking into it a little, I'm pretty sure two of those islands actually do have mandatory paid leave after a minimum period of employment.

I don't get what the big deal is about mandatory paid vacation. My view is that your total compensation will be set based on the market value of your labor. Some portion of that compensation is given to you in the form of ordinary wages and some portion in the form of paid vacations. If the government mandated paid vacations would it increase many people's total compensation?

For a lot of us, work is not our life. Turns out that most people really want a paid vacation. Smart Capitalists know that it's easier to extract value from workers with higher morale.

If you would rather trade your paid vacation for an extra week of pay, I am sure you and your boss can work it out. Companies pay out unused vacation all the time. Just don't ruin it for the rest of us!

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#106

Post by _DeadFred_ » Mon, Feb 09, 2026, 9:13 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #95

0sdi wrote: post #24

Someone is siphoning your value. It's quite obvious when you track the productivity, or ask questions about how did your great-grandpa survive at all without machines. Just stating the obvious, don't mind me.

And that someone is mostly government, which is a growing and increasingly wasteful fraction of GDP. We really need to start reining in the national debt and government spending. Drain the swamp.

Reminder that the Republicans' policy has been to starve the beast. That is push up government costs while passing huge tax cuts (like the big beautiful bill Republicans just passed that is greatly increasing the debt) in order to sabotage government's ability to function, then blast from every rooftop that we need to cut government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

"The very reason why we object to state ownership, that it puts a stop to individual initiative and to the healthy development of personal responsibility, is the reason why we object to an unsupervised, unchecked monopolistic control in private hands. We urge control and supervision by the nation as an antidote to the movement for state socialism. Those who advocate total lack of regulation, those who advocate lawlessness in the business world, themselves give the strongest impulse to what I believe would be the deadening movement toward unadulterated state socialism."

--Theodore Roosevelt

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#107

Post by monsieurbanana » Mon, Feb 09, 2026, 9:13 PM UTC

losvedir wrote: post #77

jrajav wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is more like “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.” Which of course, people would like to have but certainly isn’t required to be comfortable. This is a debatable goalpost. It seems more reasonable to me to assume that meeting basic shelter needs includes having a private room to oneself. The only reason to argue otherwise is to try to drive down the wage further, and is that at all neces…

Having a private room is not the same as living alone (having a private apartment/house). I think it's reasonable for young people to have flatmates and share an apartment, for example.

Any adult with a full-time job should be able to afford a studio or small apartment. Probably making concessions on the location depending on where they want to live. It's not a matter of being young or not

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#108

Post by paxys » Mon, Feb 09, 2026, 9:14 PM UTC

socalgal2 wrote: post #74

I think I'm mis-understanding. 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 ge…

There are separate columns for 2 ADULTS (1 WORKING) and 2 ADULTS (BOTH WORKING). I think you are mixing up the two.

And the non-working adult is taking care of children, so reducing childcare expenses.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#109

Post by groundzeros2015 » Mon, Feb 09, 2026, 9:14 PM UTC

kccqzy wrote: post #53

prepend wrote: post #10

I don’t think this is very accurate. In my county the “living wage” is $26.50 for a single adult with no children. Many young people I know live on much less than this. This is more like “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.” Which of course, people would like to have but certainly isn’t required to be comfortable. For example, transportation costs are $9000/year and housing is $20000/year. Thes…

Ultimately in all these calculators there has to be a threshold that determines whether something is needed for “living” or not. And that varies highly by the individual. The calculator suggests $5,021 for food, but for me I’d only shop at high-end grocery like Whole Foods and buy organics whenever possible. That’s clearly not enough. On the other hand it suggests $1,792 for internet and mobile which is about double…

I think “I should be able to fully express my food brand preferences” is not a reasonable standard of livable.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#110

Post by throwway120385 » Mon, Feb 09, 2026, 9:14 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #95

0sdi wrote: post #24

Someone is siphoning your value. It's quite obvious when you track the productivity, or ask questions about how did your great-grandpa survive at all without machines. Just stating the obvious, don't mind me.

And that someone is mostly government, which is a growing and increasingly wasteful fraction of GDP. We really need to start reining in the national debt and government spending. Drain the swamp.

No, it's rentiers. The government takes about a quarter but the rentiers easily take 2 times as much in interest, monthly fees, and other costs that I have to pay in perpetuity. You just don't consider that because you think those people are necessary for living a good life. In reality their purpose is to extract as much money from you for as little work as possible.