Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT Living Wage Calculator

livingwage.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 305 posts

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#181

Post by citizenpaul »

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…

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

I think others pointed this out but I don't think you can find any data to prove this because its not true.

I'm not a historian but I have seen a number of old movies and in those movies it was very common for the characters to be some poor schlub with a full time job at the factory living in some sort of group home/flophouse situation. Movies tend to reflect stories that resonate with the public at the time so I suspect that is because this was a common situation. I'd much prefer a single roommate in an apartment to a flophouse.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#182

Post by matuszeg »

lelandbatey wrote: post #23
skulk wrote: post #14

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

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.

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?

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#183

Post by upboundspiral »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #109
kccqzy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When the choice is between organic food (expensive) and eating pesticides that are meant to kill and neuter living organisms (somewhat economical) it's a choice we never should have allowed to even exist in the first place.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#184

Post by wtcactus »

Sadzeih wrote: post #18
renewiltord wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, oil nations are different. Norway's resources are well-managed, but oil nations with outsourced defence just have different constraints.

France is not an oil nation. We have 35h weeks and 5 weeks of paid vacation as well. Edit: Also, the US is a damn oil nation. It has nothing to do with oil, and everything to do with politics.

Yes, and your government takes 57% of the total GDP to themselves, rely on an external power (that’s less and less friendly) for their protection and are on the track to their 6th prime minister in less than 2 years (is it 6th? I’ve lost track) because if they try to increase the retirement age above 62 (in their pay as you go unmaintanable system) people come down to the streets to burn down businesses and destroy public property.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#185

Post by brendoelfrendo »

blobbers wrote: post #168

How are they getting medical costs in San Mateo County so wrong. $11,896 with 2 children? My Kaiser $14K deductible bronze plan costs $2100 a month. That's more like $25K a year, and that's before I use it... the only reason I have it is in case something traumatic happens. This is the cheapest plan I can get on covered california.

I assume that's not an employer sponsored plan? You can read the methodology for more, but their data is a mix of a) how much people pay into employer-sponsored health insurance plans, b) individual and small group insurance market information, where available, and c) estimated out-of-pocket expenses not covered by insurance. If you're buying a plan through a marketplace, you are almost certainly going to come in well above the median for your area.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#186

Post by nearbuy »

bumby wrote: post #58
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #15

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.

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”

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.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#187

Post by jandrewrogers »

lp4v4n wrote: post #82
bumby wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like I’ve eat pretty well, and my household food costs are almost half what the calculator shows. Similar for vehicle costs etc. After looking at the method, I think the calculator probably has some bias towards “what society has convinced us we need”. To a certain extent that is a relative and subjective perception problem, and one exacerbated when you live in a society with a lot of consumer debt.

The yearly cost of food for one person without children in the county of Los Angeles(I selected an expensive area on purpose) is showing 4,428 USD. That's about 12 dollars a day. I don't even live in the United States but that value looks pretty low if anything.

Anecdotally, I can easily eat for $12/day even in Seattle. There are days when I probably spend half of that. We aren't talking beans and rice here, these are diverse satisfying meals. It does require you to cook though.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#188

Post by dheera »

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…

> live on much less than this.

They do not actually live on less, they sacrifice their health or well-being in order to meet the constraint.

I would argue the calculator grossly underestimates necessities because most of these jobs are not doable in old age, so you need to account for saving $1 for each $1 you make, to support yourself while old. You also need an emergency fund, because in the US you get billed $1000 for the most random shit at the most random time.

I got billed $5000 randomly for an echodardiogram because insurance didn't pay for it despite them saying they would. At least I have $5K to spare, but considering that can happen, that needs to be considered a basic necessity.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#189

Post by brendoelfrendo »

zozbot234 wrote: post #156
thewillowcat wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because the wider society encourages it, your family doesn't have to lean into individualism, and many don't. We got by when I was a kid with a lot of help from friends and family, when I am absolutely sure we didn't have a living wage under this definition.

Did you fairly compensate your friends and family members for that "help"? Systematic reliance on wholly unpaid labor is not exactly something to be proud of.

Um, sometimes people help each other because they want to, or because they understand that those less fortunate than them need it, or because they understand that they may need help someday and so it doesn't make sense to make a big deal of "compensation" now. It's called community, and I think it is something to be proud of.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#190

Post by hackable_sand »

bumby wrote: post #89
cwillu wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's what makes it a living wage instead of a poverty wage, let alone a starvation wage.

The larger point I’m making is the “living wage” may be built on an idea that the assumed consumerist norm is ideal.

Like food and shelter?
Post reply on HN