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

221–230 of 305 posts

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#221

Post by socalgal2 »

bitcurious wrote: post #78
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…

Child care.

that's not either

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.?)
Where 0.? is something less than 1 because 2 adults need less than 2x the money

Similarly for kids

     1 kids = Y
     2 kids = Y + Y(0.?)
     3 kids = Y + Y(0.?) + Y(0.?)
You'd expect 2 kids to be less than 2x 1 kid. And you'd expect 3 kids to be les than 1x + 2x 2nd kid. Each kid is cheaper for various reasons like hand-me-downs etc...

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)
Why does the 3rd kid cost more than the 2nd?

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
Assuming that $55.67 is wages for each that means we're comparing

     1 adult + 3 kids                 = $107.95
     2 adults (both working + 3 kids) = $55.67x2 ($111.34)
We already established that above that adding one adult is only $12.52 a month yet here, suddenly that adult only costs $3.40 a month.

Again, these are nonsense numbers.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#222

Post by castlecrasher2 »

prepend wrote: post #169
NewJazz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are those people funding their retirement? Are they going to be able to take care of themselves as health issues come up? Are they receiving support from family? Edit: also the housing cost is probably factoring in a studio or maybe a 1bd for a single person. That may seem luxurious to you, but for many that is the only real option they have (roommates are hard to come by and can hurt you physically and fiscally).

No, roommates aren’t hard to come by. As evidenced by the millions who have roommates. In my 20s everyone I knew had roommates. And it was a good life. Saying a studio or 1 bedroom is required makes this metric pretty ambiguous. Thus my point, that this isn’t what’s required to just live. But to live comfortably.

This isn't intended to be an insult to anyone here but from the responses in this thread it genuinely seems like most here haven't actually lived poor. Cutting costs isn't inhumane, it's reality, and anyone suggesting otherwise must have had very little in the way of hardship.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#223

Post by bumby »

etchalon wrote: post #204
bumby wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you agree that large uncertainties can bring into question the validity of a model? Ie “averages” with large variances are not often very informative

I agree that the very term "averages" implies "an average".

It’s the second time you’ve had a snarky reply so I can’t tell if you’re having a good faith conversation.

The average wealth between me and Elon is several hundred billion dollars. That gives you very little information about me. Which is why people can hang too much inference on a simple average. Like Nate Silver said in The Signal and The Noise, the real discussion for the data literate is about uncertainty in models, not just drawing conclusions from “averages”

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#224

Post by labcomputer »

bradlys wrote: post #123
zozbot234 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the rent is too damn high. The way to address that is BUILDING MORE! Which is what YIMBY is all about.

As long as collusion exists, I don't see this changing. Manhattan is more expensive than it was a 100 years ago but less people actually live there now. Not a little less either - 700,000 people less. We've built way more housing at the same time. And yes, people have more square footage per person now but the housing doubled and the population went down dramatically. Rent is always going to go up there even if they…

Rent isn't high because of collusion. It's simple supply and demand.

There may be fewer people in manhattan, but that's mostly because fewer people live in each living unit. The same number of living units is being demanded by the market because of evolving living preferences.

If you allow sufficient living units to be built, it doesn't matter how much landlord try to collude, they won't be able to keep rent high. Someone will break when the vacancy rate reaches 15%.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#225

Post by blobbers »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #185
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 wel…

Covered California (as indicated in my message) coveres 2M out of the 40M people in California, or 5% of the population.

Typically, it tends to cover the bottom of the income level, aka the folks who are trying to get a living wage.

Seems like their methodology is a little broken, wouldn't you agree? My out of pocket is a 14K deductible on top of 25K in premiums.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#226

Post by zozbot234 »

labcomputer wrote: post #224
bradlys wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as collusion exists, I don't see this changing. Manhattan is more expensive than it was a 100 years ago but less people actually live there now. Not a little less either - 700,000 people less. We've built way more housing at the same time. And yes, people have more square footage per person now but the housing doubled and the population went down dramatically. Rent is always going to go up there even if they…

Rent isn't high because of collusion. It's simple supply and demand. There may be fewer people in manhattan, but that's mostly because fewer people live in each living unit. The same number of living units is being demanded by the market because of evolving living preferences. If you allow sufficient living units to be built, it doesn't matter how much landlord try to collude, they won't be able to keep rent high. So…

Rent is high due to supply and demand, but collusion lowers supply. Ironically enough, "affordable housing" arrangements and rent-control, which is common in NYC, are examples of such collusion and end up raising rents over time compared to the alternative where the collusion isn't there.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#227

Post by kccqzy »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #198
upboundspiral wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounds like you need to get the government’s definition of appropriate foods changed. And then come back to the question of livability. It must be more nuanced than you say, as millions of people reach old age without sharing your concern.

The definition of appropriate foods is not binary. It’s alright that the government sets a minimum standard of appropriateness and individuals can opt for higher quality than what the government mandates.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#228

Post by atmavatar »

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…

Well, it is called a "living wage", not to be confused with "poverty wage" or "subsistence wage".

I've always taken "living wage" to be the wage required to live in reasonable comfort. You won't be owning any yachts or eating caviar, but you should also not be living paycheck to paycheck unless you're acting irresponsibly with your money.

If you're sharing a house or apartment with one or more roommates for reasons other than romance or saving up for a place of your own, to my mind, that's not a "living wage" - it's mere survival. Whether we believe minimum wage should barely let you scrape by or live more comfortably shouldn't confuse the fact that in many places, it doesn't even meet what's considered "poverty wage" (e.g., it doesn't in my local area).

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#229

Post by daedrdev »

bradlys wrote: post #123
zozbot234 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the rent is too damn high. The way to address that is BUILDING MORE! Which is what YIMBY is all about.

As long as collusion exists, I don't see this changing. Manhattan is more expensive than it was a 100 years ago but less people actually live there now. Not a little less either - 700,000 people less. We've built way more housing at the same time. And yes, people have more square footage per person now but the housing doubled and the population went down dramatically. Rent is always going to go up there even if they…

vacancy rates are extremely low in most cities. That clearly implies supply and demand and not collusion. In new york units are often empty because they are illegal to rent unless massively expensive repairs are made while under rent control. That's not collusion, that is regulatory failure

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#230

Post by lp4v4n »

labcomputer wrote: post #214
lp4v4n wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They lived in a house or apt with a third the sqft/person that was far more likely to catch fire and didn't have AC. But at least they could afford a house, right? I think a lot of people would accept living in a house without AC and more likely to catch fire. Is a house like that cheap today? No, right? It's crazy expensive as well. >If they had a car they most likely shared it. It was far less safe, didn't have AC…

> Cars were more affordable though. Eehhhh... I really don't think that's true. First, adjusted for inflation, new car prices really aren't that different than they were 10-30-50-70 years ago. You have to compare like for like, no cheating comparing a modern luxury car to Ford Pinto. For example the cheapest car in 1970 cost about $2000, with no frills like a radio, passenger wing mirror or floor matts. That's equiva…

>Because it is not at all obvious that that is, in fact, reality. It doesn't help to complain about easily-disprovable things like the affordability of cars.

Well you can just search "why are cars so expensive" and then you will find dozens of articles like the one below. I'm not American but I have the impression that cars were a kind of milestone in the life of young people in the past and this disappeared due to affordability. How much does it cost to live in a van nowadays? Can a part time fast food worker afford it?

I don't like this hedonistic argument that you used, it sounds like cheating, you risk sounding like the GP saying that houses today that nobody can afford are in fact cheaper because they are less likely to catch fire.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/buying/why-owning-a-car-is-g...

Post reply on HN