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

271–280 of 305 posts

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#271

Post by SR2Z »

nearbuy wrote: post #256
cam_l wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?” Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community. Which is fine, by the way, but they cannot then turn around and oppose the cost of taxation needed for gov programs which support people who aren't receiving that living wage. Nor, and worse still, oppose a living wage and then force…

> Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community. Does this mean anything or is it a circular definition? If we decide we'd like people to have at least the standard of living of a single person earning $40/hour, does that make $40/hour the "true cost of labor"? Could we just as easily raise our standards and say $50/hour is the true cost? The living wage is…

No. Prices are not arbitrary; they're determined by market forces. I don't really agree with the idea that the minimum wage should be intended to support an adult (I think our welfare systems should be reformed to eliminate cliffs), but if you set it to the average price of a bunch of stuff in a region it's gonna be an actual number.

You can change the set of stuff, but it's much harder to cheat if you actually have to say what a living wage should be spent on.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#272

Post by SR2Z »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #264
zozbot234 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "true cost of labor" is set by the market. The cost to society of a person who can't find work because viable work opportunities have been destroyed by overregulation is unambiguously higher than that of the same person being gainfully employed, even for a "non-living" wage - because in the latter case it's easy for government to make up the difference in a way that's fair to everyone, whereas paying their full l…

Please don’t say you actually believe the talking point that if it weren’t for regulation factory jobs would come back or do you believe on the high end that tech companies are laying people off because of regulation?

He's saying that a world where someone can't get hired for a $15 an hour job would be better if they could still work an $8 job instead of being unable to find work at all or being pushed into multiple part-time roles.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#273

Post by silverlake »

cam_l wrote: post #251
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?” Should we index on a single person living alone? A teenager living with their parents? A single mom of three kids? A single mom with a single disabled kid? Private industry should concentrate on paying people their market wages. Government should tax industries and individuals and provide a safety net. Let me tell you from first hand experie…

>Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?” Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community. Which is fine, by the way, but they cannot then turn around and oppose the cost of taxation needed for gov programs which support people who aren't receiving that living wage. Nor, and worse still, oppose a living wage and then force…

The true cost of labor is paid for by taxes. The bottom 50% in the US pay little to negative taxes due to government benefits. Most taxes are paid by the rich. Therefore, the true cost of labor is paid for by the rich, rather than by consumers in the form of higher prices.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#274

Post by Sadzeih »

wtcactus wrote: post #184
Sadzeih wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

> rely on an external power (that’s less and less friendly) for their protection

You must not know France very well. We're the most independent nation defense wise in Europe. We build our own stuff, have nuclear subs and carriers. You're talking out of your ass.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#275

Post by RGamma »

zozbot234 wrote: post #216
overgard wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're ignoring how much poor people rely on each other and relatives to get by. That's our societies "safety net". That doesn't mean they're "thriving" or even comfortable, nor is it even sustainable (what happens when mom/pop die or require assistance and can't help their kids anymore?). 9000/yr for a car alone isn't crazy at all, just look at average car prices. I just had to do my vehicle renewal today an…

The flip side is that the people being relied upon are performing uncompensated labor or providing other unpaid services, which is not a healthy state of things. This very dynamic can end up trapping these people in poverty and hinder their access to more productive arrangements.

My feeling is technological unemployment could go through the roof the coming decade. First, most everyone will be beaten on cognition and then also on real-world tasks by versatile robots.

Eventually there has to be a mechanism that continues providing liquidity for nothing or...

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#276

Post by xtiansimon »

This post reminds me of a 2015 news story about entrepreneur Dan Price (Gravity Payments). He made headlines for his company's living wage described as a point, which he set at 70k, below which a person's finances are a series of trade-offs--medical treatment OR car payment OR vacation OR something else. Above 70k the trade-offs were increasingly qualitative, only.

Whatever you think about Mr Price or his math, I still believe this is the most intuitive description of a "living wage" as a concept.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#277

Post by daveguy »

twoodfin wrote: post #241
daveguy wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the safety net also goes poof if you have the living wage. So I'm not sure exactly how your argument works. Are you saying the minimum wage should be under the poverty wage and everyone with that wage should depend on safety nets as it is now?

If this is meant to truly calculate the wage someone needs to live, it should at least attempt to assess transfer payments from the government, the same way it estimates living costs.

I'm not sure what part of "the safety net goes away if you have the living wage" you don't understand. The living wage is the wage that you need. Because you're not getting any "transfers" from safety nets at that point. If we had a perfect safety net you could claim any minimum wage, even $0/hr, is the "living wage". But that's not the point. The point is -- what wage would you need to live completely self sufficiently on your own. In policy, it is used to guide when the safety net is no longer necessary. So, including a decent, morally justified, safety net would defeat the purpose of calculating "living wage". tldr it's "living wage" not "living subsidy".

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#278

Post by staticman2 »

blobbers wrote: post #225
brendoelfrendo wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would not surprise me to learn their methodology is flawed however under the affordable care act people below 400 percent of the poverty line pay less due to tax subsidies so we can't assume 5 percent of the population pays what you pay.

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#279

Post by staticman2 »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #262
NewJazz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you factoring in fuel, repairs, maintenance, registration/taxes, and insurance? As well as depreciation?

I think I underestimated the fuel cost, that seems to be the bulk of it. The rest is nothing; two or three oil changes, some other basic maintenance you can DIY, or more serious maintenance you get the neighbor to help out with, and insurance is cheap on old clunkers.

It seems the government data does not agree with you that people don't drive far in rural areas:

https://www.bts.gov/data-spotlight/household-cost-transporta...

Re: MIT Living Wage Calculator

#280

Post by bumby »

lp4v4n wrote: post #213
prepend wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can easily cook all my meals for $12/day. I don’t consider daily or even weekly restaurants part of a necessity for life.

People have commutes and work shifts that don't always allow them to buy food in bulk and cook their own food. Not everybody is like you. Restaurants have never been a necessity for life, but I guess that for a lot of people you should be upper class to eat out once a week.

It has changed a lot over time though, especially when you also count fast food and delivery. Maybe it’s good, maybe it’s bad, but the norm has changed and many people’s expectations.
Post reply on HN