One of the issues I take with statements like this, is that it defines "living" in a way which is... not the same thing as the definition of "living". Clearly

One of the issues I take with statements like this, is that it defines "living" in a way which is... not the same thing as the definition of "living". Clearly if less than half of the most populous city in the US are earning a "living wage", yet the other half are actually living there, something is not quite right. As another poster pointed out, this probably mostly due to off-the-books work, which is commonplace and rampant in New York City due to the excessive tax regime and routine corruption in municipal governance. That said, even that likely can't account for all of the discrepancy. A major issue is that they are using the average costs of various categories as the basis for determining the living wage, and don't understand that there are many people who live below that average costs. FTA: "which estimates living wages by county based on household size and local costs including food, housing, transportation, childcare, medical care and taxes." Well, if you don't go to the doctor (or you go to a ghetto doctor under the table), you don't pay taxes, you work walking distance from where you live in the rougher part of town, and you have 6-8 people in your household that is multi-generational and extended family sharing a below-average housing situation, and you have someone (usually the oldest female resident) cooking at home for everyone buying ingredients at the street markets and ensuring the kids are watched, then your costs go down a LOT, and your income goes up from not paying more than 50% effective taxes.