6 ms·

Living Wage Calculator

62 points by mitchbob 3y ago

abeppu 3y ago
One question this raises for me is, how should the number of dependents a person has impact their compensation? How should a person's membership of a larger household vs living alone impact their compensation? This displays the cost of living based on both how many children and how many working adults are considered together. The framing makes it seem as though people's wages "should" be set relative to that all-in cost of living. The copy introducing the tool overall says: > We developed the Living Wage Calculator to help individuals, communities, employers, and others estimate the local wage rate that a full-time worker requires to cover the costs of their family’s basic needs where they live. And viewing specific results for a county in my state I see this copy: > The state minimum wage is the same for all individuals, regardless of how many dependents they may have. This doesn't explicitly say, but seems to suggest that something is is wrong if an employee isn't paid enough to cover the living expenses of them and their non-working family. At an abstract level, sure it sounds reasonable that we would want a person's wages to cover their 'basic' cost of living. But e.g. for a single person with 3 kids in Alameda County, CA, the living wage is given as $86.40, whereas for a single person with no kids, the living wage if $22.35, and for an adult in a household with 2 working adults, the living wage is only $17.15. It seems like there's a huge fairness issue if people are paid more for having dependents and for being single. Suppose you had two workers doing the same job, equally well, but A is a single parent 3 kids and B is a single person living alone. Should A be paid nearly 4x as much as B? Suppose A gets married and their kids now have a step-parent; should A's compensation be cut nearly in half? Suppose B moves in with their significant other who initially works, should their compensation drop further? If B's cohabitating significant other quits their job, should B's compensation really be doubled? What conditions is the the "2 adults (1 working)" x "0 children" meant to cover -- should it depend upon the other adult's _ability_ to work? While perhaps one might think that an employer was being noble by trying to use this to ensure employees had a floor on their ability to house and feed themselves, if you were a person with no dependents, I think this would really sound like discrimination. https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06001 https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06001
- petsfed 3y ago
  I'd argue the better analysis is that employers set their salary floor at "single person, 2 kids" and let the people with more cost-effective situations benefit. This also means that the employee who wants a big family is faced with a greater financial burden. That makes sense to me. Speaking only for myself, I have several coworkers who make the same salary as me, but have zero children. I sometimes envy their lifestyle, but I don't begrudge the fact that they made a more financially advantageous decision than me. It is true that some employers will preferentially mete out promotions and vacation based on family status (having a family is famously a career advantage for men, but not for women, although spending time with said family is universally a career disadvantage), and this is discrimination.
darknavi 3y ago
Typical Annual Salaries lists "Management" as an occupation. What does that even mean?
- MobileVet 3y ago
  Whenever someone uses the word 'management' in a context like this I can't help but think of Cousin Eddie in Christmas Vacation... unemployed for 7 years because 'he's holding out for a management position.'
- networkchad 3y ago
  [dead]
- em500 3y ago
  Data probably comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm#11-0000 https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm#11-0000
- dahwolf 3y ago
  It means you sit in a chair and send meeting invites.
  - ForestCritter 3y ago
    Or that you run profitable production facilities into the ground because you have no clue how stuff is made and need to justify your position and hide your ignorance with clever management 'improvements'. I live in a factory area and the new tactic is to advertise jobs under alternate corporate names because their reputations are so bad that nobody applies.
b20000 3y ago
a living wake calculator sponsored by large companies and institutions okay
- ragestorm 3y ago
  And it shows that minimum wage from those same companies isn't enough to live.
clsec 3y ago
A yearly food cost of $4,686 for a single adult w/o children in San Francisco County? Not quite, more like $6,000-7,200 per year or $500-$600/mo.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  I could imagine that as a yearly food cost (a little under ~100/week). I lived off less than that when I was a grad student. It involved very little eating out (which this calculator accounts for) and consuming mostly stews or curries.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  The food portion is likely quite off for very high cost of living areas. It uses the national average and applies an adjustment factor based on 4 regions: East (1.08), Midwest (0.95), South (0.93), and West (1.11). So, every area within said region has the exact same food costs. Either that, or food costs really are similar within a region if you cook your own food and shop frugally.
pitaj 3y ago
The typical expenses seem pretty high. Why do transportation and housing increase so much with kids?
- Izmaki 3y ago
  Don't all 16 year olds get a car for their birthday or is that just in movies? Best regards, Europe
  - charlieflowers 3y ago
    Yes, of course, and a gun.
  - protonfish 3y ago
    We usually wait until Christmas so we can put a giant novelty bow around it in the driveway.
    - Izmaki 3y ago
      Poor Santa must have a serious back pain the 25th... :D
  - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
    I know youre being sarcastic, but actually in a lot of places yes this is the norm. Or a the very least someone in your friend group will get one so the whole crew is mobile.
    - spiderice 3y ago
      While this certainly isn't uncommon, I'm not sure a 16th birthday car gift should be (or is) included in a "living wage".
  - seizethecheese 3y ago
    To answer your facetious question directly, a lot of my friends got cars at 16. I got one but had to buy it myself using a summer/weekend job. I paid all gas, maintenance, though my parents put it on their insurance.
dmoy 3y ago
Seems quite off for Seattle at least. They put housing costs for 1 adult 0 children at ~$18000, which last I checked barely covers rent for a studio, but no other housing-related expenses (like... water/sewer/electric, which isn't cheap here either). The childcare costs seem a little suspect too. Still a cool idea.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  > barely covers rent for a studio Yes, that's "living", nothing more. A home. It even says in the technical documentation, "We assumed that a one adult family would rent a single occupancy unit (zero bedrooms) for an individual adult household" I can't account for your thoughts on utilities, the site says the housing includes them, but perhaps there's room to improve the data.
  - dmoy 3y ago
    As sibling commenter pointed out, typing "Seattle" doesn't yield results for Seattle, but rather the whole Seattle/Tacoma metro area, which includes several places that you can get a $1500 studio plus utilities in.
    - cratermoon 3y ago
      Ah yes, that can be deceptive. Maybe some people would want to live in Tacoma and commute to Seattle to work, or WFH.
- seizethecheese 3y ago
  First off, I see $38,817 not $18k. Where did you get that? Second, this is for the whole Seattle/Tacoma area. This isn’t living in central Seattle. Finally, I found it to be generous from my personal experience. My partner and I were able to live in Seattle for considerably less than $60k per year this gives for two people. We had a perfectly happy, frugal, life at around $36k.
  - dmoy 3y ago
pizzaknife 3y ago
child care is at least 4k annually off for my area as well. Everyone has an opinion. Thank you for putting this together!
omegadeep10 3y ago
From FAQ - "No, the living wage currently does not factor in savings, leisure expenditures, emergency expenses, or other cost categories beyond basic needs. We are open to partnerships that explore this question." In Atlanta GA, for 2 adults (both working) and 2 children you would need a combined annual income of $103,459 just to meet basic needs according to this data.
- Racing0461 3y ago
  > In Atlanta GA, for 2 adults (both working) and 2 children you would need a combined annual income of $103,459 just to meet basic needs according to this data. Correct. Things are alot more expensive than 4% inFLaTiOn i see going around. i have no idea how people with kids are affording to live in the city im in.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  > The civic engagement component is constructed using 2021 national expenditure data by household size from the 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey including: (1) Fees and admissions, (2) audio and visual equipment and services, (3) pets, and (4) toys, (5) hobbies, and playground equipment, (6) other entertainment supplies, (7) equipment, and services, (8) reading, and (9) education. Most of that sounds like leisure to me. Their "other" category also includes: > Expenditures for other necessities are based on 2021 data by household size from the 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey including: (1) Apparel and services, (2) Housekeeping supplies, (3) Personal care products and services, (4) Reading, and (5) Miscellaneous. Which I suspect has a lot of unnecessary expenses baked in (if I understand correctly, they're using average spending). For my situation/location, those two categories account for 27% of the before-tax cost of living they come up with. Looking at my last 12 months of expenses, we're slightly above what they give as the cost-of-living in my area, and I feel like we're living pretty well. Certainly not at bare minimum.
- local_issues 3y ago
  That's the downside of this. If my political group advocates for a minimum wage of $100k, and I put out a tool that says you need to make $100k or you'll die, then I am a very good boy and will receive many Twitter likes, as well as possible citations in Slate and Vice.
homieg33 3y ago
I put in my information and I find it really interesting that 2 parents who both work need a combined ~$63 an hour living wage, but a couple where only a single parent working needs only ~$47 an hour. My wife is a stay at home mom and her monetary contribution comes from saving us money (not paying for childcare, not paying for restaurants, etc, etc, etc). Makes me think that in a lot of ways saving money is really tax efficient compared to slogging for more ordinary income.
- networkchad 3y ago
  [dead]
- TheFreim 3y ago
  Having a wife at home also could help lower costs since their entire job is to efficiently and cost effectively run the household, acting as a sort of domestic accountant. Over time she'll learn the best products to buy for the price, the most cost effective nutritious food, how to handle various household activities effectively (efficient clothes/dish washing by reducing cycles), among various other matters that can either lower costs or increase utility.
  - ender341341 3y ago
    also, child care is insanely expensive, for lots of families it can basically take up all the cost that the second parent would expect to bring in.
    - UtopiaPunk 3y ago
      +1 If your kids are old enough to be in school, that's one thing. But if your kids younger than 4 or 5, paying for daycare during normal work hours is expensive! Easily over $1,000 a month.
  - mgbmtl 3y ago
    However it can become a liability if you separate (alimony). Everyone thinks they won't, but it's worth checking the stats.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
koromak 3y ago
I tried living on my areas "living wage", it wasn't living.
- t-writescode 3y ago
  If nothing else, this data could be used as a reflection of "the minimum wage is _way to low_, even when these calculations show numbers that are *still* too low to live, and they're several multiples of the minimum wage.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    It depends on what it is. The Federal minimum wage is far too broad to apply everywhere: a minimum wage for a high-taxation city centre with expensive housing will mean people are unemployable in remotest Georgia. State minimum wage is better, but still potentially vastly different between town centre and way out in the country. The best raiser of minimums isn't laws. It's other companies. Making it easy to compete is the best way to raise salaries.
    - t-writescode 3y ago
      We have 40+ years of the so-called free market showing that real wages have been a race to the bottom for all but a few industries.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        "Real wages" is different to wages because your government spends so much it has to devalue your money to make it work.
mankyd 3y ago
Why does "2 Adults (1 working)" require a lower hourly wage than "1 Adult" when adding children into the mix? Shouldn't having more people in a household be strictly more expensive?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- b20000 3y ago
  because the calculator is sponsored by big co’s
- koheripbal 3y ago
  No, because being a single parent is far more expensive due to the need for daycare/babysitting/etc...
- guessbest 3y ago
  I think it means per person working and then one providing childcare.
- sbradford26 3y ago
  If you scroll down they have a breakdown, but that big increase in expenses is that a single working adult with a child would need to pay for childcare. If there is 2 adults and only 1 working it is assumed the non working adult would handle childcare.
  - mankyd 3y ago
    Thank you. I missed this!
- solarmist 3y ago
  Childcare costs. It’s cheaper to feed and house two people than to pay for childcare in the US.
- muricula 3y ago
  The model assumes the non-working adult is able to provide child care.
b20000 3y ago
so as a single adult with a kid you can have a normal life in santa clara county with 100k income according to this calculator that seems several multiples off
jader201 3y ago
A lot of comments comparing the estimates on the site with their (anecdotal) expenses. I’m assuming there’s a pretty big margin of error here, especially given so many other factors on top of fluctuation in the dollar. I wouldn’t expect estimates for cost of living to be accurate within more than 10-15% (or more).
tristor 3y ago
This massively underestimates the cost of housing, at least in my locality.
nilstycho 3y ago
A large proportion of living expenses are housing, so this calculation is sensitive to the housing component. The housing component is estimated as the U.S. HUD's "Fair Market Rent", which is defined as the 40th percentile rent. I believe this overestimates a living wage. It's more like a living-like-the-40th-percentile wage.
YossarianFrPrez 3y ago
I'm willing to bet most graduate student stipends fall below the living wage estimate for the place they are living. It's a terrible and negative incentive to go into the sciences, especially compared with Tech wages / salaries.
smcleod 3y ago
*USA only
GloriousKoji 3y ago
They're using April 2022 or 2021 data for the housing cost, no wonder the living wage number is way off.
dbg31415 3y ago
Cute, but why don’t they ever include elder care? Lots of people take care of more than just children. Would be nice to include that if you are poor, odds are you have kin that are poor too. And odds are you help when you can.
mathewsanders 3y ago
For Manhattan they’re giving cost of living for 1 adult as $53,342 which is way way off. They are allocating $2000/month for housing (avg 1 bed in Manhattan is around $4000) and $12.50 for food per day (I guess possible if you’re eating rice-and-bean type meals). This living wage is 4x povity wage, so I guess they’re expecting povity line to be finding places that rent for $500 and being able to budget for $4 for food each day. Thankfully we voted in last years local election to have a true cost of living index for nyc calculated each year. http://truecostofliving.org/ http://truecostofliving.org/ For 2023 they estimate north Manhattan as $123,688 And south Manhattan as $151,723 Shocking how far off the calculations are given that I assume a resource like this is used for policy decisions.
twoodfin 3y ago
This doesn’t seem to account for government transfer payments and other benefits. For example, a Boston single mother of two at the “living wage” line is definitely not going to net $25,768 worth of taxes!

62 points by mitchbob 3y ago

One question this raises for me is, how should the number of dependents a person has impact their compensation? How should a person's membership of a larger household vs living alone impact their compensation? This displays the cost of living based on both how many children and how many working adults are considered together. The framing makes it seem as though people's wages "should" be set relative to that all-in cost of living. The copy introducing the tool overall says: > We developed the Living Wage Calculator to help individuals, communities, employers, and others estimate the local wage rate that a full-time worker requires to cover the costs of their family’s basic needs where they live. And viewing specific results for a county in my state I see this copy: > The state minimum wage is the same for all individuals, regardless of how many dependents they may have. This doesn't explicitly say, but seems to suggest that something is is wrong if an employee isn't paid enough to cover the living expenses of them and their non-working family. At an abstract level, sure it sounds reasonable that we would want a person's wages to cover their 'basic' cost of living. But e.g. for a single person with 3 kids in Alameda County, CA, the living wage is given as $86.40, whereas for a single person with no kids, the living wage if $22.35, and for an adult in a household with 2 working adults, the living wage is only $17.15. It seems like there's a huge fairness issue if people are paid more for having dependents and for being single. Suppose you had two workers doing the same job, equally well, but A is a single parent 3 kids and B is a single person living alone. Should A be paid nearly 4x as much as B? Suppose A gets married and their kids now have a step-parent; should A's compensation be cut nearly in half? Suppose B moves in with their significant other who initially works, should their compensation drop further? If B's cohabitating significant other quits their job, should B's compensation really be doubled? What conditions is the the "2 adults (1 working)" x "0 children" meant to cover -- should it depend upon the other adult's _ability_ to work? While perhaps one might think that an employer was being noble by trying to use this to ensure employees had a floor on their ability to house and feed themselves, if you were a person with no dependents, I think this would really sound like discrimination. https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06001 https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06001

petsfed 3y ago
I'd argue the better analysis is that employers set their salary floor at "single person, 2 kids" and let the people with more cost-effective situations benefit. This also means that the employee who wants a big family is faced with a greater financial burden. That makes sense to me. Speaking only for myself, I have several coworkers who make the same salary as me, but have zero children. I sometimes envy their lifestyle, but I don't begrudge the fact that they made a more financially advantageous decision than me. It is true that some employers will preferentially mete out promotions and vacation based on family status (having a family is famously a career advantage for men, but not for women, although spending time with said family is universally a career disadvantage), and this is discrimination.

darknavi 3y ago

Typical Annual Salaries lists "Management" as an occupation. What does that even mean?

MobileVet 3y ago
Whenever someone uses the word 'management' in a context like this I can't help but think of Cousin Eddie in Christmas Vacation... unemployed for 7 years because 'he's holding out for a management position.'
networkchad 3y ago
[dead]
em500 3y ago
Data probably comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm#11-0000 https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm#11-0000
dahwolf 3y ago
It means you sit in a chair and send meeting invites.
- ForestCritter 3y ago
  Or that you run profitable production facilities into the ground because you have no clue how stuff is made and need to justify your position and hide your ignorance with clever management 'improvements'. I live in a factory area and the new tactic is to advertise jobs under alternate corporate names because their reputations are so bad that nobody applies.

b20000 3y ago

a living wake calculator sponsored by large companies and institutions okay

ragestorm 3y ago
And it shows that minimum wage from those same companies isn't enough to live.

clsec 3y ago

A yearly food cost of $4,686 for a single adult w/o children in San Francisco County? Not quite, more like $6,000-7,200 per year or $500-$600/mo.

EatingWithForks 3y ago
I could imagine that as a yearly food cost (a little under ~100/week). I lived off less than that when I was a grad student. It involved very little eating out (which this calculator accounts for) and consuming mostly stews or curries.
xboxnolifes 3y ago
The food portion is likely quite off for very high cost of living areas. It uses the national average and applies an adjustment factor based on 4 regions: East (1.08), Midwest (0.95), South (0.93), and West (1.11). So, every area within said region has the exact same food costs. Either that, or food costs really are similar within a region if you cook your own food and shop frugally.

pitaj 3y ago

The typical expenses seem pretty high. Why do transportation and housing increase so much with kids?

Izmaki 3y ago
Don't all 16 year olds get a car for their birthday or is that just in movies? Best regards, Europe
- charlieflowers 3y ago
  Yes, of course, and a gun.
- protonfish 3y ago
  We usually wait until Christmas so we can put a giant novelty bow around it in the driveway.
  - Izmaki 3y ago
    Poor Santa must have a serious back pain the 25th... :D
- DontchaKnowit 3y ago
  I know youre being sarcastic, but actually in a lot of places yes this is the norm. Or a the very least someone in your friend group will get one so the whole crew is mobile.
  - spiderice 3y ago
    While this certainly isn't uncommon, I'm not sure a 16th birthday car gift should be (or is) included in a "living wage".
- seizethecheese 3y ago
  To answer your facetious question directly, a lot of my friends got cars at 16. I got one but had to buy it myself using a summer/weekend job. I paid all gas, maintenance, though my parents put it on their insurance.

dmoy 3y ago

Seems quite off for Seattle at least. They put housing costs for 1 adult 0 children at ~$18000, which last I checked barely covers rent for a studio, but no other housing-related expenses (like... water/sewer/electric, which isn't cheap here either). The childcare costs seem a little suspect too. Still a cool idea.

cratermoon 3y ago
> barely covers rent for a studio Yes, that's "living", nothing more. A home. It even says in the technical documentation, "We assumed that a one adult family would rent a single occupancy unit (zero bedrooms) for an individual adult household" I can't account for your thoughts on utilities, the site says the housing includes them, but perhaps there's room to improve the data.
- dmoy 3y ago
  As sibling commenter pointed out, typing "Seattle" doesn't yield results for Seattle, but rather the whole Seattle/Tacoma metro area, which includes several places that you can get a $1500 studio plus utilities in.
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    Ah yes, that can be deceptive. Maybe some people would want to live in Tacoma and commute to Seattle to work, or WFH.
seizethecheese 3y ago
First off, I see $38,817 not $18k. Where did you get that? Second, this is for the whole Seattle/Tacoma area. This isn’t living in central Seattle. Finally, I found it to be generous from my personal experience. My partner and I were able to live in Seattle for considerably less than $60k per year this gives for two people. We had a perfectly happy, frugal, life at around $36k.
- dmoy 3y ago

pizzaknife 3y ago

child care is at least 4k annually off for my area as well. Everyone has an opinion. Thank you for putting this together!

omegadeep10 3y ago

From FAQ - "No, the living wage currently does not factor in savings, leisure expenditures, emergency expenses, or other cost categories beyond basic needs. We are open to partnerships that explore this question." In Atlanta GA, for 2 adults (both working) and 2 children you would need a combined annual income of $103,459 just to meet basic needs according to this data.

Racing0461 3y ago
> In Atlanta GA, for 2 adults (both working) and 2 children you would need a combined annual income of $103,459 just to meet basic needs according to this data. Correct. Things are alot more expensive than 4% inFLaTiOn i see going around. i have no idea how people with kids are affording to live in the city im in.
ndriscoll 3y ago
> The civic engagement component is constructed using 2021 national expenditure data by household size from the 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey including: (1) Fees and admissions, (2) audio and visual equipment and services, (3) pets, and (4) toys, (5) hobbies, and playground equipment, (6) other entertainment supplies, (7) equipment, and services, (8) reading, and (9) education. Most of that sounds like leisure to me. Their "other" category also includes: > Expenditures for other necessities are based on 2021 data by household size from the 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey including: (1) Apparel and services, (2) Housekeeping supplies, (3) Personal care products and services, (4) Reading, and (5) Miscellaneous. Which I suspect has a lot of unnecessary expenses baked in (if I understand correctly, they're using average spending). For my situation/location, those two categories account for 27% of the before-tax cost of living they come up with. Looking at my last 12 months of expenses, we're slightly above what they give as the cost-of-living in my area, and I feel like we're living pretty well. Certainly not at bare minimum.
local_issues 3y ago
That's the downside of this. If my political group advocates for a minimum wage of $100k, and I put out a tool that says you need to make $100k or you'll die, then I am a very good boy and will receive many Twitter likes, as well as possible citations in Slate and Vice.

homieg33 3y ago

I put in my information and I find it really interesting that 2 parents who both work need a combined ~$63 an hour living wage, but a couple where only a single parent working needs only ~$47 an hour. My wife is a stay at home mom and her monetary contribution comes from saving us money (not paying for childcare, not paying for restaurants, etc, etc, etc). Makes me think that in a lot of ways saving money is really tax efficient compared to slogging for more ordinary income.

networkchad 3y ago
[dead]
TheFreim 3y ago
Having a wife at home also could help lower costs since their entire job is to efficiently and cost effectively run the household, acting as a sort of domestic accountant. Over time she'll learn the best products to buy for the price, the most cost effective nutritious food, how to handle various household activities effectively (efficient clothes/dish washing by reducing cycles), among various other matters that can either lower costs or increase utility.
- ender341341 3y ago
  also, child care is insanely expensive, for lots of families it can basically take up all the cost that the second parent would expect to bring in.
  - UtopiaPunk 3y ago
    +1 If your kids are old enough to be in school, that's one thing. But if your kids younger than 4 or 5, paying for daycare during normal work hours is expensive! Easily over $1,000 a month.
- mgbmtl 3y ago
  However it can become a liability if you separate (alimony). Everyone thinks they won't, but it's worth checking the stats.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

koromak 3y ago

I tried living on my areas "living wage", it wasn't living.

t-writescode 3y ago
If nothing else, this data could be used as a reflection of "the minimum wage is _way to low_, even when these calculations show numbers that are *still* too low to live, and they're several multiples of the minimum wage.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  It depends on what it is. The Federal minimum wage is far too broad to apply everywhere: a minimum wage for a high-taxation city centre with expensive housing will mean people are unemployable in remotest Georgia. State minimum wage is better, but still potentially vastly different between town centre and way out in the country. The best raiser of minimums isn't laws. It's other companies. Making it easy to compete is the best way to raise salaries.
  - t-writescode 3y ago
    We have 40+ years of the so-called free market showing that real wages have been a race to the bottom for all but a few industries.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      "Real wages" is different to wages because your government spends so much it has to devalue your money to make it work.

mankyd 3y ago

Why does "2 Adults (1 working)" require a lower hourly wage than "1 Adult" when adding children into the mix? Shouldn't having more people in a household be strictly more expensive?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
b20000 3y ago
because the calculator is sponsored by big co’s
koheripbal 3y ago
No, because being a single parent is far more expensive due to the need for daycare/babysitting/etc...
guessbest 3y ago
I think it means per person working and then one providing childcare.
sbradford26 3y ago
If you scroll down they have a breakdown, but that big increase in expenses is that a single working adult with a child would need to pay for childcare. If there is 2 adults and only 1 working it is assumed the non working adult would handle childcare.
- mankyd 3y ago
  Thank you. I missed this!
solarmist 3y ago
Childcare costs. It’s cheaper to feed and house two people than to pay for childcare in the US.
muricula 3y ago
The model assumes the non-working adult is able to provide child care.

b20000 3y ago

so as a single adult with a kid you can have a normal life in santa clara county with 100k income according to this calculator that seems several multiples off

jader201 3y ago

A lot of comments comparing the estimates on the site with their (anecdotal) expenses. I’m assuming there’s a pretty big margin of error here, especially given so many other factors on top of fluctuation in the dollar. I wouldn’t expect estimates for cost of living to be accurate within more than 10-15% (or more).

tristor 3y ago

This massively underestimates the cost of housing, at least in my locality.

nilstycho 3y ago

A large proportion of living expenses are housing, so this calculation is sensitive to the housing component. The housing component is estimated as the U.S. HUD's "Fair Market Rent", which is defined as the 40th percentile rent. I believe this overestimates a living wage. It's more like a living-like-the-40th-percentile wage.

YossarianFrPrez 3y ago

I'm willing to bet most graduate student stipends fall below the living wage estimate for the place they are living. It's a terrible and negative incentive to go into the sciences, especially compared with Tech wages / salaries.

smcleod 3y ago

*USA only

GloriousKoji 3y ago

They're using April 2022 or 2021 data for the housing cost, no wonder the living wage number is way off.

dbg31415 3y ago

Cute, but why don’t they ever include elder care? Lots of people take care of more than just children. Would be nice to include that if you are poor, odds are you have kin that are poor too. And odds are you help when you can.

mathewsanders 3y ago

For Manhattan they’re giving cost of living for 1 adult as $53,342 which is way way off. They are allocating $2000/month for housing (avg 1 bed in Manhattan is around $4000) and $12.50 for food per day (I guess possible if you’re eating rice-and-bean type meals). This living wage is 4x povity wage, so I guess they’re expecting povity line to be finding places that rent for $500 and being able to budget for $4 for food each day. Thankfully we voted in last years local election to have a true cost of living index for nyc calculated each year. http://truecostofliving.org/ http://truecostofliving.org/ For 2023 they estimate north Manhattan as $123,688 And south Manhattan as $151,723 Shocking how far off the calculations are given that I assume a resource like this is used for policy decisions.

twoodfin 3y ago

This doesn’t seem to account for government transfer payments and other benefits. For example, a Boston single mother of two at the “living wage” line is definitely not going to net $25,768 worth of taxes!