[bluGill]

I understand that a true minimal lifestyle is illegal. However if we ignore that issue (I in fact do not agree with those laws) we can look at what our true minimums are.

A mud hut will not cut your lifespan. A mud hut of course implies that you don't have access to good medical care, don't have good heat, and cooking on a smokey wood fire. All of those will cut your lifespan, but it isn't the mud hut it is the rest of what it implies. In short poverty which I already said is a problem.

We can move up a step: at $5/hour (less than minimum wage in the US, but lets call the rest lost to taxes) you can potentially earn $800/month, put $600 into rent in a cheap apartment and that leaves $200 for food. You will be walking everywhere, getting clothing at goodwill, but it is enough to live to a fairly old age one (once you get old you can no longer afford your medical bills, but most people can live to old age with minimal medical care)

[Shikadi]

$200 is left for food and medical and clothing, and won't buy you a very healthy diet, at least where I am, which is considered a cheaper place to live. Also that's ignoring, the systematic barriers in the way of doing that. In a place where you don't need a car to get from cheap apartments to work, "cheap apartments" cost more than $600. In a place where apartents are actually cheap enough, and someone walks say a mile every day to work, they're competing with everyone else to find work in a small radius. That's a tiny tip of the iceberg, but in a perfect world minimum wage would be enough to live on for everyone everywhere. We don't live anywhere near there