[Buttons840]

The following site breaks down the living wage required for families of various sizes, and the wage of various industries.

I compared the living wage for my own family size with the average wage per industry and realized there were only 3 industries I could earn a living wage in, management, computers, or legal. Fortunately I have experience in the computer industry (surprise HN).

Let me spell it out. The following industries provide a below living wage, on average, for a single parent with one child: business & financial operations, architecture & engineering, life, physical, & social science, community & social service, education, training, & library, arts, design, entertainment, sports, & media, healthcare practitioners & technical, healthcare support, protective service, food preparation & serving related, building & grounds cleaning & maintenance, personal care & service, sales & related, office & administrative support, farming, fishing, & forestry, construction & extraction, installation, maintenance, & repair, production, transportation & material moving.

https://livingwage.mit.edu/ example: https://livingwage.mit.edu/states/49

[j_w]

My issue with "living wage" calculations is that they never compromise. I live in a county with great public transit. The living wage before taxes is listed as 61k for a single adult. Over 9k of that is allocated to transportation costs. Did I mention the great public transit? All of the buses are free.

Internet + mobile is 1500? Well gigabit fiber + mint mobile would run you 1200/year, so where is the extra 300 coming from?

American consumers are unwilling to tighten their belts for long term gains, and it shows. The comment you replied to mentioned r/FIRE - a lot of people on that subreddit don't have insane incomes, they just live well below their means.

This isn't to say it's not hard: it is. We live in a consumerist society and going against that is not easy. Having a low wage job is not easy. But saying the cost of living is as high as the livingwage site says is just not true. Their methodology is to obtain data from expenditure statistics - the problem is the average American is way too into consuming and spends beyond their means.

[Buttons840]

You make some good points.

I guess a "living wage" probably implies living an "normal" American life, which isn't maximally tightening the belt.

Even with good public transportation, driving saves a lot of time. The extra $300 probably comes from a combination of needing to buy a new phone and new computer periodically, hidden taxes and fees, and also it's reasonable to expect a "normal" living wage to include enough to cover at least 2 or 3 of the cheapest options--more than just one single bottom-of-the-barrel option.

Again, you make good points, and I agree some skepticism about their "living wage" numbers are justified. At least they break it down to give a glimpse into some of their logic.

[j_w]

The problem is that the "normal" American consumes greatly beyond their means. What I described isn't maximally tightening the belt, it's a very reasonable and satisfying way to live.

I don't have a car, I ride a bike, walk, or take public transit. In no way do I feel restricted in my daily life. I have a 6 year old iPhone that if you amortize would be $100/year (well under that extra 300).

A lot of Americans would consider no car and an old phone to be untenable. How would I get to work? You live closer to work. It's too expensive to live closer to work. Well is it once you get rid of your car(s)? There are genuinely going to be some areas of the country where this is not possible (living in proximity to work where a car is not needed). But those areas typically do not have a "cost of living crisis."

[Buttons840]

What about needing a laptop for the internet? There's $1000, and you need to upgrade every couple years. I spent $2000 to build a desktop myself 10 years ago; it still works well enough, it plays the games I like, but Windows wont support it anymore, it's end of life; there's $200 a year.

Again, "living" implies a little wiggle room and having access to more than just the one cheapest bottom-of-the-barrel option.

What if you lose your phone? You'll have to buy another. Can we include that potential expense in the budget? A "living" wage implies you're not set back for years because you lost one item.

[j_w]

The living wage calculation on that website does not constitute your last paragraph. I'd argue that not including a savings/retirement investment portion makes it a much worse number.

As for a computer, your desktop will work fine with Linux. A laptop doesn't need to cost 1000, again we are over consuming. If your hobby requires a computer, that would be from recreational expenses, not required technology spending.

Living has lots of wiggle room, but it starts with understanding what you actually NEED vs what you think you need, then wiggling from there. If you start with inflated base monthly expenses your true requirements become obscured.

I'm privileged. I don't actually know what a healthy retirement savings rate is because I'm certainly well above that in my own savings. But part of why I'm well above that is because I truly cut down on a lot of unneeded spending that I see many of my peers doing.

[Buttons840]

A living wage should allow recreation. Gaming is one of the cheapest forms of recreation.

You're also claiming average people should know how to install and use Linux, so I don't know if we can reach further agreement.