|
|
|
|
|
by j_w
288 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.