14 ms·
MIT Living Wage Calculator
- thealistra 7mo agoUS only it seems?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- jmclnx 7mo agoPretty good, but not granular enough. For example, the area I grew up in is much cheaper to live in that the metro it is tagged to. The two areas are separated by 15 miles (~24km). If you live in a large city, then it works great.
- downrightmike 7mo agoDoes this base itself on the metric started in 1963, that was eseentially a big guess that 3x starvation level was well off? because we have better numbers now. Avg us salary is 60k, but to take car of the needs of a family of 4, not in starvation range is ~$160k/year
- 0xbadcafebee 7mo agohttps://livingwage.mit.edu/pages/methodology https://livingwage.mit.edu/pages/methodology
- lelandbatey 7mo agoPut in an area and see for yourself. In general, yes this calculator is closer to what you're describing. For example, Skamania County, a pretty rural county of Washington state with a very low population of 12,000 people, still has a "required living wage" for 1 breadwinner + 1 homemaker + 3 children of $104,292 per year: https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/53059 https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/53059 That feels pretty close to accurate.
- chasd00 7mo agoYeah Dallas county Texas, where I live, for family of 4 and 2 working adults is around $105k/year. That seems close, there’s nothing secure about that long term (no room for savings or retirement) but it’s livable.
- ninalanyon 7mo agoHow can you need that much money to not starve? According to Wikipedia[1] median household income in the US and Norway is only about a quarter of your 160 kUSD. I'm pretty sure that most of the people living near me in Norway are not high earners but I don't see any signs of starvation either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
- etchalon 7mo agoNorway has many wonderful things American voters are terrified of giving people less they use them.
- downrightmike 7mo agoUSA site. USA metrics. USA Comment. I vote to get the same things you all have, but your assumption is that Norway matters in this context is foolish
- ninalanyon 7mo agoMy assumption was the the US numbers that I quoted mattered, they simply happen to be roughly the same as Norway's.
- nomel 7mo ago> not in starvation range is ~$160k/year That highly depends on your definition of "need" and where you live. If you're in a city with ludicrous cost of living, like San Fransisco, then sure. But, that's also why people commute, or just choose to go somewhere cheaper. It's somewhat shocking seeing how much higher the standard of living is, with much less income, outside the big cities.
- Exoristos 7mo agoIn the U.S., a family of four technically doesn't need any money "not to starve," because SNAP covers the cost of groceries if providers are unable.
- ninalanyon 7mo ago2080 hours per year! That's 52 weeks of 40 hours per week. It's also inhuman. Here in Norway we have five weeks of holiday plus various public holidays and only 37.5 hours per week adding up to about 1700 hours per year.
- renewiltord 7mo agoYeah, oil nations are different. Norway's resources are well-managed, but oil nations with outsourced defence just have different constraints.
- sva_ 7mo agoIn Germany its somewhere between 1600-1700 hours, and we don't have much oil
- Sadzeih 7mo agoFrance is not an oil nation. We have 35h weeks and 5 weeks of paid vacation as well. Edit: Also, the US is a damn oil nation. It has nothing to do with oil, and everything to do with politics.
- daedrdev 7mo agoFrance has stuck is head in the sand regarding its future finances
- clircle 7mo agoThe standard of living that one could afford with a "living wage" looks to be very very low. Like, 0 vacations and no house low, for my metro area.
- NewJazz 7mo agoYes, this is supposed to be the number at which you aren't going to go into (medical, auto) debt, make rent/utilities each month, and not starve. It is by no means intended to represent a life containing any luxuries.
- falcojr 7mo agoAnd for my area it is very high. I live in a cheap midwest town and according to this, the difference between here and San Francisco is only 30k a year.
- clueless 7mo agoThis whole dataset needs to be downloadable, instead of being behind their UI..
- amelius 7mo agoBasically a "ramen profitable" calculator.
- prepend 7mo agoI don’t think this is very accurate. In my county the “living wage” is $26.50 for a single adult with no children. Many young people I know live on much less than this. This is more like “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.” Which of course, people would like to have but certainly isn’t required to be comfortable. For example, transportation costs are $9000/year and housing is $20000/year. These are both way more than is necessary. They need better branding because calling this a living wage is a misnomer and harming their cause.
- RobotToaster 7mo agoYou're confusing staying alive with living
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- andiareso 7mo agoI disagree. Living wage is not minimum wage.
- sedatk 7mo agoThe web site also makes that distinction: living wage, poverty wage, and minimum wage.
- FrustratedMonky 7mo agoThat is the point isn't it. The minimum wage is far below what it takes to actually 'live', like have a place to live and a car.
- NewJazz 7mo agoAre those people funding their retirement? Are they going to be able to take care of themselves as health issues come up? Are they receiving support from family? Edit: also the housing cost is probably factoring in a studio or maybe a 1bd for a single person. That may seem luxurious to you, but for many that is the only real option they have (roommates are hard to come by and can hurt you physically and fiscally).
- skulk 7mo agoFor Phoenix[0] it shows $44 for 1 adult 1 child, but $42 for 2 adults 1 child with 1 adult working. Is this because of a child tax credit or something? [0]: https://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/38060 https://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/38060
- ahussain 7mo agoI was wondering this too. I assume it’s because child care costs are lower when one parent isn’t working(?)
- lelandbatey 7mo agoNo, it's because their model puts dollar values on the labor contributed by non-working adults w/r/t raising children. So in that case, it could be that 1adult1child is slightly higher because of the need to pay for childcare, while the food/insurance/clothing etc of the additional adult in 2adult1child is offset by the fact that the non-working adult will conduct childcare and thus that expense goes away.
- matuszeg 7mo agoBut then why is the number higher for 2adult1child (1 working) when compared to 2adult1child(both working). wouldn't child raising costs get added back in once both are working?
- Jtsummers 7mo ago> In households with two working adults, all hourly values reflect what one working adult requires to earn to meet their families’ basic needs, assuming the other adult also earns the same. From the page itself, first paragraph. Double the value under 2 adult (both working) to get the estimated household income.
- skulk 7mo agoright. kind of obvious in hindsight.
- reactordev 7mo agoHousing data is flawed. Even if you’re single, no kids, you’re limited to what is available and 1 bedrooms in my state can’t be had for less than $1500/mo anywhere in the state. Yet this says housing costs annually would be $12000. How? I think the data this is based off of is super stale.
- Exoristos 7mo agoI never rented a 1-bedroom apartment until I was married. A studio/efficiency is fine for singles, or even a room.
- reactordev 7mo agoStudio/1bed are the same thing here. It’s the same price, same sqft.
- trollbridge 7mo agoIt's basically out of date, since the housing market has changed so rapidly.
- NewJazz 7mo agoI'm guessing it uses the cost of a studio for a single person.
- reactordev 7mo agoWhich can’t be had for less than $1500/mo here. Studio/1bed are the same.
- Aurornis 7mo ago> Yet this says housing costs annually would be $12000. How? Having roommates is extremely common. There are also a lot of room-for-rent situations that don’t show up on the websites listing apartments. If you’re tapped into local networks of younger people there’s always someone with a room for rent or a group of friends looking for someone to take over a room in a house they’re renting together. Not helpful for someone in their 50s moving to a new city, but for young people living on a budget this is just how it works and has for a long time.
- 0xbadcafebee 7mo agoThere is something wrong with the transportation cost. I live in a poor rural county, and it says the 0-child transportation cost is $10k+. People's trucks here don't even cost that much, and they don't drive far. I see it counts as 2 working adults, but it's still grossly inflated.
- NewJazz 7mo agoAre you factoring in fuel, repairs, maintenance, registration/taxes, and insurance? As well as depreciation?
- 0xbadcafebee 7mo agoI think I underestimated the fuel cost, that seems to be the bulk of it. The rest is nothing; two or three oil changes, some other basic maintenance you can DIY, or more serious maintenance you get the neighbor to help out with, and insurance is cheap on old clunkers.
- staticman2 7mo agoIt seems the government data does not agree with you that people don't drive far in rural areas: https://www.bts.gov/data-spotlight/household-cost-transportation-it-affordable https://www.bts.gov/data-spotlight/household-cost-transporta...
- bumby 7mo agoI questioned that too, but vehicle costs are based off surveyed data. So if the average 2 adults have a car payment, insurance, fuel, and repair costs, it’s probably reflected in their data. To me, that’s different than saying “a reasonable mode of reliable transportation”
- nearbuy 7mo agoI don't think it's appropriate to use the average vehicle costs for the living wage. It overestimates how much people on that wage spend on their vehicles. For example, the average new-vehicle price in December 2025 was about $50,000. But people earning the living wage mostly aren't buying that kind of car. They could buy a new car for less than half that, or buy a used car. Or they may choose to take public transit.
- 0sdi 7mo agoSomeone is siphoning your value. It's quite obvious when you track the productivity, or ask questions about how did your great-grandpa survive at all without machines. Just stating the obvious, don't mind me.
- llmslave 7mo agoYeah I think people need to start asking the question, "Where is the money going". Its not just inexistent, its literally going somewhere other than your pocket.
- dmd 7mo agoThey're not voting against their own self interest; they just have different interests than you. Their primary interest and goal is making sure their out-group is hurting, and that is what they are voting for, regardless of that happens to them.
- JamesBarney 7mo agoThey lived in a house or apt with a third the sqft/person that was far more likely to catch fire and didn't have AC. If they had a car they most likely shared it. It was far less safe, didn't have AC, guzzled gas and polluted. Never ate out and spent a third of earnings on cheap grocery store staples. College and healthcare was much cheaper, and they got a lot less of it. We're benefiting greatly from the increase in productivity. We just view our great-grandfather luxuries as our necessities.
- lp4v4n 7mo ago>They lived in a house or apt with a third the sqft/person that was far more likely to catch fire and didn't have AC. But at least they could afford a house, right? I think a lot of people would accept living in a house without AC and more likely to catch fire. Is a house like that cheap today? No, right? It's crazy expensive as well. >If they had a car they most likely shared it. It was far less safe, didn't have AC, guzzled gas and polluted. Car technology in the past was worse, we know that. Cars were more affordable though. >Never ate out and spent a third of earnings on cheap grocery store staples. Like today then. >We're benefiting greatly from the increase in productivity. We just view our great-grandfather luxuries as our necessities. Young people are rotting at home unable to go ahead with their lives because wages nowadays are not enough to pay for a house and a family. Why do people try to deny this obvious reality? Productivity didn't benefit everyone equally and people in the past had more opportunities to build a life inside a standard that was socially acceptable.
- rucury 7mo agoPuerto Rico is always left out of these analyses. AFAIK we are included in the same data sources (like dol.gov), so I'm always disappointing to see the exclusion.
- bumby 7mo agoAnecdotally, I found some of the costs like food and food to be inflated. When I looked at the methodology, some is based on consumer surveys so it may be more reflective of over-consumption. In other words, it prices in what people want or what they’re used to, not what they need. The counterpoint is that maybe some wealthy countries should be pricing in a higher quality of life, but the “living wage” then becomes a bit of a misnomer.
- cwillu 7mo agoYes, that's what makes it a living wage instead of a poverty wage, let alone a starvation wage.
- bumby 7mo agoThe larger point I’m making is the “living wage” may be built on an idea that the assumed consumerist norm is ideal.
- hackable_sand 7mo agoLike food and shelter?
- bumby 7mo agoI would add healthcare to that. But I wouldn’t add things like the typical transportation costs like those in the study that are derived from consumer surveys. And from my personal anecdotal experience, the food costs mentioned seem high, so they might be more consumerist than you let on.
- jandrewrogers 7mo agoAnecdotally their numbers are significantly higher for my city than what I actually spend in some categories. I am not frugal by any stretch of the imagination, you would have to be pretty careless and/or irresponsible to hit some of those numbers. On the other hand, the living wage is below the actual minimum wage in some cases. If you look at US BLS and Federal Reserve studies on such things, they make a distinctions between what people actually spend on ordinary expenses and when people can no longer afford those categories of expenses. An interesting artifact is that incomes across the 15-40th percentile range in the same city don't save much money but still have enough money to pay for all ordinary expenses. That is a wide range of incomes for people nominally spending their entire income on the same things. What actually seems to happen is that average people spend excess income on upgrading their lifestyle until they hit the 40th percentile, at which point the average person starts saving some of their additional excess income.
- Traster 7mo agoI fell out of love with the living wage when the UK government bumped minimum wage and called it living wage. The government kept on getting raked over the coals by charities who claimed that people working minimum wage were in poverty and so our govenrment bumped the minimum wage by a bit and then announced it as "This is the new NATIONAL LIVING WAGE". Which is just perfect politics. You're the government, so you can just take a term. Trump can brand the Gulf of America, and the UK Tories can just redefine the living wage. Now those charities are stuffed because any time they talk about a living wage everyone gets confused, it cuts the legs out of the conversation. The core of the problem is that you basically have to have someone define what is an acceptable standard of living. Sharing a flat? Nah, the MIT trained economist thinks that's for the poverty people so that is defined as below living wage. Walk to work? No. You need atleast $10k a year on travel otherwise you're a bus wanker. A huge amount of this is value judgements on what is an acceptable standard of living from people who benefit from immense privilege but will never experience the thing they're studying.
- socalgal2 7mo agoI think I'm mis-understanding. How is 1 adult + 3 children at $107.95 and 2 adults + 3 children at $63.97 5 people could require more money than 4. You could say in the 2nd case it's $63.97x2 but that doesn't make any sense either because the table also has 1 adult 0 children $29.31 and 2 adults 0 children at $41.81. Clearly they are not doing 2x to that $41.81 as it would be more than the $29.31 at 2x Was this AI generated?
- bitcurious 7mo agoChild care.
- socalgal2 7mo agothat's not either See the first row in this table: https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06075 https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06075 Compare 2 adults (1 working) 3 kids to 2 adults (both working) 3 kids First off, you'd expect it to be 1 adult = X 2 adults = X + X(0.?) Where 0.? is something less than 1 because 2 adults need less than 2x the money Similarly for kids 1 kids = Y 2 kids = Y + Y(0.?) 3 kids = Y + Y(0.?) + Y(0.?) You'd expect 2 kids to be less than 2x 1 kid. And you'd expect 3 kids to be les than 1x + 2x 2nd kid. Each kid is cheaper for various reasons like hand-me-downs etc... But instead, under 2 adults 1 working we see 1 adult = $29.31 (from one adult) 2 adults = $41.83 (so X + X * 0.42) 2 adults 1 kid = 50.47 2 adults 2 kids = 54.77 (so + $4.30) 2 adults 3 kids = 63.97 (so + $9.19) Why does the 3rd kid cost more than the 2nd? Then you can also compare 1 adult 3 kids with 2 adults both working + 3 kids 1 adult + 3 kids = $107.95 2 adults (both working + 3 kids) = $55.67 Assuming that $55.67 is wages for each that means we're comparing 1 adult + 3 kids = $107.95 2 adults (both working + 3 kids) = $55.67x2 ($111.34) We already established that above that adding one adult is only $12.52 a month yet here, suddenly that adult only costs $3.40 a month. Again, these are nonsense numbers.
- NewJazz 7mo ago1. This is not ai generated. 2. Did you look in the costs breakdown? You'll probs find your answers there. 3. I am guessing having a spare adult to take care of 3 children instead of paying for childcare is probably the difference.
- snarkle 7mo ago[dead]
- lacoolj 7mo agoThis is very cool to see all compiled and easily navigable. The thing I want to see next would be the sister calculator: what it would take for a business of X size employees, Y revenue, Z other expenses, to increase wages to these standards. This feels like it would help to close that gap. Give a business owner a concrete path to take. Just saying something is broken isn't going to get it fixed. Just typing all this I think I have my weekend project lined up. Thanks MIT!
- bradlys 7mo agoI'm going to base it off of the peninsula (San Mateo County) in the Bay Area for a single person. https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06081 https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06081 By my estimations, it's not a great calculator. $2.5k/month for all housing costs. I'm not saying it's not possible to find a studio + utilities but that's not a fun place to live. No AC, no insulation, built for a different climate which was 70 years ago, laundromat or (hopefully) coin-op laundry in building, likely near busy roads (101, el camino) or train tracks with no sound insulation, still extremely car dependent (which is included in this calculator - gas/electricity, taxes, and cars in CA are very expensive), etc. Again, doable but competitive market and not a fun one. You'd be guaranteed to NEVER own any property at that income. Until we have some public housing utopia, I'd say ownership should be accounted for in a living wage. Otherwise, you're gonna get evicted when retirement hits. Its calculation on taxes seems off to me as well. https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-paycheck-calculator#BWtKoVfEBq https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-paycheck-calculator#... Says $72308 in San Mateo, CA gives you $55793 - not $59791. You'd have to make close to $80k/yr to get the amount they suggest to live. This calculator does not include retirement savings, emergency saving, etc. It just assumes you'll comfortably live paycheck to paycheck until you die and never save a dime. In our country, you will not be getting $60k/yr post tax from social security. So, this is a stupid calculator unless you plan to never retire or never experience job loss (max payout is $450/week for unemployment in CA), etc.
- Jtsummers 7mo ago> This calculator does not include retirement savings, emergency saving, etc. It just assumes you'll comfortably live paycheck to paycheck until you die and never save a dime. In our country, you will not be getting $60k/yr post tax from social security. So, this is a stupid calculator unless you plan to never retire or never experience job loss (max payout is $450/week for unemployment in CA), etc. It doesn't include those things because those aren't the things that are covered by a "living wage". Living wage sounds like something good, but it's literally just enough to cover what's needed. Can you afford housing, childcare, medical care, transportation for work, etc. It's a low bar, not a good target, for a society to try to hit. It means people at that wage shouldn't be going hungry or without shelter, but they won't necessarily be thriving.
- cbdevidal 7mo agoThe problem with defining “living wage” is you must trust that the person defining it has your best interests in mind, and is calculating it while including _your_ needs. For example, you don’t want me to be the one to define “living wage.” I’ve been a prepper/bushcrafter for 20 years… the ACTUAL “living wage” is _zero_. There are innumerable resources all around you if you know how to find and use them.
- legitster 7mo agoThe older I get the more I realize how fraught the idea of a "living wage" is. Through mid life, your financial health is not as determined by wages, but by your family/connections. Do you have access to a grandmother who can babysit? A decent second-hand car? A good roommate situation? Just look at the expense table - any one of these things could be worth up to 20% of your income! And you see that literally right here - are any of us actually comfortable with the idea that the value of your labor should be determined by your marriage status and number of children? It's kind of telling that countries with "successful" minimum wages either don't have one and just institutionalize collective bargaining, or they do some fancy calculations that start with prevailing median wages and welfare eligibility. The idea of trying to get this number from the bottom up by building expenses just doesn't seem very robust.
- usui 7mo agoIt needs to be because the US has leaned further into individualism relative to other countries. If society's golden metric of success means being able to acquire all of these luxuries or services purely through monetary means as transactional individuals, don't be too surprised when the expenses rack up.
- thewillowcat 7mo agoJust because the wider society encourages it, your family doesn't have to lean into individualism, and many don't. We got by when I was a kid with a lot of help from friends and family, when I am absolutely sure we didn't have a living wage under this definition.
- zozbot234 7mo agoDid you fairly compensate your friends and family members for that "help"? Systematic reliance on wholly unpaid labor is not exactly something to be proud of.
- brendoelfrendo 7mo ago
- cozzyd 7mo agoThe cost of childcare seems way underestimated, at least for young children. It shows $13,641 for my metro (Chicago), but day care costs are easily twice that. Obviously once kids are school-age this is much lower (if going to public school), so maybe that's how you get at this figure. On the other hand the transportation costs are way overestimated for non-car families (we spend less than $2k/year on local transit for 2 adults and 1 child, obviously this doesn't include airfare for vacations or whatnot). Maybe these are both an artifact of too broad a catchment area (childcare is probably cheaper in the 'burbs, but so likely are average transportation costs).
- NewJazz 7mo agoIf you look at their methodology, it says they use county level data for childcare costs. That can definitely understate rates in core urban areas, depending on the county limits. Also, a lot of the data is at least a few years old now. And the new data that is made available has a fat asterisk on it, if it is from the feds.
- siavosh 7mo agoIf you enter in a US city, another takeaway from the rendered table is that U.S. living standards (measured economically) continued to improve for some time after the 1970s despite weak wage growth largely because *more households relied on two earners instead of one*. While productivity kept rising, the gains were increasingly captured at the top and not shared with the workers. Of course that buffer is now long gone, but wages haven't kept up.
- pertique 7mo agoCan anyone speak to the reliability of using metropolitan statistical areas for something like this? Having lived across on both sides of the tracks in a few, grouping them for something like this seems like an interesting choice. One that I probably wouldn't agree with, but I'm out of my depth
- thewillowcat 7mo agoThis calculator says that the median household in my county is not making a living wage, which is ridiculous on its face.
- blobbers 7mo agoHow are they getting medical costs in San Mateo County so wrong. $11,896 with 2 children? My Kaiser $14K deductible bronze plan costs $2100 a month. That's more like $25K a year, and that's before I use it... the only reason I have it is in case something traumatic happens. This is the cheapest plan I can get on covered california.
- brendoelfrendo 7mo agoI assume that's not an employer sponsored plan? You can read the methodology for more, but their data is a mix of a) how much people pay into employer-sponsored health insurance plans, b) individual and small group insurance market information, where available, and c) estimated out-of-pocket expenses not covered by insurance. If you're buying a plan through a marketplace, you are almost certainly going to come in well above the median for your area.
- blobbers 7mo agoCovered California (as indicated in my message) coveres 2M out of the 40M people in California, or 5% of the population. Typically, it tends to cover the bottom of the income level, aka the folks who are trying to get a living wage. Seems like their methodology is a little broken, wouldn't you agree? My out of pocket is a 14K deductible on top of 25K in premiums.
- staticman2 7mo agoIt would not surprise me to learn their methodology is flawed however under the affordable care act people below 400 percent of the poverty line pay less due to tax subsidies so we can't assume 5 percent of the population pays what you pay.
- twoodfin 7mo agoThis has been posted many times before, and AFAICT it’s fundamentally misleading, as it doesn’t account for transfer payments (refundable tax credits, food stamps, housing vouchers, ACA subsidies, …) That artificially inflates the “wage level” needed for the estimated living standard. It also makes the tax figures absurd. No two-parent, two-kid household making $110K is paying 15% of that net in taxes, subtracting deductions, credits and subsidies. IOW, our “safety net” for middle-income parents could get 5X more generous and this calculator would show the same results.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- daveguy 7mo agoA lot of the safety net also goes poof if you have the living wage. So I'm not sure exactly how your argument works. Are you saying the minimum wage should be under the poverty wage and everyone with that wage should depend on safety nets as it is now?
- twoodfin 7mo agoIf this is meant to truly calculate the wage someone needs to live, it should at least attempt to assess transfer payments from the government, the same way it estimates living costs.
- daveguy 7mo agoI'm not sure what part of "the safety net goes away if you have the living wage" you don't understand. The living wage is the wage that you need. Because you're not getting any "transfers" from safety nets at that point. If we had a perfect safety net you could claim any minimum wage, even $0/hr, is the "living wage". But that's not the point. The point is -- what wage would you need to live completely self sufficiently on your own. In policy, it is used to guide when the safety net is no longer necessary. So, including a decent, morally justified, safety net would defeat the purpose of calculating "living wage". tldr it's "living wage" not "living subsidy".
- diebillionaires 7mo agoseems jusssttt a touch low. like by half
- djoldman 7mo ago> Civic engagement > The cost of civic engagement specifically is constructed by summing together the Consumer Expenditure Survey’s annual expenditure means for audio-visual equipment; education; fees and admission; other entertainment; pets; reading; and toys, hobbies, and playground equipment by both the size and composition of the consumer unit, which functions as a rough proxy for family size. To me that's a pretty interesting category. Also it's pretty large at least for the Chicago metro area.
- xtiansimon 7mo agoThis post reminds me of a 2015 news story about entrepreneur Dan Price (Gravity Payments). He made headlines for his company's living wage described as a point, which he set at 70k, below which a person's finances are a series of trade-offs--medical treatment OR car payment OR vacation OR something else. Above 70k the trade-offs were increasingly qualitative, only. Whatever you think about Mr Price or his math, I still believe this is the most intuitive description of a "living wage" as a concept.