Living Wage Calculator(livingwage.mit.edu)
livingwage.mit.edu
Living Wage Calculator
https://livingwage.mit.edu/
90 comments
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.
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.
> We had a perfectly happy, frugal, life at around $36k.
There's a tendency for people to think that anyone not living in a house with a white picket fence in Queen Anne must be insufferable.
It seems like there's a large group of people that is simply miserable if they don't have as much as others - regardless of if that thing is going to actually bring them any joy or not.
It seems like half my friends are killing themselves to buy a boat - and they don't even go out boating more than a couple times a year. I'll never get it.
There's a tendency for people to think that anyone not living in a house with a white picket fence in Queen Anne must be insufferable.
It seems like there's a large group of people that is simply miserable if they don't have as much as others - regardless of if that thing is going to actually bring them any joy or not.
It seems like half my friends are killing themselves to buy a boat - and they don't even go out boating more than a couple times a year. I'll never get it.
It's an interest effect indeed: social poverty.
As a kid in the 80s we owned close to nothing. But nobody did and we just made the best of it. I never felt poor because this simply was the living standard of the time and our objective needs were met.
It seems since then we simply invented a whole lot of extra "needs", which really are "wants".
As a kid in the 80s we owned close to nothing. But nobody did and we just made the best of it. I never felt poor because this simply was the living standard of the time and our objective needs were met.
It seems since then we simply invented a whole lot of extra "needs", which really are "wants".
But if you're not in SLU, is it really living?
It's also important to remember that it includes the neighborhoods you may not be so excited to live in where rents are going to be cheaper, driving down the average. I live in Chicago, my "living wage" is like $85,000/yr for a single guy with no kids, but my area also has a median rent of >$2000 and I need a 2nd bedroom to use as an office.
This stuff is so general as to be basically worthless beyond a comparison between areas, not as a datapoint to use when calculating the cost of living somewhere.
This stuff is so general as to be basically worthless beyond a comparison between areas, not as a datapoint to use when calculating the cost of living somewhere.
> First off, I see $38,817 not $18k. Where did you get that?
https://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/42660
> Typical Expenses > > 1 Adult > > Housing > > $18,388
I'm talking about just the housing, it looks like the number you're talking about is total expenses.
> Second, this is for the whole Seattle/Tacoma area. This isn’t living in central Seattle.
Okay that makes more sense. You can definitely get studios for $1.5k with utilities in e.g. Renton or Kent.
https://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/42660
> Typical Expenses > > 1 Adult > > Housing > > $18,388
I'm talking about just the housing, it looks like the number you're talking about is total expenses.
> Second, this is for the whole Seattle/Tacoma area. This isn’t living in central Seattle.
Okay that makes more sense. You can definitely get studios for $1.5k with utilities in e.g. Renton or Kent.
That clears it up.
$1.5k is actually really high. The median rent according to Zillow, for just Seattle, is $2.3k and that’s all sizes of apartments.
I’m suspicious of the claim here that this is minimal living costs, not closer to median cost.
$1.5k is actually really high. The median rent according to Zillow, for just Seattle, is $2.3k and that’s all sizes of apartments.
I’m suspicious of the claim here that this is minimal living costs, not closer to median cost.
It looks like it's 40th percentile, which for the whole metro region, yea $1.5k for a studio makes sense even after you add in utilities. So much closer to median cost.
$1.5k with $100-$200 of utilities, renters insurance, etc in Seattle proper gets a little more difficult to find. You could probably do it up north past greenwood, over in west seattle, or similar. If you know how to dodge the craigslist scams haha.
$1.5k with $100-$200 of utilities, renters insurance, etc in Seattle proper gets a little more difficult to find. You could probably do it up north past greenwood, over in west seattle, or similar. If you know how to dodge the craigslist scams haha.
40th percentile: interesting! Thanks for digging that up.
I guess ideologically I don’t think “living wage” corresponds to 40th percentile
I guess ideologically I don’t think “living wage” corresponds to 40th percentile
I'm curious about this. How many years ago was this, and would you be willing to divulge the general vicinity of the neighbourhood you rented or lived in?
The results for 2 people definitely seemed more realistic (childcare notwithstanding)
I checked for Bellingham, which is where I most recently lived in WA -- where it suggests two adults could get by on less than $1000/mo. in rent. Quite unlikely. Ten years ago, my rent for a 400 sq. ft. studio apartment in Bellingham was $850/mo. It's more like $1200/mo now. And that's assuming it's reasonable to expect two adults to share 400 sq. ft.
> 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.
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.
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.
Ah yes, that can be deceptive. Maybe some people would want to live in Tacoma and commute to Seattle to work, or WFH.
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/
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
For example, a Boston single mother of two at the “living wage” line is definitely not going to net $25,768 worth of taxes!
They're using April 2022 or 2021 data for the housing cost, no wonder the living wage number is way off.
*USA only
Typical Annual Salaries lists "Management" as an occupation. What does that even mean?
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.'
Data probably comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm#11-0000
It means you sit in a chair and send meeting invites.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Either that, or food costs really are similar within a region if you cook your own food and shop frugally.
The typical expenses seem pretty high. Why do transportation and housing increase so much with kids?
>The FMR estimates include utility costs and vary depending on the number of bedrooms in each unit, from zero to four bedrooms.
We assumed that a one adult family would rent a single occupancy unit(zero bedrooms) for an individual adult household, that a two adult family would rent a one bedroom apartment, and that two adult and one or two child families would rent a two bedroom apartment. We further assumed that families with three children would rent a three bedroom apartment (the adults are allocated one bedroom and the children two bedrooms).
So they covered their assumptions in their technical documentation that is linked at the top of the page. The increase in housing costs seems reasonable to me personally but as with all assumptions not everyone will agree.
So they covered their assumptions in their technical documentation that is linked at the top of the page. The increase in housing costs seems reasonable to me personally but as with all assumptions not everyone will agree.
Don't all 16 year olds get a car for their birthday or is that just in movies?
Best regards,
Europe
Best regards,
Europe
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.
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.
We usually wait until Christmas so we can put a giant novelty bow around it in the driveway.
Poor Santa must have a serious back pain the 25th... :D
I bought my first car with money I earned working a summer job for 500USD. Then I got my second car for free from the same lady because it didn't run. Me and my pops fixed it up and got it on the road.
These were, of course, complete gas guzzling shitboxes that required repair before they could function well. It wasn't until I went away to college that I had something halfway reliable, and that as at 18, and that car had a blown head gasket and needed a valvejob in order to run. It served me well though, ran for another 5 years before I traded it in.
Understand of course, a car in america is freedom and potential. It doesn't just represent that, it is that. America is very, very big and very very spread out compared to europe. That makes public transit an untenable option almost everywhere.
These were, of course, complete gas guzzling shitboxes that required repair before they could function well. It wasn't until I went away to college that I had something halfway reliable, and that as at 18, and that car had a blown head gasket and needed a valvejob in order to run. It served me well though, ran for another 5 years before I traded it in.
Understand of course, a car in america is freedom and potential. It doesn't just represent that, it is that. America is very, very big and very very spread out compared to europe. That makes public transit an untenable option almost everywhere.
In a lot of places in the US a teenager without a car might as well be nailed to the floor.
If both parents are working, they can't do after-school activities or extracurriculars. Some can make it work by catching rides, but it's remarkably difficult.
I know this is insane, but that's the world we've got.
If both parents are working, they can't do after-school activities or extracurriculars. Some can make it work by catching rides, but it's remarkably difficult.
I know this is insane, but that's the world we've got.
An automobile is basically a requirement to not starve anywhere outside the core of maybe 5 American cities with acceptable public transit. It's the same as having a pair of shoes.
As kids we biked everywhere living in a small town of about 7k. Everything we needed was only a few miles away. It was a nice place to grow up and quite the opposite of your 5 mega metros.
Yes, of course, and a gun.
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.
While this certainly isn't uncommon, I'm not sure a 16th birthday car gift should be (or is) included in a "living wage".
* The parent has logged on *
child care is at least 4k annually off for my area as well. Everyone has an opinion. Thank you for putting this together!
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
+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.
However it can become a liability if you separate (alimony). Everyone thinks they won't, but it's worth checking the stats.
I would argue the liability is on both sides, not just on the person who pays alimony. Society has exceptionally little ways to welcome stay at home parents back into the workforce. If a stay at home parent's spouse is disabled or killed in an accident (unfortunately common in car-centric societies) the entire family is now in serious, serious trouble.
"common" seems erroneously high there. For any given household with a stay at home parent, the working parent's lifetime risk of dying in a car accident is less than 1 in 100. The risk that they'll do it in the years working to provide for the household is likely less than 1 in 200. Meanwhile, the risk to divorce is around 2 orders of magnitude higher. (I'd agree that "divorce is common"; something that happens about 1% as often, I don't think of is common.)
If you're making relationship decisions based on statistical chances of separation you're already operating on a level of fundamental distrust. If you're planning an "out" in what ought to be a lifelong relationship then you're already not in it for the long run. Risk is part of what makes a marriage meaningful, you're mutually accepting that risk and embracing it for the good of the other.
The biggest cost is the childcare
> Makes me think that in a lot of ways saving money is really tax efficient compared to slogging for more ordinary income.
It depends on how similar your wife's income would be to the cost of childcare really, which also depends on how many kids you have, etc. Also, what happens when your kid's don't need childcare? There's some huge(maybe) opportunity costs to account for from putting her career on hold.
Working moms (parents) can do most of the other stuff with a job so it's not really "savings". My wife does anyways. Only extra we spend is a couple hundred a month for biweekly housekeeper so we don't have to do the deep/detail stuff. I take care of all the house stuff and finances and spend roughly the same on outsourcing lawncare. It's not worth my time and effort compared to the cost and never ending hassle (I'm in Texas and it's 110F outside and grass grows 9-10 months out of the year)
It depends on how similar your wife's income would be to the cost of childcare really, which also depends on how many kids you have, etc. Also, what happens when your kid's don't need childcare? There's some huge(maybe) opportunity costs to account for from putting her career on hold.
Working moms (parents) can do most of the other stuff with a job so it's not really "savings". My wife does anyways. Only extra we spend is a couple hundred a month for biweekly housekeeper so we don't have to do the deep/detail stuff. I take care of all the house stuff and finances and spend roughly the same on outsourcing lawncare. It's not worth my time and effort compared to the cost and never ending hassle (I'm in Texas and it's 110F outside and grass grows 9-10 months out of the year)
My spouse was a sw engineer who became ft stay at home parent shortly after our second child. Yes it's not how much you make but how much you can save after that counts. Certainly she saved us a lot of money. In my case the intangible benefit of never worrying about my kids cannot be overstated. I really think it made a huge difference. I live in a community property state and I feel sorry for stay at home spouses who don't have this safety net. For the most part I think they deserve it.
[deleted]
I tried living on my areas "living wage", it wasn't living.
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.
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.
The best raiser of minimums isn't laws. It's other companies. Making it easy to compete is the best way to raise salaries.
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.
"Real wages" is different to wages because your government spends so much it has to devalue your money to make it work.
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?
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.
Thank you. I missed this!
[deleted]
Childcare would be the biggest difference here. I assume the other parent is taking care of the kids which reduces wages needed to cover that expense.
No, because being a single parent is far more expensive due to the need for daycare/babysitting/etc...
Childcare costs. It’s cheaper to feed and house two people than to pay for childcare in the US.
Because childcare is way more expensive than you'd think, and children are far cheaper to take care of than you'd think.
In addition to what other people said, taxes are much lower for a one income married couple vs a single person.
The model assumes the non-working adult is able to provide child care.
I think it means per person working and then one providing childcare.
[deleted]
[deleted]
because the calculator is sponsored by big co’s
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
that seems several multiples off
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).
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).
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
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
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.
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.
This massively underestimates the cost of housing, at least in my locality.
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.
The childcare costs seem a little suspect too.
Still a cool idea.