$15/hour minimum wage in California. $31,200/year before taxes if working 40 hours a week. I haven't seen anything I could feasibly get hired for that pays more than $18/hour ($37,440/year).
I seriously have zero motivation to work 40 hours a week and still be fucking homeless.
If there's one thing I've learned from the pandemic is Americans calls ppl heros when they don't want to actually pay them. See teachers, retail workers, nurses, doctors, EMTs, soldiers, first responders, mail carriers, delivery drivers, I can keep going
Tell me you have zero marketable skills without telling me you have zero marketable skills.
The tech sector can't find workers fast enough. Manufacturing is endlessly looking for workers. People that can string a few coherent words together are being hired on-the-spot. Just say you are lazy and drop the charade.
The tech sector can't find workers fast enough. Manufacturing is endlessly looking for workers.
I do network engineering and also have worked in manufacturing (mostly driving forklifts). Those things are indeed hiring; but they only want to pay $18/hour. How hard of a concept that is to understand?
But if you wanna pay my tuition, I'd be happy to get a degree in something instead of just being Cisco and A+ certified and just going by years of experience doing the work.
Articles like these are better served split up between metro city areas, burbs and rural. Vastly different numbers that are otherwise hidden by averages. 50k ain't getting you shit inside atlanta and most of the burbs. If you wanna live 2 hours out in the sticks? Sure, maybe
I think the article suggests living wages to live like a king.
The criteria they used is that "50% of income is used to cover necessities, such as housing and utility costs, 30% goes toward discretionary spending, and 20% is left for savings or investments.".
I don't know anybody who makes under six figures and saves or invests 20% of their income, and 30% discretionary spending seems like a LOT.
If the article were more realistic, the living wage amounts would be significantly lower than reported. As stated, it would leave people very comfortable.
That is a good point. $65k in any city/suburb in Washington State probably puts you in a one bedroom apartment. Maybe two if it’s older or shittier. You’re living but certainly not thriving.
Italy, 22k / year after taxes and health insurance ( public health so taxes ) . 6k / year , 2 room rent. 150-220k, you buy 3 room apartment near city center , medium city. No property taxes on your first house you own. A lot of people complain about cost of houses and rents.
This can't be defined at the state level. It costs a hell of a lot more to live in San Francisco, than to live in Tulare, CA. Most states have high and low cost areas.
Store associate. Though the ones you've mentioned only "vary wildly" because the scam that is tipping culture (no offense to those that have those jobs but all companies should pay fair wages and not impose on their customers/patrons) and gig work are short/niche/temporary work to fill a need or gaps in industries.
I make more than the article listed for my state, but it’s unlikely I could actually get by on my own, at least not without sacrificing some comforts like a well maintained apartment, eating every day, and paying my bills on time. Granted, I do live in the city. If I lived in the middle of nowhere my CoL would be lower, but then I’d be unemployed.
The people who live outside the city are able to find employment too. It's a myth that jobs are only in the cities. Especially so if you work in tech and can do remote work.
That's what brings these cost of living averages down - the people not living in big cities whose expenses are less.
I do work in tech, but a lot of what I do now is physical setup. I could not do my current role fully remote, and these jobs only exist in cities or in fairly large companies. Eventually I’d love to move away from the city and work remotely, but that’s not possible right now. I wasn’t trying to generalize to the population as a whole, I was making a comment on my specific experience.
One thing that people forget is that minimum wage is a factor as well. In texas a living wage is $14 and living wage of $25 in california. so you’d think you’d have a better cost of living in texas. However if you compare the minimum wage texas is $7.25 and california is $15.50.
For the amount you work, california is a better deal. However that makes it harder for people to come move to california obviously.
Lol it says living wage for my area is $20/hr. At $1,400 median cost for a 1 bedroom, closer to $2000+ typically due to prioritization of luxury condos and apartments, there’s no way in hell anyone is making a living wage at $20/hr.
Yeah everyone references this and I’m glad the tool exists, but I don’t think it’s been able to keep up with the insane inflation and rent hikes of the last two years.
It says $17.50 for a single person in my area, but there’s maybe two cockroach-infested, 600 sq ft apartments in my whole city that you could qualify for on that wage.
I also live in one of the more affordable cities in my county, so I really don’t know how they got that number for 2023 to begin with.
They say single, so I assume they also mean living alone. Being able to pay rent etc on your own without roommates. Still, while I skimmed the article I didn't read all the nuance so I might have missed where they specified their parameters.
Edit: found it:
In Hawaii, the living wage for single workers is $112,411 — the highest in the U.S. — according to an analysis by personal finance website GOBankingRates.com. To determine the living wage in each state, GOBankingRates calculated the minimum amount a single person would need to follow the 50/30/20 budget, using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Following this outline, 50% of income is used to cover necessities, such as housing and utility costs, 30% goes toward discretionary spending, and 20% is left for savings or investments.
If you want to buy a home in most metro areas while paying off student loans and affording a family, yes, I could see that salary being what you need to be comfortable.
64,463 for a single person in New Jersey. I'm tying to reach that goal to make that much. Right now I make about 45,000 and am using as many programs as I can (nj snap, some energy program and more) because I'm the sole income provider for my family of 4. I currently am renting a house from a friend for 1500 and he plans to sell soon. When he does I will be screwed. I can't find rent that low. He should be renting the house I'm in for 2k a month or more. All I want to say is I'm much better off then alot of people out there and life is still a struggle.
Honestly how is that even possible. I'm single in HCOL and I budget every item on my grocery list, I cut my own hair, I don't even use the bus and I'm still near break even some months.
But dual income parent is probably better off than single income solo.
We both make low six figures but can't qualify for a mortgage and two bedrooms are 3800/month to start for anything suitable for our needs. Kids are right out.
It looks like it is assuming paying for a mortgage and allowing like 20% for savings. They are definitely not looking at just a living wage, they are assuming home buyers that are actively saving money.
Can confirm that these figures are very inflated. I currently live in Hawaii on half of that "living wage". Have a nice (by Hawaii standards) 2 bedroom apartment and still have over 1000 in excess income after rent\utils\groceries\gas each month.
112k is around what i would need to be making to afford a house\mortgage, but its possible to "live" without.
Is this a common sentiment? I had roommates until I was 27 and to me it was the normal way for young, single people to live. I never thought of my roommates as a burden or considered living without them a high priority. Even when I could have gotten my own studio apartment, I preferred to split a much nicer apartment with a couple other people.