top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 95 points 3 years ago* (6 children)

$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.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 89 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'm a disabled veteran in California. I hear you. The government chooses my quality of life and they have chosen poverty.

    "Thank you for your service!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 62 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 55 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    It is very unlikely a single person is having a comfortable life in San Diego on $80k.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] 27 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 33 points 3 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 20 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    $14,000 down, $33,000 to go

    cries in minimum wage

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 18 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    And federal minimum wage is $7.25 or 15,080 before taxes. Which is about 1/3rd of the lowest in this article (Mississippi at 45,906)

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 17 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 16 points 3 years ago

    Why is "getting by" the goal? Shouldn't the goal be to thrive? American exceptionalism my ass

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    This is a really good source of information by county:

    https://livingwage.mit.edu/

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    The cost of living minimum is $40,000+. The most I've made in a year is ≈$20,000. Something's not adding up.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 10 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    These are significantly higher than they used to be, but nowhere near some of the most out of touch numbers I've seen people claim online.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    It would be interesting to compare home costs to income to get a ratio.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago

    I know DC isn't a state but I'm curious since I live here and it's way too expensive.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    These all have to be after-tax numbers or there is definitely no way.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Try having 2 kids in a HCOL. Shit’s fucked.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    When I lived in the US, I didn't make enough money to afford any of these states.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›