$15/hour minimum wage in California. $31,200/year before taxes if working 40 hours a week. I haven't seen anything that pays more than $18/hour ($37,440/year).
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
256 points (96.4% liked)
Work Reform
9875 readers
601 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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!"
load more comments
(3 replies)
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
And have a 4 hour commute
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.
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)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Damn I'm not even close
I’m about 12k/ yr shy, and since my state is on the lower end of cost of living, that’s a sizable gap.
I also have 1 parent staying at home to care for the kids. So technically I need to double mine, which is rather unsavory.
Kids aren’t in the picture for me for largely this reason. Got my tubes tied years ago cuz I just can’t.
Why is "getting by" the goal? Shouldn't the goal be to thrive? American exceptionalism my ass
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.
This is a really good source of information by county:
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.
It would be interesting to compare home costs to income to get a ratio.
The cost of living minimum is $40,000+. The most I've made in a year is ≈$20,000. Something's not adding up.
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.
It's most certainly adding up in shareholder value.
These all have to be after-tax numbers or there is definitely no way.
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.
While couples can usually find some cost savings by splitting mortgage or rent costs, there is no such discount for single people
Hilarious that the author hasn't heard of roomates
Requiring roommates to live is a joke
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.
Or OnlyFans!
Clearly people need to do things other than live on their regular wages or the author didn't think of it!
Plan to self retire before I need a roommate.
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.
When I lived in the US, I didn't make enough money to afford any of these states.
I call bullshit on a definition of "living wage" which claims that someone making $100,000 a year is earning less than a living wage (even in Hawaii).
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.
20% savings would be nice. That would be like 1500-2000 extra per month. That's comfortable.
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.
Try having 2 kids in a HCOL. Shit’s fucked.
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.
Can't. Live in Vancouver.
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.
man, the vast majority of states are a lot lower than i would have expected.
It is very unlikely a single person is having a comfortable life in San Diego on $80k.
"Do you feel trapped by your low-rate mortgage?"
A single person with a mortgage just seems like a terrible idea, though.
Worst case I'd move back in with my parents. But being single is hard mode, shouldn't be, but it is.
But being single is hard mode, shouldn’t be, but it is.
It absolutely is. Homeownership, even with two incomes is hard enough, I can't imagine it with one.
view more: next ›