1. The living‑wage calculator is often inaccurate or misleading
Many commenters point out that the MIT model over‑ or under‑estimates key expenses.
- “The calculator grossly underestimates…” (Jtsummers)
- “The methodology page says … but it’s inflated.” (bumby)
- “The data is stale.” (reactordev)
- “It’s a US‑only calculator.” (NewJazz)
2. What “living wage” actually means is hotly debated
Some argue it should cover only basic needs, others insist it must allow a dignified life.
- “Living wage means what a household needs for a dignified life, not just for bare subsistence.” (NewJazz)
- “It is a low bar, not a good target.” (Jtsummers)
- “It means you’re not starving.” (NewJazz)
- “It’s a low bar, not a good target.” (Jtsummers)
3. Regional cost‑of‑living differences drive the numbers
Urban versus rural, and even intra‑city variations, are cited as major factors.
- “If you’re in a city with ludicrous cost of living, like San Francisco, then sure.” (nomel)
- “The difference between 1 adult + 1 child vs 2 adults + 1 child.” (skulk)
- “The transportation cost is inflated for non‑car families.” (cozzyd)
- “The calculator is US‑only.” (NewJazz)
4. Government safety nets and policy shape the real “living” standard
Critics note that the model ignores subsidies, taxes, and paid leave that affect disposable income.
- “SNAP covers the cost of groceries if providers are unable.” (Exoristos)
- “The calculator does not include retirement savings, emergency saving, etc.” (Jtsummers)
- “The government takes 57 % of the total GDP to themselves.” (wtcactus)
- “The safety net is missing.” (twoodfin)