166
Minimum Wage Needed to Meet Cost of Living in US States (OC) (midwest.social)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/dataisbeautiful@mander.xyz
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

By popular demand, one last map to examine the absurdity of the American economy.

If you saw my map from yesterday that was up most of the day, please see the corrected version below. I done goofed hard on copying a column of state names. The original post has been corrected, but I will also post my previous two maps on this post for easy comparison.

Edit: the red map, for anyone unaware, is based on current individual state minimum wages and not the current federal minimum wage

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

6 months worth of living expenses in 2025 is gonna be, median, $10k in rent/mortgage payments alone. That in and of itself is like 14% of someones annual income at $35 an hour.

I truly fail to see how 20% saved annually isnt something reasonable, considering the need for different draws out of some of it will come sporadically, while you also need to be saving for your retirement in some inevitably inflated future where everything is even more ridiculously expensive than it is now.

The first describes a total emergency fund of 14% annual income that would provide 6 months rent. The second describes annual contributions of 20%, which seems like it provides 6 months living expenses for every year worked. That's an awesome goal, and kudos to anyone who can do it. I did. It let me retire at 45, which is several steps beyond "living comfortably."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I think youre misunderstanding that I am referring to the same 20% the entire time. Yes, two different destinations for money in savings (emergency and retirement separately). Their calculations also assume that that 20% is also going towards paying down any debts. My response to him in particular was pointing out that you wouldnt be able to fully fund an emergency account within 1 year and pay down debt and save for retirement. Whereas his point was 20% is a ridiculous amount. I think if you ignore the debt part maybe that would be slightly more reasonable, but even still, if you cant do it in 1 year on $35 an hour how the fuck is anyone gonna do anything remotely close to it at 1/4th or 1/5th of that? They wont. And in reality, by the numbers, even at $35 an hour no one could afford to live at 50/30/20. AKA living truly comfortably and without being in a financially precarious position, which it should be obvious involves having a healthy amount of savings and also not having to work yourself to death after retirement age

    The reason I made these isnt even to argue for a certain wage of any kind. The point is to see just how far off all working class Americans are from any level of comfort. Where did all the money go, if people were being paid the equivalent of $35 an hour today 75 years ago? Its no surprise we are all fucked outside of a handful of people

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I think youre misunderstanding that I am referring to the same 20% the entire time. Yes, two different destinations for money in savings (emergency and retirement separately). Their calculations also assume that that 20% is also going towards paying down any debts.

    I feel like you're conflating assets and income. Paying down debts is not saving. Paying down debt could be a mandatory expense, like mortgage, or it could be discretionary, like paying off credit debt accumulated on that European vacation, but it's not saving. An emergency fund is a thing you have, not a revolving account that you spend every year and re-accumulate. It can take a few years to accumulate, because you only sacrifice it for emergencies - not a car repair you've been putting off. The only difference between an emergency fund and retirement savings is that the government punishes you for spending designated retirement savings.

    The reason I made these isnt even to argue for a certain wage of any kind. The point is to see just how far off all working class Americans are from any level of comfort.

    But by choosing 'comfortable' as a reference, titling the post 'cost of living,' and comparing it to the minimum wage, you open yourself to exactly this criticism. To appearing to make a bad faith argument by exaggerating the 'cost of living' by including 25% surplus over the actual cost of living, not to mention 60% discretionary spending over the costs of rent, food, utilities, clothing, etc. If you're going to compare income and lifestyle, you have to choose a lifestyle that fits the social class, otherwise you risk sounding like lawyers barely scraping by on $500k.

    Where did all the money go, if people were being paid the equivalent of $35 an hour today 75 years ago?

    Where did $35/hr wage come from? It's not in any of the graphics. Minimum wage in 1950 was $0.75/hr, which is only $10.25 today. Are you referencing median wage? That would be a much better comparison with 'comfortable' lifestyle, but median income today is close to $60k/year, depending on how you count.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent