WHAT IS THE LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR?
Today, families and individuals working in low-wage jobs make too little income to meet minimum standards of living in their community. We developed the Living Wage Calculator to help individuals, communities, employers, and others estimate the local wage rate that a full-time worker requires to cover the costs of their family’s basic needs where they live. Explore the living wage in your county, metro area, or state for 12 different family types below. The data was last updated on February 15, 2026.
2026-02-0919:50203296livingwage.mit.edu
WHAT IS THE LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR? Today, families and individuals working in low-wage jobs make too little income to meet minimum standards of living in their community. We developed the Living Wage…
Read the original article
Comments
The older I get the more I realize how fraught the idea of a "living wage" is.
Through mid life, your financial health is not as determined by wages, but by your family/connections. Do you have access to a grandmother who can babysit? A decent second-hand car? A good roommate situation? Just look at the expense table - any one of these things could be worth up to 20% of your income!
And you see that literally right here - are any of us actually comfortable with the idea that the value of your labor should be determined by your marriage status and number of children?
It's kind of telling that countries with "successful" minimum wages either don't have one and just institutionalize collective bargaining, or they do some fancy calculations that start with prevailing median wages and welfare eligibility. The idea of trying to get this number from the bottom up by building expenses just doesn't seem very robust.
By raw_anon_1111 2026-02-101:373 reply Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?” Should we index on a single person living alone? A teenager living with their parents? A single mom of three kids? A single mom with a single disabled kid?
Private industry should concentrate on paying people their market wages. Government should tax industries and individuals and provide a safety net.
Let me tell you from first hand experience what happens when unions get involved with manufacturing industries where they can pick up and go elsewhere - they do. Growing up, the city I lived in had 5 factories - all but one left because of fights with unions.
Where I use to live in the burbs of Atlanta, according to the website, the living wage is $45 an hour. Should we have a minimum wage there of $45 an hour?
>Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?”
Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community.
Which is fine, by the way, but they cannot then turn around and oppose the cost of taxation needed for gov programs which support people who aren't receiving that living wage. Nor, and worse still, oppose a living wage and then force work people to work such long hours that they cannot sustain a community that can provide the extra support needed to maintain a decent life.
> Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community.
Does this mean anything or is it a circular definition?
If we decide we'd like people to have at least the standard of living of a single person earning $40/hour, does that make $40/hour the "true cost of labor"? Could we just as easily raise our standards and say $50/hour is the true cost?
The living wage is higher than what you would often have with no government intervention or safety net, so it's not a natural cost of labor in that sense.
No. Prices are not arbitrary; they're determined by market forces. I don't really agree with the idea that the minimum wage should be intended to support an adult (I think our welfare systems should be reformed to eliminate cliffs), but if you set it to the average price of a bunch of stuff in a region it's gonna be an actual number.
You can change the set of stuff, but it's much harder to cheat if you actually have to say what a living wage should be spent on.
By nearbuy 2026-02-1017:10 I'm not doubting that we can choose a rate for the living wage.
I'm asking about the sentence I quoted. What makes the living wage the "true cost" of labor? Why consider it to be a cost that private industry should rightfully pay, and if they don't, they're "externalising" it to the government?
By the same logic, isn't nearly all government spending just externalized costs? When the government pays for roads or police, are these also externalized costs that private industry should pay for?
It sounds like a minarchist viewpoint, where government spending is kept to a minimum and services are privatized.
By raw_anon_1111 2026-02-102:45 So in Forsyth County GA where I use to live you think the minimum wage should be $30/hour? That’s what they said the livable wage is for a single person. If I have a child and I’m single should I automatically get a raise if $45 an hour?
By silverlake 2026-02-109:241 reply The true cost of labor is paid for by taxes. The bottom 50% in the US pay little to negative taxes due to government benefits. Most taxes are paid by the rich. Therefore, the true cost of labor is paid for by the rich, rather than by consumers in the form of higher prices.
By raw_anon_1111 2026-02-1020:08 That always ignore the 8.5%% everyone pays in taxes for FICA that really just goes into the general fund - or the additional 8.1% in taxes that your employer pays in on your behalf. If you are an independent contractor - like even an uber driver is - you pay the entire 16.2%
The "true cost of labor" is set by the market. The cost to society of a person who can't find work because viable work opportunities have been destroyed by overregulation is unambiguously higher than that of the same person being gainfully employed, even for a "non-living" wage - because in the latter case it's easy for government to make up the difference in a way that's fair to everyone, whereas paying their full living costs is just that much harder.
By raw_anon_1111 2026-02-103:501 reply Please don’t say you actually believe the talking point that if it weren’t for regulation factory jobs would come back or do you believe on the high end that tech companies are laying people off because of regulation?
By SR2Z 2026-02-108:41 He's saying that a world where someone can't get hired for a $15 an hour job would be better if they could still work an $8 job instead of being unable to find work at all or being pushed into multiple part-time roles.
By harshalizee 2026-02-102:301 reply What happens when private industry colludes to decide what "market" wages are?
This has literally happened even in Big Tech, leading to lawsuits within the last decade.
If a business can't pay a person working full time to satisfy their basic needs, their business model is not viable. If they can and don't pay so, it's plain exploitation. Ex. Walmart employees can't support themselves and rely on social services despite having a full time job.
By raw_anon_1111 2026-02-102:471 reply Do you feel the same way about all of the companies that are not profitable and only are in business because they have a website with “.ai” and they can get funding from YC?
While the first generation American has to scrounge up for a franchise that only nets $70K a year?
By harshalizee 2026-02-103:411 reply That's comparing Apples to tortoises. If an investor wants to invest/gamble on a startup, it's their prerogative. Same as if Bob's uncle wants to give him a small loan to buy into a franchise. I still expect both of them to pay rightful living wages to their employees. Owner's business problems are not the employees problem
By raw_anon_1111 2026-02-103:53 No it’s the same thing, no one is going to invest in a company losing millions a year to start a McDonalds franchise - certainly not YC.
Bobs uncle doesn’t have the kind of money that YC has. It’s the ultimate hypocrisy and “let them eat cake” kind of talk.
By claudiulodro 2026-02-1016:431 reply From when minimum wage was first established:
> “It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.”
> FDR
It was supposed to be a "living wage".
Letting companies pay less than a living wage and providing a robust government safety net just subsidizes businesses using government tax money. The biggest beneficiaries of this are companies like Wal Mart, who gets effectively subsidized to the tune of $6B+ a year because so many of its employees are on SNAP and similar low income programs[1].
[1] https://www.ufcw.org/press-releases/wal-mart-has-highest-num...
By raw_anon_1111 2026-02-1017:111 reply So I ask you the same question, should the minimum wage be $35 in Forsyth County for a single person and should they automatically get a raise to $45/hour if they have a child?
Everyone loves bringing up Walmart. But should that franchiser who is only netting $70k a year now also be paying $35 an hour?
And again, I find it rich that tech workers living off the tits of VC funding can tsk tsk about companies that need to actually have a profitable business model can’t pay their workers $75k a year (the living wage for Forsyth county, GA) no matter what their job is.
By claudiulodro 2026-02-1018:401 reply Looks like Forsyth County is the richest county in Georgia and has a median household income of apparently $140k/yr (and median home price of ~$500k), so ballpark something close to that hourly rate does seem necessary if you want to have a median life *within that county*.
But nobody is advocating for setting the minimum wage equal to what it would cost to comfortably live in the wealthiest part of a state.
By raw_anon_1111 2026-02-1019:05 So now we want to set it to the poorest county in the state? The middle? Where there are no jobs? Do the people who work at the Walmart in Forsyth not deserve to a “livable wage”?
I didn’t randomly choose Forsyth County. I use to live there.
Or should they have to do an hour commute from a lower cost of living area in metro Atlanta?
What is living wage based on single? Head of household with kids?
It needs to be because the US has leaned further into individualism relative to other countries. If society's golden metric of success means being able to acquire all of these luxuries or services purely through monetary means as transactional individuals, don't be too surprised when the expenses rack up.
By thewillowcat 2026-02-0921:521 reply Just because the wider society encourages it, your family doesn't have to lean into individualism, and many don't. We got by when I was a kid with a lot of help from friends and family, when I am absolutely sure we didn't have a living wage under this definition.
Did you fairly compensate your friends and family members for that "help"? Systematic reliance on wholly unpaid labor is not exactly something to be proud of.
By nomel 2026-02-101:45 I help my kids, but I don't expect them to help me. I want them to save their money to help their kids, otherwise I'm just taking from my grandkids.
Same when I help my siblings. If they pay me back, now I'm taking away from my nieces and nephews. Within friends/family, I think it's completely reasonably if the money flows "downhill".
This is the fundamental concept of the vast majority of taxes, including those that feed the poor/unemployed: that money is gone, somewhere between little and no personal return, but that usually makes sense, increasingly so with income.
By brendoelfrendo 2026-02-0922:24 Um, sometimes people help each other because they want to, or because they understand that those less fortunate than them need it, or because they understand that they may need help someday and so it doesn't make sense to make a big deal of "compensation" now. It's called community, and I think it is something to be proud of.
By legitster 2026-02-0922:48 I think it also reflects a lense of US academia. It kind of assumes a sanitized, formal, self-sufficient life, detached from others - and then assumes anything other than that is an aberration.
It's kind of like the physics joke about assuming a spherical cow in a vacuum.
I don’t think this is very accurate. In my county the “living wage” is $26.50 for a single adult with no children.
Many young people I know live on much less than this.
This is more like “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.” Which of course, people would like to have but certainly isn’t required to be comfortable.
For example, transportation costs are $9000/year and housing is $20000/year. These are both way more than is necessary.
They need better branding because calling this a living wage is a misnomer and harming their cause.
> This is more like “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.” Which of course, people would like to have but certainly isn’t required to be comfortable.
This is a debatable goalpost. It seems more reasonable to me to assume that meeting basic shelter needs includes having a private room to oneself. The only reason to argue otherwise is to try to drive down the wage further, and is that at all necessary? Renting a private room was possible on nearly any wage 50 years ago, and the only reason it seems out of reach for many now is because purchasing power has been slowly stagnating for decades, while housing costs have soared in recent times. Yet this whole time, GDP continues to rise. It seems that our society can easily support much higher minimum wages (and this would likely have only a positive effect of stimulating the economy), but simply chooses not to.
> Renting a private room was possible on nearly any wage 50 years ago, and the only reason it seems out of reach for many now is because purchasing power has been slowly stagnating for decades
50 years ago, in high cost of living areas, you could rent an SRO, but now they're either banned or practically banned because they're strongly disincentivized against. Combine this with not building enough new housing and you get a recipe for rent increases. Even if a minimum wage works as intended, it can only subsidize demand, which would do nothing when the bottleneck is the supply.
By cozzyd 2026-02-0922:32 Yes the decline of the SRO (or boarding houses in general) is a terrible thing. That said, a living wage should probably afford more than that.
Having a private room is not the same as living alone (having a private apartment/house).
I think it's reasonable for young people to have flatmates and share an apartment, for example.
By matthewkayin 2026-02-0921:251 reply If a person is working 40 hours a week to contribute to society, then they should be able to afford housing from that society. If a person on minimum wage needs to have a roommate to get by, then that means that their 40 hours a week is not enough to afford their own shelter. Without that roommate, the person goes without a home despite having done their time for society. This is not reasonable.
If it is reasonable for a young person to have flatmates, then that should be because they are a student or an artist and are working only part-time while devoting the rest of their time to their studies or their art.
But a person working full-time? Who may be a single mother or father with a child to support? They should be able to afford a place to live, without roommates.
By wavefunction 2026-02-0922:28 I would only add that young people or anyone should be able to afford to live alone as you say OR opt to live with roommates to share expenses and save and build wealth. It shouldn't be necessary for anyone working 40 hours a week to pool their resources with other people in similar situations simply to survive.
By digiown 2026-02-0921:12 A minimum wage should not necessarily afford you a median home, that's why it's called a minimum. But for a functional developed nation I argue it should afford you a private room or a very small apartment. Ideally the cost between the two wouldn't be that different, but due to decades of building restrictions the latter does not really exist. This isn't true in Japan for example, where you can find arbitrarily small apartments at correspondingly low prices.
A living wage is for living indefinitely, not just surviving. That should afford more comforts like a reasonable amount of space, a car if needed, and saving for retirement or emergencies.
A living wage shouldn't be based upon what wages a student could be comfortably living on for a couple years before they get their $500k/yr new grad quant job. It should be based upon what people could live on comfortably indefinitely.
It's not "student wage". It's not "struggling young person" wage. It's "living" wage. It's for living - at any age.
Does this then imply some jobs are not intended to supply a living wage?
Eg does that quants internship get a lower pay because they are expected to graduate beyond it? If so, how do we define what jobs are stepping stones and which are long-term careers?
I think all full time jobs should at a minimum pay a true living wage where one can live comfortably, save for emergencies, etc. If the job cannot pay that then it shouldn't exist.
There are many ways to accomplish this beyond simply raising wages. Better government programs, lower the cost of housing/medical/transportation/food/etc. (these are surprisingly simple but many vested interests don't want this to happen), better retirement programs, etc. etc. etc. You see more of this in more socially democratic countries.
By raw_anon_1111 2026-02-101:41 In that case none of the unprofitable tech companies should exist. It’s really easy for people in the tech industry who live off of the tits of VC funding say that mom and pop convenience store who can’t depend on the same largess shouldn’t exist.
I’m not against that idea but there are some knock-on effects we should be careful of. For example, it will make it hard for younger people to get a job. If I have to pay a teenager the same as someone with a decade or more of work experience, that teenager probably won’t get a job.
With a lot of these discussions, we need to be careful about the seductively simple solutions.
By BizarroLand 2026-02-100:311 reply If the minimum was the actual minimum, then why would the person with a decade of experience ever work for it?
Because sometimes people have other goals or are just not an industrious personality.
I remember a radio interview with a fast food worker who’s response was basically “I like my job and don’t want to do something else, but I just want it to be a higher wage”
By BizarroLand 2026-02-1716:581 reply I guess P.T. Barnum was spitting facts when he said, "There's a sucker born every minute".
By bumby 2026-02-1912:38 Not sure what your point is. Are you saying people don’t act in a multi-objective way? Do you think people join the Marines because it’s the easiest way to make a buck? Or is it possible people aren’t just simple homo-economicus types trying to maximize their income with the lowest effort?
By zozbot234 2026-02-0922:43 The issue of "which jobs should exist" should be left to the market only. If typical low-end jobs throughout the country pay wages that do not guarantee a minimum living income, the government should simply make up the difference for everyone in a fair way (subject to clawback rates as earned income increases, in order to keep the overall arrangement viable).
(Lowering the cost of essential goods and services is also something that can be done by leveraging the open market. It doesn't take yet another wasteful government program, which is the typical approach in socialist and social-democrat countries.)
By throwway120385 2026-02-0921:081 reply Is it reasonable for two people who are dating to have to keep their shared apartment when they break up? What should happen if a roommate becomes flaky or moves out?
These are all real situations that make me think that pinning "living wage" to a level where you have to have roommates is not a good goal. You're basically asking people to survive by accepting unstable living conditions and potentially taking strangers into their homes, which isn't exactly "having your needs met."
By NewJazz 2026-02-103:12 Seriously. Lots of people have roommates to save money. But they often meet those people socially, and sometimes those people flake on rent or just straight up dip out on the lease. And living with strangers an even tougher ask.
When did a 450 sqft studio apt become a luxury? Why should it? That's a tiny amount of space. People should be able to afford that.
By still-learning 2026-02-0921:093 reply Its reasonable, but as we've advanced humanity in so many other fields (medical, technical, agricultural) why shouldn't the base standard of living also be increasing.
By bumby 2026-02-0922:01 I agree with the sentiment, but the premise of capitalism is that those advances also become cheaper due to market efficiencies. In other words, people should be able to have a higher quality of life for relatively lower cost. If/where that actually occurs is a whole different discussion.
By SideQuark 2026-02-0921:14 The base standard of living has increased throughout pretty much all of humanity over the past 50 years, and through huge parts of humanity over even 20 years.
Theres also lots more people, and as more people consume more resources it does not follow that better technology in some field will translate to increased every aspect of life.
By adventured 2026-02-0921:15 Historically it's reasonable for anybody to have roommates. It's a modern scenario where having your own place is supposed to be the standard.
Historically housing was much smaller. And people lived with their families for a lot longer commonly. A lot less was also spent on domestic appliances (not just washer & dryers) and at-home entertainment (a lot less was spent on entertainment in general).
By monsieurbanana 2026-02-0921:131 reply Any adult with a full-time job should be able to afford a studio or small apartment. Probably making concessions on the location depending on where they want to live. It's not a matter of being young or not
In the US, this is trivial to do. Theres plenty of states where unskilled entry lever wages easily allows this life, for most of the locations, with the exception of extremely high cost city centers.
Pick IL for example. Min wage $15, so $30k a year income fulltime. Most every adult that’s worked even a little should be able to earn decently more than min, which is for completely unskilled, new workers. Median il wage is 66k.
Even at $30k, the rough 30% rule on housing is $750/mo. At 66k it’s over $1500/mo.
Dig through smaller cities, and you’ll find apartments to rent in either end of this range. This works in any state.
Part of the issue is those smaller cities don’t offer a large supply of job opportunities. So people are often not able to pick and choose their location.
By zozbot234 2026-02-0922:14 This is an underappreciated argument for basic income/UBI: you need a lot less of it since its very existence enables recipients to move to lower cost of living locations.
(Which in turn opens up opportunities for others to move in to the higher-cost places and boost their own productivity.)
Plenty of cities outside the top 100 have massive amounts of jobs. And the person I replied to specifically stated willing to vary location as an option.
By bumby 2026-02-103:50 Fair enough, but I think we’re talking different scale. Top 100 cities is still a population of >200k. I was thinking of the small dying rust-belt type of <10k or so
By citizenpaul 2026-02-0922:161 reply > Renting a private room was possible on nearly any wage 50 years ago
I think others pointed this out but I don't think you can find any data to prove this because its not true.
I'm not a historian but I have seen a number of old movies and in those movies it was very common for the characters to be some poor schlub with a full time job at the factory living in some sort of group home/flophouse situation. Movies tend to reflect stories that resonate with the public at the time so I suspect that is because this was a common situation. I'd much prefer a single roommate in an apartment to a flophouse.
By strken 2026-02-0923:02 50 years ago was 1976. I would be surprised if large numbers of adults in 1976 in the US were living in the same room as other adults, unless they were romantically involved.
By ChadNauseam 2026-02-0921:12 > It seems more reasonable to me to assume that meeting basic shelter needs includes having a private room to oneself
Why would that be reasonable? College students and young adults usually have roommates. I don't feel it's inhumane.
> The only reason to argue otherwise is to try to drive down the wage further
Another reason to argue otherwise is because you care about the truth. Even if you and I agree on the ends, if you use the means of exaggerating or stretching the truth to get there, you are never on my side. Saying that you need to not have roommates to live is an exaggeration.
> Renting a private room was possible on nearly any wage 50 years ago
You will never find any data to support that because it isn't true. 50 years ago, flophouses were common. You would share a bedroom room with others, with shared kitchen and bathroom between multiple bedrooms. In college, I lived in a housing-coop network where we slept two to a room. 50 years ago, they slept 4 or 6 to a room in my exact house.
> and the only reason it seems out of reach for many now is because purchasing power has been slowly stagnating for decades, while housing costs have soared in recent times
This is true. But there is a very natural reason why. Look at nearly any US city, and see how many more jobs there are in that city than there were 50 years ago. Then look at how many more homes there are in that city than there were 50 years ago. You will see that the number of new jobs far exceeds the number of new homes. The result is that wealthier people bid up the housing, while poor people are forced to live outside the city and commute. So why have no new houses been built? It can't be helped by the fact that building new homes is illegal. (e.g. buildings with 3 or more apartments are illegal in 70% of san francisco.)
Please direct your anger in the right direction! It's not generally the case that billionaires own thousands of homes, hoarding them while the poor live on the street. It's more often the case that the population has increased while the number of homes in places people want to live has stayed the same. The *only* solution is to increase the number of homes in places people want to live. Raising the minimum wage, taxing the rich, fighting corporations, adding rent control laws, none of that will help solve the root of the problem, the growth rate of homes in cities is far slower than the rate of people wanting to live there!
Hard disagree on this. $26.50 sounds like a nightmare 10 years ago, let alone now. There's a lot of places in the US where having a car is essentially mandatory (actually, most places). If you can't afford a car, that limits where you can live to mostly urban areas, which then pushes the housing cost up.. and by the way, housing costs are always going up, and no, you won't be able to invest in a home, you've been priced out by developers and speculators.
Not to mention you need to be able to save money for unemployment and rainy days..
It’s obviously not required based on the evidence of many people who live and thrive without.
$9000/year is a ton more than just having a car.
I think you're ignoring how much poor people rely on each other and relatives to get by. That's our societies "safety net". That doesn't mean they're "thriving" or even comfortable, nor is it even sustainable (what happens when mom/pop die or require assistance and can't help their kids anymore?).
9000/yr for a car alone isn't crazy at all, just look at average car prices. I just had to do my vehicle renewal today and it was $500 for a 5 year old car that's not particularly expensive! If I look at insurance and car payments, I easily spend over 700 a month. This is on a 30k car, so it's not like I went and bought the biggest luxury vehicle possible.
The flip side is that the people being relied upon are performing uncompensated labor or providing other unpaid services, which is not a healthy state of things. This very dynamic can end up trapping these people in poverty and hinder their access to more productive arrangements.
By RGamma 2026-02-1011:17 My feeling is technological unemployment could go through the roof the coming decade. First, most everyone will be beaten on cognition and then also on real-world tasks by versatile robots.
Eventually there has to be a mechanism that continues providing liquidity for nothing or...
The average total cost of car ownership in the US in 2025 was about $12,000. $9,000 is already a huge underestimate of what the average person is paying.
By mothballed 2026-02-0922:431 reply I lived in a blizzard ridden area using just a 250cc motorcycle, year round, including riding it on the interstate. Layer enough layers, use heated gloves, etc you can easily get by with just a ninja 250, you're not going to burn more than $3-4k a year on that no matter hard you try.
You don't actually need a car unless you have a child or a tradesmen with tools or something like that, a small displacement motorcycle will still take you to 99.9% of the jobs in the lower 48.
By ericd 2026-02-0922:12 That US average includes a lot of new, loaded, financed, comprehensively insured F150’s, not some reasonable minimum.
By sdellis 2026-02-0920:55 Based on the data sources and the methodology, it looks about as accurate as you could get. They link to their methodology and technical documentation from that site. Even if some resourceful young people you know can get by on less, in general people should not have to live in abject poverty while working a full time job -- I would consider that to be a "Dying Wage".
Ultimately in all these calculators there has to be a threshold that determines whether something is needed for “living” or not. And that varies highly by the individual.
The calculator suggests $5,021 for food, but for me I’d only shop at high-end grocery like Whole Foods and buy organics whenever possible. That’s clearly not enough. On the other hand it suggests $1,792 for internet and mobile which is about double what I actually pay and I have both unlimited mobile data and unlimited home data. Then it claims medical costs of $2,890. For a fit individual with good employer-provided health insurance, that figure should be almost zero.
Ultimately the amount one spends for living depends very much on one’s preferences and these calculators are approximates. I believe you when you say many young people can live for much less, but that doesn’t invalidate the calculator.
By Jtsummers 2026-02-0921:11 > Then it claims medical costs of $2,890. For a fit individual with good employer-provided health insurance, that figure should be almost zero.
No, it won't be almost zero because they're including health insurance premiums in that figure. Few jobs in the US cover 100% of the premiums for their employees.
>> The cost of health care is composed of two subcategories: (1) premiums associated with employer-sponsored health insurance plans and (2) out-of-pocket expenses for medical services, drugs, and medical supplies.
By groundzeros2015 2026-02-0921:142 reply I think “I should be able to fully express my food brand preferences” is not a reasonable standard of livable.
Food choices are highly personal. It’s probably the single most variable expense item here. Who are you to decide for someone else whether their food is reasonable enough or not. And furthermore, in general Americans are among the least picky about their foods; now ask a Frenchman or a Chinese about their food culture.
By groundzeros2015 2026-02-0921:57 Well I’m not the one to decide. That’s why we let individuals allocate money for themselves so they can prioritize what they care about from their resource pool.
Because preferences for food, housing, and healthcare are essentially unbounded, I think you will always have unmet preferences.
By upboundspiral 2026-02-0922:172 reply When the choice is between organic food (expensive) and eating pesticides that are meant to kill and neuter living organisms (somewhat economical) it's a choice we never should have allowed to even exist in the first place.
By groundzeros2015 2026-02-0922:371 reply Sounds like you need to get the government’s definition of appropriate foods changed. And then come back to the question of livability.
It must be more nuanced than you say, as millions of people reach old age without sharing your concern.
The definition of appropriate foods is not binary. It’s alright that the government sets a minimum standard of appropriateness and individuals can opt for higher quality than what the government mandates.
By groundzeros2015 2026-02-1014:38 I agree
By bradyd 2026-02-0922:30 Organic food still uses pesticides.
> For example, transportation costs are $9000/year and housing is $20000/year. These are both way more than is necessary.
Even on the smaller things. "Internet & Mobile" for where I am jumped out to me. Based on the difference between 1 adult and 2 adults, it's $582 per person-year for mobile (which I guess isn't far off if you get a good new phone every 2 years, it's reasonable enough) and with that subtracted, internet is $100 per month. The methodology page says "County-level data on the cost of internet comes from research on lowest-cost monthly plans from BroadbandNow", but even that page shows much cheaper options available (including the $70 per month Google Fiber I have).
By byronic 2026-02-0921:30 This depends a lot on where you live. In our area, the minimum internet-only offering from Spectrum is $125 (approximately) after taxes/fees, and the only "competitor" is AT&T, which is more expensive for (at least in our area) worse / flakier service.
I was surprised (at least for Birmingham/AL/Jefferson County) how accurately it pegged _most_ of the costs -- childcare here is closer to $12k/annum/child so that one was the only one I pegged as 'off' - they show 2 children as $16k and that's a ~$8k underestimate
By brendoelfrendo 2026-02-0922:08 I am but a single datapoint, but the $100/month for home internet hits quite close to home. I currently pay $130 for Spectrum's gigabit cable internet plan. Their website offers it for $70, but that's only for the first year; they have raised that price by, apparently, $20 per year I've been a customer. We do not have fiber and my only other ISP option is a DSL provider that maxes out at 40mbps for $30. So sure, I can save about 75% on my internet bill by opting for internet that is 4% of the speed that I currently pay for. And this is in a rapidly growing suburb. I think $100/month is easily the case for places like my home, where local broadband monopolies still exist mostly unchallenged.
By prepend 2026-02-0922:00 I think I have great access. I pay $60/month for gig internet and that’s split with 4 people.
I spend $20/month for mobile and buy a new $500 phone every 3 years.
I make way more than a livable wage, but spend much less than their projected costs.
By cozzyd 2026-02-0921:38 yeah, I spend $30/month on internet (the 100 Mbps Google Fiber, since I realized I didn't really need 1 Gbps at home now that I go into the office every day...)
By sedatk 2026-02-0920:54 The web site also makes that distinction: living wage, poverty wage, and minimum wage.
By FrustratedMonky 2026-02-0921:23 That is the point isn't it.
The minimum wage is far below what it takes to actually 'live', like have a place to live and a car.
> This is more like “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.”
An appartment and a car aren't exactly luxury goods. Cars are often needed to work, and well, having a roof over your head is usually required for a decent living.
Sure, if you fancy living in a cardboard box located next to your work, your living standards are going to be much easier to attain.
By prepend 2026-02-0922:03 $700/month on car+gas+insurance is certainly pretty cushy. This is a luxury for many people I know.
Their cost estimates are much higher than what’s required to live comfortably and save for a rainy day.
By pyrale 2026-02-0921:24 Because the calculator is an US-only calculator.
By tartuffe78 2026-02-0921:09 It's a Living Wage Calculator for US States!
By throwway120385 2026-02-0921:091 reply MIT is a school in the US.
By cozzyd 2026-02-0921:28 where very few (relatively) people commute by car
By NewJazz 2026-02-0921:06 The website is US-specific, so....
By irishcoffee 2026-02-0921:22 Dell me you didn’t click the link without… ah fuck it who cares, almost nobody around here does.
By istillcantcode 2026-02-0921:22 I have found if you scroll all the way to the right, you get the living wage with multiple roommates and bumming a ride to work or waiting for the bus. My area most of the full-time entry level fast food/Walmart/gas station jobs pay about a dollar less than that number.
"Living wage" means the ability to live, not scrape by with the bare minimum possible.
I feel like I’ve eat pretty well, and my household food costs are almost half what the calculator shows. Similar for vehicle costs etc.
After looking at the method, I think the calculator probably has some bias towards “what society has convinced us we need”. To a certain extent that is a relative and subjective perception problem, and one exacerbated when you live in a society with a lot of consumer debt.
The yearly cost of food for one person without children in the county of Los Angeles(I selected an expensive area on purpose) is showing 4,428 USD. That's about 12 dollars a day. I don't even live in the United States but that value looks pretty low if anything.
By jandrewrogers 2026-02-0922:211 reply Anecdotally, I can easily eat for $12/day even in Seattle. There are days when I probably spend half of that. We aren't talking beans and rice here, these are diverse satisfying meals. It does require you to cook though.
I don't doubt you can eat three meals with 6 dollars, but it's crazy how solipsistic people are when it comes to food. Not everybody can buy food in bulk and cook at home.
A 10 oz ham sandwich will probably cost you more than 2 dollars even if you buy everything at the supermarket. I don't know why people are so reluctant to admit that 12 dollars a day is not much for groceries.
By jandrewrogers 2026-02-100:071 reply I don't buy anything in bulk, that isn't a prerequisite.
There is no getting around the fact that $12/day buys a lot of good groceries even in expensive cities. Cooking is trivially learned, especially these days with the Internet. The people claiming that eating on $12/day is challenging are really saying that they can't support their affluent lifestyle on $12/day. Which is true! But it reeks of learned helplessness.
As someone who lived decades of their life in real poverty, I find most of the discourse around a "living wage" to be deeply unserious. Things that are completely normal and healthy in low-income communities across the US are presented as unachievable despite millions of examples to the contrary. Living well as a low-income person is a skill. It is obvious that many people with strong opinions on the matter don't have any expertise at it.
The only reason I still regularly eat the same kind of food as when I was poor is that it is objectively delicious and healthy, cost doesn't factor into it. I can afford to eat whatever I desire.
I used to live 80 minutes from my workplace and I had to get there by public transport because I didn't have a car, cooking at home and taking my food to work was not always possible, especially during the summer. And I used to live with three other flatmates and we shared a small fridge. I'm not making this up, it was my life a few years ago. I ended up spending more than what I wanted eating out because preparing my food was not practical or sometimes not possible.
>The people claiming that eating on $12/day is challenging are really saying that they can't support their affluent lifestyle on $12/day. Which is true! But it reeks of learned helplessness.
I guess I was affluent and didn't know it.
By jandrewrogers 2026-02-102:40 I don't know what to say. I've lived that life and worse. There were many issues with it but cost of food was never one of them. I ate out sometimes but not because I needed to.
Honestly, the worst part by far was transportation. Everything else kind of worked.
By prepend 2026-02-1018:29 What prevented you from cooking and taking lunch (and dinner) in a thermos? I don’t see how an 80 mile commute stopped you.
Are you aware that many people do this every day? This is a solved problem.
By bumby 2026-02-104:17 A ham sandwich is probably one of the poorest examples for this point. Ham has a fairly long shelf life, comes pre-cooked, and is exceedingly cheap as far as meat goes if you buy it on the bone when it’s available. Especially if you are willing to bake your own bread (I often see bread machines in many thrift stores), a ham and cheese sandwich is closer to $1 than $2.
1/5 lb of ham @$2.5lb is $0.50. A slice of cheese @ $2.50/lb is about $0.20. Two slices of homemade bread is about $0.20. I don’t know how much you’d add for vegetables or condiments but it ain’t much.
I can easily cook all my meals for $12/day.
I don’t consider daily or even weekly restaurants part of a necessity for life.
People have commutes and work shifts that don't always allow them to buy food in bulk and cook their own food.
Not everybody is like you.
Restaurants have never been a necessity for life, but I guess that for a lot of people you should be upper class to eat out once a week.
By prepend 2026-02-1018:32 What about commutes stops you from bringing lunch?
You don’t need to buy food in bulk. Just buy regular food, cook it, and take it to work.
Either take stuff that doesn’t need refridge (pb&j, hummus, etc), or insulated lunchbox, or thermos.
This is not a complicated problem to solve. Ride the bus sometime and look at the lunches people bring long distances.
Eating out isn’t a necessity. But at $12/day food budget you definitely have money left over to eat out every once in a while. And that if you cook only for yourself. If you’re part of a household who can share food, it’s even easier.
By bumby 2026-02-1013:50 It has changed a lot over time though, especially when you also count fast food and delivery. Maybe it’s good, maybe it’s bad, but the norm has changed and many people’s expectations.
By bumby 2026-02-0921:10 That’s pretty surprising, honestly, because there are other areas considered much lower COL that are within spitting distance of that value.
My household food costs are about 20% more than what the calculator shows (and that's a very minimal budget)
Behold, "averages" are not perfect.
Are you following the USDA thrifty food plan like the methodology assumes?
I don't perfectly weigh our groceries every week to hit the exact counts they recommend, no.
But we stick to the essentials, utilize different stores for the lowest prices we can get, and don't purchase nonsense.
Would you agree that large uncertainties can bring into question the validity of a model?
Ie “averages” with large variances are not often very informative
It’s the second time you’ve had a snarky reply so I can’t tell if you’re having a good faith conversation.
The average wealth between me and Elon is several hundred billion dollars. That gives you very little information about me. Which is why people can hang too much inference on a simple average. Like Nate Silver said in The Signal and The Noise, the real discussion for the data literate is about uncertainty in models, not just drawing conclusions from “averages”
I'm being snarky because your criticism of the tool, and its data sources, is a weird form of nut-picking.
You're able to purchase groceries for your family, for your diet, in your locality, from your available stores, for less than the stated average.
You think the diet should be different, and blame "society!" for the nutrition goals not resulting in a lower budget.
This is not a serious criticism. It is an unverifiable anecdote coupled with generic contrarianism.
The fact some people spend more or less on groceries is already factored into the data, as it's an average of prices. Averages are imperfect. The fact it's an average of prices (instead of spending) makes it slightly better, but anecdotal data doesn't meaningfully contribute to a discussion about it.
The diet, too, is probably imperfect, but the tool needed to normalize costs, not assemble a Costco rice-and-beans nutritionally complete diet to minimize costs.
So I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make beyond "I like to sound smart."
Methodology is THE main criticism of research; it’s the most important piece. It’s more important than nit-picking results or anything else. Unless your the type to believe in starting with a conclusion and working backwards, but that’s bad science.
And that doesn’t mean the method has to be perfect. But if it doesn’t reflect the true problem, or if is too weak to drawn conclusions from, it’s just story-telling.
The point I’m making is we should acknowledge the model assumptions. If we’re saying, for example, a living wage is expected to provide the average car, we need to acknowledge it now becomes the floor and is no longer the “average”. That’s a fine point to debate, but it requires some data literacy that is absent in this discussion.
And, as an aside, if you think snark is somehow justified because someone is criticizing a tool or method in legitimate way that you don’t like, you need to revisit the HN guidelines.
You're not criticizing the methodology. I think you think you are, but you're not.
All you have said is "the average doesn't match my experience" and "diet bad."
Neither of those are methodological criticisms.
They're just saying things.
By bumby 2026-02-1214:30 It’s been discussed elsewhere , but we can’t get to details if we can’t get past the simplest of concepts. I think you are missing the critique because you’d prefer to argue than understand, but I’ll try to be more explicit.
Significant parts of the method are built on surveys. Surveys are often a poor measure because they tend to be more subjective and biased. That’s why nutrition surveys of dietitians have significant amounts of error. In addition, the surveyed data isn’t normalized for socio-economic class; that is, it sets the expected value at the “averages”. The implication is the living wage should provide the average level of subjective consumption. That, in turn, means the current average is now the lowest we are willing to accept as a society. That’s all well and good to discuss, but that’s more nuanced than anything you’ve brought up. And that’s doesn’t scratch the surface of the flawed reporting, where uncertainty isn’t part of the main discussion.
It’s clear the site is for laity but the problem (as we’ve seen) is that it just feeds people’s confirmation bias when they are more interested in being right than in understanding.
What does eating pretty well mean to you? Maybe you don't even if you think you do? We don't know without your budget or a receipt from your typical grocery run
By bumby 2026-02-0922:07 They do try to account for this in their method. Men, women, and children of different ages all have different amounts of assumed food intake
By bumby 2026-02-0921:04 Mostly what the typical nutritional guidance has advocated consistently over the last few decades, with maybe slightly higher protein intake.
6-8 servings of fruits and vegetables a day, fairly liberal amounts of dairy and lean protein, lesser amounts of red meat. Grains like breads/rice for additional carbohydrates.
Admittedly, avoiding eating out regularly is the #1 way I keep food costs down, though.
By prepend 2026-02-0922:07 That’s what I think when I hear the term, too. But these numbers are not just living, but living at a pretty high standard.
I would expect living wage to mean the amount one needs to be able to live out your life fairly decently and with dignity. I think many do so without having pay this high.
By blobbers 2026-02-0922:06 Is a family of 4 in a 2BR considered living wage? Because they have rent at $3600 for a family in silicon valley... which seems impossible. I paid more than that when I graduated from college with a roommate 20 years ago.
By unsupp0rted 2026-02-0920:57 They probably are overshooting, I agree. But then again the "living wage" for a healthy person is a lot less than for a not-quite healthy person or a sick person.
The average person is not-quite healthy, at best.
"Living wage" means what a household needs for a dignified life, not just for bare subsistence.
If you need roommates because you can't afford an apartment on your own, you are poor by definition. That's probably the most universal definition of poverty that has ever existed. As long as there have been houses, the baseline household has had a housing unit of their own. Households that have to share housing with others have always been characterized as unusually poor, no matter the continent and the millennium.
> Households that have to share housing with others have always been characterized as unusually poor, no matter the continent and the millennium.
Historically speaking this is incredibly wrong.
Nearly every culture evolved from some sort of shared communal longhouse to individual clan homes, to extended family homes. The idea of individual private rooms actually comes about explicitly from Manors in the late medieval ages. We really didn't see widespread individual homes until the industrial revolution. In places like the East, individual rooms were an import from the West.
Even in rare places where there were individual family homes (Ancient Egypt, for one). Privacy and individuality were just not concepts. Through the 1800s, you might have literally been sharing a bed with a stranger in a hotel.
There has also never, ever been a point in human history where living without some sort of roommate was common. Even in situations where you had lots of single workers, they almost always lived in bunkhouses or SROs.
By jltsiren 2026-02-100:09 You are missing the point.
This was about households rather than individuals and housing units instead of homes, and privacy is unrelated to the discussion. For example, longhouses typically had internal subdivisions that functioned as housing units. A household that cannot afford a baseline housing unit is unusually poor, regardless of its size.
In a developed country, the baseline housing unit most households can afford is typically an apartment or a house. Households that cannot afford one are unusually poor.
Someone who forms a single-person household and doesn't earn enough to rent an apartment is poor.
Single-person households are often poor, especially when the person is young. Living wage estimates for such households tend to be higher relative to typical wages than for larger households, as the idea of a living wage is largely about rising above poverty.
By prepend 2026-02-0921:58 Not dignified. As you can live a dignified life for much less.
Thus my point. I don’t know what “livable wage” means with these numbers so it’s not very useful for discussion or planning or measurement.
Are those people funding their retirement? Are they going to be able to take care of themselves as health issues come up? Are they receiving support from family?
Edit: also the housing cost is probably factoring in a studio or maybe a 1bd for a single person. That may seem luxurious to you, but for many that is the only real option they have (roommates are hard to come by and can hurt you physically and fiscally).
No, roommates aren’t hard to come by. As evidenced by the millions who have roommates.
In my 20s everyone I knew had roommates. And it was a good life.
Saying a studio or 1 bedroom is required makes this metric pretty ambiguous.
Thus my point, that this isn’t what’s required to just live. But to live comfortably.
By castlecrasher2 2026-02-0923:12 This isn't intended to be an insult to anyone here but from the responses in this thread it genuinely seems like most here haven't actually lived poor. Cutting costs isn't inhumane, it's reality, and anyone suggesting otherwise must have had very little in the way of hardship.
By bobro 2026-02-0921:02 Having a roommate and an annual transportation budget under $9000 probably isn’t the right demarcation line for poverty.
Is a living wage there bare minimum to live or enough to live a life?
I don’t make a living wage for my region and while I can afford food and a room to rent, I can’t really live a decent life, save for the future or invest in myself, I just barely get by every paycheque to paycheque. Thanks
By Jtsummers 2026-02-0922:03 > Is a living wage there bare minimum to live or enough to live a life?
More the former. A lot of the commenters here are missing that detail. A living wage doesn't mean you can afford all the nice things, it means you aren't starving and can cover the needs for you and your family, but maybe some, but not many, wants.
I do think it's a crack up how when I check my own "living wage" i still under-perform in comparison to the chart, but in my county i'm within the top 15%.
Needless to say; only old people have homes and only those who have sufficient help get a nice appt.
By throwway120385 2026-02-0921:10 Why should we accept that rather than our own standards? If we take your tack on this then we shouldn't try to make anything better for anyone, just live with what we've got and accept whatever lot we find ourselves in.
By matty22 2026-02-1014:35 I don't think it is accurate for the opposite reason. If my wife and I made what the "living wage" was for two working adults, we'd be living with her parents. It is laughably low for the cost of living in this area.
By dheera 2026-02-0922:23 > live on much less than this.
They do not actually live on less, they sacrifice their health or well-being in order to meet the constraint.
I would argue the calculator grossly underestimates necessities because most of these jobs are not doable in old age, so you need to account for saving $1 for each $1 you make, to support yourself while old. You also need an emergency fund, because in the US you get billed $1000 for the most random shit at the most random time.
I got billed $5000 randomly for an echodardiogram because insurance didn't pay for it despite them saying they would. At least I have $5K to spare, but considering that can happen, that needs to be considered a basic necessity.
By FrustratedMonky 2026-02-0921:21 “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.”
If you can't live alone with a car? Then what do you think you are doing?
By atmavatar 2026-02-0923:21 Well, it is called a "living wage", not to be confused with "poverty wage" or "subsistence wage".
I've always taken "living wage" to be the wage required to live in reasonable comfort. You won't be owning any yachts or eating caviar, but you should also not be living paycheck to paycheck unless you're acting irresponsibly with your money.
If you're sharing a house or apartment with one or more roommates for reasons other than romance or saving up for a place of your own, to my mind, that's not a "living wage" - it's mere survival. Whether we believe minimum wage should barely let you scrape by or live more comfortably shouldn't confuse the fact that in many places, it doesn't even meet what's considered "poverty wage" (e.g., it doesn't in my local area).
By RobotToaster 2026-02-0921:15 You're confusing staying alive with living
By Jtsummers 2026-02-0920:58 > $130k per year needed ($28.50 per hour * 40 * 52).
What math are you doing to get $130k with those numbers? That wage works out to around $60k/year.
By NewJazz 2026-02-0921:00 Your 130k number is >2x what it should be. Recalculate.
By cowthulhu 2026-02-0920:59 28/hr is closer to 60k/yr.
130k/yr is more like 65/hr.
By ninalanyon 2026-02-0920:355 reply 2080 hours per year! That's 52 weeks of 40 hours per week. It's also inhuman.
Here in Norway we have five weeks of holiday plus various public holidays and only 37.5 hours per week adding up to about 1700 hours per year.
By 0xbadcafebee 2026-02-0920:472 reply Urban workers in China do 3,744 hours per year; farmers do 2400 hours
Norwegian workers do 1,418 hours per year, one of the lowest in the world
By pyrale 2026-02-0921:20 > Urban workers in China do 3,744 hours per year
For reference, that's 10:15 per day, 365 days a year. Or 996 without vacations, if you intend to have one day off.
996 has never been a standard work duration for urban workers in China, aside from some tech companies that promoted performative work ethics. And even there, people do take vacations.
3744 hours. Dayum!
Just going off basic numbers:
- 3744/52/5 = 14.4 hour day if they work 5 days a week
- 3744/52/6 = 12 hrs if they work 6 days a week
- 3744/52/7 = 10.3 hrs if they work 7 days a week.
That is, indeed, what 9-9-6 means: 9am-9pm (12hrs) * 6 days per week.
By kevinyang222 2026-02-0921:231 reply 9-9-6 is also not full productivity for 9-9-6.
Office workers will eat lunch, take a 1-2hr nap in the afternoon, and also eat dinner with their coworkers within the common 9-9-6 rhythm. It still takes a significant chunk of time, but the actual working time butt-in-chair is closer to 54 hours
By hackable_sand 2026-02-0922:11 You lose productivity doing 996 anyways so how can you maximize past that?
By djoldman 2026-02-101:19 Lucky for the Norwegians that they have their sovereign wealth fund, started and significantly maintained by gas and oil reserves.
20-25% of total Norwegian government spending comes from the fund.
By deedubaya 2026-02-102:59 That’s 2080 paid hours per year. Inclusive of paid time off, holidays, etc.
By chasd00 2026-02-0920:55 I think they just do that to get to an hourly rate. It’s probably better to look at the annual income and think of that number regardless of how many hours you worked during the year.
By renewiltord 2026-02-0920:395 reply Yeah, oil nations are different. Norway's resources are well-managed, but oil nations with outsourced defence just have different constraints.
Every single nation on Earth has mandatory paid vacation, except for the United States and three tiny islands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_b....
Edit: And looking into it a little, I'm pretty sure two of those islands actually do have mandatory paid leave after a minimum period of employment.
By changoplatanero 2026-02-0920:556 reply I don't get what the big deal is about mandatory paid vacation. My view is that your total compensation will be set based on the market value of your labor. Some portion of that compensation is given to you in the form of ordinary wages and some portion in the form of paid vacations. If the government mandated paid vacations would it increase many people's total compensation?
By marcyb5st 2026-02-0921:19 In my European mind (I have 25 mandated days off per year), if there was not a mandatory paid vacation limit two things would happen:
1. Further exploit desperate people since those that don't need to work at any cost would steer clear of jobs that have 0 holidays. 2. You would further penalize people with families where both parents work. It is well understood that if your kid is sick you can't really use your sick days and so must use your PTO days. Having 0 available days doesn't play well with having kids (personal experience).
And finally, having mandated PTO allow you to actually take holidays. I heard too many times of companies that offer unlimited PTO and when the employer tries to take some they sabotage him/her or plainly threaten his/her job security.
By burkaman 2026-02-0921:20 The easiest answer is yes, since many Americans currently earn minimum wage with no paid vacation, minimum wage with mandatory vacation would be an increase in total compensation. I don't know how paid leave regulations impact wage growth in general, I'm sure there is research on this but I didn't immediately find anything.
Another way to think about it: why do we have building codes? We don't want to incentivize builders to cut corners that would risk an electrical fire or falling down in an earthquake or something in order to offer a cheaper price, so we make it illegal. If unsafe buildings are allowed, it makes it difficult for safe builders to stay in the market. Similarly, we don't want to incentivize workers to sell their labor with zero leave in order to offer a cheaper price, because that risks unhealthy and insular communities (literally unhealthy if people can't take sick leave), poor mental health, unhealthy childcare practices, an unhealthy civic environment if people can't take time off to vote or volunteer, etc. The labor market is competitive and people will sacrifice paid leave if they have to, because they need money to live, so we should make it illegal to remove the incentive.
By worik 2026-02-0921:27 > total compensation will be set based on the market value of your labor.
No, you do not want that.
The market value of most people's labour is very close to zero.
Left to the market most of the population would live just below starvation, a very small group of owners would live very well, and a small group of artisans would do OK supporting the tiny group.
That is where many countries are heading
By the_gastropod 2026-02-0921:43 Unless you have a union, there's a dramatic power imbalance between you (the employee) and the employer at the negotiating table. I'd urge you to read up about the 19th century labor movement and what conditions prompted it.
By anticorporate 2026-02-0921:03 Wages and time off are not frictionlessly interchangeable in the vast majority of jobs. Mandating minimum levels for both helps make sure people have access to both.
By sdellis 2026-02-0921:13 For a lot of us, work is not our life. Turns out that most people really want a paid vacation. Smart Capitalists know that it's easier to extract value from workers with higher morale.
If you would rather trade your paid vacation for an extra week of pay, I am sure you and your boss can work it out. Companies pay out unused vacation all the time. Just don't ruin it for the rest of us!
By OneMorePerson 2026-02-105:09 This is a case of a list of facts that are pretty meaningless.
For most countries they say you get leave, but it doesn't count for part time workers, or contractors obviously, or people like farmers who are outside the typical work system. Further in reality enforcement is incredibly spotty, some countries have a history of making laws without any intention of enforcement just for show.
Most every white collar job in the US that I've ever heard of has ~2+ weeks vacation per year, it's necessary to get any employees so there's no need to make a law about it.
Meanwhile certain countries on that list work 6-7 days a week, so the 5-10 mandated days off really aren't what they seem.
It's incredibly obvious that places like the EU handle vacation stuff way better than the US and it's well known around the world for that, but pretending that the US has the worst working conditions is insulting to places where people are putting up with way worse conditions.
By jandrewrogers 2026-02-0921:391 reply Mandatory vacation, like education, mandatory IDs, and myriad other laws are the sole jurisdiction of the individual States to decide. There will never be a "US" law about these things. Most questions that start with "why is the US the only country..." can be explained by the fact that the States decide and the US government can't force the States to make laws.
Similarly, there is no US law against most crimes. It doesn't mean those laws don't exist in every State.
That said, there is no State with mandatory paid vacation either AFAIK.
Given the political diversity of the States, this suggests that mandatory paid vacation is either not considered an important issue by people across the political spectrum or there are existing regulations that would create real problems if there paid vacation was mandated without changing those regulations first.
By burkaman 2026-02-0922:05 There has been a federal law for mandatory family and medical leave for 30+ years (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla). It is unpaid and doesn't cover all workers, but that's a legislative detail that could be changed. I don't see any legal or constitutional reason that unpaid leave can be federal but paid leave can't.
By adam_beck 2026-02-0920:54 It would be interesting to know which percentage of full-time jobs in the USA get no paid vacation.
France is not an oil nation. We have 35h weeks and 5 weeks of paid vacation as well.
Edit: Also, the US is a damn oil nation. It has nothing to do with oil, and everything to do with politics.
Yes, and your government takes 57% of the total GDP to themselves, rely on an external power (that’s less and less friendly) for their protection and are on the track to their 6th prime minister in less than 2 years (is it 6th? I’ve lost track) because if they try to increase the retirement age above 62 (in their pay as you go unmaintanable system) people come down to the streets to burn down businesses and destroy public property.
By pyrale 2026-02-100:21 > your government takes 57% of the total GDP to themselves
That's a lot of blackjack and hookers for the ministers, if you really believe that "the government" takes 57% of GDP for "themselves". No wonder we're at out 6th PM, they must fall like flies with the amount of drugs they have to snort in order to siphon this much money.
By zozbot234 2026-02-0922:27 Spain and Portugal were in pretty much the same boat not too long ago and they've started to reform of their own accord. The French will come around once the bond vigilantes start taking a serious look at that whole government deficit+debt situation and unsustainable retirement ages. Of course it will be painful and involve severe austerity measures, but that's what it takes.
By Sadzeih 2026-02-1010:54 > rely on an external power (that’s less and less friendly) for their protection
You must not know France very well. We're the most independent nation defense wise in Europe. We build our own stuff, have nuclear subs and carriers. You're talking out of your ass.
France has stuck is head in the sand regarding its future finances
So has the US, difference is the US citizens don't get anything good out of their debt.
> US citizens don't get anything good out of their debt
Partly because they're paying for drug innovation and defense for other countries.
By baq 2026-02-0920:56 As if the US hasn’t!
By hybrid_study 2026-02-0920:471 reply I’m not sure that’s the key factor. Resource wealth helps, but it doesn’t automatically translate into shorter workweeks or generous leave. Countries with far fewer natural resources—such as Germany, the Netherlands, or Denmark—still manage shorter working hours, strong labor protections, and substantial paid vacation.
Those outcomes depend much more on labor policy, bargaining power, and what governments choose to protect. In many places, business pressure and media framing make long hours seem unavoidable, even though they’re ultimately the result of policy choices.
By usrnm 2026-02-0921:07 > Countries with far fewer natural resources—such as Germany, the Netherlands
Where do you think the term "Dutch disease" came from?
By lawn 2026-02-0921:08 The other Nordic countries don't have oil riches and manages just fine.
By sva_ 2026-02-0920:42 In Germany its somewhere between 1600-1700 hours, and we don't have much oil
