Why is “getting by” the goal? Shouldn’t the goal be to thrive? American exceptionalism my ass
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.
The cost of living minimum is $40,000+. The most I’ve made in a year is ≈$20,000. Something’s not adding up.
$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.
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.
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)
“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.
It is very unlikely a single person is having a comfortable life in San Diego on $80k.
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).
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.
