I think the article suggests living wages to live like a king.
The criteria they used is that “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.”.
I don’t know anybody who makes under six figures and saves or invests 20% of their income, and 30% discretionary spending seems like a LOT.
If the article were more realistic, the living wage amounts would be significantly lower than reported. As stated, it would leave people very comfortable.
I never understand if these types of things are gross or net. 50% of gross pay is a lot different than 50% of net pay, depending on the tax bracket. Using percentage, how a person lives should scale with their income, from pauper to prince. Most people don’t want to scale down where they live to the point of fitting in a lot of these guidelines, which is fair, things can get pretty gross.
For me, after taxes, health insurance, and my 401k (which is 12%), my take home is 55% of my gross. If we add the 401k back in, since they have that broken out with the 20, 67% is what someone might have to actually work with.
If someone making $100k has a similar percentage, their gross budget would be $7,692/month, while the net budget would be $5,153/month. That’s $2,539 that goes to Uncle Sam and insurance that so many rules of thumb like to ignore. 50% of the take home pay is $2,500 for all necessities, rent will take a massive bite out of that and I think is the most important factor to control for to make the rest of it work. I assume a car payment would also go into that bucket, as well has groceries. Depending on the city, that may not go as far as people think when they hear 6 figures.
I have a house now, but spent about 15 years moving every year or two to avoid rent increases. I had this idea in my head that rent shouldn’t cost more than $1,000, and yearly increases should be minimal. At some point I went beyond that, but think I maxed out at $1,600 only for 1 year, which was mostly to keep me sane after work fucked me over and I was trying to make the best of it. When I see apartments for $2k+, I can’t even comprehend that. I thought I was living pretty high on the hog with that $1,600 place. Someone making $100k/year can’t really afford these $2+ rents if they’re not making big sacrifices elsewhere.
Someone making $100k/year can’t really afford these $2+ rents if they’re not making big sacrifices elsewhere.
That may be the key, though. I’m not American, but was looking at Canadian household figures, and I’m seeing something like 40% of food spending going to restaurants! “Communications” being over $2600 a year ($216 / month for phone and internet???)! Private transportation being over $11,000 a year (10x what public transportation would cost). Drugs and alcohol accounts for nearly $2000 a year with gambling being another $200.
Sacrifice doesn’t mean to be poor, but it does mean that people need to spend wisely. If done right, you could live an even better life while spending less!
To that, I wonder what the real cost of living would be if people were more reasonable with their spendings.
I’d say restaurants should go under the 30% discretionary budget, not the 50% necessities section, as eating out is not a necessity. People can easily spend over a grand on food in a month going out to eat a lot and have no idea where the money went.
I’d love to not own a car, but that not possible with the current infrastructure around me, and I think that’s true for most people in North America. I’d like that to change, but that would require actual leadership and cooperation, which apparently isn’t a thing anymore.
I worked with a guy who would often say, it’s not about how much you make, it’s about how much you keep. Another co-worker told me I lived like a poor person, but I don’t think so. I just don’t spend a bunch of money on “status” stuff. I live in a modest place and drive a modest car, eating basic food, and wearing basic clothes. I don’t care about most of that stuff, so why waste money on it? I guess I’d rather have money than look like I have money. Though I could step it up a little. I’ve had homeless guys sit next to me at McDonalds to commiserate about how hard we have it. I didn’t really know what to do, so I just went with it.
I’d love to not own a car, but that not possible with the current infrastructure around me, and I think that’s true for most people in North America. I’d like that to change, but that would require actual leadership and cooperation, which apparently isn’t a thing anymore.
This would go a long way to help people get control of their money.
I’m very fortunate to have access to “pay-as-you-go” insurance, so at most I pay around $250 a year (two drivers) for up to 1000km, and every additional 1000km is around $50-60.
Since I’ve been able to move much of my car driving to cycling, I’m saving in gas and insurance. Easily $3000+ a year.
Even if someone isn’t physically able to cycle, investing in an ebike to offset some of their driving can also have an impact on their wallet.
But if you’re stuck with car payments, a rigid insurance plan, and are forced to buy gas often, then it’s a very tough situation.
Another co-worker told me I lived like a poor person, but I don’t think so.
Haha. I don’t think what they meant was to actually live like a poor person, but to be frugal with your spending. This can have a profound effect on how much money you keep!
Have you seen Peachtree City? They have a whole network of golf cart paths. Even for a lot of mobility issues this would work. They’re way cheaper than cars, easier to electrify without having to go overboard, and I’m sure bikes could use the paths too. It seems great.
And the co-worker wasn’t telling me to live like a poor person, he was saying I already did. He was trying to tell me I should spend more money… get a bigger/nicer apartment, a faster more expensive car, etc. I was just like, naw… I’m good.
Cooking is labor, intensive labor at that. Someone working 50 hours a week is going to have a lot less energy to dedicate towards cooking their own food, and will thus likely eat out more.
Truly, I don’t think encouraging people to cook at home is a viable solution. We need low cost, high quality, publicly owned and operated community kitchens.
Cooking for one is highly inefficient, both in time and resources. Cooking for 500 is much better in both.
Hey, even though I love to cook, I’m also SUPER lazy (some might just call it efficient) when it comes to making meals.
For one, investing just a few hundred dollars (or much less if buying used) can get you a pressure cooker and/or a bread maker, and/or a rice cooker, and/or a slow cooker.
Any of these items, especially the pressure cooker, can save a considerable amount of time - most meals are simply “drop in your ingredients and walk away”. It can take less time to make dinner and clean up than it would take to order out.
I’m not exaggerating.
Longer, more elaborate meals are often made on the weekend, so we aren’t missing out on favourites like pizza. Even then, I won’t spend more than 20-30 minutes in the kitchen making a large meal. LOL
Being able to save money on food is a skill, and it’s a skill that everyone should know.
Even making batches of food ahead of time (I do this with beans) can save a considerable amount of money per month, without taking up more than a few minutes of effort.
All I’m saying is that if people are struggling, but they are spending a huge amount of money on restaurants, then making meals at home is a reasonable, easy way to save money.
Hell, even if you really don’t want to put any time into cooking from scratch, premade meals are going to be cheaper than a restaurant meal.
Laziness breeds efficiency, totally with you there. I guess my comment was more pre-empting the inevitable “well if people just ate more at home they wouldn’t be poor” response than it was directed at what you said. I agree that cooking for yourself is way more cash efficient, and using things like crockpots or insta-pots can reduce the time commitment also.
It’s still a struggle for people who work hard labor or any really draining job, and get home exhausted while still having household chores to manage. It’s also still less materially efficient than a centralized food facility, even a private restaurant. Or those who never had any model from which to learn to cook and are intimidated by it, though that could be fixed with proper educational opportunities. Also, for those living alone, the choices are often buy a couple days worth of food every couple days, make big batches of food and eat the same thing every day for a week, or risk food spoilage and waste.
I think individuals cooking their meals is a good way to manage under the current situation, but I like to conceive of better alternatives, and the efficiency gains in terms of time, labor hours, and waste of a community kitchen or pantry are too large for me not to advocate for them anytime I see an opportunity. There would likely be added intrapersonal and community benefits from the increased socialization also. I hope to one day be able to open one locally if I can ever afford to buy a commercial space so as to minimize monthly costs, but I think it would benefit much more from local governmental support and communal ownership and management.
I think the article suggests living wages to live like a king.
The criteria they used is that “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.”.
I don’t know anybody who makes under six figures and saves or invests 20% of their income, and 30% discretionary spending seems like a LOT.
If the article were more realistic, the living wage amounts would be significantly lower than reported. As stated, it would leave people very comfortable.
I never understand if these types of things are gross or net. 50% of gross pay is a lot different than 50% of net pay, depending on the tax bracket. Using percentage, how a person lives should scale with their income, from pauper to prince. Most people don’t want to scale down where they live to the point of fitting in a lot of these guidelines, which is fair, things can get pretty gross.
For me, after taxes, health insurance, and my 401k (which is 12%), my take home is 55% of my gross. If we add the 401k back in, since they have that broken out with the 20, 67% is what someone might have to actually work with.
If someone making $100k has a similar percentage, their gross budget would be $7,692/month, while the net budget would be $5,153/month. That’s $2,539 that goes to Uncle Sam and insurance that so many rules of thumb like to ignore. 50% of the take home pay is $2,500 for all necessities, rent will take a massive bite out of that and I think is the most important factor to control for to make the rest of it work. I assume a car payment would also go into that bucket, as well has groceries. Depending on the city, that may not go as far as people think when they hear 6 figures.
I have a house now, but spent about 15 years moving every year or two to avoid rent increases. I had this idea in my head that rent shouldn’t cost more than $1,000, and yearly increases should be minimal. At some point I went beyond that, but think I maxed out at $1,600 only for 1 year, which was mostly to keep me sane after work fucked me over and I was trying to make the best of it. When I see apartments for $2k+, I can’t even comprehend that. I thought I was living pretty high on the hog with that $1,600 place. Someone making $100k/year can’t really afford these $2+ rents if they’re not making big sacrifices elsewhere.
That may be the key, though. I’m not American, but was looking at Canadian household figures, and I’m seeing something like 40% of food spending going to restaurants! “Communications” being over $2600 a year ($216 / month for phone and internet???)! Private transportation being over $11,000 a year (10x what public transportation would cost). Drugs and alcohol accounts for nearly $2000 a year with gambling being another $200.
Sacrifice doesn’t mean to be poor, but it does mean that people need to spend wisely. If done right, you could live an even better life while spending less!
To that, I wonder what the real cost of living would be if people were more reasonable with their spendings.
For sure, a lot of spending is out of control.
I’d say restaurants should go under the 30% discretionary budget, not the 50% necessities section, as eating out is not a necessity. People can easily spend over a grand on food in a month going out to eat a lot and have no idea where the money went.
I’d love to not own a car, but that not possible with the current infrastructure around me, and I think that’s true for most people in North America. I’d like that to change, but that would require actual leadership and cooperation, which apparently isn’t a thing anymore.
I worked with a guy who would often say, it’s not about how much you make, it’s about how much you keep. Another co-worker told me I lived like a poor person, but I don’t think so. I just don’t spend a bunch of money on “status” stuff. I live in a modest place and drive a modest car, eating basic food, and wearing basic clothes. I don’t care about most of that stuff, so why waste money on it? I guess I’d rather have money than look like I have money. Though I could step it up a little. I’ve had homeless guys sit next to me at McDonalds to commiserate about how hard we have it. I didn’t really know what to do, so I just went with it.
This would go a long way to help people get control of their money.
I’m very fortunate to have access to “pay-as-you-go” insurance, so at most I pay around $250 a year (two drivers) for up to 1000km, and every additional 1000km is around $50-60.
Since I’ve been able to move much of my car driving to cycling, I’m saving in gas and insurance. Easily $3000+ a year.
Even if someone isn’t physically able to cycle, investing in an ebike to offset some of their driving can also have an impact on their wallet.
But if you’re stuck with car payments, a rigid insurance plan, and are forced to buy gas often, then it’s a very tough situation.
Haha. I don’t think what they meant was to actually live like a poor person, but to be frugal with your spending. This can have a profound effect on how much money you keep!
Have you seen Peachtree City? They have a whole network of golf cart paths. Even for a lot of mobility issues this would work. They’re way cheaper than cars, easier to electrify without having to go overboard, and I’m sure bikes could use the paths too. It seems great.
https://youtu.be/pcVGqtmd2wM?si=EwDfdWbEzqqxN0bv
And the co-worker wasn’t telling me to live like a poor person, he was saying I already did. He was trying to tell me I should spend more money… get a bigger/nicer apartment, a faster more expensive car, etc. I was just like, naw… I’m good.
Ah, i misread the poor person comment! Spend however you like, but there’s no reason to spend more than you need to.
Peachtree City is delightfully unique. Thanks for sharing that.
Part of me wonders “why not just ride a bike?”, but hey, “anything but a car” also works for me 😂
Cooking is labor, intensive labor at that. Someone working 50 hours a week is going to have a lot less energy to dedicate towards cooking their own food, and will thus likely eat out more.
Truly, I don’t think encouraging people to cook at home is a viable solution. We need low cost, high quality, publicly owned and operated community kitchens.
Cooking for one is highly inefficient, both in time and resources. Cooking for 500 is much better in both.
Hey, even though I love to cook, I’m also SUPER lazy (some might just call it efficient) when it comes to making meals.
For one, investing just a few hundred dollars (or much less if buying used) can get you a pressure cooker and/or a bread maker, and/or a rice cooker, and/or a slow cooker.
Any of these items, especially the pressure cooker, can save a considerable amount of time - most meals are simply “drop in your ingredients and walk away”. It can take less time to make dinner and clean up than it would take to order out.
I’m not exaggerating.
Longer, more elaborate meals are often made on the weekend, so we aren’t missing out on favourites like pizza. Even then, I won’t spend more than 20-30 minutes in the kitchen making a large meal. LOL
Being able to save money on food is a skill, and it’s a skill that everyone should know.
Even making batches of food ahead of time (I do this with beans) can save a considerable amount of money per month, without taking up more than a few minutes of effort.
All I’m saying is that if people are struggling, but they are spending a huge amount of money on restaurants, then making meals at home is a reasonable, easy way to save money.
Hell, even if you really don’t want to put any time into cooking from scratch, premade meals are going to be cheaper than a restaurant meal.
Laziness breeds efficiency, totally with you there. I guess my comment was more pre-empting the inevitable “well if people just ate more at home they wouldn’t be poor” response than it was directed at what you said. I agree that cooking for yourself is way more cash efficient, and using things like crockpots or insta-pots can reduce the time commitment also.
It’s still a struggle for people who work hard labor or any really draining job, and get home exhausted while still having household chores to manage. It’s also still less materially efficient than a centralized food facility, even a private restaurant. Or those who never had any model from which to learn to cook and are intimidated by it, though that could be fixed with proper educational opportunities. Also, for those living alone, the choices are often buy a couple days worth of food every couple days, make big batches of food and eat the same thing every day for a week, or risk food spoilage and waste.
I think individuals cooking their meals is a good way to manage under the current situation, but I like to conceive of better alternatives, and the efficiency gains in terms of time, labor hours, and waste of a community kitchen or pantry are too large for me not to advocate for them anytime I see an opportunity. There would likely be added intrapersonal and community benefits from the increased socialization also. I hope to one day be able to open one locally if I can ever afford to buy a commercial space so as to minimize monthly costs, but I think it would benefit much more from local governmental support and communal ownership and management.