Living Wage and How It Compares to the Minimum Wage
How Much Do You Need to Live?
The purpose of a living wage is to make sure than all full-time workers have enough money to live above the federal poverty level.
A living wage does not include the basic buffers needed to improve one's quality of life or protect against emergencies.
For example, it doesn't provide enough income to eat at restaurants, save for a rainy day, or pay for education loans. It doesn't include medical, auto, or renters/homeowners insurance. In other words, it's enough to keep you out of a homeless shelter, but you'd still have to live paycheck-to-paycheck. If you can't afford insurance, and you get sick, you could still wind up homeless.
Living Wage Calculator
A living wage calculator shows the hourly rate needed to pay for typical basic costs in a given location. These costs are usually food, health care, rent, transportation, child care and taxes. The cost estimates are usually taken from government and non-profit surveys of such costs.
M.I.T. provides the well-known Living Wage Calculator. The Institute developed it in 2004 and updated it in June 2012. The calculator shows costs for each of the 50 states and the living wage needed to pay those basic costs.
It compares this to the minimum wage, and the poverty wage. It also shows which occupations in the area typically pay less than the living wage.
The Economic Policy Institute designed a Living Wage Calculator targeted towards a family with children. It also used federal data for the major metropolitan areas.
Since it was lasted updated in 2008, its cost of living estimates are lower.
Living Wage Campaign
The goal of the living wage campaign is to make sure the minimum wage is equivalent to the true cost of living. The campaign is often waged at state and local levels, as well as at the national level. Some campaigns focus on paying a higher-than-minimum wage to those who receive local government contracts. Others try to address raising the minimum wage for all employees in the state.
The living wage campaign is a popular cause among voters. That's because 60 percent of Americans have, at one time in their lives, been paid the minimum wage, and know what it feels like. Support has grown as income inequality in the United States has increased. Although most people are opposed to handouts (such as unemployment benefits) to those who don't work, they like to see hard workers be rewarded.
There are several living wage campaigns.
- Raise the Minimum Wage -- Works with the National Employment Labor Project to coordinate living wage campaigns across the country.
- ACORN -- This now-defunct group successfully raised the minimum wage in many cities across the country in the late 1990s. At its peak, it had 400,000 member families belonging to 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 75 U.S. cities.
- The Universal Living Wage Campaign -- This group seeks to tie increases in the minimum wage to the cost of housing. Its goal wants no one to pays more than 30 percent of income for housing. Thirty percent is the federally recommended limit.
Living Wage Versus Minimum Wage
The living wage is often confused with the minimum wage. In fact, the terms are often used interchangeably. That's because the intent of the minimum wage is to provide a living wage. However, the minimum wage is an amount set by law, whereas the living wage is determined by costs. The amount needed to provide a living wage depends on what is included in the calculation. The amount set by lawmakers for the minimum wage must take into account the needs of business as well as workers. They must also consider the overall impact on the economy.
Although the minimum wage was set to allow workers enough income to stay out of poverty, it often hasn't kept pace with the true cost of living. As a result, many of those who make the minimum wage are living below the federal poverty line. Others are above that, but cannot make enough to get an education to get a better-paying job. Others are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
One reason the minimum wage is lower than the living wage is that it has not kept up with the cost of living. If it had been indexed to the consumer price index over the last 40 years, the minimum wage would now be $10.41. If it had kept pace with executive level pay increases, it would be $23/hour. That's why so many people want to raise the minimum wage.
Living Wage Versus Poverty Level
The federal poverty level is $23,050 for a family of four. That's equivalent to $10.60 per hour for a full-time worker. A worker making the minimum wage of $7.20 per hour would be below the poverty level. That's why both parents need to work minimum wage jobs to stay above the poverty level.
To make things simpler, a single person must earn $11,170, or $5.21 an hour to be above the poverty level. For that person, the minimum wage would be adequate.
Living Wage Compared to the Minimum Wage and Poverty Level
Even those making the minimum wage and living above the poverty level aren't making a living wage. For example, the cheapest city in the country is Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The MIT living wage calculator says that a single person must earn $8.11/hour to afford living there. That covers the average housing, medical, food, and transportation costs.
Some cities have a higher minimum wage than the national level, just to solve this problem. For example, the second cheapest city is Springfield, Illinois. Here, a living wage is $7.89. Since the national minimum wage wasn't enough, the city raised the minimum wage to $8.00/hour. This is enough for a single person, but falls short for a family of four, which requires $17.78 to cover the basic costs. Even if both parents work full-time, making a total of $16.00/hour, it's not enough.
Hopefully, you now see why the concept of a living wage is so tricky to implement. It varies from city to city, and region to region. Many cities and states have indexed their minimum wages to inflation, which compensates for any rises in the cost of living. If the government were to try and institute a living wage for everyone, it would require meticulous planning and regulation. It would need to vary by region, and by family size. When the government gets that detailed, you get into a command economy. This restricts the natural dynamics of the free market economy, and leads to unanticipated negative results.
There would be a similar problem in instituting a universal basic income. It is a government guarantee that everyone receives a minimum income. The concept has gained popularity as a way to offset job losses caused by technology.
The government has a legitimate role in setting a minimum wage. It must institute child labor protection and prevent the worst kind of abuses in pay. But it's not the government's role to protect workers at the expense of a healthy economy.