I’ve often felt that much of the crowd touting how close the problem was to being solved was conflating a driving problem to just being a perception problem. Perception is just a sub-space of the driving problem.
Genuine question though: has Waymo gotten better at their reporting? A couple years back they seemingly inflated their safety numbers by sanitizing the classifications with subjective “a human would have crashed too so we don’t count it as an accident”. That is measuring something quite different than how safety numbers are colloquially interpreted.
It seems like there is a need for more standardized testing and reporting, but I may be out of the loop.
Wiggling feels more like a second-derivative thing to me but that's discussed too - Chebyshev polynomials max out the second derivative as well as the first.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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”
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?
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.)
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.
I questioned that too, but vehicle costs are based off surveyed data. So if the average 2 adults have a car payment, insurance, fuel, and repair costs, it’s probably reflected in their data. To me, that’s different than saying “a reasonable mode of reliable transportation”
I don't think it's appropriate to use the average vehicle costs for the living wage. It overestimates how much people on that wage spend on their vehicles.
For example, the average new-vehicle price in December 2025 was about $50,000. But people earning the living wage mostly aren't buying that kind of car. They could buy a new car for less than half that, or buy a used car. Or they may choose to take public transit.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Anecdotally, I found some of the costs like food and food to be inflated.
When I looked at the methodology, some is based on consumer surveys so it may be more reflective of over-consumption. In other words, it prices in what people want or what they’re used to, not what they need. The counterpoint is that maybe some wealthy countries should be pricing in a higher quality of life, but the “living wage” then becomes a bit of a misnomer.
Anecdotally their numbers are significantly higher for my city than what I actually spend in some categories. I am not frugal by any stretch of the imagination, you would have to be pretty careless and/or irresponsible to hit some of those numbers. On the other hand, the living wage is below the actual minimum wage in some cases.
If you look at US BLS and Federal Reserve studies on such things, they make a distinctions between what people actually spend on ordinary expenses and when people can no longer afford those categories of expenses.
An interesting artifact is that incomes across the 15-40th percentile range in the same city don't save much money but still have enough money to pay for all ordinary expenses. That is a wide range of incomes for people nominally spending their entire income on the same things. What actually seems to happen is that average people spend excess income on upgrading their lifestyle until they hit the 40th percentile, at which point the average person starts saving some of their additional excess income.
I would add healthcare to that. But I wouldn’t add things like the typical transportation costs like those in the study that are derived from consumer surveys. And from my personal anecdotal experience, the food costs mentioned seem high, so they might be more consumerist than you let on.
I honestly can’t tell if this is satire, or if we’re running into a lack of civics education.
In the US at least, political rights are considered inalienable, not rewards. The OPs point can be extended to giving more votes to people based on their “productivity” (ie income) to society and the absurdity becomes obvious to most.
They also get less likely to commit crime, but that’s not how we gauge risk. We don’t generally say “that teenager’s crime risk is going down so they are less risky than that geriatric whose crime risk is fairly constant.” Risk probability is usually the area under a hazard rate curve.
Over a long enough interval, that reduction in risk would be important. So what is the appropriate time interval for these risk assessments?
Genuine question though: has Waymo gotten better at their reporting? A couple years back they seemingly inflated their safety numbers by sanitizing the classifications with subjective “a human would have crashed too so we don’t count it as an accident”. That is measuring something quite different than how safety numbers are colloquially interpreted.
It seems like there is a need for more standardized testing and reporting, but I may be out of the loop.
reply