The numbers used are either very bad guesses as what passes for an average or severely outdated.
Current National Median for cost of living
Current National Median for cost of living
Last edited:
Wondering if heat isn't listed because they are assuming electric heat in that example? $90 for electric seems like a lot, otherwise. And it DOES say car insurance, so gas must be part of the $27/day or the $100/month *other* charges.
Was this a Canada thing vice US (wondering per comment about where it showed up)? Maybe $20/month had a bearing in their healthcare system vice the US model (which clearly won't cover anything here). other than that, it DOES work as a menial, entry level, no skill sorta job/lifestyle.
As i keep reading the comments here, though, would like to ask the question about EXPECTATIONS. If you're working a minimum wage job (at McDonald's or elsewhere), what are the EXPECTATIONS of what kind of life you should have? We've had comments about how you'd have trouble with:
-mortgage
-going out to movies
-eating out in restaurants
-raising children
-pets
-gas/food/clothes
Let's assume that the $27/day, plus $100 month covers your minimum food/clothes needs. Not going to get you fillet or new Jordans, but living frugally, splitting food money with roommates and eating together, not really buying lots of new clothes, maybe it can just work. If you live near work, and don't drive a ton extra, maybe gas just works as well. Let's say you have a roommate for your 2 bedroom apartment, so the other costs go down slightly and make the rest of that about a wash for 'extra' food/gas money. Maybe sometimes you're even up enough to see a movie, maybe sometimes stuff goes wrong and you don't put $100 in savings.
Are the expectations here REALLY that while working literally flipping burgers at McDonald's, you should be able to afford to buy a house and have a mortgage? How about living alone in your own apartment? Raise children and pay for their expenses? How about even things like how often should you be able to go out and drop $20 to see a movie in the theater or eat out in a restaurant? If you can barely feed yourself, please don't get pets.
Maybe I'm thinking about it differently, but I just don't see those as reasonable expectations at this income/career level. If you live at home and don't have all those bills, this money should cover more of the 'fun' activities. If you at least get a bunch of roommates and live cheaply, maybe you get a *little* fun money at the end. But if you're just straight up working minimum wage and bringing in 2k/month, how much of the money should be going to essential survival (food/clothes/shelter), and how much should be for a 'nicer' place, going out to movies, $100/month for cable tv / phone service (likely including a cellphone bill now), etc? Nice to have those things, but they really aren't NEEDED or rights, and at this level of income, aren't practical.
Seems that in the US, they are seen as must haves (like a flat screen tv) and then people can't pay their regular bills. Or insist minimum wage should be $20/hour so that the numbers in that budget work out to get the things mentioned.
I guess I'm having a hard time with this. It's certainly not desireable to live like that, but you CAN make the numbers work and live on that. I just don't WANT to, and wouldn't enjoy it. But at that level, SHOULD you?
*raises hand*$150 car payment?! $100 cable/phone bill? Where is this at?!
It also assumes you never get sick and have to take a significant amount of time off from your job.
I notice that food or clothes aren't included in the budget.
I don't know if anyone else went and looked at this in context, but I did, and it appears to me that it is just a sample of how to create a budget using their tools. I don't think it's meant as a suggested budget at all. And the how-to-budget info is actually quite good.
But arguing about the numbers here is totally missing the point. About 1/3 of American workers live on this kind of money and make it work. Let's not pretend they don't. Do they live like most of us? Probably not. But they're doing it. And some of the richest men in the country are arguing that they're making too much money.
But arguing about the numbers here is totally missing the point. About 1/3 of American workers live on this kind of money and make it work. Let's not pretend they don't. Do they live like most of us? Probably not. But they're doing it. And some of the richest men in the country are arguing that they're making too much money.
The only way anyone "makes it work" is through sheer luck. If anything unforeseen happens, you're screwed. I sure learned that one the hard way.
But you are right that arguing the numbers is pointless. I mentioned this in another thread about the Koch brothers. Conservatives put out information like this because they know their opponents are easily baited by statistics. Throw some statistics out there and you'll get people to waste their time determining why the stats are right or wrong, or creating their own. All the while, the conservatives who sourced the data in the first place are just moving along with their agenda to gut the middle class and make working class life as miserable as possible in order to enrich themselves. One of the shrewdest things they do is convince middle class people that poor people are ripping them off--and that's the real effect examples like this budget have. "Look at that, seems someone can live just fine on McDonald's money! Guess we don't need welfare or food stamps or Medicaid, then. Screw those lazy-ass poors who just won't step up, I don't want my tax money supporting them."
It's a clever trick and most people in this thread (including me) fell for it.
I just have to remind myself: the only way to win is not to play the game.
I don't know if anyone else went and looked at this in context, but I did, and it appears to me that it is just a sample of how to create a budget using their tools. I don't think it's meant as a suggested budget at all. And the how-to-budget info is actually quite good.
I think that they should at least have done a realistic sample budget and I do think that if showing that a second job is needed was not neccessarily the wisest thing that they did.
I would question the value in presenting people with a "sample" budget that admits to not being realistic.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.