Ultimately in all these calculators there has to be a threshold that determines whether something is needed for “living” or not. And that varies highly by the individual.

The calculator suggests $5,021 for food, but for me I’d only shop at high-end grocery like Whole Foods and buy organics whenever possible. That’s clearly not enough. On the other hand it suggests $1,792 for internet and mobile which is about double what I actually pay and I have both unlimited mobile data and unlimited home data. Then it claims medical costs of $2,890. For a fit individual with good employer-provided health insurance, that figure should be almost zero.

Ultimately the amount one spends for living depends very much on one’s preferences and these calculators are approximates. I believe you when you say many young people can live for much less, but that doesn’t invalidate the calculator.

▲

Jtsummers 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Then it claims medical costs of $2,890. For a fit individual with good employer-provided health insurance, that figure should be almost zero.

No, it won't be almost zero because they're including health insurance premiums in that figure. Few jobs in the US cover 100% of the premiums for their employees.

>> The cost of health care is composed of two subcategories: (1) premiums associated with employer-sponsored health insurance plans and (2) out-of-pocket expenses for medical services, drugs, and medical supplies.

▲

groundzeros2015 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think “I should be able to fully express my food brand preferences” is not a reasonable standard of livable.

▲

kccqzy 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Food choices are highly personal. It’s probably the single most variable expense item here. Who are you to decide for someone else whether their food is reasonable enough or not. And furthermore, in general Americans are among the least picky about their foods; now ask a Frenchman or a Chinese about their food culture.

	▲	groundzeros2015 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well I’m not the one to decide. That’s why we let individuals allocate money for themselves so they can prioritize what they care about from their resource pool. Because preferences for food, housing, and healthcare are essentially unbounded, I think you will always have unmet preferences.

▲

upboundspiral 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

When the choice is between organic food (expensive) and eating pesticides that are meant to kill and neuter living organisms (somewhat economical) it's a choice we never should have allowed to even exist in the first place.

▲

groundzeros2015 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sounds like you need to get the government’s definition of appropriate foods changed. And then come back to the question of livability.

It must be more nuanced than you say, as millions of people reach old age without sharing your concern.

	▲	kccqzy 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The definition of appropriate foods is not binary. It’s alright that the government sets a minimum standard of appropriateness and individuals can opt for higher quality than what the government mandates.

▲

bradyd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Organic food still uses pesticides.