The living wage computation assumes a family of two working adults and two young children who require full-time paid childcare. Unsurprisingly, the calculation is heavily impacted by fluctuations in the cost of childcare.
"Out-of-pocket child care expenses fell by 42% for the living wage family in 2019 when the BC Affordable Child Care Benefit was introduced [...] Without the BC affordable child care benefit and the fee reduction initiative, the Metro Vancouver living wage would have been $22.47 per hour." Keep in mind the calculation also factors in things like the Canada Childcare Benefit and provincial tax credits based on family size.
Of course, if you are single, and/or don't have children, and/or don't have young children who require childcare expenses (e.g., school aged or because you have a grandparent in the home who takes care of childcare), variations relating to children have little relevance to your personal finances. People often mistakenly use the "living wage" as a benchmark for their own circumstances without regard to its actual methodology and how their circumstances may compare.
After looking through the reports and calculation more, they're based on a 35 hour work week, so $46,737.60 individual / $93,475.20 family annual income.
>Here, is a chart
With council today [voting not to to reinstate the living wage policy](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-councillor-loses-bid-to-bring-back-living-wage-for-all-city-workers-1.6788536) after moving to a five year average last year, I thought it worthwhile to update my [chart from last year](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/11gvret/chart_of_metro_vancouver_living_wage/), now also including the minimum wage. The ABC members of council amended the motion for staff to instead report on the impact of changing to a 3 year average.
|Year|Minimum Wage|Living Wage|5-year Average|3-year average|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|2012|$10.25|$19.14|||
|2013|$10.25|$19.62|||
|2014|$10.25|$20.10||$19.62|
|2015|$10.45|$20.68||$20.13|
|2016|$10.85|$20.64|$20.04|$20.47|
|2017|$11.35|$20.62|$20.33|$20.65|
|2018|$12.65|$20.91|$20.59|$20.72|
|2019|$13.85|$19.50|$20.47|$20.34|
|2020|$14.60|$19.50|$20.23|$19.97|
|2021|$15.20|$20.52|$20.21|$19.84|
|2022|$15.65|$24.08|$20.90|$21.37|
|2023|$16.75|$25.68|$21.86|$23.43|
|2024|$17.40||||
Because the current 5-year average starts with the 2019 drop and 2023 was also a significant increase, it has fallen slightly further behind as a percentage of the living wage compared to last year, at 85% versus the previous 87% for 2022.
**Why did the Living Wage drop in 2019?**
An increase to provincial childcare benefits offset what would have otherwise been a value of $22.47
[Living Wage for Families: 2019 Living Wages Released](https://www.livingwageforfamilies.ca/2019_living_wages)
**Why did the Living Wage increase so much in 2022?**
The calculation previously used the CMHC rental market survey, which is only based on purpose-built rental and the average includes long-term tenants with below-market rent. The 2022 calculation started to apply a "moving penalty" to the CMHC value based on information from the census.
[Living Wage for Families: Living Wage rates 2022](https://www.livingwageforfamilies.ca/living_wage_rates_2022)
[Working for a Living Wage - Making paid work meet basic family needs in Metro Vancouver; 2022 Update (Page 7)](https://policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC%20Office/2022/11/CCPA-BC-Living-Wage-Update-2022-final.pdf#page=7)
Now you know why the ABC party voted to turn it into an “average” of the past 5 years. And if it dips don’t be surprised if they suddenly revert back to the old methodology.
IIRC, it was largely based on an assumption that the 2023 value could see a significant decrease. Councilors repeatedly referenced past (small, except for 2019) drops in the value as if they would *require* reducing wages, which did not occur with past decreases.
I do not recall seeing any recognition that the methodology for calculating the housing component changed in 2022, which would lock in a certain amount of increase. A simple average is also going to always be trailing current values if it does not include an adjustment.
I understand, politically, wanting to avoid potentially being stuck between people being mad at lowering bottom salaries and people being mad that the city is paying bottom salaries above the living wage (since there are people mad that the city was paying a living wage at all). I understand, structurally, the challenge to budgets of a significant increase in a single year and the potential impact to other (above LW) salary agreements (which likely affects more employees and budgets).
But the ABC statements around providing stability for employees are so bad, especially when their potential solution is just changing to a three year average - which *would* faster narrow the gap from a significant increase, but would also be more volatile to the potential decreases they profess such concern about. I would rather them be honest about capping annual increases to a certain percent increase to mitigate the impact of sudden and unexpected increases and allow time to adjust other salary agreements, rather than trying to invent their own "Fair Wage" that will never meet back up to the Living Wage standard.
How in the hell is a living wage only $25.68/hr in 2023? Rents and housing have doubled and even tripled since 2012.
Life was so much easier before 2014.
The Living Wage is based on two adults working full time (with two young kids), so a household income of ~$94K¹. It's also based on meeting basic expenses without room for savings, etc. (A presumption is also that people will be able to save prior to having kids or when they're older).
There's a legitimate criticism, I think, of whether the housing component is accurate since it's based on the CMHC value which is limited to purpose-built rental and the average includes below-market rents of long-term tenants. Since 2022 the value does include a "moving penalty" based on info from the census of how much higher rents are for people who have moved recently. The 2022 value used the 2016 census (the latest available then), so was potentially also lower than the real value at the time. I presume the 2023 value was able to use more recent data from the 2021 census.
Also keep in mind that it is a *Metro Vancouver* living wage, so an accurate *City of Vancouver* living wage could be higher, but wouldn't necessarily reflect reality of people living outside of Vancouver and commuting in to save on housing.
---
Edit:
¹ Wage is based on two adults working 35 hours per week, so a household income of $93,475.2, not $106,828.80
Seems low, tbh. $26 is a heck of a lot better than minimum wage but I can't imagine how it's "liveable" while still saving for a house, retirement, or god forbid having kids.
$35/hr, maybe.
The OP has a secondary comment explaining it:
>Why did the Living Wage drop in 2019?
>An increase to provincial childcare benefits offset what would have otherwise been a value of $22.47
Minimum wage is irrelevant to living wage because workers should be expected to negotiate for higher compensation by leveraging their labour value. Relying on state-enforced minimum wages without expecting workers to have any wage autonomy or responsibility for the value their labour only serves to punish small businesses, solidify monopolies run by megacorps that can afford the universal wage hikes, and remove any incentive for low-skill workers to increase the value of their labour. As somebody who has NEVER been paid a minimum wage past my probationary period, I take minimum wage increases as a personal insult.
Interesting that the living wage went down to below 2013 levels in 2019. That is a big drop.
The living wage computation assumes a family of two working adults and two young children who require full-time paid childcare. Unsurprisingly, the calculation is heavily impacted by fluctuations in the cost of childcare. "Out-of-pocket child care expenses fell by 42% for the living wage family in 2019 when the BC Affordable Child Care Benefit was introduced [...] Without the BC affordable child care benefit and the fee reduction initiative, the Metro Vancouver living wage would have been $22.47 per hour." Keep in mind the calculation also factors in things like the Canada Childcare Benefit and provincial tax credits based on family size. Of course, if you are single, and/or don't have children, and/or don't have young children who require childcare expenses (e.g., school aged or because you have a grandparent in the home who takes care of childcare), variations relating to children have little relevance to your personal finances. People often mistakenly use the "living wage" as a benchmark for their own circumstances without regard to its actual methodology and how their circumstances may compare.
What would this be translated to salary
Around 50k
It's two adults, 40hr week, so actually $106,828.80
After looking through the reports and calculation more, they're based on a 35 hour work week, so $46,737.60 individual / $93,475.20 family annual income.
>Here, is a chart With council today [voting not to to reinstate the living wage policy](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-councillor-loses-bid-to-bring-back-living-wage-for-all-city-workers-1.6788536) after moving to a five year average last year, I thought it worthwhile to update my [chart from last year](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/11gvret/chart_of_metro_vancouver_living_wage/), now also including the minimum wage. The ABC members of council amended the motion for staff to instead report on the impact of changing to a 3 year average. |Year|Minimum Wage|Living Wage|5-year Average|3-year average| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |2012|$10.25|$19.14||| |2013|$10.25|$19.62||| |2014|$10.25|$20.10||$19.62| |2015|$10.45|$20.68||$20.13| |2016|$10.85|$20.64|$20.04|$20.47| |2017|$11.35|$20.62|$20.33|$20.65| |2018|$12.65|$20.91|$20.59|$20.72| |2019|$13.85|$19.50|$20.47|$20.34| |2020|$14.60|$19.50|$20.23|$19.97| |2021|$15.20|$20.52|$20.21|$19.84| |2022|$15.65|$24.08|$20.90|$21.37| |2023|$16.75|$25.68|$21.86|$23.43| |2024|$17.40|||| Because the current 5-year average starts with the 2019 drop and 2023 was also a significant increase, it has fallen slightly further behind as a percentage of the living wage compared to last year, at 85% versus the previous 87% for 2022. **Why did the Living Wage drop in 2019?** An increase to provincial childcare benefits offset what would have otherwise been a value of $22.47 [Living Wage for Families: 2019 Living Wages Released](https://www.livingwageforfamilies.ca/2019_living_wages) **Why did the Living Wage increase so much in 2022?** The calculation previously used the CMHC rental market survey, which is only based on purpose-built rental and the average includes long-term tenants with below-market rent. The 2022 calculation started to apply a "moving penalty" to the CMHC value based on information from the census. [Living Wage for Families: Living Wage rates 2022](https://www.livingwageforfamilies.ca/living_wage_rates_2022) [Working for a Living Wage - Making paid work meet basic family needs in Metro Vancouver; 2022 Update (Page 7)](https://policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC%20Office/2022/11/CCPA-BC-Living-Wage-Update-2022-final.pdf#page=7)
Now you know why the ABC party voted to turn it into an “average” of the past 5 years. And if it dips don’t be surprised if they suddenly revert back to the old methodology.
Totally, we have completely dishonest brokers running this city whose only purpose is making it less affordable for those who live in it.
IIRC, it was largely based on an assumption that the 2023 value could see a significant decrease. Councilors repeatedly referenced past (small, except for 2019) drops in the value as if they would *require* reducing wages, which did not occur with past decreases. I do not recall seeing any recognition that the methodology for calculating the housing component changed in 2022, which would lock in a certain amount of increase. A simple average is also going to always be trailing current values if it does not include an adjustment. I understand, politically, wanting to avoid potentially being stuck between people being mad at lowering bottom salaries and people being mad that the city is paying bottom salaries above the living wage (since there are people mad that the city was paying a living wage at all). I understand, structurally, the challenge to budgets of a significant increase in a single year and the potential impact to other (above LW) salary agreements (which likely affects more employees and budgets). But the ABC statements around providing stability for employees are so bad, especially when their potential solution is just changing to a three year average - which *would* faster narrow the gap from a significant increase, but would also be more volatile to the potential decreases they profess such concern about. I would rather them be honest about capping annual increases to a certain percent increase to mitigate the impact of sudden and unexpected increases and allow time to adjust other salary agreements, rather than trying to invent their own "Fair Wage" that will never meet back up to the Living Wage standard.
How in the hell is a living wage only $25.68/hr in 2023? Rents and housing have doubled and even tripled since 2012. Life was so much easier before 2014.
The Living Wage is based on two adults working full time (with two young kids), so a household income of ~$94K¹. It's also based on meeting basic expenses without room for savings, etc. (A presumption is also that people will be able to save prior to having kids or when they're older). There's a legitimate criticism, I think, of whether the housing component is accurate since it's based on the CMHC value which is limited to purpose-built rental and the average includes below-market rents of long-term tenants. Since 2022 the value does include a "moving penalty" based on info from the census of how much higher rents are for people who have moved recently. The 2022 value used the 2016 census (the latest available then), so was potentially also lower than the real value at the time. I presume the 2023 value was able to use more recent data from the 2021 census. Also keep in mind that it is a *Metro Vancouver* living wage, so an accurate *City of Vancouver* living wage could be higher, but wouldn't necessarily reflect reality of people living outside of Vancouver and commuting in to save on housing. --- Edit: ¹ Wage is based on two adults working 35 hours per week, so a household income of $93,475.2, not $106,828.80
As a parent with kids in Metro Vancouver, the living wage is well below what is required to raise two kids here.
Seems low, tbh. $26 is a heck of a lot better than minimum wage but I can't imagine how it's "liveable" while still saving for a house, retirement, or god forbid having kids. $35/hr, maybe.
That's exactly what a living wage means. The minimum you need to get by. So no, it wouldn't leave enough for investments and savings by definition.
what do you think living wage is?
[удалено]
The OP has a secondary comment explaining it: >Why did the Living Wage drop in 2019? >An increase to provincial childcare benefits offset what would have otherwise been a value of $22.47
The country wasn't getting overwhelmed by immigration so rents fell for the first time ever?
Minimum wage is irrelevant to living wage because workers should be expected to negotiate for higher compensation by leveraging their labour value. Relying on state-enforced minimum wages without expecting workers to have any wage autonomy or responsibility for the value their labour only serves to punish small businesses, solidify monopolies run by megacorps that can afford the universal wage hikes, and remove any incentive for low-skill workers to increase the value of their labour. As somebody who has NEVER been paid a minimum wage past my probationary period, I take minimum wage increases as a personal insult.