This definition seems more like - earning a wage that allows living seperately from your parents and without any additional subsidies. Which is not exactly "living". Ask someone in bangladesh or ethiopia about "living wages"
"The living wage model is a ‘step up’ from poverty as measured by the poverty thresholds but it is a small ‘step up’, one that accounts for only the basic needs of a family. The living wage model does not allow for what many consider the basic necessities enjoyed by many Americans. It does not budget funds for pre-prepared meals or those eaten in restaurants. It does not include money for unpaid vacations or holidays. Nor does it provide money income to cover unexpected expenses such as a sudden illness, a major car repair, or the purchase of a household appliance such as a refrigerator. Lastly, it does not provide a financial means for planning for the future through savings and investment or for the purchase of capital assets (e.g. provisions for retirement or home purchases)."
Basically: "The living wage is the basic income standard that, if met, draws a very fine line between the financial independence of the working poor and the need to seek out public assistance or suffer consistent and severe housing and food insecurity."
In addition: "In light of this fact, the living wage is perhaps better defined as a minimum subsistence wage for persons living in the United States."
> This definition seems more like...
...you didn't read it, and you are merely complaining about the name of a rose.
Call it whatever you want... New York being one of the richest states in the United States, saying that the median person in New York cannot afford "what many consider the basic necessities enjoyed by many Americans" is a contradiction. The idea that 60% of New Yorkers are not even at "subsistence" level of wages just makes no sense.
"Living wage" isn't "surviving wage"
A few years ago Venezuela was held up as the poster child of how to defeat capitalism by the same people.