[bumby]

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.