Why are we supposed to multiply the $40k income times the family members, but not the $160/y income (of some software engineer or middle manager or whatever)? Is your objection covering only $160k/y earning-persons supporting a family of four by themselves alone?

Even then, a $160k/y person supporting a family of four as a single-income-earner, is not a family "just getting by". It's a family doing much much better than most.

The median household income is $74k/year, which includes tons of "2 kids" families. In California the family of 4 median income is $96k/year.

Also, a "family of 4" doesn't mean 4 wage earners, it just means the two parents working (so $80k), not their babies or 12 year olds kids. Two $40/yr earners with a family of four, would make $80k/y total, not $160/y, so it's hardly comparable: it's half.

And there are more than should be families of 4 living on $40k total. Or single-parent families of 3 doing the same. Now that's "just getting by". Especially since low end $40k/y jobs also involve a lot unemployment time, temp gigs, or uncertain income for one or two of the parents - much more than when you're in a cushier job, and with less (or no) safety deposits in the bank.

So any way one can slice it and dice it, 160k/y is not "just getting by". Not without many qualifiers for "intended lifestyle" and ignoring people making by, while working in the same city, with 1/2 to 1/4 the amount.