New Delhi: In the cold calculus of the Indian State, a human being is often reduced to a “consumption unit”. This is starkly visible in the draft Code on Wages (Central) Rules, 2025, specifically in Rule 3(1)(i). Here, the government sets out the criteria for fixing the minimum wage based on the concept of a “standard working class family”. While this appears to be a procedural standardisation, a closer scrutiny reveals a definition that may artificially suppress the price of labour.Rule 3(1)(i) defines the standard working class family as consisting of “a spouse and two children apart from the earning employee; an equivalent of three adult consumption units”. The nuclear assumptionThis definition assumes, contrary to much empirical evidence in Indian society, that the working class lives in nuclear units. It excludes elderly parents, siblings, or widowed kin who often depend on the wage of the primary earner.In a country where social security coverage is limited (old-age pensions are a pittance) and public healthcare is often inaccessible, the burden of caring for the aged falls largely on the family. By excluding dependent parents from the “standard family” unit, the State implies that the minimum wage is not designed to cover the cost of their care, effectively privatising a social obligation without providing the financial means to meet it.Tradition for the worker, market for the workerThis exclusion highlights a divergence between political rhetoric and economic policy. On the political stage, the ruling dispensation frequently eulogises the Joint Family (or the Hindu Undivided Family) as a bedrock of “Bharatiya” culture, often framing the care of ageing parents as a civilisational duty. They often decry the nuclear family as a decadent, selfish Western import. However, when translating this value into economic terms via the draft Code on Wages, the Joint Family is absent. In its place, the State adopts the nuclear unit model. To legally recognise the extended family as the standard unit would require acknowledging that a worker must earn enough to support ageing parents, which would necessitate a higher floor wage.The policy suggests a dual approach: the social function of the joint family is desired to provide a safety net the State does not fund, but the corporate sector is not mandated to pay the material cost of sustaining it. The “Bharatiya” family is good for election speeches; the nuclear family is preferred for the balance sheet. The mathematics of starvationFurther contention arises in the calculation of “consumption units”. The rule allocates three adult consumption units for a family of four (worker, spouse, two children).The earner counts as one unit. This leaves two units for the remaining three people. Historically, this calculation relies on the assumption that a woman consumes less than a man, and children consume significantly less than adults. In 2026, codifying the idea that a spouse requires less sustenance than the “earner” risks institutionalising nutritional deficits, particularly for women who often perform heavy unpaid domestic labour.Also read: How the Draft Wage Code Legalises ‘Theft’ of Employee TimeFurthermore, Rule 3(1)(ii) mandates a “net intake of 2,700 calories”. Critics argue this figure is scientifically inadequate for those engaged in physical labour. For a rickshaw puller, a head-loader, or a construction worker, the caloric requirement often exceeds 3,000. By capping the calculation at 2,700, the State treats the worker’s body as a machine running on optimal fuel efficiency, ignoring the physical toll of heavy labour. It legislates malnutrition or starvation as the baseline for “minimum” existence. The migrant blind spotThe concept of the “standard family” is also urban-centric and does not account for the reality of migration. A significant section of India’s workforce consists of migrant labour. These workers often sustain two households: rental accommodation in the city and a home in the village for children and parents.The “standard” calculation makes no provision for the duplicated costs of running two establishments, nor does it account for remittances or travel costs. By fixing a wage based on a static, singular household, the rules risk trapping the migrant worker in a cycle where the “standard” wage fails to meet their fragmented reality.Subsidising capital with human labourWhy does the government retain this formula? The definition is directly linked to the wage rate. If the State were to acknowledge that a worker supports elderly parents, that a spouse is a full consumption unit, and that heavy labour requires more than 2,700 calories, the minimum wage would have to rise.This would impact corporate balance sheets and the cost competitiveness of Indian industry. In other words, there will be not “ease” but “difficulty” in doing business. Consequently, the “standard working class family” serves as a tool to contain wage growth.Rule 3(1)(i) is not merely an administrative criterion; it is the bureaucratic infrastructure that determines the quality of life for millions. By declaring that the Indian worker has a right to exist, but defining that existence within narrow, nuclear parameters, the State risks denying the workforce the right to live with dignity.