This theory has been criticized on the following grounds:

i.  It is incorrect to -say that when the money income increases above the subsistence level, he marries early and the birth rate increases. On the other hand, the fact is that whenjhE1:' income increases, it is generally followed by a higher' standard of living and the workers do not produce more children.

ii. The theory fails to explain the wage differences in different employments. According to the theory, the wage rate tends to be equal to the subsistence level of all the workers. So then, how is it that wages differ from occupation to occupation and from person to person The theory has nothing to say in defense of this criticism.

iii. The third criticism levied on the subsistence wages is that it entirely ignores the demand side of the labour and emphasizes only the supply side for the determination of the wages.

iv. The theory does not take into account the influence of trade unions in the determination of wage rate though it is one of the every important factor to be taken into consideration.

v.  What is considered to be subsistence level or the very minimum for human existence varies from time and place to place and the items which at one time may have been considered as luxuries for the rich eventually becomes necessities to the poor.

vi. The theory ignores the efficiency of workers which should influence the wage of the more productive workers.

vii. The theory does not recognise differences in wages for different professions, categories of worker etc.

viii. It is not true that a rise in wages above the subsistence level is followed by population growth which forces wages down wards to the subsistence level. tnst~ad an increase in wages improves the workers' standard of living and restricts labour supply.