13305
I was under the impression that 安い is used for anything related to "cost",
whereas 低い is used to mean low for all things general.

However, a simple Google search shows [~99k records for
低いお給料](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E4%BD%8E%E3%81%84%E3%81%8A%E7%B5%A6%E6%96%99%22),
contrasted to [~273k records for
安いお給料](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E5%AE%89%E3%81%84%E3%81%8A%E7%B5%A6%E6%96%99%22).

Is it _proper_ to use 低い to mean "low salary"?

Or is it simply an example of usage corruption?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T10:53:05.837
13300
2013-11-01T23:32:25.250
2013-11-01T11:48:58.797
264
264
question
words usage
Can 低い be used to describe "salary"?
First of all, it's worth mentioning that [Google counts may not be as reliable
as you imagine](https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/q/522/384).

But to answer your question, it's a little bit complicated. Generally
speaking, when talking about salary, you will want to use 高い・安い to describe
it. After conducting a brief survey, I found 低い給料 to be considered
_acceptable_ , but slightly unnatural. その会社は **給料が安い** is also strongly
preferred over ～が低い.

There are also words such as 安月給【やすげっきゅう】, which _cannot_ use 低 instead.

However, despite all of that, the opposite of the word 高所得者【こうしょとくしゃ】 (person
with a high salary) is 低所得者【ていしょとくしゃ】.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T11:38:26.327
13301
2013-11-01T11:58:16.707
2017-03-16T15:48:25.793
-1
384
13300
answer
Pacerier,

**Is it proper to use 低い to mean "low salary"?**

Yes it is. I hear it and see it in print all the time. I don't agree that 低い
sounds unnatural. My wife is Japanese and she agrees. You're specific example,
however, (低いお給料)sounds a little unusual to me, I can't put my finger on it,
but I think it's because the honorific. I've never heard that specific
pairing.

If you check ALC you will find twice as many examples with 低い as with 安い。It's
just a different way of saying it. As mentioned, for high salary you need to
use 高い. Note that 高い means both 'high' and 'expensive' so you really have no
choice there.

安い means cheap, and 低い means low. It mirrors English in that it doesn't matter
whether I say "low-wages" or "cheap wages".

NOTE: you can also say お給料が少ない。 But if you find this confusing you don't need
to use it, just understand if you hear it.

**Or is it simply an example of usage corruption?**

As above. It is not a corruption in any way. It is common. Here are samples
from ALC's dictionary.

```

    給料が低い
    be ungenerously compensated
    給料の低い
    【形】
        low-paid（仕事などが）
        low-paying（仕事などが）
        poorly-paid（仕事などが）
        poorly-paying（仕事などが）
    給料の低いパートの仕事
    low-paying ［low-paid, poorly-paid, poorly-paying］ part-time job ［work］
    給料の低い仕事
        low-paying ［low-paid, poorly-paid, poorly-paying］ job ［work］
        low-paying ［low-paid, poorly-paid］ occupation
        low-paying ［low-paid, poorly-paid］ vocation〔log-paying occupationの方が使用頻度が高い。〕
    給料の低い職業
        low-paying ［low-paid, poorly-paid］ occupation
        low-paying ［low-paid, poorly-paid］ vocation〔log-paying occupationの方が使用頻度が高い。〕
    給料が非常に低い
    be paid very little（主語の）
    給料が～より低い
    be paid less than（主語の）
    それらの仕事は給料の面では低い。
    Those jobs are in the lower echelon in terms of wages.
    給料が～よりもずっと低い
    get paid much less than（主語の）
    支払われている給料が～よりもずっと低い
    be paid much less than（主語に）
    低い給料
        low pay
        low wage〔通例、複数形のwagesが用いられる。〕
    低い給料で働く
    work for a low wage
    低い給料をもらう
    draw low wages
    さらに低い給料でより多くの責任を引き受ける
    accept more responsibilities for less money
    比較的低い給料
    relatively-small salary
    比較的低い給料を得る
    earn a relatively-small salary
    これまでにないほど低い額の給料をもらう
    take one's lowest salary ever
    
```
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T15:48:08.600
13302
2013-11-01T16:07:53.890
2013-11-01T16:07:53.890
4075
4075
13300
answer
I agree that both 低い給料 and 安い給料 are acceptable, but the latter is far more
common. On the other hand 低い収入 is common and 安い収入 is borderline acceptable. I
make sense of this as follows.

給料 talks about money directly (containing the kanji 料, cf. 有料), and the way to
talk about money is to use 安い・高い. Think of 給料 as _salary_. 給料 can be 安い,
because it is a fixed amount of money for a fixed of time. 給料 appears on a
single pay-check.

収入 on the other hand is a more abstract way to talk about someone's _income_
and in that sense is only indirectly about money. A 収入 is 低い, because it is an
average amount of money for a standard amount of time (usually a year). 収入 has
to be calculated over several pay-checks, possibly from different sources.

In English, of course we say "low salary" and "low income", but from the
difference of "salary" and "income" I don't think it's too far a stretch of
one's imagination that "salary" (a one-off payment for a one-off job) could
described to be "cheap" in Japanese.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T19:51:41.953
13305
2013-11-01T19:51:41.953
1628
13300
answer
As rintaun wrote, Google counts are not that reliable. To advocate the use of
a corpus, here are some numbers from the [Balanced Corpus of Contemporary
Written Japanese
(BCCWJ)](https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/522/google-counts-
may-not-be-as-reliable-as-you-imagine/1086#1086):

  * 低いお給料 vs 安いお給料: 0 vs 0
  * 低い給料 vs 安い給料: 0 vs 16
  * 給料が低 vs 給料が安: 4 vs 22  
(I checked all the results, and I think that all of the results matches the
grammatical structure we were expecting here, not something like **給料が安**
定している.)

I think that it is fair to conclude from this that at least in written text,
安い is more common than 低い when describing 給料, although both are used.

On the other hand, in the case of 収入 and 所得, 低い is much more common:

  * 低い収入 vs 安い収入: 0 vs 0
  * 収入が低 vs 収入が安: 10 vs 0  
(収入が低 gave 15 results, but 5 out of the 15 were different words from 低い; 収入が安
gave 8 results, but all of them were 収入が安定.)

  * 低い所得 vs 安い所得: 4 vs 0
  * 所得が低 vs 所得が安: 17 vs 0  
(所得が低 gave 21 results, but 4 out of the 21 were different words from 低い; 所得が安
did not give any results.)
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-01T23:32:25.250
13309
2013-11-01T23:32:25.250
2017-03-16T15:48:25.793
-1
15
13300
answer