Minimum Wage Still Can’t Pay For A Two-Bedroom Apartment Anywhere(citylab.com)
citylab.com
Minimum Wage Still Can’t Pay For A Two-Bedroom Apartment Anywhere
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/06/affordable-housing-minimum-wage-rent-apartment-house-rental/592024/
162 comments
Neither the title nor the article use the word "median" - they appear to be using the concept of "Fair Market Rents" (FMR), which is a 40th percentile[1] of non-sub-standard units.
The article calls out that even the _average_ wage earner can't afford an FMR unit in many states:
> For a two-bedroom rental, the Housing Wage is $22.96—a figure that’s higher than average renters’ wages everywhere, and at least $5.00 higher than the average wage for renters in 16 states. For a one-bedroom rental, the Housing Wage is $18.65.
[1] https://www.huduser.gov/Periodicals/ushmc/winter98/summary-2...
The article calls out that even the _average_ wage earner can't afford an FMR unit in many states:
> For a two-bedroom rental, the Housing Wage is $22.96—a figure that’s higher than average renters’ wages everywhere, and at least $5.00 higher than the average wage for renters in 16 states. For a one-bedroom rental, the Housing Wage is $18.65.
[1] https://www.huduser.gov/Periodicals/ushmc/winter98/summary-2...
There are multiple points where averaging is employed.
FMR is a close to median value. From the linked definition: "The FMR is the 40th percentile of gross rents for typical, non-substandard rental units occupied by recent movers in a local housing market"
Additionally, FMR is itself statewide average, covering both high and low cost of living areas. Low cost of living counties have units available for far below FMR values.
Low end housing in low cost of living areas can be found for under $377/mo - their estimate of affordable minimum wage rent.
FMR is a close to median value. From the linked definition: "The FMR is the 40th percentile of gross rents for typical, non-substandard rental units occupied by recent movers in a local housing market"
Additionally, FMR is itself statewide average, covering both high and low cost of living areas. Low cost of living counties have units available for far below FMR values.
Low end housing in low cost of living areas can be found for under $377/mo - their estimate of affordable minimum wage rent.
Valid points. Unfortunately, there are also people earning minimum wage in high cost of living areas...
The article mentioned the 30th percentile, which is an unrealistic percentage of income to expect minimum wage earners to spend for housing by themselves without a roommate or family situation.
Is that what the article is saying? Their reference to 'median' is saying that's what other people are reporting and they want to look at something else.
They don't seem to qualify it - they simply say 'there is not one U.S. state, metropolitan area, or county in which a minimum wage worker who clocks 40 hours a week can afford a two-bedroom apartment'. They don't use the term 'median' anywhere apart from talking about other articles. The report they link to talks about 'fair market rate' - not sure who decides what's fair and what isn't.
They don't seem to qualify it - they simply say 'there is not one U.S. state, metropolitan area, or county in which a minimum wage worker who clocks 40 hours a week can afford a two-bedroom apartment'. They don't use the term 'median' anywhere apart from talking about other articles. The report they link to talks about 'fair market rate' - not sure who decides what's fair and what isn't.
Not "median," but they do use "average":
> In 2019, the affordability crisis has plunged to new depths. Last year, the average worker making the federal wage minimum of $7.25 per hour had to work 122 hours a week, every single week, to afford an average two-bedroom apartment.
The point being made earlier in the thread is the comparison is between the middle and the tail, not the tail earners and the tail quality 2-bed room apartment.
> In 2019, the affordability crisis has plunged to new depths. Last year, the average worker making the federal wage minimum of $7.25 per hour had to work 122 hours a week, every single week, to afford an average two-bedroom apartment.
The point being made earlier in the thread is the comparison is between the middle and the tail, not the tail earners and the tail quality 2-bed room apartment.
Yes, it's what they're saying. They quote $377/mo as the maximum affordable rent for a minimum wage earner.
There are many counties across America where a low-end two bedroom can be found for substantially less than that $377. These claims only make sense if they refer to median prices.
For example:
https://joplin.craigslist.org/apa/d/joplin-2br-1bath-apartme...
https://seks.craigslist.org/apa/d/pittsburg-1913-elm-complex...
The claim 'there is not one U.S. state, metropolitan area, or county in which a minimum wage worker who clocks 40 hours a week can afford a two-bedroom apartment' is simply incorrect.
There are many counties across America where a low-end two bedroom can be found for substantially less than that $377. These claims only make sense if they refer to median prices.
For example:
https://joplin.craigslist.org/apa/d/joplin-2br-1bath-apartme...
https://seks.craigslist.org/apa/d/pittsburg-1913-elm-complex...
The claim 'there is not one U.S. state, metropolitan area, or county in which a minimum wage worker who clocks 40 hours a week can afford a two-bedroom apartment' is simply incorrect.
But what makes you think they're using the median instead?
People making the minimum wage can hardly get by anywhere in the US and have almost no social mobility because they can't buy homes and rent leaves little or no room for savings, particularly if they have families. Moreover the disparity between top and lowest quartiles is growing. Whatever the flaws of the article, it's a problem. It's a shame the article has those flaws (https://reports.nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2019.p... is the original source for a lot of the article's and is worth reading instead) and everyone is focused on bikeshedding the analysis instead of getting the greater point.
The article starts out talking about median rents, but the data they use is based on something called Fair Market Rent. There’s a link in there explain it.
FMR is a close to median value. From the linked definition:
"The FMR is the 40th percentile of gross rents for typical, non-substandard rental units occupied by recent movers in a local housing market"
Minimum wage is not a 40th percentile income.
"The FMR is the 40th percentile of gross rents for typical, non-substandard rental units occupied by recent movers in a local housing market"
Minimum wage is not a 40th percentile income.
They aren't saying that --they state the minimum wage worker would have to work 122 hours to afford that. Which is three jobs.
I have first hand experience with this crisis. I live in a reasonably priced area and make (with my spouse) about three times the minimum wage and I can barely afford to live anywhere. Basically one large unexpected cost could sink us into homelessness.
I have first hand experience with this crisis. I live in a reasonably priced area and make (with my spouse) about three times the minimum wage and I can barely afford to live anywhere. Basically one large unexpected cost could sink us into homelessness.
You know this for certain, that the minimum wage earner can, and that there is a large enough supply of housing available for them?
Whether or not they can afford a bottom quartile home is a different question than whether it's reasonable to expect them to afford a median home (and I don't think we have any evidence regarding that question here). They certainly aren't expected to be able to afford a top quartile home, for example, so I agree that the headline is a bit fishy.
The whole situation is being drastically oversimplified, though. Whether or not we expect minimum wage to support a family depends on whether there are other alternatives, like higher (and adequate) wage jobs that individuals can reasonably obtain when they do have to support a family. Is that happening? My sense is no -- we have a big step function where you're either mostly screwed (working several jobs, driving Uber, etc. barely making it if at all), or you're making 6 figures after getting a 4 year degree in some technical or professional field.
The whole situation is being drastically oversimplified, though. Whether or not we expect minimum wage to support a family depends on whether there are other alternatives, like higher (and adequate) wage jobs that individuals can reasonably obtain when they do have to support a family. Is that happening? My sense is no -- we have a big step function where you're either mostly screwed (working several jobs, driving Uber, etc. barely making it if at all), or you're making 6 figures after getting a 4 year degree in some technical or professional field.
This leaves out all the trade professions (plumber, electrician, etc) which I keep hearing are doing quite well.
While that doesn't require the big 4 year commitment, that still requires education or an in to working with a skilled tradesperson, and their wages aren't great starting out.
If you read the report, they define the rent prices for housing wages as 40th percentile of standard quality homes. Not bottom of the barrel but definitely lower than median across all homes. I think it’s a fair measure.
they also exaggerate by omission the number of people earning these wages, their ages, and the income of other family members.
the housing cost problem is wholly created by government and instead of working to fix it too many cities keep doubling down on making it harder to create new housing, affordable or not. combine the housing cost with the high costs of government services, licensing fees, and other regulatory fees, and the lower class is further in the hole.
one issue is there is no reason for politicians to fix this issue, it is too hot button to have a true remedy and worse is a fantastic source of income for patrons and relatives through various special interest groups which exist to absorb funding from programs supposedly working to solve the issue. instead end up raising legal challenges in exchange for pay outs either in direct settlement or advisement roles all of which end up pushing costs of solutions too high to implement.
Seattle only recently upzoned many areas of the city to permit building denser housing however they may end up sabotaging it through rent controls which have been shown to be another method of limiting new housing
the housing cost problem is wholly created by government and instead of working to fix it too many cities keep doubling down on making it harder to create new housing, affordable or not. combine the housing cost with the high costs of government services, licensing fees, and other regulatory fees, and the lower class is further in the hole.
one issue is there is no reason for politicians to fix this issue, it is too hot button to have a true remedy and worse is a fantastic source of income for patrons and relatives through various special interest groups which exist to absorb funding from programs supposedly working to solve the issue. instead end up raising legal challenges in exchange for pay outs either in direct settlement or advisement roles all of which end up pushing costs of solutions too high to implement.
Seattle only recently upzoned many areas of the city to permit building denser housing however they may end up sabotaging it through rent controls which have been shown to be another method of limiting new housing
Don't forget most people looking for two+ bedroom homes have kids.
[deleted]
> Minimum wage earners can often afford two bedroom homes priced at the lower end.
[citation needed]
Looking around the bay they appear to simply become homeless, especially if there's any interruption in work, and if they're lucky they're able to move away before this happens.
[citation needed]
Looking around the bay they appear to simply become homeless, especially if there's any interruption in work, and if they're lucky they're able to move away before this happens.
Obviously not in the Bay Area. People making six figures can't afford homes in the Bay Area.
But homes are cheaper almost everywhere else in the US.
But homes are cheaper almost everywhere else in the US.
...and that's the economy working, where you can be run out of the city because a rich person wants your house?
No, that's NIMBYist government regulation preventing the economy from working by building high density housing in a city that needs it.
YIMBY pro-developer stances like Weiner's SB-50 aren’t going to help working class families and individuals either. I am very pro-development but we need high allocations of affordable and social housing to make the development work for the existing community.
Yes?
Supply and demand is basically the fundamental law of economics.
Supply and demand is basically the fundamental law of economics.
No, it’s not. It’s the foundation of market economies, which are not the only way to distribute goods and services. There are many alternatives to this.
Like Venezuela, Cuba, and the Soviet Union? Those alternatives aren't better.
Look at singapore for an alternative that isn’t associated with anti-socialized scare tactics. Soviets had a lot of issues but lack of housing wasn’t one of them. Same for cuba, although the sanctions have crippled the economy to make quality housing difficult. I can’t speak for venezuela housing as i have not researched it, and it seems weird to clump a country with a mostly private economy in with self-proclaimed communist countries.
A somewhat ironic example given the subject at hand
https://www.propertyguru.com.sg/property-management-news/201...
"House prices in Singapore are considered “seriously unaffordable”, with a median multiple of 4.6, which means that the median house price is 4.6 times the city-state’s median household income, according to an annual survey."
https://www.propertyguru.com.sg/property-management-news/201...
"House prices in Singapore are considered “seriously unaffordable”, with a median multiple of 4.6, which means that the median house price is 4.6 times the city-state’s median household income, according to an annual survey."
I was referring to the public housing, not the market housing. If you’re a citizen it’s not terribly difficult to get your own unit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore
This is how you preserve existing communities--it should be harder to move into a city than to stay there.
This is how you preserve existing communities--it should be harder to move into a city than to stay there.
Why should existing folks be given preferential access to urban job markets? No one born outside a city chose to be born there.
Because without community, what value do job markets have? Life is more than working until you die. Only the rich have the luxury of something more the way cities are headed. This is worth fighting for. If you don’t start with values, you have nothing.
Anyway it’s somewhat of a moot point because you can preserve communities and still build—just not with market-driven rents and landlord-owned cities. And not everyone can have what they want and live where they want. It’s worth it.
Anyway it’s somewhat of a moot point because you can preserve communities and still build—just not with market-driven rents and landlord-owned cities. And not everyone can have what they want and live where they want. It’s worth it.
Location location location. Try looking around some city not well known for insane housing prices.
Try moving cities without a home or a job, looking to survive on the street.
The hard part about moving is leaving family, friends, and stuff behind. Once you are willing to do that a bus ticket across the US is cheap.
> The hard part about moving is leaving family, friends, and stuff behind
Tell that to the homeless, I dare you. It's certainly the attitude of a sheltered existence.
Tell that to the homeless, I dare you. It's certainly the attitude of a sheltered existence.
The homeless have problems mostly unrelated to minimum wage.
This claim is based on... what? Your wandering around the tenderloin and judging people?
Try visiting shelters, especially in the south bay. There are plenty of families without the problems you mentioned.
This attitude is intentional neglect of reality, and its prevalence is literally killing people.
Try visiting shelters, especially in the south bay. There are plenty of families without the problems you mentioned.
This attitude is intentional neglect of reality, and its prevalence is literally killing people.
California's problems are the result of years of zoning codes not allowing needed building. (prop 13 doesn't help either) This is simple supply and demand, when you don't allow supply to change (building more suburbs on the outskirts does not count - distance becomes a factor)
(Note, between the time I wrote the earlier comment and this I discovered new information on California's homeless situation - shelters near me the homeless are either mentally ill or victims of domestic violence - the first are forever a problem and the latter will be out in a couple weeks)
(Note, between the time I wrote the earlier comment and this I discovered new information on California's homeless situation - shelters near me the homeless are either mentally ill or victims of domestic violence - the first are forever a problem and the latter will be out in a couple weeks)
[deleted]
the bay is not lower end is it
Every market has a working class. You can’t just pretend supply and demand will provide labor with perfect elasticity. Part of why development is so difficult is the labor pool in the bay area is massively outstripped by demand for labor driving up costs and slowing down development.
I'm all for people earning a fair wage but I find reports like this a bit disingenuous. A minimum wage person can't afford a median apartment? Ok but you would expect that minimum wage workers would seek out bargain low-end units, and leave the median apartments to median income families.
So while acknowledging that in many cities including my own there is an overall affordability issue, I have a problem with being presented with misleading statistics, even if for noble reasons. About 5 percent of workers make minimum wage or less. A straightforward and honest question would be to ask if they can they afford available apartments in the bottom 5-10% range of rents? Maybe they can't, and that would indeed be a problem. But in terms of this report, we have no way of knowing.
So while acknowledging that in many cities including my own there is an overall affordability issue, I have a problem with being presented with misleading statistics, even if for noble reasons. About 5 percent of workers make minimum wage or less. A straightforward and honest question would be to ask if they can they afford available apartments in the bottom 5-10% range of rents? Maybe they can't, and that would indeed be a problem. But in terms of this report, we have no way of knowing.
It seems that minimum wage is not, in fact, supposed to support a person 100%, not especially a family.
I am not sure why people think minimum wage must be enough to afford a two-bedroom home. Ideally minimum wage should comfortably allow one person to support... Themselves, minimally. Which means a studio or one bedroom.
People should not aim to remain at minimum wage long, but use it as an entry point for somewhere better.
People should not aim to remain at minimum wage long, but use it as an entry point for somewhere better.
Eh I'm not positive it should even be able to support a single person... Why do we insist on raising the bar for employment so high? If a 16 year old wants to get their first job, they shouldn't be required right of the bat have a productive output sufficient to support themselves. That's not the point of minimum wage jobs - or at least it never was until we started arbitrarily setting a minimum value.
FDR proposed the minimum wage to guarantee anyone who works 40 hours a week a "living wage". It was signed into law in 1938. And, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage has never been higher than it was in 1938. In other words, it's precisely the point of minimum wage, and it's increasingly failed to live up to its purpose ever since.
Wooosh. Yes, I am specifically speaking to the fact that declaring an arbitrary "minimum wage" does not effect the true minimum wage which is $0. By enforcing an arbitrary floor all you're doing is making it illegal for someone to work unless their output is more valuable than the floor. Good intentions, completely illogical.
I respectfully disagree. The U.S. has safety nets for those in poverty (e.g., TANF, Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, EITC, Supplemental Security Income, and housing assistance). Having the U.S. tax payer subsidize businesses unwilling to pay their workers living wages seems illogical to me. This is happening right now. Walmart, Amazon, and McDonalds, for example, all have huge numbers of employees dependent on welfare programs. Why is that logical, and how would dropping the already low minimum wage help this?
One solution gaining some attention is UBI. What are your thoughts on it?
One solution gaining some attention is UBI. What are your thoughts on it?
The average retail worker is 37 years old[0]. If it is possible to structure our society in a way that those who work a minimum wage job are able to support themselves, then we should do so. I'm kind of flabbergasted at the resistence to this. If the purpose of a minimum wage is not to guarantee a person a minimum standard of living, then what is the point?
Keep in mind that minimum wage jobs often make it hard to actually get 40 hours. You'll be lucky to get even 20 a week. And they rotate the schedules so that your hours are different every week, which makes it incredibly hard to get a second job.
[0] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
Keep in mind that minimum wage jobs often make it hard to actually get 40 hours. You'll be lucky to get even 20 a week. And they rotate the schedules so that your hours are different every week, which makes it incredibly hard to get a second job.
[0] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
> If the purpose of a minimum wage is not to guarantee a person a minimum standard of living, then what is the point?
In the US, minimum wage is defined as “the least you can pay anybody for any reason” with an exception for people who receive tips. As I understand it, some countries allow some people to make less than minimum wage.
I’m not entirely sure what the current point of the minimum wage is. The original idea was that it didn’t apply to everybody and was meant to make businesses less likely to hire people who were covered.
The minimum wage is not, and never has been, defined as “what an average worker should get for average effort.”
I agree that the average worker should have enough to live on, but I don’t see any connection between that and the minimum wage. People here are complaining about using “edge cases” to keep the minimum wage low, but by definition (“minimum”), the minimum wage is an edge case.
In the US, minimum wage is defined as “the least you can pay anybody for any reason” with an exception for people who receive tips. As I understand it, some countries allow some people to make less than minimum wage.
I’m not entirely sure what the current point of the minimum wage is. The original idea was that it didn’t apply to everybody and was meant to make businesses less likely to hire people who were covered.
The minimum wage is not, and never has been, defined as “what an average worker should get for average effort.”
I agree that the average worker should have enough to live on, but I don’t see any connection between that and the minimum wage. People here are complaining about using “edge cases” to keep the minimum wage low, but by definition (“minimum”), the minimum wage is an edge case.
If that 16 year old works 40 hours a week, then they definitely should be able to live on it.
Why? What if the 16 year old wants to partly make money, partly learn the ropes of some job, and some place could use "some" help but not get meaningfully enough work to pay a kid [current minimum wage]? Right now, these kids and businesses are out of luck.
What if a 60 year old is feeling lonely and wants to be a greeter or lecter or something, more than they need money, but it is definitely not worth minimum wage for 99% of places to have such a job? Right now, these old folk and businesses are out of luck.
Why do you think money is the only operative thing here, or the only one ever possible, for all possible jobs for all possible people?
The sheer amount of work you exclude when you require all jobs to be livable is huge. Not everyone is trying to strike it out on their own. Some people want to help in small ways and are fine with commensurate pay. Why force these jobs out of existence? Are you sure doing so is solving the problem you want to solve, while creating no others?
What if a 60 year old is feeling lonely and wants to be a greeter or lecter or something, more than they need money, but it is definitely not worth minimum wage for 99% of places to have such a job? Right now, these old folk and businesses are out of luck.
Why do you think money is the only operative thing here, or the only one ever possible, for all possible jobs for all possible people?
The sheer amount of work you exclude when you require all jobs to be livable is huge. Not everyone is trying to strike it out on their own. Some people want to help in small ways and are fine with commensurate pay. Why force these jobs out of existence? Are you sure doing so is solving the problem you want to solve, while creating no others?
That's all well and good if 16 year olds are the only ones making minimum wage.
And if their parents haven't kicked them out of the house already because they got pregnant too early.
Or have a sexual orientation that their parents don't agree with.
Or..
And if their parents haven't kicked them out of the house already because they got pregnant too early.
Or have a sexual orientation that their parents don't agree with.
Or..
Do we need to handle those edge cases by mandating what employers have to pay ALL employees? Maybe there is a better way to help people in needy situations without distorting the labor market for everyone.
16 year olds working min wage is the edge case. The average retail worker for instance is 37.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
Not all retail workers make minimum wage.
It would be easier and better to just help out edge cases directly. A 16 year old kicked out of their house for a pregnancy shouldn’t be forced to work minimum wage, but rather receive community support so they can finish schooling and rise to the point where they can prosper.
It would be great if we could both implement a UBI and eliminate the minimum wage.
Nobody aims to remain at minimum wage... The problem is we've been doing a great job of hollowing out the middle of our economy and replacing it with a relatively small amount of upper middle-class tech jobs and massive VC backed profits. This often leaves minimum wage jobs the only option for people who used to make more but their career tanked for reasons outside their control
Yeah this is a bit confusing. If minimum wage was enough to afford a 2 bedroom, why would we even bother building 1 bedroom and studios? So people who could otherwise afford 2 BR downgrade?
That's fine in an area where these better paying jobs are available, but in many areas of the country, well paying jobs for unskilled workers are scarce, and support systems to help these unskilled workers improve their skills are nonexistent. It can be hard to a person to pull himself out of life-long poverty.
Why not? Why shouldn't it? Why is this the proper state of things?
Because it in no way makes sense for someone to hire a first time employee who still lives with their parents for a zero skill job at the rate of "enough to afford a two-bedroom house".
> a first time employee who still lives with their parents
what makes you think this is the typical minimum wage earner?
what makes you think this is the typical minimum wage earner?
The minimum wage is “the least you can pay anyone for any reason.” If you set it too high, then first time workers who still live with their parents won’t be able to get jobs. At all.
that has almost nothing to do with what i asked
You asked “what makes you think this is the typical minimum wage earner?” I answered “if you don’t take that case into account when setting minimum wage, then that worker won’t be able to get a job.”
Minimum wage is the least you can pay anyone for any reason. It is, by definition, an edge case.
Minimum wage is the least you can pay anyone for any reason. It is, by definition, an edge case.
again - that has almost nothing to do with what i asked.
bls: https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2018/pdf/home....
> Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up just under half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less.
that means just over 50% of minimum wage earners are older than 25 (well outside the typical age where you're still living with your parents or just entering the workforce)
>It is, by definition, an edge case.
it is de-facto not an edge case.
bls: https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2018/pdf/home....
> Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up just under half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less.
that means just over 50% of minimum wage earners are older than 25 (well outside the typical age where you're still living with your parents or just entering the workforce)
>It is, by definition, an edge case.
it is de-facto not an edge case.
> that means just over 50% of minimum wage earners are older than 25 (well outside the typical age where you're still living with your parents or just entering the workforce)
And making minimum wage over the age of 25 is also outside of the typical pay, so it would make sense that they might be in the atypical situation of, say, still living with their parents. Only 2.7% of ALL workers are even making minimum wage to begin with [1], so you're talking about maybe 1.4% of workers over 25. Of those, some may be retired and have other sources of income. Some may have a spouse who makes much more and the are not dependent on the minimum wage income. So the remaining workers who are actually dependent on one minimum wage job to support themselves or their families are very much an edge case, since we're talking about probably less than 1% of all workers.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm
And making minimum wage over the age of 25 is also outside of the typical pay, so it would make sense that they might be in the atypical situation of, say, still living with their parents. Only 2.7% of ALL workers are even making minimum wage to begin with [1], so you're talking about maybe 1.4% of workers over 25. Of those, some may be retired and have other sources of income. Some may have a spouse who makes much more and the are not dependent on the minimum wage income. So the remaining workers who are actually dependent on one minimum wage job to support themselves or their families are very much an edge case, since we're talking about probably less than 1% of all workers.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm
you linked to 2016 when i linked to 2018 report. why?
>since we're talking about probably less than 1% of all workers.
cool. congrats on proving it's an edge case. A+ case analysis.
so what? it's cool with you that 1.3 million people can't afford housing? even if it were 0.1% of workers? why should literally anyone be unable to afford housing? we're not talking iphones and gucci bags here - we're talking about the bare minimum needed to stay off the street.
>since we're talking about probably less than 1% of all workers.
cool. congrats on proving it's an edge case. A+ case analysis.
so what? it's cool with you that 1.3 million people can't afford housing? even if it were 0.1% of workers? why should literally anyone be unable to afford housing? we're not talking iphones and gucci bags here - we're talking about the bare minimum needed to stay off the street.
> why should literally anyone be unable to afford housing?
Because it costs money? It takes time and effort from other humans to create and they need to be compensated for that? Anything that costs any amount of money will have someone that is unable to afford it. The article is not even talking about being able to afford any housing, they are talking about 2-bedroom apartments. There are smaller apartments. There are rooms in shared houses. There are other forms of housing.
Again, we're talking about the majority of the people earning minimum wage probably not depending on the job to pay for their housing. Maybe they are getting something else out of it. It's cool with you to eliminate a lot of their jobs by raising the minimum wage?
If the problem is some people can't afford housing, we can fix that by providing housing vouchers to those people, or changing zoning laws so more housing can be built to bring down the price, or nationalize the housing industry and just have the government build housing for everyone and we all get assigned a government issue apartment to live in, comrade.
Either way, we address the problem of housing by dealing with housing, not by manipulating the labor market which is only tangentially related to housing.
Because it costs money? It takes time and effort from other humans to create and they need to be compensated for that? Anything that costs any amount of money will have someone that is unable to afford it. The article is not even talking about being able to afford any housing, they are talking about 2-bedroom apartments. There are smaller apartments. There are rooms in shared houses. There are other forms of housing.
Again, we're talking about the majority of the people earning minimum wage probably not depending on the job to pay for their housing. Maybe they are getting something else out of it. It's cool with you to eliminate a lot of their jobs by raising the minimum wage?
If the problem is some people can't afford housing, we can fix that by providing housing vouchers to those people, or changing zoning laws so more housing can be built to bring down the price, or nationalize the housing industry and just have the government build housing for everyone and we all get assigned a government issue apartment to live in, comrade.
Either way, we address the problem of housing by dealing with housing, not by manipulating the labor market which is only tangentially related to housing.
While I’m sure most people over 25 still making minimum wage would prefer a pay raise, and for the sake of argument, I’ll even accept that the world would be a better place if they got that pay raise, if you raise the minimum wage enough that it’s no longer profitable to hire inexperienced workers, then those potential workers will be locked out of the market.
I acknowledge that there’s a serious problem if millions of experienced workers are unable to get more than minimum wage, but I would prefer we fix that by helping those workers become more valuable, not by putting a “you must be this tall to ride” sign on entry level jobs.
I acknowledge that there’s a serious problem if millions of experienced workers are unable to get more than minimum wage, but I would prefer we fix that by helping those workers become more valuable, not by putting a “you must be this tall to ride” sign on entry level jobs.
cool man you're welcome to take time off from your job and teach them to code at no cost. until then i'll vote for minimum wage increases.
Isn't there a huge conceit that that's who earns minimum wage? Looking around my local wal-mart, it would appear many people first entered the job market at weird times in their lives.
Walmart's starting pay is $11 now, so they aren't even at minimum wage anymore.
Walmart actually pays considerably more than minimum wage, so I'm not sure what point you are making here.
I see now that changed recently, though I didn't see any demographics shifts in who are being employed.
And you know exactly the point I was trying to make.
And you know exactly the point I was trying to make.
Minimum wage is an artificial value which is propped up by law, and can change without respect to an individual's situation. It would be better to aim for the highest wage an individual can get in exchange for labor.
People are using a 1950s-era nuclear family model, with the idea that a minimum wage should support a family of at least two adults and one child. Preferably with a yard, lawn, dog, and white picket fence.
Minimum wage doesn’t track inflation. If it did, I would have no complaints. But it’s hard for me to understand people saying minimum wage should only be for one person eking out a bare existence, when it’s value in real money has fallen over the past 70 years.
What everyone fails to realize is that every job has a maximum value associated with it, and therefore a maximum wage, assuming your employer isn’t in the business of losing money. When you raise the minimum wage to $X/hr, by necessity employers (again, in the interests of not losing money) will no longer be able to offer jobs that generate less than $X/hr in revenue. This becomes a problem for people who lack the skill to perform a job that generates at least $X/hr — they become unemployable, either through job elimination or automation.
I know what the minimum wage does. I would prefer directly supporting the unemployeable to increase their skills, rather than forcing them to accept multiple minimum wage jobs and have no free time to learn.
...and when you encounter a person whose skills cannot, at present and for whatever reason, be elevated above the minimum wage floor what do you do?
If they can’t be elevated at present or in future, then that ought to be an edge case. If it is widespread then we have a a larger societal problem to deal with than merely setting a minimum wage.
Would you be happy if minimum wage was CPI-indexed to track the cost for one adult's bare-bones existence? Obviously this also requires defining what that minimum is, as social norms are also subject to inflation - when a US minimum wage was introduced boarding houses were common. Now they're unheard of.
That would be fine, as it would mean that we as a society explicitly agree what minimum wage should be about. And we would probably have massive campaigns to get adults with families off the minimum wage, as well as ensure that adults never have to take a minimum wage job in the future.
We could leave minimum wage to children, and charity workers.
As it stands, it used to pay better but has slowly slid to being subsistence living.
We could leave minimum wage to children, and charity workers.
As it stands, it used to pay better but has slowly slid to being subsistence living.
[deleted]
Supporting only one person means that there is not enough left to support any children. Or a sick relative. Or to otherwise live a fulfilling life.
Not everyone has the opportunity to move on to a better paying job.
Not everyone has the opportunity to move on to a better paying job.
At this point the federal minimum wage is a anachronism. Market forces have risen wages well past it. It doesn't really serve much of a purpose anymore. For example the average Walmart employee makes twice the federal minimum wage.
I can agree that the minimum wage was never intended to support a family 100%.
However, stating that it was never intended to support a person 100% is just flat out ignorant. The history of minimum wage is easily read up on.
However, stating that it was never intended to support a person 100% is just flat out ignorant. The history of minimum wage is easily read up on.
Exactly, it's meant for high school kids looking for pocket money! That's why McDonald's is always closed during school hours.
Does not.
What it should and should not do is a subjective matter.
What it should and should not do is a subjective matter.
On the other hand, if this weren't the case I think it would be even more strange.
"Law requires companies to automate or illegally hire any job worth less than a 2-bedroom home"
"Law requires companies to automate or illegally hire any job worth less than a 2-bedroom home"
Is there anything wrong with this? If a job can't provide for a person at some (philosophically debatable) level, it's not a job worth doing, free market be damned. We could take this to a logical extreme and think of all the jobs that could exist in the absence of a minimum wage and basic human necessity, but the reality is both of these exist. Either it's "worth" more for an employer to pay them more, or automating it becomes more competitive. Both of these drive innovation and advance society. This is why I've supported a higher minimum wage.
Yes, there is plenty wrong with this. It is a strange economic intervention that distorts incentives and rarely helps low-wage populations or innovation. Unfortunately there are other options besides "automate" or "pay more".
For example, you can pay people under the table, outsource, close down your business (as many restaurants do), change your business model to require less labor (many restaurants in the US are switching from full service to counter-serve). None of these are good for workers.
For example, you can pay people under the table, outsource, close down your business (as many restaurants do), change your business model to require less labor (many restaurants in the US are switching from full service to counter-serve). None of these are good for workers.
Not everybody needs a two-bedroom apartment. I mean I was 30 and practically married before I ever had something that big. If you want to argue that every full time job should pay enough to afford a small 1 room apartment within a 30 minute commute, then perhaps I'd agree. But a two bedroom apartment is a straight up luxury in the grand scheme of things and a ridiculous minimum standard to set.
Minimum wage should provide a minimal lifestyle. Not penury, but perhaps a room in a shared accommodation. Why would the legally minimal wage support housing an entire family?
The actual report: https://reports.nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2019.p...
Some notes:
- Those earning minimum wage are unlikely to be in the median rental market
- The report doesn't include the impact of any tax credits like child credits, EITC, LIHTC
- They don't adjust minimum wage by local jurisdictions. For example, minimum wage in Chicago is $13/hour but they only list the Illinois minimum wage ($8.25/hour). This is particular distorting given that cities (with higher minimum wages) are home to most renters
Some notes:
- Those earning minimum wage are unlikely to be in the median rental market
- The report doesn't include the impact of any tax credits like child credits, EITC, LIHTC
- They don't adjust minimum wage by local jurisdictions. For example, minimum wage in Chicago is $13/hour but they only list the Illinois minimum wage ($8.25/hour). This is particular distorting given that cities (with higher minimum wages) are home to most renters
Several co-related factors affecting this:
Worker productivity increases cannot be legislated. Such productivity increases can only come from workers improving their skills or technology that increases their productive output (as simple as an electric drill to as advanced as an exoskelleton with a HUD). Minimum wage laws are effectively bans on low-productivity workers. By making labor artificially expensive through legislation, demand for it drops, total economic output decreases, production costs increase. There's no reason to believe that the home-production industry would be able to reduce costs / increase output with minimum wage increases; in fact that opposite is the case.
Legislation can only reduce the permitting costs of housing production IFF it becomes more permissive. In the regions of the US that I'm familiar with, all the areas that have high housing costs pass legislation that increases permitting costs or transactional costs to bring housing to market. This can only result in a price increase globally with some politically-connected group receiving a benefit.
Legislation and corporate-bank policies artificially increase the money supply to the greatest degree with housing loans. Typically these workers are not minimum wage and in addition to the above effects, the Cantillon effect gives an undue subsidy to these higher wage workers https://www.aier.org/article/sound-money-project/cantillon-e...
Worker productivity increases cannot be legislated. Such productivity increases can only come from workers improving their skills or technology that increases their productive output (as simple as an electric drill to as advanced as an exoskelleton with a HUD). Minimum wage laws are effectively bans on low-productivity workers. By making labor artificially expensive through legislation, demand for it drops, total economic output decreases, production costs increase. There's no reason to believe that the home-production industry would be able to reduce costs / increase output with minimum wage increases; in fact that opposite is the case.
Legislation can only reduce the permitting costs of housing production IFF it becomes more permissive. In the regions of the US that I'm familiar with, all the areas that have high housing costs pass legislation that increases permitting costs or transactional costs to bring housing to market. This can only result in a price increase globally with some politically-connected group receiving a benefit.
Legislation and corporate-bank policies artificially increase the money supply to the greatest degree with housing loans. Typically these workers are not minimum wage and in addition to the above effects, the Cantillon effect gives an undue subsidy to these higher wage workers https://www.aier.org/article/sound-money-project/cantillon-e...
Minimum wage workers can't afford a 1 bedroom apartment or studio where I live.
So perhaps they should split a 2/3 bedroom with roommates?
If someone makes the absolute legal minimum, why does every expect them to live alone?
If someone makes the absolute legal minimum, why does every expect them to live alone?
Or maybe we can actually pay people a wage allowing them to lead some semblance of a decent life? Why does it fall on them, instead of the actual businesses paying them?
Are you asking why it falls on individual people to sort out their own lives and arrange their accommodations to their own liking?
Maybe because we prefer to grant individuals some degree of personal autonomy instead of making them dependent wards of whatever place they happen to work?
A business has the job of running itself in a profitable manner. Not babysitting what should be functional adults.
Maybe because we prefer to grant individuals some degree of personal autonomy instead of making them dependent wards of whatever place they happen to work?
A business has the job of running itself in a profitable manner. Not babysitting what should be functional adults.
I share a house with three other people and I don't have any kids. I quite enjoy my life right now and if I had thinner skin I might take offense from your implication.
I'm saying that if people are not able to have a certain standard of living due to their income, why should it be framed as their fault? Obviously I'm not saying someone should be able to live in a 3000 sq. ft. house when I say "certain standard of living."
In your case, you probably made the choice of your living arrangement, not a choice your employer made for you. That's different.
In your case, you probably made the choice of your living arrangement, not a choice your employer made for you. That's different.
> we can actually pay people
We should implement a UBI - minimum wage is not an effective method for decreasing poverty long term. Raising the minimum wage decreases demand for labor. A high minimum wage is only currently useful because of the other failures in our social safety net.
We should implement a UBI - minimum wage is not an effective method for decreasing poverty long term. Raising the minimum wage decreases demand for labor. A high minimum wage is only currently useful because of the other failures in our social safety net.
> some semblance of a decent life
Having roommates is fine and not a big deal.
Having roommates is fine and not a big deal.
Maybe not for you. For the 37-year-old average retail worker, who might have kids and might not have many other skills, maybe not so much. Not everyone is like you. In particular, many people in the demographic we're talking about might not be like anyone you've ever spent any time with.
I'm aware not everyone is like me. And also not everyone is a "37-year-old retail worker". If you want to dismiss my comment, that's fine, but you should delete your own to avoid hypocrisy.
[flagged]
I was plenty aware before. I was sharing my personal experiences. Someone who is a 37year old retail worker is free to share theirs as well. It appears like you are a bad actor and will dismiss anything that violates your 'reality'.
So interpreting your over-general statement exactly as written makes someone a bad actor? If you want to share personal experience, identify it as such ("for me") instead of expressing it as a general rule. If you want to provide a counterexample to an overly general statement, use words like "might" (as I did) to indicate that. Don't gaslight readers about what you originally said, and don't attribute evil motives to anyone who points it out. Those Reddit-level tricks will only convince anyone reading the exchange that you're the one arguing in bad faith.
With kids, though?
If you're working a minimum wage job, maybe don't have kids?
So, if you had kids while you had a decent job and the place closes, you should give away the kids because your replacement job is minimum wage? Is it the same if you wind up disabled and suddenly become a low earner?
Or, I know, celibacy for everyone and hope you don't get raped? Free abortions when birth control fails, if you can afford birth control and aren't unlucky enough to have issues with it?
Do you happen to know the income level when kids are affordable? Is this well above the average wage in the area (or in general)? Is this higher or lower than low-level military salary? Knowing this sort of number would really help folks out.
Or, I know, celibacy for everyone and hope you don't get raped? Free abortions when birth control fails, if you can afford birth control and aren't unlucky enough to have issues with it?
Do you happen to know the income level when kids are affordable? Is this well above the average wage in the area (or in general)? Is this higher or lower than low-level military salary? Knowing this sort of number would really help folks out.
> So, if you had kids while you had a decent job and the place closes, you should give away the kids because your replacement job is minimum wage?
suddenly becoming unable to provide for your kids through no fault of your own is quite different from deciding to have children when you know (or should know) you already have no ability to support them. in both cases, we need to at least do something to help the children, but we have to structure it carefully to avoid encouraging the latter.
> Do you happen to know the income level when kids are affordable?
no, but I can look at what I spend to sustain myself every month. if I can't comfortably double that, I'm probably not ready to have my first child.
suddenly becoming unable to provide for your kids through no fault of your own is quite different from deciding to have children when you know (or should know) you already have no ability to support them. in both cases, we need to at least do something to help the children, but we have to structure it carefully to avoid encouraging the latter.
> Do you happen to know the income level when kids are affordable?
no, but I can look at what I spend to sustain myself every month. if I can't comfortably double that, I'm probably not ready to have my first child.
> I can look at what I spend to sustain myself every month
...and in doing so you make certain assumptions which might not be true for others. Like that your circumstances can only get better, never worse. The GP specifically asked about the latter, in the form of job loss. What if you decided that you were ready to have that child, quite reasonably acccording to those assumptions, and then those assumptions turned out to be incorrect. Would you blame yourself the way you seem to be blaming others?
...and in doing so you make certain assumptions which might not be true for others. Like that your circumstances can only get better, never worse. The GP specifically asked about the latter, in the form of job loss. What if you decided that you were ready to have that child, quite reasonably acccording to those assumptions, and then those assumptions turned out to be incorrect. Would you blame yourself the way you seem to be blaming others?
I wasn't very clear. if you make a reasonable effort to plan ahead and something totally unforseen causes you to be unable to support your children, that really sucks and I would be happy to contribute tax dollars to help people in this situation. I don't think minimum wage is the best way to solve this though; probably direct aid would be more suitable.
also, my heuristic is meant to be more like a bloom filter. you can't know for sure when you are ready to support a small human for the next eighteen years, but it's not hard to tell when you are definitely not ready. making barely enough to support your single self is a pretty strong signal.
also, my heuristic is meant to be more like a bloom filter. you can't know for sure when you are ready to support a small human for the next eighteen years, but it's not hard to tell when you are definitely not ready. making barely enough to support your single self is a pretty strong signal.
That seems much more reasonable. Thank you for clarifying.
I don’t think that would ever function. Poor people ARE going to have children too, even if you could argue that they can’t provide well enough for the kids. Are there any countries in the world where poor people don’t have children? Personally - even though having children is no right - I much rather live in a society where it is possible to have children even if you have a very low income. Like you can in my country (Sweden). We still have a well functioning market economy.
Why do you think a company should be allowed to not pay a livable wage?
> a livable wage
If someone can live in a 2/3 BR with roommates, that sounds pretty livable to me.
I used to live in a house with 6 other people during college. I lived just fine.
If someone can live in a 2/3 BR with roommates, that sounds pretty livable to me.
I used to live in a house with 6 other people during college. I lived just fine.
This is kind of a tone-deaf comment, don't you think? It manages to highlight its posters success (went to college, left), humble brag about how frugal & uncomfortable the poster situation once was (lived with 6 roommates), and dismiss other experiences (I was just fine) in two sentences.
The common definition of a livable wage is enough income to "secure food, shelter, clothing, health care, transportation and other necessities of living in modern society"[1]. If you _need_ to procure the assistance of others to live, you're not making a livable wage. So if you need food stamps for food, you're not making a livable wage. The same is true for housing. If you _need_ to live with roommates because you cannot afford even a studio on your own, you're not making a livable wage.
Sure, you were just fine during your stint co-habitating with near-strangers. But we're not talking about temporary inconveniences. We're talking about an alternate situation where you had failed to launch and 10 years later, are still stuck with random roommates, still grinding the same shitty jobs, still trying to save but failing because the most you can pack away is $50/mo, and there's always something that needs to be fixed or bought that takes those savings up. We're talking about how public policy should be able to help you help yourself.
There is nothing remotely livable about $290/week (federal minimum), just in case you may have forgotten how small that number is.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
The common definition of a livable wage is enough income to "secure food, shelter, clothing, health care, transportation and other necessities of living in modern society"[1]. If you _need_ to procure the assistance of others to live, you're not making a livable wage. So if you need food stamps for food, you're not making a livable wage. The same is true for housing. If you _need_ to live with roommates because you cannot afford even a studio on your own, you're not making a livable wage.
Sure, you were just fine during your stint co-habitating with near-strangers. But we're not talking about temporary inconveniences. We're talking about an alternate situation where you had failed to launch and 10 years later, are still stuck with random roommates, still grinding the same shitty jobs, still trying to save but failing because the most you can pack away is $50/mo, and there's always something that needs to be fixed or bought that takes those savings up. We're talking about how public policy should be able to help you help yourself.
There is nothing remotely livable about $290/week (federal minimum), just in case you may have forgotten how small that number is.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
Thank you. What people are willing to tolerate for a few years in college might be quite different than what they can tolerate as a permanent condition later in life. It might not even be possible to find dependable roommates once one moves a couple of miles away from the nearest college full of similarly situated students. Then there are schedule mismatches. Roommates partying until all hours every night is a little less welcome when you can't join in because you regularly work a 7am shift. There's the lack of an option to go back "home" (i.e. parents' house) for a break, or to store extra junk there, or borrow stuff from there. There's cooking real food due to lack of college meal plans or spare funds to eat out all the time. And then there's kids. I know not all college students enjoy these benefits, but for those who did to blithely say "I did it in college" is just unspeakably callow.
It seems like you are trying to dismiss my comment based on silly ideas and projection. Overall, your comment is incredibly ignorant and offensive.
> It manages to highlight its posters success
I did not intend to do that, I was clearly just providing context to my situation.
> humble brag
I don't see how I was bragging.
> how frugal & uncomfortable the poster situation once was
I never stated I was uncomfortable; I was perfectly comfortable. Of course it was more frugal than living alone; that's the entire point of this conversation.
> and dismiss other experiences
I wasn't dismissing other experiences, I was sharing my own.
> If you _need_ to live with roommates because you cannot afford even a studio on your own, you're not making a livable wage.
I absolutely disagree with that definition. A roommate is not "assistance".
> There is nothing remotely livable about $290/week (federal minimum)
State and local minimums are far higher. Areas that do not have a local minimum wage are often magnitudes cheaper and are more affordable than areas with higher cost of livings and higher wages.
> It manages to highlight its posters success
I did not intend to do that, I was clearly just providing context to my situation.
> humble brag
I don't see how I was bragging.
> how frugal & uncomfortable the poster situation once was
I never stated I was uncomfortable; I was perfectly comfortable. Of course it was more frugal than living alone; that's the entire point of this conversation.
> and dismiss other experiences
I wasn't dismissing other experiences, I was sharing my own.
> If you _need_ to live with roommates because you cannot afford even a studio on your own, you're not making a livable wage.
I absolutely disagree with that definition. A roommate is not "assistance".
> There is nothing remotely livable about $290/week (federal minimum)
State and local minimums are far higher. Areas that do not have a local minimum wage are often magnitudes cheaper and are more affordable than areas with higher cost of livings and higher wages.
because people will always consider a "living wage" to be 1.5-3x whatever the current minimum is.
I'm confused, are you saying that the tendency for people to want more means we should never re-assess what is considered enough? I hope I got it wrong -- how would you ever improve anything in your life if you live by that rule?
I'm mainly objecting to the term "living wage". people who use it are usually unwilling to commit to a specific set of things that a "living wage" should pay for, but are perfectly happy to exploit the term as a rhetorical technique to smear anyone who slightly pushes back on them.
if by "living wage" you mean "able to afford food and shelter", I'm 100% with you; any full-time job should support that. if you bump it up to a modest studio/1br, I'm still with you. but somewhere along the path to "a living wage is enough to rent a 2br+ dwelling, support a stay at home spouse, arbitrarily many children, and have some left over for eating out and putting away in savings" is where you've lost me.
if by "living wage" you mean "able to afford food and shelter", I'm 100% with you; any full-time job should support that. if you bump it up to a modest studio/1br, I'm still with you. but somewhere along the path to "a living wage is enough to rent a 2br+ dwelling, support a stay at home spouse, arbitrarily many children, and have some left over for eating out and putting away in savings" is where you've lost me.
Awesome, sounds like you're on board with the common definition of Living Wage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage): "secure food, shelter, clothing, health care, transportation and other necessities of living in modern society".
no I don't think I am. from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:
> The goal of a living wage is to allow a worker to afford a basic but decent standard of living. Due to the flexible nature of the term "needs", there is not one universally accepted measure of what a living wage is and as such it varies by location and household type.
this is what I'm saying. who knows what I'm committing to if I say I support a "living wage"?
> The goal of a living wage is to allow a worker to afford a basic but decent standard of living. Due to the flexible nature of the term "needs", there is not one universally accepted measure of what a living wage is and as such it varies by location and household type.
this is what I'm saying. who knows what I'm committing to if I say I support a "living wage"?
This isn't something that is common in all areas if you are over a certain age - namely, when other folks start having children or living with romantic interests. Seriously. Especially in a small town. And it doesn't work if you don't have friends that are in a similar situation.
The more prudent thing is to make sure that the single person can afford a one-bedroom apartment. Unfortunately, these are often not much cheaper than a two bedroom. Where I lived in the states, a studio wasn't much cheaper either, mostly because they were all in apartment complexes instead of divided up houses.
The more prudent thing is to make sure that the single person can afford a one-bedroom apartment. Unfortunately, these are often not much cheaper than a two bedroom. Where I lived in the states, a studio wasn't much cheaper either, mostly because they were all in apartment complexes instead of divided up houses.
> And only in 28 of the country’s counties can a 40-hour-a-week minimum wage worker afford a one-bedroom [home]
So where do they live?
So where do they live?
One or more of the following:
- Living in units where the rent is far below the median rent.
- Working multiple jobs.
- Living in a multiple-income family.
- Living with roommates and pooling rent money.
- Payday loans.
- Behind on rent.
- Living in a house and not directly responsible for mortgage payments.
- Living with others in an informal arrangement and not legally responsible for payments.
- Homeless
- Living in units where the rent is far below the median rent.
- Working multiple jobs.
- Living in a multiple-income family.
- Living with roommates and pooling rent money.
- Payday loans.
- Behind on rent.
- Living in a house and not directly responsible for mortgage payments.
- Living with others in an informal arrangement and not legally responsible for payments.
- Homeless
Not in a house. Apartments, either a studio or splitting a 2/3 BR with roommates.
Studios, or with multiple minimum wage salaries? Or a lower end one bedroom home (turns out there's a range).
Other options include overtime or getting multiple jobs. And while it shouldn't be an option, unreported tips and under the table pay is also a thing and its likely impacting purchasing power of some of the people in the statistics. My parents were "minimum wage workers" for a really long time and made more than I made as a software engineer for the first half of my career in practice.
Other options include overtime or getting multiple jobs. And while it shouldn't be an option, unreported tips and under the table pay is also a thing and its likely impacting purchasing power of some of the people in the statistics. My parents were "minimum wage workers" for a really long time and made more than I made as a software engineer for the first half of my career in practice.
With roommates, mostly.
Apartments, with roommates, their parents' house, tents, etc.
The obvious response to this is that the minimum wage is simply not supposed to be a sole source of income for a person living on their own.
The bigger problem with this particular article is qualifying affordable as less than 30 percent of income. That is a great rule in most situations. However, if you are on a limited income the percentage housing will be expected to be higher. It is one of the least elastic expenses, while things like a car or entertainment can be cut back or substituted for alternatives like public transportation. I don't know what the percentage should be, but 30% is unrealistic.
If you think about it, the opposite will also be true in many situations. If my income doubled from 100k to 200k overnight, I would consider upgrading apartments but from 1k a month to 1.3k a month. My food and entertainment costs would scale much quicker as a percentage of income.
The bigger problem with this particular article is qualifying affordable as less than 30 percent of income. That is a great rule in most situations. However, if you are on a limited income the percentage housing will be expected to be higher. It is one of the least elastic expenses, while things like a car or entertainment can be cut back or substituted for alternatives like public transportation. I don't know what the percentage should be, but 30% is unrealistic.
If you think about it, the opposite will also be true in many situations. If my income doubled from 100k to 200k overnight, I would consider upgrading apartments but from 1k a month to 1.3k a month. My food and entertainment costs would scale much quicker as a percentage of income.
> Minimum Wage Still Can’t Pay For A Two-Bedroom Apartment Anywhere
Was it supposed to?
Was it supposed to?
[deleted]
I get roughly $1,500 for a couple per month, at 30 hours a week, post tax, but before government assistance programs. There's no place in Oklahoma where you can't find a 2 bedroom for $700/month. I'd bet that most of the surrounding states are similarly priced. In my city you can find single bedrooms, with all utilities plus washer and dryer included, for $350/month.
Why should it pay for 2 bedroom? It should pay for the minimum shelter. Which I would say is a studio.
Mm, yup. Solid navy within the DC Beltway area. That feels about right.
New Hampshire is even worse since it doesn't even have many good paying jobs to drive that cost up. Any area that's within a reasonable one day drive with a family of the Boston area (i.e the max distance many people will consider for their "vacation cabin") is just solid navy. The people of NH and ME always complain about MA money driving up the cost of land. It looks like they're not wrong.
Why would a minimum wage worker be trying to buy a 2-bedroom home?
Edit: Meant to say rent instead of buy
Edit: Meant to say rent instead of buy
They aren't. The article is about renting a 2-bedroom home. And nowhere do they limit the definition of "home" to "free standing, detached dwelling" - I believe their figures include 2-bedroom apartments as well.
Why should minimum wage be enough to support anything? It’s not like we have requirements that employers provide 40 hours of work.
A minimum wage earner is not and should not be in the market for a median priced home.
A median wage earner would pursue a median priced home.
A bottom quartile earner would pursue homes priced in the bottom quartile. Not the median.
The title of this article is false. Minimum wage earners can often afford two bedroom homes priced at the lower end.