There's not a single US state where a minimum wage worker can afford a 2-bedroom rental

[Stevicus]

Minimum wage workers can't afford a modest 2-bedroom home anywhere in the country, report says - CNN

There's not a single state, county or metropolitan area in the entire United States where a full-time worker earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour can afford a modest 2-bedroom apartment.

And if those workers wanted to? They'd have to work 122 hours a week. Every week. All year.
This is according to a new report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, or NLIHC, which calls attention to the gap between low-income wages and the high cost of rent throughout much of the United States.

The NLIHC found US workers need to earn $22.10 an hour to afford a "modest" two-bedroom rental. That's about three times the federal minimum wage.

According to a new survey, renters in San Francisco need an income of $60 per hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment in the city, which has the highest housing costs in the country.

Here's my solution to the problem: Rent controls. All rents should be immediately reduced to 10% of what they are now. That way, everyone would be able to afford housing, but the bigger plus is that it would free up people's disposable income to the point where they'd spend it and would stimulate the economy across all sectors. The only ones who might suffer are greedy landlords, but too bad for them.

Another idea that might work is an unused/vacant property tax which doubles each month a property or rental unit goes vacant. This would also include commercial properties. I've seen a lot of vacant lots and boarded up buildings in prime areas, many for months or even years. It's inexplicable that no one seems to want to buy them. The only explanation is that the owner is too greedy and is holding out for more money.

 

[RabbiO]

@Stevicus -

I presume you've done the research so that you can tell us the cost of building an apartment building or rental townhouse or house. And I presume that you have done the research so that you can provide the cost of maintaining a rental facility including, but not limited to, things like staff, equipment, insurance.

You're positive, that based on this extensive research and cost analysis, that dropping the rent of every rental unit in the U.S. to 10% of the current rent is a realistic goal?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Minimum wage workers can't afford a modest 2-bedroom home anywhere in the country, report says - CNN





Here's my solution to the problem: Rent controls. All rents should be immediately reduced to 10% of what they are now.

People who've invested in rental real estate will love that

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The only explanation is that the owner is too greedy and is holding out for more money.

Or that people are charging the rents they need to to make their own repayments...

 

[Audie]

Minimum wage workers can't afford a modest 2-bedroom home anywhere in the country, report says - CNN





Here's my solution to the problem: Rent controls. All rents should be immediately reduced to 10% of what they are now. That way, everyone would be able to afford housing, but the bigger plus is that it would free up people's disposable income to the point where they'd spend it and would stimulate the economy across all sectors. The only ones who might suffer are greedy landlords, but too bad for them.

Another idea that might work is an unused/vacant property tax which doubles each month a property or rental unit goes vacant. This would also include commercial properties. I've seen a lot of vacant lots and boarded up buildings in prime areas, many for months or even years. It's inexplicable that no one seems to want to buy them. The only explanation is that the owner is too greedy and is holding out for more money.

Oh dear.

At some point in the economic collapse and
staggering depression that would follow, the
peasants you helped so much would be gathering
with pitchforks and torches.

Ask not for whom they gather.

 

[Audie]

People who've invested in rental real estate will love that

Construction would stop, completely. Everyone
involved is out of work. Maintenance would stop;
more out of work. Supply chain, outta work.
Home sales would stop. (and soon the govt
would own all of them)

Bankruptcy everywhere.
Dow would free fall.

Not saying this just because I have
considerable money in real estate

It is a reason, tho, that I can see a flaw or two.

Anyone with even marginal acquaintance
with what is involved will be leaving the
country asap if they hear this plan is going
into effect, and just abandoning whatever
real estate they had.

 

[Stevicus]

@Stevicus -

I presume you've done the research so that you can tell us the cost of building an apartment building or rental townhouse or house. And I presume that you have done the research so that you can provide the cost of maintaining a rental facility including, but not limited to, things like staff, equipment, insurance.

You're positive, that based on this extensive research and cost analysis, that dropping the rent of every rental unit in the U.S. to 10% of the current rent is a realistic goal?

The only thing I'm concerned about is affordable housing. I don't see it as my responsibility or my problem to justify what other people do. If a property owner wants to charge a certain rental amount, then it's up to them to provide evidence that they actually need the money. If they appear to be doing okay and have a lot of money, then they don't need any more money. They can learn to survive on less.

 

[Stevicus]

People who've invested in rental real estate will love that

I know, won't they? But they deserve what they get.

 

[Stevicus]

Or that people are charging the rents they need to to make their own repayments...

Then it's on the banks, but either way, the problem will be solved.

 

[Stevicus]

Oh dear.

At some point in the economic collapse and
staggering depression that would follow, the
peasants you helped so much would be gathering
with pitchforks and torches.

Ask not for whom they gather.

If what you're saying is true, then our economy was built on a house of cards and is probably headed for collapse anyway. I would say it's better to get back to basics and not pin the hopes of our economy on a roulette wheel.

 

[Stevicus]

Construction would stop, completely.

At this point, there are over 17,000,000 vacant housing units in America today (Housing Inventory Estimate: Vacant Housing Units for the United States). There is an oversupply, so why do we need more construction?

Everyone
involved is out of work. Maintenance would stop;
more out of work. Supply chain, outta work.
Home sales would stop. (and soon the govt
would own all of them)

Bankruptcy everywhere.
Dow would free fall.

Not saying this just because I have
considerable money in real estate

That would explain a lot.

It is a reason, tho, that I can see a flaw or two.

Anyone with even marginal acquaintance
with what is involved will be leaving the
country asap if they hear this plan is going
into effect, and just abandoning whatever
real estate they had.

You're not looking at the bigger picture here. Contrary to what a lot of right-wing conservatives say about taxes, it's not taxes which are killing the economy, but rents and property values which are too high. I've seen businesses have to shut down not because of taxes, but because of high rents. This is the problem. And unlike taxes which are used by the government and put back into the economy, the ill-gotten gains from the real estate industry go into somebody's pocket to feed their own greed.

Besides, if people's disposable income is freed up where they don't have to spend such a major chunk on housing, they will spend it in other sectors and it would undoubtedly lead to a huge economic boom overall.

 

[Stevicus]

I do find it interesting that San Francisco, which is touted as some kind of "liberal bastion," is the greatest perpetrator of this obscenity regarding high rents and extremely high property values. This just goes to show that many so-called "liberals" are disingenuous hypocrites who have been screwing and lying to the public all along. New York, Los Angeles, and Washington DC are other examples of the same malicious practice.

These are the people who have set themselves up as "guardians of truth" in their various crusades, but then they wonder why so many lower class people are turning their backs on them and going along with the other party.

This is one of the major reasons right here. So maybe some people need to get it through their thick skulls exactly what is going on in this country.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Minimum wage workers can't afford a modest 2-bedroom home anywhere in the country, report says - CNN





Here's my solution to the problem: Rent controls. All rents should be immediately reduced to 10% of what they are now. That way, everyone would be able to afford housing, but the bigger plus is that it would free up people's disposable income to the point where they'd spend it and would stimulate the economy across all sectors. The only ones who might suffer are greedy landlords, but too bad for them.

Another idea that might work is an unused/vacant property tax which doubles each month a property or rental unit goes vacant. This would also include commercial properties. I've seen a lot of vacant lots and boarded up buildings in prime areas, many for months or even years. It's inexplicable that no one seems to want to buy them. The only explanation is that the owner is too greedy and is holding out for more money.

The cause is the variable price of land and cash. We also have experienced population growth. Also our laws need updating.

The solution is better clothing and virtual addresses for individuals. Employers currently require a physical address as does the government. The government punishes anyone without an address, thus consistently and artificially driving up the price of lodgings. At the same time the government keeps adding limitations about where one may live. Of course the price was bound to rise endlessly. Fix those stupid address requirements and help people who want to live without homes and apartments. You will gradually fix the housing prices.

 

[Audie]

At this point, there are over 17,000,000 vacant housing units in America today (Housing Inventory Estimate: Vacant Housing Units for the United States). There is an oversupply, so why do we need more construction?



That would explain a lot.



You're not looking at the bigger picture here. Contrary to what a lot of right-wing conservatives say about taxes, it's not taxes which are killing the economy, but rents and property values which are too high. I've seen businesses have to shut down not because of taxes, but because of high rents. This is the problem. And unlike taxes which are used by the government and put back into the economy, the ill-gotten gains from the real estate industry go into somebody's pocket to feed their own greed.

Besides, if people's disposable income is freed up where they don't have to spend such a major chunk on housing, they will spend it in other sectors and it would undoubtedly lead to a huge economic boom overall.

If your scheme were put into effect, it would tank the economy, just like that.

As for all the vacant units, there is always a percent
of vacancy in the most high demand places. So that
is a part of it.

Another is, some places go empty because nobody
wants to life there. Location, location, and all that.

As for your odd claim that houses go unsold because of greed, honestly. It costs money ever hour that the\place goes unsold. The longer it is unsold the
worse it gets. Vandalism, deterioration, taxes,
utilities, interest. Try it and see how greedy you feel.


the ill-gotten gains from the real estate industry go into somebody's pocket to feed their own greed.

Yup that is me, evil and greedy.

Well, I wont argue with you. Im sorry to see this kind
of thinking though.

 

[Audie]

I know, won't they? But they deserve what they get.

I am one of "they".

 

[Stevicus]

The cause is the variable price of land and cash. We also have experienced population growth. Also our laws need updating.

The solution is better clothing and virtual addresses for individuals. Employers currently require a physical address as does the government. The government punishes anyone without an address, thus consistently and artificially driving up the price of lodgings. At the same time the government keeps adding limitations about where one may live. Of course the price was bound to rise endlessly. Fix those stupid address requirements and help people who want to live without homes and apartments. You will gradually fix the housing prices.

This is an interesting proposal, one that might have merit. I don't know if it would solve the immediate problem, and I'm not sure that there are really that many people who actually want to live without homes or apartments. A lot of people have to share housing, too, so even if they aren't technically "homeless," it's not exactly the most ideal living situation.

And these aren't necessarily lazy bums or people looking for a free ride. I was reading a while back about working people (one was a nurse) having to live out of their cars because housing is just so darn expensive. It's obscene, and there's no reason why a country as rich as ours and which touts itself as having a "high standard of living" should have to allow that.

 

[Stevicus]

I am one of "they".

Well, you can always go out and get a real job - one that actually produces something for the economy and makes the world a better place. Just a thought.

 

[Stevicus]

If your scheme were put into effect, it would tank the economy, just like that.

It depends on your point of view. For some people, the economy is already "tanked."

As for all the vacant units, there is always a percent
of vacancy in the most high demand places. So that
is a part of it.

Another is, some places go empty because nobody
wants to life there. Location, location, and all that.

As for your odd claim that houses go unsold because of greed, honestly. It costs money ever hour that the\place goes unsold. The longer it is unsold the
worse it gets. Vandalism, deterioration, taxes,
utilities, interest. Try it and see how greedy you feel.


the ill-gotten gains from the real estate industry go into somebody's pocket to feed their own greed.

Yup that is me, evil and greedy.

Well, I wont argue with you. Im sorry to see this kind
of thinking though.

But you are arguing with me.

 

[Audie]

Well, you can always go out and get a real job - one that actually produces something for the economy and makes the world a better place. Just a thought.

I have a real job, and real estate is a minor detail in my life.

As for making the world a better place, your social
engineering project no doubt is based on some
sort of ideals.

There have been a lot of big scale social engineering
projects tried. Maybe you dont even know that, or how they've turned out, else you might have a bit more
insight into how yours would go.

Anyway, now that you are down to cheap shpt
personal remarks,, discussion is definitely over.

 

[Stevicus]

And regarding an earlier point about construction and so forth, I consider that a BS argument. I'll explain why.

My grandfather bought a house in Santa Ana, California in 1971 for $28,000. It was built in 1968, so clearly, all of the construction costs were done. He sold it in 1977 (I don't remember how much), but over the decades, the same exact house (where the construction of it was already paid for) had been sold and resold multiple times, with the price going up and up and up. Now (according to Zillow), that same house is apparently worth $621,000. Same exact house. Granted, there might be some upkeep and maintenance costs, but I can't believe it would be so extremely high. All the money goes to profit and to benefit the wealthy.

My other grandfather (along with my dad and his family) built their own house back in 1941 in a semi-rural area which would later become part of the south suburbs of Chicago. I don't recall what the costs were, although they did all or most of the work themselves. Today (according to Redfin), that house is apparently worth around $162,000. Some "investor" thinks he/she deserves to earn money from other people's labors and sweat.

Housing should be for people to live in. It should not be viewed as an "investment." That's where a lot of skewed thinking comes from.