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

[Stevicus]

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.

Ideals make the world a better place.

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.

I know more than you can possibly imagine.

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

Nothing personal, but you opened it up for comment when you stated that you were "one of 'they'." You obviously have a personal stake in challenging my proposal, but I'm thinking of the well-being of the entire country, not just my own personal benefit. That's the difference between me and you.

And you're not really one to talk about "cheap shots" either.

 

[Shaul]

Once again CNN shows it is full of feathers. In Tennessee the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Doing the math, someone working 40 a week would earn $290 before taxes (f.y.i. TN has no state income tax with some few exceptions). There are 2 bedroom apartments in the state being advertised for rent at $500 per month. Clearly someone in Tennessee could earn the minimum wage and afford to rent a modest 2 bedroom home. CNN should have done its own research. The NLIHC clearly is an agenda based organization that is spewing nonsense.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

There is no 'liberal bastion' where there is wealthy gentrification. San Francisco and Silicon Valley's wealthy property management is largely a bunch of conservative Republicans and conservative Libertarians. As is the company owners buying out land and building empty high income property here in Oregon. And it's not our 25-40 millenial and gen x (largest democratic voting base in the state) who are flipping houses, hiking rents after tenants leave, and holding multiple middle and low income properties for air b&bs for wealthy out of state travelers.

Democrats have been pushing for rent control for a while. Including the bay area where the SF and SM mayors and constituants on the left are trying to repeal restraints on rent control and promote increasing affordable housing to prevent displacement with a bill proposed by Democrat Richard Bloom.

Guess why previous incarnation of the bill failed? If you guessed a court battle headed by Republican real estate mogul Geoff Palmer, you'd be right.

 

[Stevicus]

The NLIHC clearly is an agenda based organization that is spewing nonsense.

What is their agenda? To advocate affordable housing for working class people? Is there something wrong with that?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Once again CNN shows it is full of feathers. In Tennessee the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Doing the math, someone working 40 a week would earn $290 before taxes (f.y.i. TN has no state income tax with some few exceptions). There are 2 bedroom apartments in the state being advertised for rent at $500 per month. Clearly someone in Tennessee could earn the minimum wage and afford to rent a modest 2 bedroom home. CNN should have done its own research. The NLIHC clearly is an agenda based organization that is spewing nonsense.

What's nonsense is saying someone can afford a place when rent makes up more than 40% of your total income.

Edit: Also, it is misleading to look at whatever the lowest range that you can find is. Looking at the averages presents a better understanding of what is most accessible to most people, and the average 2-bedroom rent in Tennessee is in the $900's.
What is the Cost of Living in Tennessee? - SmartAsset

 

[dfnj]

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

This is certainly very disturbing. But I'm not sure rent controls is the answer. What we need is to encourage better wages voluntarily emphasizing poverty is in no one's long term self-interests. Legislating always has unintended consequences and should not be done haphazardly.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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

The banks can't just magically reduce house prices, and unless you're suggesting the banks knock 90% off what everyone owes, I'm not sure how you think the banks have anything to do with this, really.

 

[Stevicus]

There is no 'liberal bastion' where there is wealthy gentrification. San Francisco and Silicon Valley's wealthy property management is largely a bunch of conservative Republicans and conservative Libertarians. As is the company owners buying out land and building empty high income property here in Oregon. And it's not our 25-40 millenial and gen x (largest democratic voting base in the state) who are flipping houses, hiking rents after tenants leave, and holding multiple middle and low income properties for air b&bs for wealthy out of state travelers.

Democrats have been pushing for rent control for a while. Including the bay area where the SF and SM mayors and constituants on the left are trying to repeal restraints on rent control and promote increasing affordable housing to prevent displacement with a bill proposed by Democrat Richard Bloom.

Guess why previous incarnation of the bill failed? If you guessed a court battle headed by Republican real estate mogul Geoff Palmer, you'd be right.

I think you're correct about the Republicans, but a lot of Democrats are in with them, too - otherwise the Republicans wouldn't be able to get away with it. Even in this very thread, there are people who have previously posted as being anti-Trump and supposedly "liberal Democrats," but even they're arguing with my proposal, when true Democrats should be cheering loudly. This is the problem. They can't see the forest through the trees.

From what I've seen over the course of my life, Democrats have wimped out and sold out to the right-wingers on economic issues. For this reason, a lot of working people see no difference between the two major parties. Until the Democrats start putting their money where their mouth is, they're going to end up with another four years of Trump.

Is that what they really want?

 

[Stevicus]

The banks can't just magically reduce house prices,

No, but the government can, with a stroke of a pen. That's what I'm advocating.

and unless you're suggesting the banks knock 90% off what everyone owes, I'm not sure how you think the banks have anything to do with this, really.

Well, it's not just the banks, but when I see that most of the money is going to those who do not build or create anything, then something is obviously amiss. The bankers and real estate moguls aren't the ones working hard in the hot sun actually building these houses. They're not the ones chopping down the trees or making the lumber. They're not the ones building the foundations, forging the steel, putting in the plumbing, or installing the electrical fixtures.

What do they actually do to warrant getting the lion's share of profits from these enterprises?

In many cases (as I mentioned in post #21), they're not even involved in the construction at all, since they're just selling and reselling houses which were built and paid for decades ago, many times over. It's nothing but a scam.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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 don't think you've really thought a lot about who "they" are. I don't know the exact situation in the US, but here, an awful lot of landlords are "mum and dad" investors, average working stiffs who save for years to afford a deposit on an investment property as a bulwark against their retirement. They still work 9-5. My wife and I only own one house now, (we're paying it off still) but back when we owned two, you better believe we were very much working "real" jobs, and if the tenants of the house we were renting out were late on their rent, things got very lean just covering all the bills and repayments. We were barely breaking even with the rent we charged, had we had to reduce it to 10%, in a very literal sense, we would have been bankrupted trying to pay for a house for someone else to live in.

There are plenty of predatory landlords out there, and there are places where property values are ridiculously high. But outside of the super fashionable suburbs of capital cities, most landlords charge quite low rents, in context, and even in the places were property values are super high and rents are massive, you can't just knock 90% off the prices, you have to deflate bubbles slowly, otherwise you get exactly what happened in '09.

 

[Stevicus]

This is certainly very disturbing. But I'm not sure rent controls is the answer. What we need is to encourage better wages voluntarily emphasizing poverty is in no one's long term self-interests. Legislating always has unintended consequences and should not be done haphazardly.

Yes, raising wages is another option, but it would need to be a substantial increase in wages to be of any value. Some would see that as inflationary, and it would also drive up prices in all sectors in the economy. My proposal would make it so that wages can stay the same, and it would only affect one of the most parasitic sectors of the economy.

 

[dfnj]

What's nonsense is saying someone can afford a place when rent makes up more than 40% of your total income.

Edit: Also, it is misleading to look at whatever the lowest range that you can find is. Looking at the averages presents a better understanding of what is most accessible to most people, and the average 2-bedroom rent in Tennessee is in the $900's.
What is the Cost of Living in Tennessee? - SmartAsset

I've said it for years. It doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. What DOES matter is the purchasing power of your take home pay. If corporations are using data analytics and deep data mining to set pricing and depress wages what is the worker making the median wage supposed to do?

The erosion of the federal minimum wage has increased poverty especially for black and Hispanic families

Housing is a problem because there is not enough of it but that goes hand in hand with population birth/death rates. But for everything else will must purchase just to live and survive in the country we have too many cartels and monopolies. The lobbyists force the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. The problem is so much worse than anyone's perception of it:

This video just kills me.

 

[dfnj]

Yes, raising wages is another option, but it would need to be a substantial increase in wages to be of any value. Some would see that as inflationary, and it would also drive up prices in all sectors in the economy. My proposal would make it so that wages can stay the same, and it would only affect one of the most parasitic sectors of the economy.

I agree with your intentions but not your tactics. I'm not sure pricing fixing will solve the problem. We need to encourage free-market competition. Right now we do not have enough competition to wring out the inefficiencies of exorbitant CEO pay.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No, but the government can, with a stroke of a pen. That's what I'm advocating.

I'm not seeing how that would work. Beyond the simple mechanics of how you'd do it, is that a precedent you really want set? The government stepping in to tell people what their private property is worth, and what they may sell it for?

Well, it's not just the banks, but when I see that most of the money is going to those who do not build or create anything, then something is obviously amiss. The bankers and real estate moguls aren't the ones working hard in the hot sun actually building these houses. They're not the ones chopping down the trees or making the lumber. They're not the ones building the foundations, forging the steel, putting in the plumbing, or installing the electrical fixtures.

What do they actually do to warrant getting the lion's share of profits from these enterprises?

So you want to seize the means of production, to borrow a phrase?

In many cases (as I mentioned in post #21), they're not even involved in the construction at all, since they're just selling and reselling houses which were built and paid for decades ago, many times over. It's nothing but a scam.

Again, tell it to the battling home owners who've dutifully made every repayment on their mortgage for the last 40 years. You want to slash their property value 90% overnight? I don't see a lot of takers.

Now... I agree that property developers and speculators, especially the unscrupulous ones, are getting rich off the labour of others... but that's kind of how capitalism works. There are certainly many people who don't like unregulated capitalism... I wouldn't necessarily have picked you as one of them. This is precisely the sort of thing people talk about when they talk about wealth inequality and redistribution.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I agree with your intentions but not your tactics. I'm not sure pricing fixing will solve the problem. We need to encourage free-market competition. Right now we do not have enough competition to wring out the inefficiencies of exorbitant CEO pay.

Personally, I'd like to see legislation that ties CEO pay to their employees wages. Say... CEOs can't make more than 40 times their lowest paid employee. You can still pay your CEO $3 million a year, plus bonuses, but the lowest paid member of the operation can't make less than $75 k, plus the same bonuses/40.

I'm in no way an economist, and I may well be missing some vital component that means this would never work, but it seems like a fair solution all round to me.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think you're correct about the Republicans, but a lot of Democrats are in with them, too - otherwise the Republicans wouldn't be able to get away with it. Even in this very thread, there are people who have previously posted as being anti-Trump and supposedly "liberal Democrats," but even they're arguing with my proposal, when true Democrats should be cheering loudly. This is the problem. They can't see the forest through the trees.

From what I've seen over the course of my life, Democrats have wimped out and sold out to the right-wingers on economic issues. For this reason, a lot of working people see no difference between the two major parties. Until the Democrats start putting their money where their mouth is, they're going to end up with another four years of Trump.

Is that what they really want?

It sounds more like they are arguing that your proposal of a reduction to 10% is an extreme and a non-starter measure that will be killed before it makes any headway. And they're probably not wrong. In which case it would just be a waste of money and time. The reason the California rent control bill didn't go through wasn't a voter issue it was a court battle issue.

Don't get me wrong, my biggest issue with Obama was that he compromised with conservatives way too much. And maybe today he might have gotten away with proposing a single-payer healthcare system instead of a revised romneycare today, but it would have been dead at the gate back when he was putting ACA together.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't think you've really thought a lot about who "they" are. I don't know the exact situation in the US, but here, an awful lot of landlords are "mum and dad" investors, average working stiffs who save for years to afford a deposit on an investment property as a bulwark against their retirement. They still work 9-5. My wife and I only own one house now, (we're paying it off still) but back when we owned two, you better believe we were very much working "real" jobs, and if the tenants of the house we were renting out were late on their rent, things got very lean just covering all the bills and repayments. We were barely breaking even with the rent we charged, had we had to reduce it to 10%, in a very literal sense, we would have been bankrupted trying to pay for a house for someone else to live in.

There are plenty of predatory landlords out there, and there are places where property values are ridiculously high. But outside of the super fashionable suburbs of capital cities, most landlords charge quite low rents, in context, and even in the places were property values are super high and rents are massive, you can't just knock 90% off the prices, you have to deflate bubbles slowly, otherwise you get exactly what happened in '09.

I'm not talking about "mom and pop" landlords who are renting out a second home, but actually, I have thought a lot about who "they" are (such as slumlords), and at least around here, I know a few of them personally. I know who they are, what they value, and what kind of character they have. If you've had to deal with the Arizona pro-business conservatives like I've had to deal with, you'd probably get just as angry as me. (The underside of Tucson has a lot of angry leftists, in stark contrast to the conservative mecca 100 miles to the northwest.) Just like our two senators, McCain and Flake (who both apparently hate Trump, so the "enemy of my enemy" comes into play, if you want to know the truth).

This is an issue which strikes a chord of extreme zeal with me, because I see people struggle on two or three jobs, and they can't even afford to buy one home, let alone two. These are not bums or leeches; they're just honest working stiffs trying to survive, and it's absolutely heartbreaking to see people who have to struggle so much. Where is the sympathy for them? Where is the compassion? They're not looking for handouts or a free ride, just some consideration.

I'm not sure what it's like in your neck of the woods, and my proposal obviously isn't going to be given much thought anyway. Maybe 90% reduction is too much, but that's negotiable. But my idea of an unused/vacant property tax might solve other issues, too, such as I've seen with boarded up storefronts, vacant lots in urban areas. It's also a quality of life issue. Not everything revolves around money.

Anyway, gotta go. I'm in social work, and part of my job is helping those who are victims of..."they." I'll come back to this later this evening.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm not talking about "mom and pop" landlords who are renting out a second home, but actually, I have thought a lot about who "they" are (such as slumlords), and at least around here, I know a few of them personally. I know who they are, what they value, and what kind of character they have. If you've had to deal with the Arizona pro-business conservatives like I've had to deal with, you'd probably get just as angry as me. (The underside of Tucson has a lot of angry leftists, in stark contrast to the conservative mecca 100 miles to the northwest.) Just like our two senators, McCain and Flake (who both apparently hate Trump, so the "enemy of my enemy" comes into play, if you want to know the truth).

This is an issue which strikes a chord of extreme zeal with me, because I see people struggle on two or three jobs, and they can't even afford to buy one home, let alone two. These are not bums or leeches; they're just honest working stiffs trying to survive, and it's absolutely heartbreaking to see people who have to struggle so much. Where is the sympathy for them? Where is the compassion? They're not looking for handouts or a free ride, just some consideration.

I'm not sure what it's like in your neck of the woods, and my proposal obviously isn't going to be given much thought anyway. Maybe 90% reduction is too much, but that's negotiable. But my idea of an unused/vacant property tax might solve other issues, too, such as I've seen with boarded up storefronts, vacant lots in urban areas. It's also a quality of life issue. Not everything revolves around money.

Anyway, gotta go. I'm in social work, and part of my job is helping those who are victims of..."they." I'll come back to this later this evening.

So what happens to the mum and dad investors under your plan?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Personally, I'd like to see legislation that ties CEO pay to their employees wages. Say... CEOs can't make more than 40 times their lowest paid employee. You can still pay your CEO $3 million a year, plus bonuses, but the lowest paid member of the operation can't make less than $75 k, plus the same bonuses/40. I'm in no way an economist, and I may well be missing some vital component that means this would never work, but it seems like a fair solution all round to me.

I see people struggle on two or three jobs, and they can't even afford to buy one home, let alone two. These are not bums or leeches; they're just honest working stiffs trying to survive, and it's absolutely heartbreaking to see people who have to struggle so much. Where is the sympathy for them? Where is the compassion? They're not looking for handouts or a free ride, just some consideration.

To both of you, I say the same thing: America is increasingly becoming a cruel country. It's not looking for fair solutions, and the compassion manifests as stripping away health benefits from the working poor and separating children from their parents at the border.

This doesn't describe the majority of the American people, but it does describe the ones who own the country and make the decisions. They don't want what you want. From their perspective, the country is not broken. It's on the mend. I'm not expecting any "problems" to be solved in America any time soon except the problem of concentrating wealth, power, and privilege in the hands of the few.

 

[Audie]

So what happens to the mum and dad investors under your plan?

Going by historical precedent for this kind of idealism
run wild, I'd say hanging from lamp posts,or sent
to labour and die in the fields.