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

[Guy Threepwood]

I agree it's a problem, buying your first home has always been a major step on the ladder to financial independence and the American Dream. Many factors play a role in raising that bar beyond the reach of many good hard working people; - property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, environmental regulations, banking regulations, building codes, green belts, etc etc. I work in the industry and there are definitely many more barriers than there were in previous generations- of course the wealthy love all this, it keeps their property values/ equity high and the 'riff raff' out of their neighborhood.

 

[Shaul]

Of course, but that works both ways. But let's say you have two people advocating for something:

1. One wants to improve the standard of living for working people.
2. The other (who has more money than anyone could possibly want or need) wants to make even more money for himself and his cronies.

Which one is taking the more honorable position? Which one should be trusted more?

It is unreasonable to expect that we can accurately discern the motivations of those advocating public policy. Therefore, logically we should treat all those that advocate for public policy with skepticism and independently verify their claims and question their recommendations thoroughly.

 

[Curious George]

Really, you want me to explain all of the huge topic of assistance available to low income earners? I supposed you want me to do that while standing on one foot too. The fact is there are assistance programs for low income earners. This is imputed income. To neglect to consider that this assistance exists when calculating a low income earner’s total budget leads to an erroneous calculation of the percentage of that earner’s income goes for housing.

Nope, just the ones that a person necessarily receives.

You miss read what I wrote. I wrote that someone only working 40 hours a week can afford basic housing. When I described that they could work more than 40 hours that was predicated on them choosing to do so to be able to afford something better than the lowest cost housing. Don’t put words in my mouth.

I don't think I put words in your mouth. You were the one who brought up working more.

“Insufficient” is a completely subjective description of income. Since needs vary an income which is insufficient for one case may be quite sufficient for another.

Insufficient is perfectly appropriate here. Where we are discussing people in general.

The point is that CNN said that no person earning just minimum wage could afford to rent anywhere in the U.S. Showing that is not true in even one state would be sufficient to disprove that, which I have shown.

But you didn't show that it is not true in one state. You showed that it was hypothetically possible in some areas of one state, assuming various factors. It is not generally true in Tennessee as you acknowledged the choices are very limited and still comprise a massive portion of a person's income. You did not see if those rental agencies require a person to make three times the rent (a common enough requirement).

But again, you sorting through the numbers just highlights the point. The federal minimum wage is inadequate.

 

[Stevicus]

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?

It's not exactly unprecedented. We've done it before. At the time, it was deemed necessary.

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

As to what you're alluding to, I don't think it will have to come to that. The powers that be may yet come to their senses and stop the insanity which has been going on. The Democrats just pay lip service, but they would do well to pay better attention to what's going on, rather than worrying about their real estate portfolio. There are larger issues at stake here.

The Republicans can't really be expected to help the working classes either, but I've heard some people appear disquieted and disconcerted by what they perceive to be a rightward shift in the Republican Party. This could possibly be countered by a leftward shift in the Democratic Party.

I honestly don't know which direction the country will go, but if most people oppose changing the economic system because they see it as something sacrosanct, then the lower classes might settle for a consolation prize to soften their pain: Find a scapegoat. I think that partly explains Trump's support from the lower classes. They knew they'd be screwed no matter who won the election, but Trump somehow tapped into something more primal in their approach to politics.

This is where it might get a bit dicey.

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.

Probably not a lot of takers, although again, it just depends on which way the wind blows and which direction we take. Again, I'm not talking about mom and pop operations, but slumlords and other such predatory types, along with the whole situation which leads to such huge disparities.

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.

Capitalism is regulated in some areas, but yes, I am against unregulated capitalism.

I think my main problem with capitalism is in the idea that, in many people's eyes, it's something sacrosanct and revered. It's like a religion for some people, and whenever I talk to those taking up a pro-capitalist position, it's like they're reciting dogma and not really understanding the human factor.

You've stated that there wouldn't be a lot of takers to my proposal, and you'd be right, but the thing is, it wouldn't matter what percentage it is. To some people, capitalism is like some kind of religion.

But I see it more in terms of a political matter, which is in the hands of politicians and the voters who elect them. Ultimately, they will be in the position to decide how things will work, whether it fits into the perceived dogma of capitalism or not (although with the current crop, it probably will). The thing is, I don't really see that we have an "economic system," not really. It's a political system - always has been. Economics is a social science, which means that it's closer to politics than it is to mathematics. That's not to say that there isn't value in the study of economics, political science, history, or other social sciences, but they often involve competing philosophies where there may not be only one true way.

 

[YmirGF]

This is very close to what millions of workers have to face all the time. In fact, I remember when McDonald's got razzed because they had a website for their employees on how to try to live on the meager wages they receive.

Considering the extreme disparity between those at the top and those at the lower levels, one might well wonder why those at the top would howl and complain so loudly about having to pay a bit extra in taxes, or to have to pay a little more for their employees, or to charge a little less to their customers.

I mean, what's the problem? Seriously, what is it?

You first. Take a pay cut to help your fellow human animals! Send the government more in taxes than you owe! C'mon, man up, babe!

 

[Stevicus]

You first. Take a pay cut to help your fellow human animals! Send the government more in taxes than you owe! C'mon, man up, babe!

Well, the workers have already taken enough in cuts (not to mention doing all the work). Those at the top who get all the money (yet do no work) - now it's their turn to man up and pay. They haven't even come close to paying what they owe, so as soon as they pay off their debts to the people (which are exorbitant at this point), then I'll consider your proposal.

 

[Stevicus]

It is unreasonable to expect that we can accurately discern the motivations of those advocating public policy. Therefore, logically we should treat all those that advocate for public policy with skepticism and independently verify their claims and question their recommendations thoroughly.

Well, sure, we should look at them skeptically and try to discern any hidden motive, but I was just referring to their public stated position and evaluating it at face value. We can't really read their minds, and even independent verification can be a bit spotty, depending on what sources one uses to verify one's claims. I also agree with questioning their recommendations thoroughly, but more than that, we should always question authority on just about everything.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, the workers have already taken enough in cuts (not to mention doing all the work). Those at the top who get all the money (yet do no work) - now it's their turn to man up and pay. They haven't even come close to paying what they owe, so as soon as they pay off their debts to the people (which are exorbitant at this point), then I'll consider your proposal.

Well, hopefully you will never be in a position of power to mandate your wishes.

 

[Stevicus]

Well, hopefully you will never be in a position of power to mandate your wishes.

No, you have no worries about me. I'm just a little guy, powerless to change the world around me. All I'm doing is observing. The only thing I'll ever get out of this is the satisfaction of telling people "I told you so." But at that point, people would get upset and claim that I'm being "insensitive" to the victims when there wouldn't have been any victims if people had listened sooner.

It's the same old story throughout history. People in power don't listen or don't see, the poop hits the fan, lots of chaos, and then a new group comes to power - full of people who don't listen or don't see, and the cycle repeats. But don't take my word for it. You can see for yourself.

 

[dfnj]

It seems to me that this is a quality of life issue, no different than healthcare, education, police/fire protection, and so on. As for free market competition, it depends on the industry. Some industries are regulated, like utility companies (gas, electric, etc.). They have to go before an elected state commission (at least in AZ, not sure about other states offhand) if they want to request to raise their rates.

As for the CEOs, a lot of them just seem like a bunch of crooks.

When I hear the word "regulation" I immediately think cartels and monopolies. There are laws that enslave men and there are laws that set them free. The regulations we have are designed to enslave us by creating cartels and monopolies. For example, take side air bags. Every piece of technology put into a car makes the cost of a car go up while keeping out competition. I really do not believe the corporations are adding side-air bags in cars because they love their customers well-being. Every public utility that has been privatized is a little monopoly. The outsourced profit-driven company has no incentive to provide a quality product. Just the opposite. Outsourcing leads to the lowest possible quality product because the corporation's charter by law is to maximize profit at all costs. Outsource government services leads to the highest possible costs with the lowest possible quality.

People just don't believe in government. As long as government is the bad guy we will continue to have the worst possible government. In terms of organizations, that is, corporations, the biggest bully in the market gets the lion's share of the spoils. We are all good self-reliant Americans meanwhile wealth inequality is at all-time highs. Profit = poverty. Quality of life is NOT part of the equation.

 

[dfnj]

Well, hopefully you will never be in a position of power to mandate your wishes.

Do you ever take any meaningful position in any of your posts? I've never seen you ever say anything but knock down what other people are saying. It's easy to play defense. What do you stand for on offense?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Rent control doesn't work the way many wealth redistributionist types think.
There are several flavors of it, but they all suffer from some problems....
- New housing stock won't be built if a profit cannot be made.
They'll get around this by exempting new construction...until
cost inflation makes it unprofitable. This means chronic shortages,
& illegal sub-leasing (profiteering, one might say).
- Old housing stock won't be maintained if a profit cannot be made.
- The benefit of artificially lowered housing prices often accrues to
those who don't need the assistance, but is denied to those who do.
In NYC, wealthy types I know have rent controlled apartments they
use only when jetting from LA. But newly arriving tenants can't get
such deals.

Real estate is far far more complicated than people who aren't in
the business realize. Lord, protect us from neophytes & kibitzers who
believe that heavy handed regulation & confiscation serve consumers.

 

[columbus]

Rent control doesn't work the way many wealth redistributionist types think.

I kinda thought the OP started this thread as a Welcome Home present for you.
Tom

 

[Stevicus]

I kinda thought the OP started this thread as a Welcome Home present for you.
Tom

No, it was because he was away that I posted it.

"When the cat's away..."

How little I knew that he had other cats willing to run interference while he was gone. Oh well.

 

[Revoltingest]

How little I knew that he had other cats willing to run interference while he was gone. Oh well.

Now you're trying to trick me into reading all the
posts so that I'll know who you're talk'n about!

 

[Stevicus]

Rent control doesn't work the way many wealth redistributionist types think.
There are several flavors of it, but they all suffer from some problems....
- New housing stock won't be built if a profit cannot be made.
They'll get around this by exempting new construction...until
cost inflation makes it unprofitable.
- Old housing stock won't be maintained if a profit cannot be made.
- The benefits of artificially lowered housing prices often accrues to
those who don't need the assistance, but is denied to those who do.
In NYC, wealthy types I know have rent controlled apartments they
use only when jetting from LA. But newly arriving tenants can't get
such deals.

Real estate is far far more complicated than people who aren't in
the business realize. Lord, protect us from neophytes & kibitzers who
believe that heavy handed regulation & confiscation serve consumers.

You never like my ideas.

Still, I think there's a lot of unscrupulous people in real estate. Not saying that you're one of them.

In fact, I remember you posted a video of some rich college kid verbally abusing an Uber driver. I couldn't find the video, but here's an article about it to refresh your memory: Horrifying Video Shows College Student Verbally Assaulting An Uber Driver

You know who that kid's father was? A big time real estate mogul from NYC - and he was a Democrat! The charge of "limousine liberal" came up during the fallout.

Just the same, in regards to my OP, something has to be done about this problem. If nobody likes my proposals, then maybe somebody else can come up with something. We're not talking about free housing for those on welfare, but affordable housing for people who work.

 

[Revoltingest]

You never like my ideas.

That's not true!
I recall that we've agreed before.
Intelligent thoughtful learned people can reasonably disagree at times.
You & I do too.

Still, I think there's a lot of unscrupulous people in real estate. Not saying that you're one of them.

In fact, I remember you posted a video of some rich college kid verbally abusing an Uber driver. I couldn't find the video, but here's an article about it to refresh your memory: Horrifying Video Shows College Student Verbally Assaulting An Uber Driver

You know who that kid's father was? A big time real estate mogul from NYC - and he was a Democrat! The charge of "limousine liberal" came up during the fallout.

And severe rent control would fix that how?

Just the same, in regards to my OP, something has to be done about this problem. If nobody likes my proposals, then maybe somebody else can come up with something. We're not talking about free housing for those on welfare, but affordable housing for people who work.

Leave the solutions to the real estate professionals.
- Liberalize zoning laws, housing codes, & building codes to allow
denser housing, smaller units, & innovative construction.
Also, stop treating building department permit fees as a profit center.
And get rid of corrupt inspectors & building officials.

 

[dfnj]

No, you have no worries about me. I'm just a little guy, powerless to change the world around me. All I'm doing is observing. The only thing I'll ever get out of this is the satisfaction of telling people "I told you so." But at that point, people would get upset and claim that I'm being "insensitive" to the victims when there wouldn't have been any victims if people had listened sooner.

It's the same old story throughout history. People in power don't listen or don't see, the poop hits the fan, lots of chaos, and then a new group comes to power - full of people who don't listen or don't see, and the cycle repeats. But don't take my word for it. You can see for yourself.

People with poop in their eyes can't see.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you ever take any meaningful position in any of your posts? I've never seen you ever say anything but knock down what other people are saying. It's easy to play defense. What do you stand for on offense?

I know it's a lot to expect, but I am under the working assumption that human animals will figure out my intentions and which side of a given question I am on. Given that I don't buy into much of the pablum that is served up on RF is indicative of my position on many fronts. I suppose it depends on reading comprehension to a large degree.

In regards to the current OP, I highly doubt the writer has considered all the ramifications of the topic and related issues. Personally, I'm not sure where it is written that a job at McDonald's should pay your rent for the month. It's as if people are under this illusion that people who make little should be able to live in the comfort that some of us have worked very hard to enjoy. What is likely a much larger issue is that the little folk have a poor understanding of finance, responsibility and money management. It's almost anathema to the youth, for example.

 

[Yerda]

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.

Rent controls seem to be a more dangerous route and could start more fires than it puts out. We should just jump the gun and flatten the housing market.

A public housing programme could solve the problem in less than a decade. Everyone who wants it could have quality, affordable housing for life. The cost would be an investment (as in the public would own a seriously huge asset) and communities could own/control/allocate the local stock. Meanwhile private rents would finally deflate and the housing bubbles would be a thing of the past.

One way of meeting the cost up front would be a coupled sovereign wealth fund and national investment bank. The bank would be initially capitalised by an oil fund for example and could then borrow at good rates on future rent payments.

We have many examples of national investment, wealth funds and public house building programmes. All of this has worked, in practice, on many occasion, and in many places before.