Minimum wage earners can't afford to live anywhere in America

1) Those are personal circumstances, and nothing to do with the big picture. It just means they've refused to adapt. And once again, 'affordable' means YOU can afford it. I want an 'affordable' beach house .. do you think the taxpayers (who don't have beach houses, because they can't afford them) should provide one for me?

2) No, of course not. Why in hell would they have a right that no one else does? What makes them any more special than the nurses and low paid childcare workers who commute daily? Why should one person be cut such outrageous slack, while another has to suffer through three hours of daily commute? And worse, they suffer through that commute to pay for your entitled people!

If low paid workers whose employment is in locations they can't afford, they need to adapt. They need to team up with family to share the cost of living in such places, or change jobs, or commute like the rest of us.

 

Maybe the title of the article would have been more accurate if it had said "minimum wage earners can't afford to live in most areas of the country where most people currently reside".
There is a problem. The question remains could individual people solve it by making a move 300 or 400 miles away to the right area.

 

It's up to each individual to solve the problem as they see fit. It's none of anyone else's business or concern.

As to the intellectual question though .. there are as many options as there are people. Move, share with others, live ultra-frugally, take on some moonlighting work, increase your skills via free college, whatever. Those who want to live within their means will find a method to suit their preferences and circumstances.

 

You do realize that you're the type of hardline conservative that pushes many people to the Left?
I'm not saying you are entirely wrong, but maybe you should try to moderate your stance a little bit and be less callous.

 

1) I'm ON the Left. Way way out out at the fringe of it too - hence my position on this stuff. Extra special fail on your part there, my Dude.

2) I'm not a moderate, so ain't playing that game.

3) Callous? You're freaking kidding me. There's NOTHING crueller than enabling failure.

 

Most people would find that extremely difficult to believe, the way that you talk.
Could it be possible you are really ignorant about the actual feelings and positions held by most of those on what you think is "your" side?
As far as I can see, your perspective places you at least a little bit further Right of extremely moderate conservatives.

If you still don't believe me, maybe you should go to a convention of those people on the Left, explain to them your views, and ask them if they think there's any chance you are on the Left like them too.

Or to use another analogy, that part in the movie where Louis Lane jumps out a window to force Clark Kent to save her and confirm her belief that he was Superman.

 

That is still false.

There are 120,000+ housing markets in the US.

Only a small percentage of those have expensive housing.

To look at it another way, there are 39,000+ municipalities in the US.

Of those, only 11 have populations greater than 1 Million, and that is where you find the expensive housing.

11 / 39,000 * 100 = 0.0282%

I just mathematically refuted your claim.

But, suppose 200 cities were expensive. Then...

200 / 39,000 * 100 = 0.513%

It's called Liberal Propaganda. It's disturbing that you can't recognize that.

They won't because they're dumber than a patch of brown liquid.

Some years ago on another forum, some guy from California was having a heart attack because his teacher wife wanted to take a job in Ohio and he swore up and down she was gonna take $14,000 pay cut.

Wrong. She was gonna get a $12,000 pay raise.

He just couldn't wrap his brain around it because he was hung up on numbers that he didn't even understand.

His wife started posting under his name and told me the county where the school district was, so I put up photos and links to 5 homes and said if none of these meet your needs, I'm sure we can find one.

She was totally blown away. Then I posted the property taxes and links to the county auditor's office so's she could verify it and see for herself and that was all it took.

She was gonna take that job come hell or high water.

All he did was keep chanting "$62,000 is more than $48,000" over and over like a small child.

He couldn't even understand that the cost-savings in property taxes and mortgage alone would increase their disposable income by $13,000 on top of her $12,000 pay raise.

If she took that job, it would be as though she was making $74,000 plus a $13,000 bonus on top of that.

 

Employees, no matter if they receive executive pay or minimum wage, are required to produce! And you should not judge types of work having more value than others. Giving an unskilled worker a shovel and asking them to dig a 3-foot deep ditch 100 feet long might be unskilled but it's also hard work worthy of pay higher than MW. MW workers are all asked to produce something. The controversy remains if anyone working should be receiving a so-called living wage? Or should MW be bumped double to triple what it is today? If we abolish the MW, all of this discussion goes away...

 

It's certainly easy to judge as you do, however, reality is a bit more complex and merely saying 'adapt' solves nothing...

 

I guess pay would depend on how many people were ready and willing to dig a ditch 3 foot deep and 100' long. That's why minimum wage exists, so that in low-skill jobs, there is a base line that can be paid. The fewer the people that can perform a job, the higher the pay. Supply and demand at it's finest.

 

What it actually shows, is that you're likely so influenced by the fatuous posturings of the 21stC Progressive that you now regard their vain First World concerns as representive of Leftism. And of course, if you genuinely think socialism/communism/collectivism is a Right wing thing, it's possible drugs are involved

Meantime, the 'feelings' of Progressives have zero bearing on the pragmatics of fundamental Leftism. I know what they claim to represent, and it's utter bunkum - evidenced by their tight embrace of individualist capitalism, and spastic largess on the backs of working stiffs.

 

And guess where all the freebie seekers feel entitled to live.

That's how we know they're @ssholes. If working stiffs are honourable enough to both live wherever they can afford AND fund the former to live where they want, that in fact makes the former A Grade @ssholes.

 

Yes, the individual adapting (in whichever way accords with their preferences and personal circumstances) solves the problem entirely. That's what adapting means .. to alter our habits and behaviours to work for us, instead of against us.

Only FAILURE to adapt solves nothing - obviously.

I have no idea what 'judgement' has to do with any of it. This is a discussion of reality, physics, cause & effect. It's all pragmatics. To point out that if you stand in the path of an oncoming vehicle you will likely be harmed, is not a judgement - it's an observation of facts. If you feel personally insulted by facts/reality, then it can only be because you would prefer the particular fact or reality didn't exist.

 

Rent will always increase to match what people can afford to pay. So long as this is the case, minimum wagers, being at the bottom, will have difficulty affording rents that are usually targetted at profitting from people who make more than minimum wage. No one buys or builds a rental with the intent of renting to minimum wage workers. So it doesn't matter what the minimum wage is, rent will gobble it up from those earning it. The minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage, and in fact it cannot be a living wage as long as a large portion of the population rent their housing.

NB4 'what about rent controls'- thats a great way to run landlords out of the rental business which will decrease supply thus increase demand thus increase the cost. Not only will renting be more expensive but there will also be less of it.

In either case, minimum wage is not intended for people to live alone and raise a family on. Minimum wage is for single people with roommates. The fact that so many adults with children are making minimum wage is problem that raising the minimum wage will not solve (no, I don't know how to solve it). Raising the minimum wage will in fact make this problem worse because rents will increase to match and cause people who make more than minimum wage now to be able to afford less, as they pay more and more for housing.

We have to either figure out how to get less people making minimum wage or figure out how to get less people to be dependent on renting their housing. Simply raising the minimum wage is not the answer.

 

Bingo! (my bold).

It's been said a thousand times, but private property is the only true bullwark against poverty and enslavement for the common man. Which of course is precisly why the elites want to eliminate private property in the working and middle classes.

Unfortunately nothing can be done, because the people it's being done to don't recognise it as a hostile action against them. They regard increased dependence as a win, because it feels good today. The elites rely on this culture of self-indulgence and instant gratification to build their underclass.

 

Increasing the minimum wage will increase the cost of living. There’s no way around it. It’s natural and will happen. Meaning if you get paid more at a minimum level you will find it easier to live for maybe a year or two until the market fully adjusts and you be in the exact same boat you are in now. If you want a better living you need to get a better job, period! McDonald’s workers should never be able to afford a house by flipping a burger, but if you start your own business flipping burgers you will likely do much better. Anyone can flip a burger, not everyone can start a business to do so. Those who can deserve a bigger cut.

 

So another program, which a certain group of people benefit from, and other people get to pay for.

I guess all the existing programs weren't efficient or successful, so let's make another one, I'm sure it will be different this time. *epic eye roll*

 

MW is a 100% arbitrary number that is basically meaningless...

 

Fact is it's an issue with many people and your 'adapting' won't solve anything...

 

Those who function in the lower rungs of our economy will always and forever deal with the same issues no matter what the MW is set...

 

which anyone can benefit from, rich or poor

it will be their choice, yes, the rich may not choose this cheaper housing, but they could if they wanted too

 

I actually agree, but in this particular situation, something needs to be a base wage. Might as well be FMW. Raising it will affect consumer prices, regardless of what people try to claim.

 

I will have to guess that this plan is one of your own device? Because no such thing exists right now.

If so, please spell out the details.

 

we were talking about ideas to solve the housing issue, I offered one, so yes, was just an idea I tossed out there

the government could build many apartment complexes and rent them out, build more if the demand is high

could cost some freedom, such as cameras in the hallways to keep drug dealers and violent riff raft out

 

So what, exactly, is the 'housing issue'? Is it for the homeless that these places would be built? Or for people who currently have a place to live, but don't like it?

The phrase 'affordable housing' implies that they can't afford where they are living. Since they already receive taxpayer assistance, why can they not afford it?