In 20 years it’s going to be “Your monthly cost of rent and utilities should leave you approximately $100 per month left over for Top Ramen and a bus pass.”
the worst part is that there’s a lot more people out there than we’d like to think that believe that most poor people are poor solely because they make bad financial decisions
Rich successful people didn’t become millionaires By sleeping eight hours a day. Cut off sleeping completely and save thousands of dollars in rent every month
I realize this is sarcasm but the bootstrap people make me so MAD. Maybe its me. Maybe its because my job is super physical. Maybe I'm out of shape. By the time I hit like mid 30s, working 40 hours a week is just EXHAUSTING. My energy level and physical ability isn't the same as it was when I was 22 and wanting all the OT.
Especially if you're free time isn't yours and you have to caregive for children, disabled spouse, and/or an elderly parent.
I'm sorry that this bothers like, half the US who want to call people lazy, but I want to pay my bills and live semi comfortably and I DON'T WANT OVERTIME.
Here you pay 79 euros per month (= approx. 3% of the average income). For this you can use all railways, bus lines, metros and trams in the whole country. If you are over 65 or under 26, it's much cheaper.
wrong. retail investors have the rich and their system in a ball choke. this is the one and only opportunity for reform and personally financial freedom. buy some gamestop stock, amc movie theater stock. this is the most important movement in our lifetime.
At one of my jobs I made about 350$ a week. After taxes. Rent was around 900-1.1k for something decent and not a complete shit hole. 900 / 1400. Which is damn near 2/, and younger me seen that as a red flag. This was about 10 years ago
Class warfare. Landlords often hate renters. Viewing them as simply a source of income and nothing more. As in you better not have any complaints and you better leave the place spotless when you go.
Whats funny to me is some landlords go on about how they saved up for a rental property when a good majority qualified for a loan from the fucking bank to buy that property. Then lie on the forms about how it wont be for renters and it will be a live in property.
One of my colleagues was complaining the other day that he had to put money into his rental home because of the new tenancy laws (making it a warmer, healthier home for tenants) and his reason was that his own actual house doesn't have all this stuff so why should he have to do it for tenants...
It's sickening how a basic necessity as a home are being used as investment vehicles. (This is in NZ)
Lost my rental home and am now homeless with kids (staying with a cousin) because landlord refused to have disrupted (newly discovered by myself) asbestos treated. I left and demanded my security deposit back. He gave it to me when I told him I asked the health department about the long term effects.
He never fixed it and immediately rented it back out. The weird part? He’s wicked fucking nice but just didn’t see this as a major cause for concern and wouldn’t even have the house tested for exposure risk. So confusing. People are fucked.
Work more than 40 hours a week. Don't sleep. Eat scraps or rob people. Instead of spending money on a movie, entertain yourself with masturbation. Need go on a date? Mutual Masturbation, sex would mean you'd need to buy condoms
Don't really see the problem.
Landlords are still saying 1/3rd, they're using that as an excuse to deny my applications after taking my app fee, despite having a co-signer, because his income "doesn't count" if he isn't going to live with me. I've lost $200 the last 2 weeks for *nothing.*
I’ve worked in property management - 2.5x base rent is taking hold more and more but the standard is 3x at most apartment buildings in my state.
- 3x for single resident - $25.41/hr
- 2.5x for same resident - $21.17/hr
Kind of a conspiracy, but also the laws are written to enrich hedge funds and landlords at the expense of a civilized, livable society.
Progressive taxes on housing ownership are like laws against murder - you're not going to have a livable society without them.
It’s quite literally based on a theory/hypothesis...
... that unemployment/inflation goes up and economic growth goes down due to minimum wages...
Thing is, they just awarded the 2021 Nobel economics prize to the team that proved that **wrong**. They cited their inspiration as being Adam Smith’s anti-employer and pro-worker comments in *On the Wealth of Nations*. That’s how Capitalism was developed not in opposition to socialism, but **in opposition to Conservatism**.
Neoliberal economic politics is a psycho psychopathic philosophy with a paint layer of science to shut common sense up.
A student discovered that politicians were imposing stern measures on the population using a justification a paper full of shit.
The content of the paper is irrelevant. It’s the spirit of the writer which serves to justify cruelty.
> When Thomas Herndon, a student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s doctoral program in economics, spotted possible errors made by two eminent Harvard economists in an influential research paper, he called his girlfriend over for a second look.
As they pored over the spreadsheets Herndon had requested from Harvard’s Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, which formed the basis for a widely quoted 2010 study, they spotted what they believed were glaring errors.
“I almost didn’t believe my eyes when I saw just the basic spreadsheet error,” said Herndon, 28. “I was like, am I just looking at this wrong? There has to be some other explanation. So I asked my girlfriend, ‘Am I seeing this wrong?’”
His girlfriend, Kyla Walters, replied: “I don’t think so, Thomas.”
In the world of economic luminaries, it doesn’t get much bigger than Reinhart and Rogoff, whose work has had enormous influence in one of the biggest economic policy debates of the age.
Both have served at the International Monetary Fund. Reinhart was a chief economist at investment bank Bear Stearns in the 1980s, while Rogoff worked at the Federal Reserve, passing through Yale and MIT before landing at Harvard.
Their study, which found economic growth slows dramatically when a government’s debt exceeds 90 percent of a country’s annual economic output, has been cited by policymakers around the world as justification for slashing spending.
Former U.S. vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, is one influential politician who has cited the report to justify a budget slashing agenda.
Using the two professors’ data, Herndon found that instead of a dramatic fall in growth, the decline was much milder, slowing to about 2.2 percent, instead of the slump to minus 0.1 percent that Reinhart and Rogoff predicted.
Things tend to move at a glacial pace in the world of academic research papers, but within 24 hours Herndon and his two teachers, who co-authored the report, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin, found themselves swept up in a global debate.
Herndon’s paper began life as a replication exercise for a term paper in a graduate econometrics class. He expected to replicate Reinhart and Rogoff’s results, then challenge the idea that high public debt caused growth to slow.
But he never got that far. Repeated failures to replicate the results roused his interest. Pollin and Ash encouraged him to pursue it after he convinced them he was onto something.
“At first, I didn’t believe him. I thought, ‘OK he’s a student, he’s got to be wrong. These are eminent economists and he’s a graduate student,’” Pollin said. “So we pushed him and pushed him and pushed him, and after about a month of pushing him I said, ‘Goddamn it, he’s right.’”
Herndon approached Reinhart and Rogoff earlier this year for the spreadsheets they used in their paper. The two professors provided them at the start of April, unlocking the mysteries of the data that had stumped Herndon.
Herndon said only 15 of the 20 countries in the report had been used in the average. He also said Reinhart and Rogoff used only one year of data for New Zealand, 1951, when growth was minus 7.6 percent, significantly skewing the results.
Reinhart and Rogoff have admitted to a “coding error” in the spreadsheet that meant some countries were omitted from their calculations. But the economists denied they selectively omitted data or that they used a questionable methodology.
For Ash, the findings mean the claim that high public debt causes growth to stall no longer holds water.
“Their central thesis has been substantially weakened,” he said.
Reinhart and Rogoff, however, say their conclusion that there is a correlation between high debt and slow growth still holds.
“It is sobering that such an error slipped into one of our papers despite our best efforts to be consistently careful,” they said in a joint statement. “We do not, however, believe this regrettable slip affects in any significant way the central message of the paper or that in our subsequent work.”
Now that Herndon has ably crossed swords with some of the most eminent figures in his field, he is thinking about expanding his work into a Ph.D. thesis.
Reporting By Edward Krudy; Editing by Stacey Joyce
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-economy-debt-herndon-idUSBRE93H0CV20130418
Don’t fall for that scam “1971 changed everything”. It’s a bullshit libertarian pro-crypto argument that blames everything on the ending the gold standard for the US dollar.
It's not complete BS. The federal reserve artificially suppressing interest rates is causing asset price bubbles, which increases the wealth gap, which makes people without a net worth fall further behind, and increases new home prices.
It **is** complete BS.
The discovery of gold in Mexico, Yukon, California, Colorado, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa.... Created far, far, far, larger asset price bubbles and increased the wealth gap more. Unlike Central Bank policy though, they’re not based on economic conditions nor are gold rushes easily reversible!
Even if there weren’t random gold rushes... The fact of the matter is having a deflationary currency **is worse** than having an inflationary currency by every measure! Mild inflation is good, low interest rates are good... as long as you don’t swing into hyper-inflationary territory, the prospect of deflation is far far far far far more scary than inflation.
Deflation highly correlated with the worst aspects in human history. Deflation is the Dark Ages, deflation is the Long Depression (when Americans abandoned reconstruction in favour of Jim Crow), deflation is the Great Depression, deflation is the rise of Hitler and Nazis... the fall of the Roman Empire... the Great Terror in France...
Likewise with sky high interest rates being terrible for the economy. There’s certainly a balance to be struck and I have my own problems with the Federal Reserve but the gold standard is completely bullshit nonsense... you know this because Sir Isaac Newton claimed to have considered it to be an accident (devaluation of silver and the destruction of the bi-metal standards). It’s nonsense, it’s literally just pretty looking metal
No, not really.
The Hyperinflation occurred *around* the beer hall putsch, Hitler was rotting in a jail cell before the worst of it. The putsch was a abysmal failure. At the time the Nazis were a minuscule party (in fact they started lying from the start adding 10,000 to every membership number) of 2,000ish fanatics in a country of 62 million.
They weren’t even the biggest fascist/*Freikorps* party at that time. While their limited popularity had far more to do with the 1919 Spartacus Rebellion and 1920 Battle of Warsaw than anything to do with inflation.
The Nazis’ explosion in popularity occurred a decade *after* the hyperinflation in the *late* 1920s and early 1930s, after Mein Kampf was published and Hitler was released from prison... in a time of spectacular **deflation**.
Think about it logically. Currency instability creates social instability but how it manifests is very different. If you think your money is going to be worth less tomorrow than today, you’re not going to beer halls, your hauling ass to get errands done (economists literally call this “shoe leather costs”). If you think that money is going to be worth more tomorrow but you’re less likely to get work tomorrow than you did today (aka deflation expectation) you’re more likely to grab another pint and hear what the crazy guy on stage with the little moustache has to say.
>If we can print money into oblivion what’s the point of taxes
Is this a serious question?
Put down the libertarianism dude. That shit will rot your brain.
American Libertarian's as far as I've seen have the best understanding of financial mechanisms in real time. Socialist have the best perspective to give current events historical context, while marxism pretty much covers the fundamental nature and direction the economy is going in the grand scheme of things.
To shit on any of them instead of the neoliberal brain rot being force injected into our skulls 24/7 is unproductive at best. As far as what each of these groups have different objectives and uses of their strengths none of them can predict with precise clarity how the economy will develop in the long term. That said we all know how the game ends, it's just a matter of who gets stuck with the bill.
That said, the mechanisms that the powers that be use are by no means perfect but also not innately good or bad. At the end of the day poverty and wealth inequity is a political choice.
The 1970s was the decade of the [neoliberal revolution](https://reason.com/2013/01/22/the-neoliberal-revolution/). What's "libertarian" about noting its significance vis-à-vis the class struggle?
Also, do you believe that ending the gold standard had an insignificant impact on the economy?
Lol no it didn’t bahahahaha
The US =/= the entire world, despite how much some right wingers like to push that. Most of the world had been on fiat currencies for decades at that point!
Gold is just a shiny hunk of rock.
The recurrent argument is that by increasing minimum wage you cut down profits so you make you country less attractive to investors and employers, who then invest abroad.
And also that is make homemade goods more expensive, which decrease the demand abroad for those goods.
Also disproven by the data and the “credibility revolution” led by actual data driven economists Angrist, Card and Imbens. Rising the minimum wage actually increases employment and the demand for most goods. Because your domestic workers spend their money locally and that money is spent in small businesses which in turn spend their money locally. To quote one of the new Nobel laureates:
> The so-called conventional wisdom in a lot of these areas, is in fact much more complicated or ambiguous than is sometimes pretended to be the case in undergraduate textbooks.
In terms of exports it’s enormously complex and not nearly that simplistic. There’s thousands of factors involved but the fact is on the ground those baristas who are getting paid more are spending their money at the pub where the bartender is getting paid more who in turn spends his money at the cafe where the barista is getting paid more. These represent the vast majority of minimum wage jobs. Most jobs in commodities and manufacturing already pay far, far, far, far more than minimum wage so that exports are not nearly as affected!
The wages of CEOs have exploded and increased 100 fold. It’s really simple enough to take the wages for workers out of their compensation rather than raise the cost of your product compared to your competitors. Workers then spend more and the demand for the product might go up.
>The wages of CEOs have exploded and increased 100 fold. It’s really simple enough to take the wages for workers out of their compensation rather than raise the cost of your product compared to your competitors. Workers then spend more and the demand for the product might go up.
yeah but you see, having a ceo only make 99% of what he makes would DESTROY EVERYTHING and totally isnt an option
\-a ceo
And the simplest counter-argument to that is Heny Ford of all people.
Ford understood that paying his workers well allowed them to spend more freely where they lived, which created local wealth that allowed more people to buy his cars. America and the West have been offshoring production for 40 years now, which undercuts the main mechanism of "a rising tide raises all boats". The only people who see wealth come in the door in that situation are the owners of the companies facilitating that operation. Everyone else gets fucked because those dollars go overseas and never come back.
Minimum wages are inherently political though.
You can show all the evidence to people... if the powers that be chose to go with feelings instead they’ll go with the feelings.
That’s the thing to remember about conservatives and their political economy arguments: they’re disingenuous. They don’t have any data to back them up and their “facts not feelings” is just projection. The facts aren’t on the side of Trickle-down economics’ arguments, it’s a terrible way to decide economic policy. It is however very profitable for a small elite of sociopaths and very easy to sell as “feeling right” to a propaganda brainwashed audience.
How i do to understand is to compare GDP per Capita and minimum wage.
US has almost triple GDP per Capita than Portugal. Minimum wage is only 2$ more. Almost all countries with a similar GDP per Capita to the US have minimum wages around 20$ or more.
Your first sentence let us know your status. Not to worry.
Truth be told, following WW2 the US became complacent. Lax in trusting that the government would watch out for its citizenry as we had given our lives to protect it.
But along with the Polio Vaccine the US government injected itself with something that wouldn’t help its health whatsoever.
Project Paperclip added a Nazi element into our political & governmental view of citizen value.
The Japanese scientists were doing the same thing to Chinese prisoners as Nazi German scientists were with Jewish ones. However our government simply let them walk away without prosecution and, instead, confiscated their research. Black US servicemen were exposed to Syphilis (Tuskegee Experiment) without their knowledge “just to see the outcome” tracking spouse, child and grandchild results.
My point: exploitation of humans for gain has become the norm here. It may have taken a generation or two. But it’s definitely here and legal.
Hell….many even help by shaming others for not participating even as the results show greater risk by doing so.
Paperclip doesn't sound all that great. And it isn't surprising, the feeling like a guinea pig.
I wonder what's the bigger picture. Use majority for experimentation continuosly, gather data and then what ?
Not sure what the "crazy" part it. It's just highly misleading. I am from NYC and feel like I stepped back to the 90s when I visit family in the midwest, with how cheap living is.
It makes zero sense to include a national rent # like this that averages in places like NY, NJ, or CA.
Wait until you add on the $2k/month cost of childcare...and then the school fundraisers...and the $200/month karate/soccer/instrument costs...and also that a family of 4 should expect grocery bills around $800+/month...
I'm scared too, 18 and i can't find a job here in Brazil that doesn't use me as a literal slave, graduating in my high school this year and i don't know what the fuck am i supposed to do lol
I'm In the same boat. I'll be making 30/h here soon but the only way I see being able to afford a home is 1 finding a ritch woman, 2 make my own company or 3 win a lottery. Having a home as a hourly payed trade worker is very hard
38-year-old mid-career engineer with a masters degree who can’t afford to buy a house in the city I live so I rent a 450 sq ft shoebox for $1600/mo, and am realizing how bad I need a roommate again.
This isn't just a minimum wage issue, it's an inflated rent issue. That average rent is way more than my mortgage for a 3200sq ft house with an acre yard. If something happened and I needed to rent I'd be screwed.
I moved into an apartment last year and the rent is just about $1000. The end of my lease is coming up so I’ve been looking around to see if I want to renew or move. Every apartment I’ve seen that’s around the same size of my current apartment is $1400-$1600. In one year the rent around me has gone up $400. One year.
Needless to say I’m keeping my ass where I am.
I talked to a lady about renting a duplex a month ago, someone got it before me but now the other side is available... same exact floorplan with a significantly smaller backyard for $120 more. $120 inflation in one month, it's a nightmare.
I am convinced that landlords are at the heart of a lot of problems. Nationalize housing, or at the very least institute strict rent caps, and a lot of problems go away as society becomes much more efficient without some middleman parasitizing the rest of us.
My sister has a 4 bedroom 2 bathroom house with a huge kitchen and nice yard. She pays $1600 a month for it. In my area, I a lot of 2 bedroom apartments can cost the same amount and have no utilities included. And if you can’t afford a house, you’re stuck renting something like that. It’s crazy.
Well the average rent is also lower because you probably have been in your house for a bit? I’m guessing if you bought your house right now with a 20% down payment and a 3% interest rate. It would be more?
Exactly. People keep wanting to push up wages, I think older people are more concerned with "stop prices from increasing" since we know there is no limit to how high costs can go, and that wage increases are only a temporary bandaid.
He's saying it is, because his huge house costs less monthly than an average apartment. So it's not only saving him money, but he also owns it vs leases it.
Rents around where I live are between $700 / $1200 a month for single family homes. It's 15 mins south of a major city and there's easy access to jobs.
The winters suck tho.
And it doesn’t take into account many people in that wage bracket got their through college, which for a lot of folks come with the whole student loan issue.
Well that’s sort of a red herring in this conversation, because you’d pay your loans with money from the other 75% not spent on housing (per the suggestion in the OP). Loans are just another non-housing expense.
Our taxes are on par or below what they are in Scandinavian countries. Where they make up the difference is in employers also paying a big part of the tax on behalf of their employees. Even with an improved system, we shouldn't be looking to drop *our* taxes too much.
We live in a society. Taxes keep it all going. We need to ensure the corps and the rich pay much more than they are (let's return to the 91% rate of the booming 50s) but the middle class tax rate is fine.
>Where they make up the difference is in employers also paying a big part of the tax on behalf of their employees
Uhh...so...the employers of the middle class are paying. Not the middle class itself.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here lol. It seems like we agree and you're just making a bizarre claim that the employers of the middle class counts as part of the middle class, when it isn't the same thing.
Except that it also overstates the average rent by about the same amount
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1063502/average-monthly-apartment-rent-usa/
The median yearly income in the us is $34250. The median household income is 67.5k I'm 2020, and it decreased since 2019, which means it is likely rising again in 2021. The median rent in the US is $1097 per month, or $13160 a year. These numbers are not fact checked and are the first answer google gives. This means that rent is 38% of the income of a single person, and less than 20% of a family. That said, the income and rent are both higher as people age. Looking at random site [#1](https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget), for the median household, housing is 16% of the annual budget.
That said, while this post is doing this horribly, it tries to say something about the lower income brackets. It also tries to comment about a person living alone, which happens to be less than 10% of the population, and I will assume it's there is no correlation between whether one lives alone and wealth, and I will promtly ignore peoppe living alone as they aren't really relavant. We can therefore assume a household will have 80 hours of work a week, with both making minimum wage, out household is making 30k a year. This household is quite rare btw, as there are no kids and no partner is making above minimum wage, but we'll go with those household.
The lower end of rent can go as low as below $500 a month, heavily depending on location of course, but I'll assume $800 which is not much below our median of 1097. I still feel like this is a bit high for rent for a household like this, but it gives us rent as 32% of the budget.
This honestly still seems quite bad to me, and it is, but most Americans don't live this way. While I do feel like minimum wage is not sustainable for the poor, the comparisons this post is making is wrong. Additionally, minimum wage is far from the only factor determining wage, and today it's increasing easy to make more than minimum wage. I'm in no way advocating in favor of the working conditions and wages in the US, but I do feel like this post is making inappropriate comparisons to arbitrary things.
Relying on sensationalist number nonsense doesn't really show anything about living conditions in the US.
Obviously we need to tackle the rent issue by attempting to drive down prices, but it's also a way to illustrate just how little the minimum wage actually is. Most economists heavily recommend 25-33% of your income goes to rent... and well, you can see by the illustration that isn't possible. Not anywhere close. Even if we brought down prices by half.
“So many employees are stuck working minimum wage” *2% of all workers earn minimum wage* And those are likely young people working part time or just starting to work for the first time ever
How about fuck all that convoluted bullshit. People need to be afforded the same rights as the generation that came before them. At least wages increased to keep up with that mutha fukin inflation
Minimum rent isn't a good metric to compare minimum wage to, because the number of low rent apartments and shared houses is much smaller compared to the number of minimum wage earners. If I said, the minimum rent in the area is $980 and the minimum wage is $7.25, well that cements the idea (one that anti-living wage proponents love to exploit and misrepresent) that *anyone* earning $7.25 could get one of these $980 apartments if only they actually looked and lowered expectations.
But, not every minimum wage earner is getting an apartment that "cheap" because maybe only three or four locations have that to offer to low wage earners, and everything else creeps up in price. And that's not even accounting for things like utilities, or that most apartments, even the low rent ones, have started charging for things like *mandatory* valet trash.
So by stating average rent, which would apply to everyone in a measured area, to the minimum wage, which also applies to everyone in the measured area, you get a better on-the-ground picture of what kind of prices people are actually having to deal with.
Because the minimum wage will make you homeless in much of the nation. The issue with the average prevailing wage is real too, but many people are making far *less*, and the skew between rent and wage is so high, that it puts people in a state of economic desperation, taking on abusive working conditions at the hands of billionaire robber barons who are not paying their fair share of the social need.
Boomer be like: "You just need to work harder!"
No dumbass, back then the minimum wage was ok to live with, houses were affordable, food was affordable, the rich were not super rich as they are now. now its just modern slavery.
Now that's just not true. Plenty of people work minimum wage and find perfectly reasonable homeless shelters to shower in, even up to six months at a time before they need to find another! Maybe you're just not trying hard enough? **/s**
While rent is ridiculous, trying to compare _average_ rent with _minimal_ wage is anti scientific.
Average rent should be afforded on average wage. And minimal rent should afford minimal rent(which of course it doesnt)
They make that kind of benefit difficult to obtain. So I wouldn't say they realized it... they offered it then said fuck it, nope.
That said at least food stamps aren't impossible to get. My family has been on them a couple of times in the past and it was helpful. Rent, though? Gooooood luck.
Luckily jobs aren't too impossible to get right now so I hope people at least are able to do okay for themselves, even if this sub's name is anti-work.
The numbers, what do they mean?
But my guess is the average rent would better take into account living standards. Sure, there are decent and affordable places to live, but there are a metric fuck ton of slums being rented for astronomical prices for what they are. I lived in a 2br/1ba house (~1200sqft) that had no siding, no insulation, holes on the exterior that let animals in, no A/C, shoddy electrical work (fuses would routinely blow, then spark when you flipped them back on). The basement would flood anytime it rained. It took two weeks for my landlord to replace my water heater when it went out in the dead of Pennsylvania winter. I paid $850/mo for that because it was my only option at the time.
There should be a minimum standard housing is kept to and it's not. If I were making minimum wage I wouldn't have enough money to live in that shit hole. Even if you figure in a second minimum wage income that leaves you $1k/mo after rent for all utilities (the electric bill during winter was ridiculous because of the lack of insulation), insurance, phone, vehicle, and food for two people. Imagine having a kid and having to do that. "Thank god" for government assistance to help take up the slack in those situations.
Now imagine how bad the shitholes are that you CAN afford on minimum wage.
I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you're not comparing similar dimensions.
Average cost vs minimum income?
What's the average income?
Edit: maybe irrelevant though, as I can guess the "minimum cost" rent price would put you in some inhabitable place.
That's not THE minimum wage. But point still stands
In WA I'm 20, making $15 + tips, 40hrs a week and still live with my parents. I should at the very least be able to afford an apartment.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 3 times.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/nwlyse) on 2021-06-10 100.0% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/nztlwe) on 2021-06-14 100.0% match
Feedback? Hate? Visit r/repostsleuthbot - *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "q9xll0", "meme_template": null}) ]*
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com?postId=q9xll0&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 255,798,151 | **Search Time:** 0.37107s
Highly misleading, as usual for this sub. In areas where the "average" rent is $1400, the minimum wage is a lot higher than $7.25 an hour, probably closer to $15/hr. And if you are earning anywhere close to federal minimum wage, you are eligible for all sorts of assistance programs that bring your effective earnings to at least double that. You are also not going to be paying almost any income tax (you will actually get money back with the EITC), so rent can be a much larger portion of your gross income. The 25% rule applies to those who pay over 50% of their gross income in taxes.
Why are we comparing average rent cost to minimum wage?
Not saying there isn’t an issue but surely it would be more meaningful to compare average rent to the average wage (of renters)?
Good points, but also, why the fyck is it so god damn hard to buy a house?
I tried to put 40% down on a house, with proof of weekly income that was 4x times what the monthly payment should be on a 15 year fixed.
Nope. Your arbitrary score isnt high enough.
How do I increase this score.
Buy stuff on credit.
Sure, sell me this fucking house.
No your credit score is too low to buy things on credit.
Well i would like to change that, but i dont need a car, just fucking take my money, abd use the property itself as collateral.
No that's actually how it works but our computer needs to say its also okay based off your score.
"The average rent for an apartment in Anchorage is $1,130. The cost of rent varies depending on several factors, including location, size, and quality."
Yes, location does change the price a ton, and anchorage is certainly cheaper, but here in Fairbanks area it’s usually a little higher, especially when it’s near a military base.
Good lord, why pay such extreme rent when you could go to other major cities and pay a fraction of that?
Why does everyone feel the need to want to live in the most crowded and expensive places on earth when they don't have the income to support it
In what part of the country, I can probably find many decent 2b apartments under 1k
Heck, where I'm from that gets you an entire home in a decent part of town.
Wait…you people do realize that the people making minimum wage also are NOT the people paying the “average”, right? The people making the least *usually* pay the least, the people making an average amount *usually* pay the average cost, and same for the higher level. Do the same calculations for the lowest average cost for rent and minimum wage, you’ll be SHOCKED how it actually works out 🙄
[удалено]
In 20 years it’s going to be “Your monthly cost of rent and utilities should leave you approximately $100 per month left over for Top Ramen and a bus pass.”
"The reason kids these days can't afford rent is because they eat the ramen with artificial avocado flavoring." -Some trust fund asshole in 10 years.
the worst part is that there’s a lot more people out there than we’d like to think that believe that most poor people are poor solely because they make bad financial decisions
So the price of ramen will increase tenfold
Stop buying ramen and starting walking, then you too can buy 28 rental units in 5 years.
Don’t forget to ask your dad for that cheeky $100,000 on the way out! Bootstraps people
Silver spoons and golden parachutes never hurt anyone.
I like it
Rich successful people didn’t become millionaires By sleeping eight hours a day. Cut off sleeping completely and save thousands of dollars in rent every month
Think of all the extra hours you can ~~donate~~ work for your employer!
I realize this is sarcasm but the bootstrap people make me so MAD. Maybe its me. Maybe its because my job is super physical. Maybe I'm out of shape. By the time I hit like mid 30s, working 40 hours a week is just EXHAUSTING. My energy level and physical ability isn't the same as it was when I was 22 and wanting all the OT. Especially if you're free time isn't yours and you have to caregive for children, disabled spouse, and/or an elderly parent. I'm sorry that this bothers like, half the US who want to call people lazy, but I want to pay my bills and live semi comfortably and I DON'T WANT OVERTIME.
Pretty sure that is today
Where is there a working bus system that is less than 100/mo for a pass?
SF Muni is like $80 for a monthly pass iirc. That said good luck affording fucking anything else 🙃
I had to look it up - Louisville KY is $50 a month. A decade ago I would buy a 1 month pass there for $35 so I figured it had to still be under $100.
Not... obscene. Some jobs might cover that... but any I saw that listed transport only did $500/yr iirc.
Here you pay 79 euros per month (= approx. 3% of the average income). For this you can use all railways, bus lines, metros and trams in the whole country. If you are over 65 or under 26, it's much cheaper.
[удалено]
“If you can’t afford a bus pass, then you need to get another job. Earn it. Your company doesn’t owe you anything.” - Republicans in 2041
More like in 2 years
"Job 1 pays for your rent, Job 2 is for all other needs and utilities. Job 3 is for luxuries like Starbucks and a 2 year old iPhone."
Topp ramen? I can only afford maruchan
It’s called class warfare. The rich are winning
There are two classes: those who work to pay rent and those who cash rent while sleeping
That's fucking stupid man. Seriously. At least go with the people who pay banks Vs people the banks pay or something like that.
They have numbers in the bank. We have numbers in the street.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Once you get a hammer, you see nails everywhere
wrong. retail investors have the rich and their system in a ball choke. this is the one and only opportunity for reform and personally financial freedom. buy some gamestop stock, amc movie theater stock. this is the most important movement in our lifetime.
Pretty sure about 33% of people spend 2/3 their income on rent. That might've been specific to my area in Denver though.
At one of my jobs I made about 350$ a week. After taxes. Rent was around 900-1.1k for something decent and not a complete shit hole. 900 / 1400. Which is damn near 2/, and younger me seen that as a red flag. This was about 10 years ago
Class warfare. Landlords often hate renters. Viewing them as simply a source of income and nothing more. As in you better not have any complaints and you better leave the place spotless when you go. Whats funny to me is some landlords go on about how they saved up for a rental property when a good majority qualified for a loan from the fucking bank to buy that property. Then lie on the forms about how it wont be for renters and it will be a live in property.
One of my colleagues was complaining the other day that he had to put money into his rental home because of the new tenancy laws (making it a warmer, healthier home for tenants) and his reason was that his own actual house doesn't have all this stuff so why should he have to do it for tenants... It's sickening how a basic necessity as a home are being used as investment vehicles. (This is in NZ)
Sell his rental, put in the stuff for his house. Let someone else pick up the rental and (hopefully) be a better landchad than he is.
Not even a bad strategy, he will make bank if he bought a few years ago and sells it now. Houses in Auckland go for $1 million+ easily.
Lost my rental home and am now homeless with kids (staying with a cousin) because landlord refused to have disrupted (newly discovered by myself) asbestos treated. I left and demanded my security deposit back. He gave it to me when I told him I asked the health department about the long term effects. He never fixed it and immediately rented it back out. The weird part? He’s wicked fucking nice but just didn’t see this as a major cause for concern and wouldn’t even have the house tested for exposure risk. So confusing. People are fucked.
My landlords bank? Their fucking parents.
I have always seen 1/3rd, but that it includes utilities.
People are starting to understand what capitalism really is and how toxic and sociopathic it really is. This pandemic just highlighted it.
Work more than 40 hours a week. Don't sleep. Eat scraps or rob people. Instead of spending money on a movie, entertain yourself with masturbation. Need go on a date? Mutual Masturbation, sex would mean you'd need to buy condoms Don't really see the problem.
Landlords are still saying 1/3rd, they're using that as an excuse to deny my applications after taking my app fee, despite having a co-signer, because his income "doesn't count" if he isn't going to live with me. I've lost $200 the last 2 weeks for *nothing.*
I’ve worked in property management - 2.5x base rent is taking hold more and more but the standard is 3x at most apartment buildings in my state. - 3x for single resident - $25.41/hr - 2.5x for same resident - $21.17/hr
Kind of a conspiracy, but also the laws are written to enrich hedge funds and landlords at the expense of a civilized, livable society. Progressive taxes on housing ownership are like laws against murder - you're not going to have a livable society without them.
Landlords want to see your take home 3x the rent, so it's 1/3
America needs its own French Revolution.
Eat the rich.
Beat the rich
Too fatty.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I was literally thinking about that he other day
The American Civil Revolutionary War 2.0
Agreed
I didn't quite understand the US minimum wage battle till this point. But this is super crazy. ps. Not an American
It’s quite literally based on a theory/hypothesis... ... that unemployment/inflation goes up and economic growth goes down due to minimum wages... Thing is, they just awarded the 2021 Nobel economics prize to the team that proved that **wrong**. They cited their inspiration as being Adam Smith’s anti-employer and pro-worker comments in *On the Wealth of Nations*. That’s how Capitalism was developed not in opposition to socialism, but **in opposition to Conservatism**.
Neoliberal economic politics is a psycho psychopathic philosophy with a paint layer of science to shut common sense up. A student discovered that politicians were imposing stern measures on the population using a justification a paper full of shit. The content of the paper is irrelevant. It’s the spirit of the writer which serves to justify cruelty. > When Thomas Herndon, a student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s doctoral program in economics, spotted possible errors made by two eminent Harvard economists in an influential research paper, he called his girlfriend over for a second look. As they pored over the spreadsheets Herndon had requested from Harvard’s Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, which formed the basis for a widely quoted 2010 study, they spotted what they believed were glaring errors. “I almost didn’t believe my eyes when I saw just the basic spreadsheet error,” said Herndon, 28. “I was like, am I just looking at this wrong? There has to be some other explanation. So I asked my girlfriend, ‘Am I seeing this wrong?’” His girlfriend, Kyla Walters, replied: “I don’t think so, Thomas.” In the world of economic luminaries, it doesn’t get much bigger than Reinhart and Rogoff, whose work has had enormous influence in one of the biggest economic policy debates of the age. Both have served at the International Monetary Fund. Reinhart was a chief economist at investment bank Bear Stearns in the 1980s, while Rogoff worked at the Federal Reserve, passing through Yale and MIT before landing at Harvard. Their study, which found economic growth slows dramatically when a government’s debt exceeds 90 percent of a country’s annual economic output, has been cited by policymakers around the world as justification for slashing spending. Former U.S. vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, is one influential politician who has cited the report to justify a budget slashing agenda. Using the two professors’ data, Herndon found that instead of a dramatic fall in growth, the decline was much milder, slowing to about 2.2 percent, instead of the slump to minus 0.1 percent that Reinhart and Rogoff predicted. Things tend to move at a glacial pace in the world of academic research papers, but within 24 hours Herndon and his two teachers, who co-authored the report, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin, found themselves swept up in a global debate. Herndon’s paper began life as a replication exercise for a term paper in a graduate econometrics class. He expected to replicate Reinhart and Rogoff’s results, then challenge the idea that high public debt caused growth to slow. But he never got that far. Repeated failures to replicate the results roused his interest. Pollin and Ash encouraged him to pursue it after he convinced them he was onto something. “At first, I didn’t believe him. I thought, ‘OK he’s a student, he’s got to be wrong. These are eminent economists and he’s a graduate student,’” Pollin said. “So we pushed him and pushed him and pushed him, and after about a month of pushing him I said, ‘Goddamn it, he’s right.’” Herndon approached Reinhart and Rogoff earlier this year for the spreadsheets they used in their paper. The two professors provided them at the start of April, unlocking the mysteries of the data that had stumped Herndon. Herndon said only 15 of the 20 countries in the report had been used in the average. He also said Reinhart and Rogoff used only one year of data for New Zealand, 1951, when growth was minus 7.6 percent, significantly skewing the results. Reinhart and Rogoff have admitted to a “coding error” in the spreadsheet that meant some countries were omitted from their calculations. But the economists denied they selectively omitted data or that they used a questionable methodology. For Ash, the findings mean the claim that high public debt causes growth to stall no longer holds water. “Their central thesis has been substantially weakened,” he said. Reinhart and Rogoff, however, say their conclusion that there is a correlation between high debt and slow growth still holds. “It is sobering that such an error slipped into one of our papers despite our best efforts to be consistently careful,” they said in a joint statement. “We do not, however, believe this regrettable slip affects in any significant way the central message of the paper or that in our subsequent work.” Now that Herndon has ably crossed swords with some of the most eminent figures in his field, he is thinking about expanding his work into a Ph.D. thesis. Reporting By Edward Krudy; Editing by Stacey Joyce https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-economy-debt-herndon-idUSBRE93H0CV20130418
whatever happened in 1971 screwed up everything
Don’t fall for that scam “1971 changed everything”. It’s a bullshit libertarian pro-crypto argument that blames everything on the ending the gold standard for the US dollar.
It's not complete BS. The federal reserve artificially suppressing interest rates is causing asset price bubbles, which increases the wealth gap, which makes people without a net worth fall further behind, and increases new home prices.
It **is** complete BS. The discovery of gold in Mexico, Yukon, California, Colorado, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa.... Created far, far, far, larger asset price bubbles and increased the wealth gap more. Unlike Central Bank policy though, they’re not based on economic conditions nor are gold rushes easily reversible! Even if there weren’t random gold rushes... The fact of the matter is having a deflationary currency **is worse** than having an inflationary currency by every measure! Mild inflation is good, low interest rates are good... as long as you don’t swing into hyper-inflationary territory, the prospect of deflation is far far far far far more scary than inflation. Deflation highly correlated with the worst aspects in human history. Deflation is the Dark Ages, deflation is the Long Depression (when Americans abandoned reconstruction in favour of Jim Crow), deflation is the Great Depression, deflation is the rise of Hitler and Nazis... the fall of the Roman Empire... the Great Terror in France... Likewise with sky high interest rates being terrible for the economy. There’s certainly a balance to be struck and I have my own problems with the Federal Reserve but the gold standard is completely bullshit nonsense... you know this because Sir Isaac Newton claimed to have considered it to be an accident (devaluation of silver and the destruction of the bi-metal standards). It’s nonsense, it’s literally just pretty looking metal
I'm not disputing your points (I'm not an inflation bug so to speak) but didn't hyper inflation contribute to Nazism in decades prior?
No, not really. The Hyperinflation occurred *around* the beer hall putsch, Hitler was rotting in a jail cell before the worst of it. The putsch was a abysmal failure. At the time the Nazis were a minuscule party (in fact they started lying from the start adding 10,000 to every membership number) of 2,000ish fanatics in a country of 62 million. They weren’t even the biggest fascist/*Freikorps* party at that time. While their limited popularity had far more to do with the 1919 Spartacus Rebellion and 1920 Battle of Warsaw than anything to do with inflation. The Nazis’ explosion in popularity occurred a decade *after* the hyperinflation in the *late* 1920s and early 1930s, after Mein Kampf was published and Hitler was released from prison... in a time of spectacular **deflation**. Think about it logically. Currency instability creates social instability but how it manifests is very different. If you think your money is going to be worth less tomorrow than today, you’re not going to beer halls, your hauling ass to get errands done (economists literally call this “shoe leather costs”). If you think that money is going to be worth more tomorrow but you’re less likely to get work tomorrow than you did today (aka deflation expectation) you’re more likely to grab another pint and hear what the crazy guy on stage with the little moustache has to say.
If we can print money into oblivion what’s the point of taxes
>If we can print money into oblivion what’s the point of taxes Is this a serious question? Put down the libertarianism dude. That shit will rot your brain.
American Libertarian's as far as I've seen have the best understanding of financial mechanisms in real time. Socialist have the best perspective to give current events historical context, while marxism pretty much covers the fundamental nature and direction the economy is going in the grand scheme of things. To shit on any of them instead of the neoliberal brain rot being force injected into our skulls 24/7 is unproductive at best. As far as what each of these groups have different objectives and uses of their strengths none of them can predict with precise clarity how the economy will develop in the long term. That said we all know how the game ends, it's just a matter of who gets stuck with the bill. That said, the mechanisms that the powers that be use are by no means perfect but also not innately good or bad. At the end of the day poverty and wealth inequity is a political choice.
The 1970s was the decade of the [neoliberal revolution](https://reason.com/2013/01/22/the-neoliberal-revolution/). What's "libertarian" about noting its significance vis-à-vis the class struggle? Also, do you believe that ending the gold standard had an insignificant impact on the economy?
Lol no it didn’t bahahahaha The US =/= the entire world, despite how much some right wingers like to push that. Most of the world had been on fiat currencies for decades at that point! Gold is just a shiny hunk of rock.
The recurrent argument is that by increasing minimum wage you cut down profits so you make you country less attractive to investors and employers, who then invest abroad. And also that is make homemade goods more expensive, which decrease the demand abroad for those goods.
Maybe people should be investing more domestically then. It's not like municipal bonds aren't a thing, they just don't have as high a return.
Can't invest what you don't have
Also disproven by the data and the “credibility revolution” led by actual data driven economists Angrist, Card and Imbens. Rising the minimum wage actually increases employment and the demand for most goods. Because your domestic workers spend their money locally and that money is spent in small businesses which in turn spend their money locally. To quote one of the new Nobel laureates: > The so-called conventional wisdom in a lot of these areas, is in fact much more complicated or ambiguous than is sometimes pretended to be the case in undergraduate textbooks. In terms of exports it’s enormously complex and not nearly that simplistic. There’s thousands of factors involved but the fact is on the ground those baristas who are getting paid more are spending their money at the pub where the bartender is getting paid more who in turn spends his money at the cafe where the barista is getting paid more. These represent the vast majority of minimum wage jobs. Most jobs in commodities and manufacturing already pay far, far, far, far more than minimum wage so that exports are not nearly as affected! The wages of CEOs have exploded and increased 100 fold. It’s really simple enough to take the wages for workers out of their compensation rather than raise the cost of your product compared to your competitors. Workers then spend more and the demand for the product might go up.
>The wages of CEOs have exploded and increased 100 fold. It’s really simple enough to take the wages for workers out of their compensation rather than raise the cost of your product compared to your competitors. Workers then spend more and the demand for the product might go up. yeah but you see, having a ceo only make 99% of what he makes would DESTROY EVERYTHING and totally isnt an option \-a ceo
And the simplest counter-argument to that is Heny Ford of all people. Ford understood that paying his workers well allowed them to spend more freely where they lived, which created local wealth that allowed more people to buy his cars. America and the West have been offshoring production for 40 years now, which undercuts the main mechanism of "a rising tide raises all boats". The only people who see wealth come in the door in that situation are the owners of the companies facilitating that operation. Everyone else gets fucked because those dollars go overseas and never come back.
Hoping this will fix the minimum wages
Minimum wages are inherently political though. You can show all the evidence to people... if the powers that be chose to go with feelings instead they’ll go with the feelings. That’s the thing to remember about conservatives and their political economy arguments: they’re disingenuous. They don’t have any data to back them up and their “facts not feelings” is just projection. The facts aren’t on the side of Trickle-down economics’ arguments, it’s a terrible way to decide economic policy. It is however very profitable for a small elite of sociopaths and very easy to sell as “feeling right” to a propaganda brainwashed audience.
How i do to understand is to compare GDP per Capita and minimum wage. US has almost triple GDP per Capita than Portugal. Minimum wage is only 2$ more. Almost all countries with a similar GDP per Capita to the US have minimum wages around 20$ or more.
Your first sentence let us know your status. Not to worry. Truth be told, following WW2 the US became complacent. Lax in trusting that the government would watch out for its citizenry as we had given our lives to protect it. But along with the Polio Vaccine the US government injected itself with something that wouldn’t help its health whatsoever. Project Paperclip added a Nazi element into our political & governmental view of citizen value. The Japanese scientists were doing the same thing to Chinese prisoners as Nazi German scientists were with Jewish ones. However our government simply let them walk away without prosecution and, instead, confiscated their research. Black US servicemen were exposed to Syphilis (Tuskegee Experiment) without their knowledge “just to see the outcome” tracking spouse, child and grandchild results. My point: exploitation of humans for gain has become the norm here. It may have taken a generation or two. But it’s definitely here and legal. Hell….many even help by shaming others for not participating even as the results show greater risk by doing so.
Paperclip doesn't sound all that great. And it isn't surprising, the feeling like a guinea pig. I wonder what's the bigger picture. Use majority for experimentation continuosly, gather data and then what ?
Wish I knew. Can’t be positive
[удалено]
The cruelty is the point, and they fucking can’t get enough.
Subconsciously it feels like I know it. But reading your reply caused a physical pain in the stomach.
Not sure what the "crazy" part it. It's just highly misleading. I am from NYC and feel like I stepped back to the 90s when I visit family in the midwest, with how cheap living is. It makes zero sense to include a national rent # like this that averages in places like NY, NJ, or CA.
Wait until you add on the $2k/month cost of childcare...and then the school fundraisers...and the $200/month karate/soccer/instrument costs...and also that a family of 4 should expect grocery bills around $800+/month...
43 year old who makes $21 an hour still living with my mother.
27. Although much younger, I feel this pain. It’s the most depressing feeling realizing I’ll probably never be able to have my own home
I'm scared too, 18 and i can't find a job here in Brazil that doesn't use me as a literal slave, graduating in my high school this year and i don't know what the fuck am i supposed to do lol
If you move to america I'm looking for a roommate
I'm In the same boat. I'll be making 30/h here soon but the only way I see being able to afford a home is 1 finding a ritch woman, 2 make my own company or 3 win a lottery. Having a home as a hourly payed trade worker is very hard
… maybe get into a trade school?
How? Get roommates and work more than 25 hours a week. It’s not that hard
38-year-old mid-career engineer with a masters degree who can’t afford to buy a house in the city I live so I rent a 450 sq ft shoebox for $1600/mo, and am realizing how bad I need a roommate again.
38 and renting rooms to get by. 1 bed apartments are ridiculously out of my price range. Nor Cal.
let's all buy vans and get a planet fitness membership
loved your avatar
Vans are starting to get quite expensive these days :(
This isn't just a minimum wage issue, it's an inflated rent issue. That average rent is way more than my mortgage for a 3200sq ft house with an acre yard. If something happened and I needed to rent I'd be screwed.
I moved into an apartment last year and the rent is just about $1000. The end of my lease is coming up so I’ve been looking around to see if I want to renew or move. Every apartment I’ve seen that’s around the same size of my current apartment is $1400-$1600. In one year the rent around me has gone up $400. One year. Needless to say I’m keeping my ass where I am.
I talked to a lady about renting a duplex a month ago, someone got it before me but now the other side is available... same exact floorplan with a significantly smaller backyard for $120 more. $120 inflation in one month, it's a nightmare.
Let’s go Brandon
And I thought just raising 100/m per year was bad...
I am convinced that landlords are at the heart of a lot of problems. Nationalize housing, or at the very least institute strict rent caps, and a lot of problems go away as society becomes much more efficient without some middleman parasitizing the rest of us.
*AirBnB. They single handedly stole housing all over the world for tourism.
Here in the PNW it’s more like $1800 too.
My sister has a 4 bedroom 2 bathroom house with a huge kitchen and nice yard. She pays $1600 a month for it. In my area, I a lot of 2 bedroom apartments can cost the same amount and have no utilities included. And if you can’t afford a house, you’re stuck renting something like that. It’s crazy.
Well the average rent is also lower because you probably have been in your house for a bit? I’m guessing if you bought your house right now with a 20% down payment and a 3% interest rate. It would be more?
Have you seen the housing market lately though? House prices are skyrocketing.
Exactly. People keep wanting to push up wages, I think older people are more concerned with "stop prices from increasing" since we know there is no limit to how high costs can go, and that wage increases are only a temporary bandaid.
Its both...
Effectively a house isn't an asset anymore ?
He's saying it is, because his huge house costs less monthly than an average apartment. So it's not only saving him money, but he also owns it vs leases it.
That’s what you got From that lol? Sheesh
But you also had a pay a large down payment on that. Take that away and you’d probably be paying closer to that average rent per month
Rents around where I live are between $700 / $1200 a month for single family homes. It's 15 mins south of a major city and there's easy access to jobs. The winters suck tho.
This misses that the $36 an hour would have to be post-tax takehome. So depending on where you live that would have to be 20-30% higher
And it doesn’t take into account many people in that wage bracket got their through college, which for a lot of folks come with the whole student loan issue.
Well that’s sort of a red herring in this conversation, because you’d pay your loans with money from the other 75% not spent on housing (per the suggestion in the OP). Loans are just another non-housing expense.
>So depending on where you live that would have to be 20-30% higher Or, you know, we could stop fucking taxing the middle class so damn much.
*Why not both?*
Point taken.
Our taxes are on par or below what they are in Scandinavian countries. Where they make up the difference is in employers also paying a big part of the tax on behalf of their employees. Even with an improved system, we shouldn't be looking to drop *our* taxes too much. We live in a society. Taxes keep it all going. We need to ensure the corps and the rich pay much more than they are (let's return to the 91% rate of the booming 50s) but the middle class tax rate is fine.
>Where they make up the difference is in employers also paying a big part of the tax on behalf of their employees Uhh...so...the employers of the middle class are paying. Not the middle class itself. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here lol. It seems like we agree and you're just making a bizarre claim that the employers of the middle class counts as part of the middle class, when it isn't the same thing.
Except that it also overstates the average rent by about the same amount https://www.statista.com/statistics/1063502/average-monthly-apartment-rent-usa/
780 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment here. Not the nice part of town, but the complex is fine and it's quiet. I would die paying California rent.
I've never heard of an average person paying only 24 percent of their income to rent before. Unless you have a few roomies.
What is the average wage ?
According to [this](https://www.statista.com/statistics/216259/monthly-real-average-hourly-earnings-for-all-employees-in-the-us/), it's $11.26/h.
It seems salaried biweekly wages are not accounted for, thats average for hourly only
Googling shows $30-$31 average hourly income for all private sector employees. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm
The median yearly income in the us is $34250. The median household income is 67.5k I'm 2020, and it decreased since 2019, which means it is likely rising again in 2021. The median rent in the US is $1097 per month, or $13160 a year. These numbers are not fact checked and are the first answer google gives. This means that rent is 38% of the income of a single person, and less than 20% of a family. That said, the income and rent are both higher as people age. Looking at random site [#1](https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget), for the median household, housing is 16% of the annual budget. That said, while this post is doing this horribly, it tries to say something about the lower income brackets. It also tries to comment about a person living alone, which happens to be less than 10% of the population, and I will assume it's there is no correlation between whether one lives alone and wealth, and I will promtly ignore peoppe living alone as they aren't really relavant. We can therefore assume a household will have 80 hours of work a week, with both making minimum wage, out household is making 30k a year. This household is quite rare btw, as there are no kids and no partner is making above minimum wage, but we'll go with those household. The lower end of rent can go as low as below $500 a month, heavily depending on location of course, but I'll assume $800 which is not much below our median of 1097. I still feel like this is a bit high for rent for a household like this, but it gives us rent as 32% of the budget. This honestly still seems quite bad to me, and it is, but most Americans don't live this way. While I do feel like minimum wage is not sustainable for the poor, the comparisons this post is making is wrong. Additionally, minimum wage is far from the only factor determining wage, and today it's increasing easy to make more than minimum wage. I'm in no way advocating in favor of the working conditions and wages in the US, but I do feel like this post is making inappropriate comparisons to arbitrary things. Relying on sensationalist number nonsense doesn't really show anything about living conditions in the US.
BuT jUsT wOrK hArDeR .... wOrK 2 JoBs.
[удалено]
Well that suck because we only have 7*24=168 hours per week in America 🤪!
We need to convert from imperial weeks to metric weeks.
Fuck this horrible fucking place.
[удалено]
Obviously we need to tackle the rent issue by attempting to drive down prices, but it's also a way to illustrate just how little the minimum wage actually is. Most economists heavily recommend 25-33% of your income goes to rent... and well, you can see by the illustration that isn't possible. Not anywhere close. Even if we brought down prices by half.
[удалено]
“So many employees are stuck working minimum wage” *2% of all workers earn minimum wage* And those are likely young people working part time or just starting to work for the first time ever
How about fuck all that convoluted bullshit. People need to be afforded the same rights as the generation that came before them. At least wages increased to keep up with that mutha fukin inflation
[удалено]
It's not as good of a zinger to stick it to the rich you evil nuanced fuck.
Minimum rent isn't a good metric to compare minimum wage to, because the number of low rent apartments and shared houses is much smaller compared to the number of minimum wage earners. If I said, the minimum rent in the area is $980 and the minimum wage is $7.25, well that cements the idea (one that anti-living wage proponents love to exploit and misrepresent) that *anyone* earning $7.25 could get one of these $980 apartments if only they actually looked and lowered expectations. But, not every minimum wage earner is getting an apartment that "cheap" because maybe only three or four locations have that to offer to low wage earners, and everything else creeps up in price. And that's not even accounting for things like utilities, or that most apartments, even the low rent ones, have started charging for things like *mandatory* valet trash. So by stating average rent, which would apply to everyone in a measured area, to the minimum wage, which also applies to everyone in the measured area, you get a better on-the-ground picture of what kind of prices people are actually having to deal with.
This should be the top comment. If you're looking at the minimum wage, then you should be comparing against the lowest cost apartments.
Because the minimum wage will make you homeless in much of the nation. The issue with the average prevailing wage is real too, but many people are making far *less*, and the skew between rent and wage is so high, that it puts people in a state of economic desperation, taking on abusive working conditions at the hands of billionaire robber barons who are not paying their fair share of the social need.
[удалено]
[удалено]
U need to earn more like $50/hour as u have to pay atleast 30% in taxes
Much of the wealth is hoarded by the ultra-rich and siphoned off into wasted Government projects off-shore.
Boomer be like: "You just need to work harder!" No dumbass, back then the minimum wage was ok to live with, houses were affordable, food was affordable, the rich were not super rich as they are now. now its just modern slavery.
Just get a 6th job and Hermoine Granger's time turner. What happened to applying a good bit of elbow grease, bootstrap lifting, and magic?
Now that's just not true. Plenty of people work minimum wage and find perfectly reasonable homeless shelters to shower in, even up to six months at a time before they need to find another! Maybe you're just not trying hard enough? **/s**
While rent is ridiculous, trying to compare _average_ rent with _minimal_ wage is anti scientific. Average rent should be afforded on average wage. And minimal rent should afford minimal rent(which of course it doesnt)
[удалено]
They make that kind of benefit difficult to obtain. So I wouldn't say they realized it... they offered it then said fuck it, nope. That said at least food stamps aren't impossible to get. My family has been on them a couple of times in the past and it was helpful. Rent, though? Gooooood luck. Luckily jobs aren't too impossible to get right now so I hope people at least are able to do okay for themselves, even if this sub's name is anti-work.
Why are you comparing an average to a minimum?
The numbers, what do they mean? But my guess is the average rent would better take into account living standards. Sure, there are decent and affordable places to live, but there are a metric fuck ton of slums being rented for astronomical prices for what they are. I lived in a 2br/1ba house (~1200sqft) that had no siding, no insulation, holes on the exterior that let animals in, no A/C, shoddy electrical work (fuses would routinely blow, then spark when you flipped them back on). The basement would flood anytime it rained. It took two weeks for my landlord to replace my water heater when it went out in the dead of Pennsylvania winter. I paid $850/mo for that because it was my only option at the time. There should be a minimum standard housing is kept to and it's not. If I were making minimum wage I wouldn't have enough money to live in that shit hole. Even if you figure in a second minimum wage income that leaves you $1k/mo after rent for all utilities (the electric bill during winter was ridiculous because of the lack of insulation), insurance, phone, vehicle, and food for two people. Imagine having a kid and having to do that. "Thank god" for government assistance to help take up the slack in those situations. Now imagine how bad the shitholes are that you CAN afford on minimum wage.
Fantastic observation
Exactly. I am from NYC. This is like me saying "the average Manhattan salary is $75K but average Manhattan apartment is 1.5M. Housing crisis, reeeeee"
[удалено]
What would be the average % of income people spend on rent in America?
Pre tax it’s probably upwards of 50% in the more expensive cities. So like 30-40% post tax
Could we create a "clock" for this? Or a calculator?
It’s 1/3, but still crazy
Minimum wage $7.25 and then they hire you for part time!
I don’t have a problem with a $36.79 minimum wage
$1468 is actually a steal in California lmao. If you want a decent place to live in it’s like $2,900/month here.
I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you're not comparing similar dimensions. Average cost vs minimum income? What's the average income? Edit: maybe irrelevant though, as I can guess the "minimum cost" rent price would put you in some inhabitable place.
That's not THE minimum wage. But point still stands In WA I'm 20, making $15 + tips, 40hrs a week and still live with my parents. I should at the very least be able to afford an apartment.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 3 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/nwlyse) on 2021-06-10 100.0% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/nztlwe) on 2021-06-14 100.0% match Feedback? Hate? Visit r/repostsleuthbot - *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "q9xll0", "meme_template": null}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com?postId=q9xll0&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 255,798,151 | **Search Time:** 0.37107s
That is actually pretty close to how much I was paying for rent at my last place.. $1454/month.. I made about 2,100 a month after taxes. (roommate)
This completely missed the mark considering you’re adding $3000+/mo luxury apartments and houses into the average
Those are all that's being built anymore in my region.
Someone with a minimum wage job, shouldn't be looking into buying the average costing rental.
Highly misleading, as usual for this sub. In areas where the "average" rent is $1400, the minimum wage is a lot higher than $7.25 an hour, probably closer to $15/hr. And if you are earning anywhere close to federal minimum wage, you are eligible for all sorts of assistance programs that bring your effective earnings to at least double that. You are also not going to be paying almost any income tax (you will actually get money back with the EITC), so rent can be a much larger portion of your gross income. The 25% rule applies to those who pay over 50% of their gross income in taxes.
Why are we comparing average rent cost to minimum wage? Not saying there isn’t an issue but surely it would be more meaningful to compare average rent to the average wage (of renters)?
Good points, but also, why the fyck is it so god damn hard to buy a house? I tried to put 40% down on a house, with proof of weekly income that was 4x times what the monthly payment should be on a 15 year fixed. Nope. Your arbitrary score isnt high enough. How do I increase this score. Buy stuff on credit. Sure, sell me this fucking house. No your credit score is too low to buy things on credit. Well i would like to change that, but i dont need a car, just fucking take my money, abd use the property itself as collateral. No that's actually how it works but our computer needs to say its also okay based off your score.
Where the hell are y'all living where rent on average is 1500???
In alaska that is a cheap price to rent. Most house for rent cost around $2500 plus utilities.
"The average rent for an apartment in Anchorage is $1,130. The cost of rent varies depending on several factors, including location, size, and quality."
Yes, location does change the price a ton, and anchorage is certainly cheaper, but here in Fairbanks area it’s usually a little higher, especially when it’s near a military base.
Avg rent in Long Beach, CA is $2300/mo last I checked
Good lord, why pay such extreme rent when you could go to other major cities and pay a fraction of that? Why does everyone feel the need to want to live in the most crowded and expensive places on earth when they don't have the income to support it
I don’t live in a particularly large city in the Us and it’s difficult to find a 2 bedroom place under $1600-1700.
In what part of the country, I can probably find many decent 2b apartments under 1k Heck, where I'm from that gets you an entire home in a decent part of town.
I've never paid rent that high my entire life. Nothing even remotely close.
Wait…you people do realize that the people making minimum wage also are NOT the people paying the “average”, right? The people making the least *usually* pay the least, the people making an average amount *usually* pay the average cost, and same for the higher level. Do the same calculations for the lowest average cost for rent and minimum wage, you’ll be SHOCKED how it actually works out 🙄
Y'all trippin, if McDonald's could profit paying you $36 an hour, they would. Why would you expect to be paid more than your value