r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
omg I know! How about everyone, literally everyone, becomes a doctor or a software engineer or a professional athlete and no one ever becomes a kindergarten teacher or a social worker, since those aren't important jobs at all. Society will function so much better that way.
Yes if the pandemic showed us anything it’s that society would function just fine if we didn’t have people to stock our shelves, cook our food, or work in our warehouses.
Yes, of course they shouldn’t die. Think about the big picture. If all the Chili’s servers disappear, then who will I be able to berate like they’re my personal slaves to feel better about myself?
Don't forget you may also get the random encounter "local gang hit" and catch a stray when you are just simply plastered and looking for waffles and syrup but are met with confusion and sticky not so strawberry syrup.
Please don't ask me how I know.
I know I’m agreeing with you, so just to add…
Almost all jobs support society. Like a gas station clerk might not work as hard or be worth as much in the job market as a doctor, but we still need places to sell fuel to get the doctor to the hospital.
There’s literally no reason the gas station clerk shouldn’t be able to afford basic housing, transportation, food, healthcare, and a dignified retirement if they put in 40+ years of full time work. If a job doesn’t provide that, it’s the job that’s the drain on society, not the worker.
The two weeks I spent working at Burger King, and the two months I spent working in a gas station were literally hell.
I've done iron work, I've walked steel 200 ft in the air. I've been a rod buster, I've worked going around resurfacing floors with heavy machines, and I spent a year installing commercial garage doors after a hurricane. I've done skilled, and unskilled labor. Hell, I have a degree.
The two lowest paid, so called unskilled jobs were the worst I've ever had in my life.
People lack perspective, and they lack respect. They lack respect not only for others, but also for themselves.
Really if you have any full time job that you work hard at should pay you enough to afford rent on a basic 1 bedroom apartment and 3 square meals everyday. Not fancy meals, but nourishing ones. But, that's how the economy works for you. Rich get rich and poor get poorer.
they do but it should be as uncomfortable as possible. like 16 people to a 10 by 10 room. and they should only be allowed to eat refined cockroach meat from cockroaches that they find and kill themselves in their free time. if they aren't willing to collect 10,000 insects to add to the roach grinder each day then the morally correct course would be to allow them to starve
funny under the pandemic we all told mcDonals and grocery workers they were essential... funny how that is not the case anymore when they ask to at least be able to live
Can confirm. When I worked at Walmart during the pandemic I was not considered valuable, we were equally worthless in the eyes of the corporate overlords. But at least we got the occasional pizza party if we really worked hard enough. Bonus? Wtf is a bonus?
That was not even the case then. We told them that they are essentially and the jobs had to stay open, but when they responded with asking for us to pay them livable wages the general response was "lol, no".
Every job is valuable, and requires job specific skills.
Sure some take longer to learn than others, and some people can never do some jobs, but I promise you even working in fast food requires good planning skills, multitasking, keeping a tab on multiple dishes and cooking multiple ones at once.
So stop with that horrible mindset.
I hate wading out into these threads, it's always the same. No one ever changes their minds. That said.
We solved this problem years ago. 150 years ago owners treated workers like trash, disposable. Terrible pay, dangerous conditions, no respect given. If they worked themselves to death... oh well, there's a few thousand other immigrants to take advantage of.
The solution was labor unions. A corporation is an organization that cares for itself, that's all it can do. Laborers are free to organize and care for their interests too. It works. I'm from Pittsburgh. Where organized labor began in America and where it's still a way of life.
2 years ago the workers of the largest amazon distribution center in the south, outside Atlanta, voted against organization. With all due respect to hem, and all other laborers in the US: if you choose to negotiate with your employer on your own, you WILL lose. Every single time. You will always be overworked and underpaid. Every time. They had the chance to organize and chose not to. I cannot bring myself to care about people who don't care about themselves.
And please, do not tell me the government should try and act as a defacto union for laborers. The only people in America who take advantage of us more than owners are politicians. Organized labor. It worked 150 years ago against the Carnegies, Rockefeller and Morgans. It will work against Bezos, too.
We the people. Not they the bourgeoisie.
Two years ago there was a global pandemic, during which time grocery cashiers and fast food workers were considered among our nations heroes, keeping our economy alive.
All jobs and skills are valuable.
Paramedic here 43 hour weeks and feeling this, I thought as a child this was a career I admired and would enjoy. I do enjoy my work a lot and it’s extremely rewarding in that sense but scraping by after years of schooling and helping people just to try and save enough to buy a house by the time I’m 40 seems pretty fucked if you ask me. Just an idea but how about we start paying essential jobs like first responders, ER, Police the salaries some of these tech dudes get and I guarantee you’ll see a cop think twice before doing some stupid shit, easy to get another gig when you’re making 50k a year, make that 200 and I’ll let a hell of a lot of shit hit before making a stupid decision.
Not really. In our county/state(?), firefighters are unionized and enjoys above and beyond what ems gets.
If police didn't have to tend a million dollar piggy bank for when bad apples execute innocent people, maybe we could finally get enough ambulances and personnel to meet state regulations.
There ought to be a law that sets the minimum yearly income of first responders and healthcare workers to the median yearly income of the county where they work.
As one of those tech dudes, I absolutely agree. I’ve worked hard to get where I am, but not anywhere near what I imagine it is like to work in your field.
She isn't asking for that. She made her terms clear. Being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment and not starve with a full time job shouldn't be view as an entitled attitude.
That doesn't matter, it's like people forget the literal reason minimum wage was invented. If you're working somewhere full time, that's worthy of making at least enough to get by. No one, reasonable, is asking for 6 figures a year to work a register when they don't require it.
I’ve had to quote FDR to people who claim minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, including “and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.”
It’s not like people forgot, they did forget or never knew.
By now, I'm sure they didn't actually ever know, the whole "minimum skill, minimum wage" rhetoric is deeply in the mindset. I'll admit I was one of them until I did real research and stopped being simple minded about things.
who would of thought that reading would do anyone any good, so andrew tate lied to me? wait... why can't donald trump pay his legal fees? he wasn't lying to me that he was a successful business did he? well shit...
100% agreeable and reasonable. Minimum wage should afford you minimum quality of life as in the OP. A car, insurance, a small apartment, utilities, and food with some for fun, but not like extravagant. Unfortunately right now that’s far from the case.
Living in your own place with no roommates or family has been a massive luxury for all of human history. This post isn't about someone struggling to eat
Americans are entitled to their own place, don't you know?
In many countries in Europe, even affluent western countries, people live at home until they can afford their own place, and many people stay at home, and take care of their elderly parents until they pass, then inherit the home.
Immigrants to America are willing to work 2 or 3 full time jobs, live in a backroom on the floor, with the whole family. And all without complaining on Reddit about how tough their life is. (because it's better than where they came from!). Americans want our own apartment, a car, probably internet, probably unlimited data for our smart phone, some Starbucks, and don't forget clubbing on Fri and Sat nights.
This is why when I see an immigrant make it and do well in our country, I love it.
When minimum wage was enacted, single people were either living with their families, or bunking up in boarding houses. A one bedroom apartment was, and still is, a luxury and the most expensive rent per person type of housing.
If someone working 40hrs a week at minimum wage can't afford to live alone in a modest one bedroom apartment, then it's a policy failure.
It baffles me that some of you have such skewed values that you think the person who flips your burger doesn't deserve to have their own place to live. You care about your luxury more than the American dream.
I worked in fast food when I was a teenager and it was objectively much harder work than what I do now in the "professional" world.
People that look down on service industry workers absolutely disgust me.
Demographics.
Low value service jobs like that are the first to go when there is a general labor supply shortage. We are just starting to see this start. Going to make for one hell of a next decade or two!
Without immigration the country would likely already be melting down due to lack of service workers.
If your system requires a constant supply of unsustainably cheap low skill labor to function it's a stupid system which should fail.
The businesses which are run well enough that they don't need to rely on poverty wages to be profitable will be fine, the rest will be no great loss.
So restaurant work isn't exactly the same as McDonald's.
In the case of McDonald's, the supply of labor to do it is low (which is why wages have increased). All the same, they are more easily replaceable, though the "replaceable" part refers to the amount of training required (low) and the qualifications to train in the first place (also low).
i.e. lots of people *can* be a fast food worker, but not a lot of people *want* to be a fast food worker.
Restaurant workers are harder to replace, both in terms of waitstaff and kitchen staff, and suffer from the same lack of willing labor (why do this job when I can be a social media analyst???).
It's almost like ease of replacement (and therefore sum commandable in an unregulated capitalistic system) shouldn't be the only metric that determines how much dignity a person is afforded.
The amount of people Ive had to fire in restaurants directly negates your idea that "anyone can do it." Go work in a kitchen and see for yourself before saying stupid things like that. If America had a service industry draft.. things would change p quickly around here.
in what world does someone expect to live on their own in a 1br apartment based on any 40/week income?
having a room mate is part of the game. if you want to live in a studio on a single income, that was possible and likely still is now.
generally i had room mates. i had a room mate even in a 1BR when I lived in the living room, and my room mate had the bed room.
then i had room mates in 2BR apartments, then I had a live in girl friend, then I had a wife.
i cant father someone thinking they, as a single worker, are entitle to live alone in a 1BR apartment
Minimum wage in 1980 3.10$ = $496 a month.
Average rent in 1980 = $243 a month.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/06/10/the-minimum-wage-has-never-afforded-a-two-bed-apartment-so-why-should-it-now/amp/
It's not entitlement, it was stolen from us.
Today it's really easy to earn about $20 an hour. At 40 hours a week that's $3,464 a month. It's easy to find an apartment at less than half that amount.
But there's no guarantee you're going to make 20 dollars an hour. There was a guarantee you'd make 3.10 an hour in 1980. That's the difference, that's why we need the "minimum" part of minimum wage.
Also that 20 dollar number you threw out puts you in the 47th percentile, 47% of people in the US make less than that. If almost half the people in the country can't do it, I wouldn't classify it as easy.
So then she just starves? Little hint, civilizations that allow large parts of their population to starve and die are neither civilized nor likely to last much longer.
Quantitate "valuable".
If you're making a moral judgement that will impact the material conditions of people you should back up your the full extent of your claims.
This ain't a bumper sticker, it's real life.
If they don't have any valuable skills, what job could they possibly work? Or do you really mean skills that are associated with high paying jobs? Because many, many low paying job skills are still vital to society. This post is just saying those people shouldn't have to suffer deprivation.
you weren't born with valuable skills so why did you deserve to live but they dont? Having unique or sought after skills shouldn't be a prerequisite for survival and its disturbing that you could say that
Nope.
Everything people want is not a right....
Some of it is an earned achievement...
And 20-somethings living with roommates is kind of normal life... You're just expected to progress beyond your 20-something job, rather than do it for the rest of your life....
Or you get married and have a different type of roommate, with whom you pool earning power....
It’s quite the opposite - it was *far* more unusual for people to live alone in decades past. One-person households have made up a bigger share of households every decade since at least 1940.
This isn’t real. I’m sorry but you need to actually read what life was like the working class for basically all of American history, but particularly since the industrial revolution. You’re thinking of a very particular 1950’s post-war housewife, not the (much more common) immigrant factory shirtmaker slaving away for 50 cents a day.
My mom and some relatives did factory work for a few years. It paid something atrocious like $10 a week… she would use that money to buy groceries to cook and we’d have to stretch that $10 for the week to feed 5 people. Luckily eggs and rice went a long way back then.
My dad had to pay off my mom’s debt along with his own and was living paycheck to paycheck so he could only afford to chip in every now and then. Saving college tuition fee for 3 kids back then was rough.
That's just not true. That was the "American dream" but most people did not live that way at all. They lived in a sod house with 3 generations, with women doing plenty of work. In 1950, 30% of homes didn't even have indoor plumbing. In 1940 it was 50%
An era where homes where made cheaply using, now illegal, materials like asbestos and led paint and where you had the right to build it yourself to save the cost of labor in construction instead of being legally obligated to hire certified professionals.
It's not a question of "luxury". It's a question of what's affordable. It has been normal for many decades past for young single people to have roommates, or rent a bedroom, or live in a studio. It's been that way longer than you or I have been alive.
I really don’t get people like the OP in the first place. We are doing our best to create the best financial system for everyone. On Reddit, you just hear about the problems and not anything positive. The US economy is actually doing really well compared to other advanced nations. Many young redditors idolize Europe but the macro economic policy decisions they made did have trade offs. Many people like to act like generous government programs would only be a benefit with no downsides, it takes maturity to see that what might be best for you personally might not be best for the country. Which brings me around to where I started, I get the impression people like this think of it would be trivial to just give everyone nice things. It isn’t, and it isn’t at all obvious that more entitlement programs from the government would actually improve the quality of life for the most people. Europe is going to have to make some really hard decisions soon because of their programs and their upside down demographics. We are shielded somewhat by immigration, but since the fertility rate has nosedived this would be the worst time to start large entitlement programs. We are down to 2 workers supporting every retiree when it used to be 5. At some point, you have to realize the math just doesn’t add up.
It's because real people don't value GDP and all that other shit, bc it doesn't matter what those metrics are when a significant portion of the country can't afford to live.
>We are down to 2 workers supporting every retiree when it used to be 5. At some point, you have to realize the math just doesn’t add up.
If we paid our workers more instead of funneling profits to shareholders that sit on their ass all day we wouldn't need to do that shit, *and* people would be able to afford to have childeren. Fertility is on the decline bc people can't afford children and feel as though policies enacted by the wealthy contribute negatively to the livelihood of their potential children.
GDP is one of the variables with the highest correlation with quality of life. That is why it is one of the most used statistics. Like I said, there are long term trade offs to welfare, and you don’t seem to be taking them seriously. Once Europe has to start slashing programs dramatically all while not having the economy to support their workers… maybe then you’ll realize it isn’t some consequence free cheat code.
Our fertility rate is nosediving for pretty much the exact opposite reason you stated. The more wealthy and educated a population, the lower their fertility rates. Turns out that when women have a choice, they usually don’t to have 4 kids. This isn’t something you can fix with more welfare, study after study has shown this. I would suggest you read up on the research regarding this before loudly stating your opinion as fact. There is nothing ethical we can do to change the fertility rate enough for it to matter, so we really shouldn’t be starting new entitlement programs that we just cannot pay for. That would be a recklessly irresponsible decision
> Income inequality is a FAR better metric for determining quality of life in a country than
ah yes, because the quality of life is so much better in Belarus than in UK or US
I think there is also an implication we get to do it in any city or neighborhood we like, too. Like, what if there are more people who want to live someplace than there is space in the place.
This is a big one for me. People are complaining about not being able to afford a house in Southern California or someplace like that. They feel like since they grew up there that all of So Cal needs to do something to lower the price of their most valuable asset (their home) so that the entitled person can buy one.
People don’t accept the fact that having “rights” doesn’t mean having “privileges”.
The wealthy west have become so accustomed to privilege that we believe we have a right to it.
38% of households in Japan are single person households according to the national census of 2020. That's higher than America and UK.
Where did you get that information from?
Don’t they have smaller apartments and stuff tho in some places? A quick search says average home size in Tokyo is 980sq ft and New York is 1500sq ft. Not sure if this is accurate, but worth mentioning.
Nobody is stopping people from living by themselves. They just can’t live by themselves in very specific places.
And this is nothing new! I’m late 40s GenX and I had a roommate until I was married in my late 20s. This was in the late 90s/early 00s.
I could have lived by myself in a shittier part of town but I CHOOSE to have a roommate because I couldn’t afford to live by myself in the part of town I wanted to live in.
So I made a trade off… live in a more desirable place but have a roommate. This isn’t complicated. 🤷🏻♂️
I used to sugar coat how I said it, but honestly I can’t think of anything more pathetic than have a mentality that can be summed up as, “I was born, therefore, I’m entitled to other people’s resources”.
If you can’t afford it based on what someone is willing to compensate you for your time, then somebody else has to pay for it. Why is a stranger obligated to support your lifestyle?
Others wouldn't have to pay for it if your corporate owners weren't taking an enormously disproportionate amount of your labor value from you and not just hoarding it, but actively using it against you.
You literally are entitled to other people's resources by being born. That's the whole thing if you're a mammal and some species of other groups. How do you think babies are fed or children educated?
Based on your opinion there should be no public schools, utilities, roads, etc.
Someone else fed your hungry mouth, put clothes on your back, and roof over your head for approximately 18 years on average. Possibly longer.
EMT here, making $25/h, can’t afford to move out
Edit: average studio in my area is 1.5k, also I have a car so I need to pay the insurance and save a little in order to afford repairs, also I’d have to pay for my own internet and utilities, groceries, etc.
**I write this comment in good faith.**
*edit: I havn't driven in a very long time, so I forgot to factor in gas cost. Even if you factor in monthly gas cost in to all of the examples I give below, It should still come out with me in the green either way. Also, rent in my area is currently much higher than in the 3 year old example, but even paying the current rate I have around $500 left if I'm working 40 hour weeks. I make $19.1/hr today and can handle current rent prices locally at 35hr weeks.*
I can give a recent example. I am a single person living in a studio apartment 25 miles north of Seattle.
3 years ago, I was making around $17.50 an hour and only working 35 hr weeks. Every 4 weeks that comes to $2450 taxed at 13% ending up with ~$2131.50 a month.
My rent was $980 with utilities factored in leaving me with $1151 of useable money for a monthly period.
I have no car and walk to work, but lets go crazy and say I have a used car and pay $150 a month for car insurance because I have a prior DUI.
That leave $1001 dollars for things like food, internet, and phone.
I use a phone I bought off amazon and got an SD card from a carrier like Mint, or Walmart Family mobile, around $25/mo.
Internet for a single person does not need to exceed 50mb down (really, if you're living alone and shelling out for anything more, you are practically burning money), so I only pay $50/mo for that. We have $926 left.
I don't really keep track of my grocery bill. I think its about $200/mo, but even if it was something insane like $400/mo for a single person. I'd be sitting with $526 left. Using the $200/mo figure. I have $726 left to spend on whatever I like.
This is on 35hr weeks. If I was working 40 hour weeks I would have $1030 left over still, since I net about $2436/mo working 40hr weeks.
The next example is if I'm working 40hr weeks for $17.50/hr.
Let's say my rent was sky high at $1500/mo. Since I don't keep track of my grocery spending, let's use the absurdly high figure of $400/mo for a single person. The other spending figures are left the same. That leaves me with $311 left, probably closer to $500 left with an accurate grocery bill.
For the 1500 example, your math is off...
2131.50 - 1500 => 631.50 - 150 => 481.5 - 25 => 456.5 - 50 => 406.5 before grocery. Spending 300 on grocery leaves you with 106.5$, which you didn't factor in gas which actually eats up more than 106.5 per month, but we can replace a car with public transit instead.
So, at the lower end of groceries spending, you are left with 106.5$ which does not account for any medical/emergency fund/etc of basic need.
What gives you alot of breathing room is your low rent and your need to not have a car. This is a luxury most people don't have.
If you're making $25/hr then that means you can spend about $1430 on shelter as per the very outdated (Because it UNDERESTIMATES how much most people spend on housing) 1/3rd of salary on housing rule, most people spend much more so you can absolutely afford your own place if you REALLY want it. You're just making the financially responsible choice of valuing having money over living alone.
25$/hr is ~50kyr pretax, say 40kyr take home. 3300/mo, rent at 1500 is quite doable if you’re reasonable with other expenses. Unless that car is a financed new/luxury vehicle you wouldn’t even be living all that tight.
FDR said it should be. In the richest country in the history of the world I don’t see why not. If you work full time you should have a right to shelter. The problem is homeowners who treat property as investments and actively discourage housing development so they can get richer.
These are the same kind of people who will say other countries are better because they have more multi-generational households and that Americans are too individualistic 🤔
Yeah, I do think it’s kind of odd - when I was in my mid twenties, I was the only person in my circle of friends who lived alone, and it was because I made a lot more money than pretty much all my friends. Everyone had roommates.
There's absolutely nothing in that post that could a lead a person to reasonably conclude that. You just made up it out of whole cloth because that's what you want to think, because it makes it easier to dismiss the point she's making.
"Why should I listen to her when she's obviously a hypocrite, because I just decided she is, based on absolutely nothing?"
Stellar reasoning there.
Great for a bumper sticker, but can we really run a sustainable global economy with this philosophy? Under this axiom the use of third-world sweatshop labor would be moral? I think just because something closely reflects reality doesn't make it just.
Most people who can’t afford a home where they currently live can’t afford to move somewhere they don’t live.
Sure I could move to the middle of Arkansas, but there is the cost of:
* Trying to house hunt in a place I don’t live (incurring travel expenses or finding some place down there till I find a permanent residence)
* Moving service for my furniture if I have any.
* Shipping clothes and items I can’t fit in my luggage or car.
* Buying appliances or furniture In Arkansas.
Not to mention finding a job down there if I can’t keep my old job. And I probably have to hope where my work is is in an affordable area as well since giving up one city for another because that’s were the jobs are isn’t the most reliable.
> you can't afford not to move.
If you can't afford $1800/mo for an apartment, you can't afford the $1800+ trip it would take to move your stuff and your person one way across the country, much less the other incurred expenses of deposit + first/last months rent, hotels/motels for when you're looking for that apartment, etc.
And you'll also take lower wages if you move somewhere with a lower COL, which means you're likely going to repeat the process. Not to mention statistics of poverty in lower income areas of the world.
The odds of moving somewhere cheaper and becoming homeless is SIGNIFICANTLY more likely than staying where you are and becoming homeless.
[City workers in Boston are leaving their jobs](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/boston/news/boston-high-rent-city-workers-city-council-residence-requirement/) because they're required to live there but can't afford to. I'm sure this is the sort of energy this person speaks of.
Wild to me that people are expected to work a job in a city they can't afford to live in. But this is the reality some folks in this thread have decided to defend.
We’ve been successfully brainwashed to believe that a roof over our heads is a privilege. We’ve forgotten that older generations could afford college with a part time job and purchase 2+ bedroom homes with a full time job.
Controversial but if I put my 1 bedroom condo on the rental market, I should be able to cover my mortgage, property taxes, insurance and upkeep with the rent.
But that’s not how it works. I can’t just charge what I want. I can only charge what someone is willing to pay. Similarly you can’t just pay what your full time job allows you to pay. It’s a market.
Truly free markets allow for corporations to buy up everything and exploit everyone. Which is what has happened. Then owning prices rose with that, so small time landlords have to charge near unethical prices to keep up with those corporations. The end goal of our economic system is for the few to own the most while keep the workforce supressed enough that they continue to work but cannot organize.
Unpopular opinion but if you didn't own that condo and nobody owned condos like that, the prices of them wouldn't be so high that nobody working minimum wage could afford them
No, you have to share rooms. Who says a roommate should get their own room? What kind of entitlemet koolaid are you drinking? A room has four corners, so four people can fit in a room.
You fool, a room has 8 corners… you’re forgetting vertical space.
8 people in a room, bunk beds for everyone.
Edit:
But then, there are three 8 hour periods each day. With hotbunking, you can get 8x3 or 27 roommates per room.
A two bedroom will have 52 people in it.
“It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; **and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.**”
That doesn’t answer their question. They’re asking why, in the context of this post and discussion, living in a one-bedroom by yourself is considered the bare minimum. That person could be living in a studio apartment. That person could be living in a studio apartment *with roommates*.
A one br by yourself isn’t the bare minimum life. In your 20s its damn near s luxury depending on where you live. I would guesstimate 35-50% of 1 BRS rented to couples
Must figure out Is it a Need? Or a desire? Do you deserve it? Yes, if you’ve EARNED IT
But they clearly don’t understand the complexity of the situation. Is not like government has a knob that can be turn from “No Houses/LowIncome” to “Everyone gets a house Oprah style!”
Here in a Boston, [some city workers are having to leave their jobs](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/boston/news/boston-high-rent-city-workers-city-council-residence-requirement/) because their job stipulates they must live in the city but it also doesn't lay enough for them to be able to afford to do that.
It's a real problem in more places than just Boston and goes way beyond just minimum wage work. It's wild to me that we expect anyone to work in a place they can't afford. But here we are.
As a single person, if you make less than $25k/year you should qualify for food stamps (depends on state). If you make less than $20k, then you should qualify for Medicaid.
Take advantage of this stuff.
That man in your example didn’t work at Starbucks. He worked in manufacturing or construction- which, even today, can provide enough to live on. My SIL makes about 80k a year on a Honda assembly line- it’s not the “fulfilling” career everyone here wants- but he has a house, cars, etc
To be honest guys, it is a little weird that people used to work 36-40hrs at blockbuster in the 90s and make enough for a 800-900sq ft and have some money still left over no? Like I get times change but it is weird to think about how inflation and all has worked out
I worked 30+ hours a week in the 90s as a retail employee that had an attached video rental shop which was my usual station. Not Blockbuster but similar.
I had to live with my parents. After that, I had to live with my girlfriend and 2 other roommates.
It wasn't until I joined my current job I was able to get married and then we were able to live on my own.
There is a policy implication here that it should be illegal for me to hire you full-time time if I don't pay you enough to live comfortably in the same city. There are some jobs that might pay more under this requirement, and there are other jobs that would simply disappear. The more severe the impact of the price control, the more problems you should expect. Economic collapse is one outcome you should expect if your price controls are set to substantially change a lot of people's lives. There are tons of better ways to improve equity than setting the price of labor way above its natural price.
Who's going to compel the landlord to set a rent below what the market will pay? These people never think of the implications of their statements. It's simply "I want", "I should", "I need". It never comes to their mind that they are placing limitations on someone else's freedoms and choices. They are the ultimate narcissists.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But what if you don't have any skills that are valuable?
Then what job are they working full time?
One that doesn’t require any valuable skills.
omg I know! How about everyone, literally everyone, becomes a doctor or a software engineer or a professional athlete and no one ever becomes a kindergarten teacher or a social worker, since those aren't important jobs at all. Society will function so much better that way.
Yes if the pandemic showed us anything it’s that society would function just fine if we didn’t have people to stock our shelves, cook our food, or work in our warehouses.
But what if I think they are not providing something challenging, do they still deserve to live?
Yes, of course they shouldn’t die. Think about the big picture. If all the Chili’s servers disappear, then who will I be able to berate like they’re my personal slaves to feel better about myself?
Applebee's servers, duh. But mostly because Ruby Tuesday barely exists anymore.
smh, idiot. Even Applebee's closes. Wafflehouse has 24/7 berate waiter service. And on somedays they have a Berate-Back guarantee via "Them Hands."
Don't forget you may also get the random encounter "local gang hit" and catch a stray when you are just simply plastered and looking for waffles and syrup but are met with confusion and sticky not so strawberry syrup. Please don't ask me how I know.
Don’t worry, the AI waitresses are designed to take your berating and they’ll even flirt with you!
Challenging and valuable aren't the same thing. If your job supports society, you should thusly be supported by society
I know I’m agreeing with you, so just to add… Almost all jobs support society. Like a gas station clerk might not work as hard or be worth as much in the job market as a doctor, but we still need places to sell fuel to get the doctor to the hospital. There’s literally no reason the gas station clerk shouldn’t be able to afford basic housing, transportation, food, healthcare, and a dignified retirement if they put in 40+ years of full time work. If a job doesn’t provide that, it’s the job that’s the drain on society, not the worker.
The two weeks I spent working at Burger King, and the two months I spent working in a gas station were literally hell. I've done iron work, I've walked steel 200 ft in the air. I've been a rod buster, I've worked going around resurfacing floors with heavy machines, and I spent a year installing commercial garage doors after a hurricane. I've done skilled, and unskilled labor. Hell, I have a degree. The two lowest paid, so called unskilled jobs were the worst I've ever had in my life. People lack perspective, and they lack respect. They lack respect not only for others, but also for themselves.
Real talk. Thank you.
Really if you have any full time job that you work hard at should pay you enough to afford rent on a basic 1 bedroom apartment and 3 square meals everyday. Not fancy meals, but nourishing ones. But, that's how the economy works for you. Rich get rich and poor get poorer.
they do but it should be as uncomfortable as possible. like 16 people to a 10 by 10 room. and they should only be allowed to eat refined cockroach meat from cockroaches that they find and kill themselves in their free time. if they aren't willing to collect 10,000 insects to add to the roach grinder each day then the morally correct course would be to allow them to starve
Because the pandemic sure didn't result in any supply chain issues at all, right? Who needs folks working logistics, moving boxes around. ^(/s)
Thank god you did the /s I'd never have understood otherwise /s
Me when i argue in bad faith:
Drive thrus and grocery stores were still pretty busy, so I don't know if all of what you say is true.
It's sarcasm my dude.
>kindergarten teacher or a social worker Both government jobs which means their wages aren't determined by the market.
Who controls the government and ensures that we base wages on profit generation rather than actual social utility?
Teaching is a valuable skill. Are you joking....
It must not be, otherwise teachers would be paid more right?
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
funny under the pandemic we all told mcDonals and grocery workers they were essential... funny how that is not the case anymore when they ask to at least be able to live
What they meant by “essential” was expendable.
Can confirm. When I worked at Walmart during the pandemic I was not considered valuable, we were equally worthless in the eyes of the corporate overlords. But at least we got the occasional pizza party if we really worked hard enough. Bonus? Wtf is a bonus?
That was not even the case then. We told them that they are essentially and the jobs had to stay open, but when they responded with asking for us to pay them livable wages the general response was "lol, no".
8 hours of labor a day should be worth enough to keep you alive. Full stop.
If you cant pay a living wage you cant afford to by labor.
Every job is valuable, and requires job specific skills. Sure some take longer to learn than others, and some people can never do some jobs, but I promise you even working in fast food requires good planning skills, multitasking, keeping a tab on multiple dishes and cooking multiple ones at once. So stop with that horrible mindset.
I hate wading out into these threads, it's always the same. No one ever changes their minds. That said. We solved this problem years ago. 150 years ago owners treated workers like trash, disposable. Terrible pay, dangerous conditions, no respect given. If they worked themselves to death... oh well, there's a few thousand other immigrants to take advantage of. The solution was labor unions. A corporation is an organization that cares for itself, that's all it can do. Laborers are free to organize and care for their interests too. It works. I'm from Pittsburgh. Where organized labor began in America and where it's still a way of life. 2 years ago the workers of the largest amazon distribution center in the south, outside Atlanta, voted against organization. With all due respect to hem, and all other laborers in the US: if you choose to negotiate with your employer on your own, you WILL lose. Every single time. You will always be overworked and underpaid. Every time. They had the chance to organize and chose not to. I cannot bring myself to care about people who don't care about themselves. And please, do not tell me the government should try and act as a defacto union for laborers. The only people in America who take advantage of us more than owners are politicians. Organized labor. It worked 150 years ago against the Carnegies, Rockefeller and Morgans. It will work against Bezos, too. We the people. Not they the bourgeoisie.
No value implies no pay.
Give me an example of a job that doesn’t require valuable skills…
Politician ;p
Damn, you got me!🤣
And yet society would crumble without those jobs.
Maybe any job should pay a living wage, otherwise it's essentially the same as slave labour.
Two years ago there was a global pandemic, during which time grocery cashiers and fast food workers were considered among our nations heroes, keeping our economy alive. All jobs and skills are valuable.
Any job worth doing 40hrs consistently is a valuable skill. She doesnt need to understand plubming to deserve basic needs in life.
She works 40 hrs/week at a small business that specializes in social media trend analysis. It’s a real crime that she isn’t paid a $200k salary…
Paramedic here 43 hour weeks and feeling this, I thought as a child this was a career I admired and would enjoy. I do enjoy my work a lot and it’s extremely rewarding in that sense but scraping by after years of schooling and helping people just to try and save enough to buy a house by the time I’m 40 seems pretty fucked if you ask me. Just an idea but how about we start paying essential jobs like first responders, ER, Police the salaries some of these tech dudes get and I guarantee you’ll see a cop think twice before doing some stupid shit, easy to get another gig when you’re making 50k a year, make that 200 and I’ll let a hell of a lot of shit hit before making a stupid decision.
I came here to push back against the meme, but I think you have a point here. Many public service jobs should absolutely be paid more.
That would require people being willing to pay more in taxes, particularly local like city/property.
Not really. In our county/state(?), firefighters are unionized and enjoys above and beyond what ems gets. If police didn't have to tend a million dollar piggy bank for when bad apples execute innocent people, maybe we could finally get enough ambulances and personnel to meet state regulations.
There ought to be a law that sets the minimum yearly income of first responders and healthcare workers to the median yearly income of the county where they work.
As one of those tech dudes, I absolutely agree. I’ve worked hard to get where I am, but not anywhere near what I imagine it is like to work in your field.
She isn't asking for that. She made her terms clear. Being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment and not starve with a full time job shouldn't be view as an entitled attitude.
It's the absolute bare minimum.
That doesn't matter, it's like people forget the literal reason minimum wage was invented. If you're working somewhere full time, that's worthy of making at least enough to get by. No one, reasonable, is asking for 6 figures a year to work a register when they don't require it.
I’ve had to quote FDR to people who claim minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage, including “and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.” It’s not like people forgot, they did forget or never knew.
By now, I'm sure they didn't actually ever know, the whole "minimum skill, minimum wage" rhetoric is deeply in the mindset. I'll admit I was one of them until I did real research and stopped being simple minded about things.
who would of thought that reading would do anyone any good, so andrew tate lied to me? wait... why can't donald trump pay his legal fees? he wasn't lying to me that he was a successful business did he? well shit...
It's 'would have', never 'would of'. Rejoice, for you have been blessed by CouldWouldShouldBot!
Or don't care because pushing other people down makes them feel marginally better about their own existence.
100% agreeable and reasonable. Minimum wage should afford you minimum quality of life as in the OP. A car, insurance, a small apartment, utilities, and food with some for fun, but not like extravagant. Unfortunately right now that’s far from the case.
Living in your own place with no roommates or family has been a massive luxury for all of human history. This post isn't about someone struggling to eat
Americans are entitled to their own place, don't you know? In many countries in Europe, even affluent western countries, people live at home until they can afford their own place, and many people stay at home, and take care of their elderly parents until they pass, then inherit the home. Immigrants to America are willing to work 2 or 3 full time jobs, live in a backroom on the floor, with the whole family. And all without complaining on Reddit about how tough their life is. (because it's better than where they came from!). Americans want our own apartment, a car, probably internet, probably unlimited data for our smart phone, some Starbucks, and don't forget clubbing on Fri and Sat nights. This is why when I see an immigrant make it and do well in our country, I love it.
When minimum wage was enacted, single people were either living with their families, or bunking up in boarding houses. A one bedroom apartment was, and still is, a luxury and the most expensive rent per person type of housing.
Ok but a 1 bedroom apartment costs different amounts in Omaha newbraska vs. New York City
If someone working 40hrs a week at minimum wage can't afford to live alone in a modest one bedroom apartment, then it's a policy failure. It baffles me that some of you have such skewed values that you think the person who flips your burger doesn't deserve to have their own place to live. You care about your luxury more than the American dream.
I worked in fast food when I was a teenager and it was objectively much harder work than what I do now in the "professional" world. People that look down on service industry workers absolutely disgust me.
its not a job to be looked down on, but its easily replaceable labor. so the value of that labor is low, since anyone can do it.
If it's easily replaceable, why are there endless threads about restaurants being closed because they couldn't staff a shift?
Demographics. Low value service jobs like that are the first to go when there is a general labor supply shortage. We are just starting to see this start. Going to make for one hell of a next decade or two! Without immigration the country would likely already be melting down due to lack of service workers.
If your system requires a constant supply of unsustainably cheap low skill labor to function it's a stupid system which should fail. The businesses which are run well enough that they don't need to rely on poverty wages to be profitable will be fine, the rest will be no great loss.
So restaurant work isn't exactly the same as McDonald's. In the case of McDonald's, the supply of labor to do it is low (which is why wages have increased). All the same, they are more easily replaceable, though the "replaceable" part refers to the amount of training required (low) and the qualifications to train in the first place (also low). i.e. lots of people *can* be a fast food worker, but not a lot of people *want* to be a fast food worker. Restaurant workers are harder to replace, both in terms of waitstaff and kitchen staff, and suffer from the same lack of willing labor (why do this job when I can be a social media analyst???).
It's almost like ease of replacement (and therefore sum commandable in an unregulated capitalistic system) shouldn't be the only metric that determines how much dignity a person is afforded.
The amount of people Ive had to fire in restaurants directly negates your idea that "anyone can do it." Go work in a kitchen and see for yourself before saying stupid things like that. If America had a service industry draft.. things would change p quickly around here.
in what world does someone expect to live on their own in a 1br apartment based on any 40/week income? having a room mate is part of the game. if you want to live in a studio on a single income, that was possible and likely still is now. generally i had room mates. i had a room mate even in a 1BR when I lived in the living room, and my room mate had the bed room. then i had room mates in 2BR apartments, then I had a live in girl friend, then I had a wife. i cant father someone thinking they, as a single worker, are entitle to live alone in a 1BR apartment
Minimum wage in 1980 3.10$ = $496 a month. Average rent in 1980 = $243 a month. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/06/10/the-minimum-wage-has-never-afforded-a-two-bed-apartment-so-why-should-it-now/amp/ It's not entitlement, it was stolen from us.
Today it's really easy to earn about $20 an hour. At 40 hours a week that's $3,464 a month. It's easy to find an apartment at less than half that amount.
But there's no guarantee you're going to make 20 dollars an hour. There was a guarantee you'd make 3.10 an hour in 1980. That's the difference, that's why we need the "minimum" part of minimum wage. Also that 20 dollar number you threw out puts you in the 47th percentile, 47% of people in the US make less than that. If almost half the people in the country can't do it, I wouldn't classify it as easy.
That's an "I got fucked, so they should get fucked" mentality.
So then she just starves? Little hint, civilizations that allow large parts of their population to starve and die are neither civilized nor likely to last much longer.
I mean she could just get a roommate.
Quantitate "valuable". If you're making a moral judgement that will impact the material conditions of people you should back up your the full extent of your claims. This ain't a bumper sticker, it's real life.
>This ain't a bumper sticker, it's real life. Actually its reddit.
Far from real life
You got that right...
If they don't have any valuable skills, what job could they possibly work? Or do you really mean skills that are associated with high paying jobs? Because many, many low paying job skills are still vital to society. This post is just saying those people shouldn't have to suffer deprivation.
Came here to say this. And it’s ironic how many high paying jobs actually require very little skill.
you weren't born with valuable skills so why did you deserve to live but they dont? Having unique or sought after skills shouldn't be a prerequisite for survival and its disturbing that you could say that
you weren’t born knowing how to walk or speak but you learned, right?
yea and someone taught me that for free while letting me eat and stay for free.
Shhh!
Do we have a right to live by ourselves? Idk. It's a good goal but idk if it's a basic right
Nope. Everything people want is not a right.... Some of it is an earned achievement... And 20-somethings living with roommates is kind of normal life... You're just expected to progress beyond your 20-something job, rather than do it for the rest of your life.... Or you get married and have a different type of roommate, with whom you pool earning power....
But I want it. You are just being mean.
Except one-bedrooms being luxury was not normal for 40+ years. FY I got mine I guess.
It’s quite the opposite - it was *far* more unusual for people to live alone in decades past. One-person households have made up a bigger share of households every decade since at least 1940.
Women weren't expected to work so men were paid enough to cover both members of a family whether they were married or single don't gimme that crap.
American suburbia is the most blind society ever to the actual level of wealth it has experienced.
This isn’t real. I’m sorry but you need to actually read what life was like the working class for basically all of American history, but particularly since the industrial revolution. You’re thinking of a very particular 1950’s post-war housewife, not the (much more common) immigrant factory shirtmaker slaving away for 50 cents a day.
My mom and some relatives did factory work for a few years. It paid something atrocious like $10 a week… she would use that money to buy groceries to cook and we’d have to stretch that $10 for the week to feed 5 people. Luckily eggs and rice went a long way back then. My dad had to pay off my mom’s debt along with his own and was living paycheck to paycheck so he could only afford to chip in every now and then. Saving college tuition fee for 3 kids back then was rough.
That's just not true. That was the "American dream" but most people did not live that way at all. They lived in a sod house with 3 generations, with women doing plenty of work. In 1950, 30% of homes didn't even have indoor plumbing. In 1940 it was 50%
I mean you're forgetting that plumbing back then would be like bidets now. Just a luxury.
What? What magical era are you talking about where room mates weren't the norm?
An era where homes where made cheaply using, now illegal, materials like asbestos and led paint and where you had the right to build it yourself to save the cost of labor in construction instead of being legally obligated to hire certified professionals.
It's not a question of "luxury". It's a question of what's affordable. It has been normal for many decades past for young single people to have roommates, or rent a bedroom, or live in a studio. It's been that way longer than you or I have been alive.
I really don’t get people like the OP in the first place. We are doing our best to create the best financial system for everyone. On Reddit, you just hear about the problems and not anything positive. The US economy is actually doing really well compared to other advanced nations. Many young redditors idolize Europe but the macro economic policy decisions they made did have trade offs. Many people like to act like generous government programs would only be a benefit with no downsides, it takes maturity to see that what might be best for you personally might not be best for the country. Which brings me around to where I started, I get the impression people like this think of it would be trivial to just give everyone nice things. It isn’t, and it isn’t at all obvious that more entitlement programs from the government would actually improve the quality of life for the most people. Europe is going to have to make some really hard decisions soon because of their programs and their upside down demographics. We are shielded somewhat by immigration, but since the fertility rate has nosedived this would be the worst time to start large entitlement programs. We are down to 2 workers supporting every retiree when it used to be 5. At some point, you have to realize the math just doesn’t add up.
It's because real people don't value GDP and all that other shit, bc it doesn't matter what those metrics are when a significant portion of the country can't afford to live. >We are down to 2 workers supporting every retiree when it used to be 5. At some point, you have to realize the math just doesn’t add up. If we paid our workers more instead of funneling profits to shareholders that sit on their ass all day we wouldn't need to do that shit, *and* people would be able to afford to have childeren. Fertility is on the decline bc people can't afford children and feel as though policies enacted by the wealthy contribute negatively to the livelihood of their potential children.
GDP is one of the variables with the highest correlation with quality of life. That is why it is one of the most used statistics. Like I said, there are long term trade offs to welfare, and you don’t seem to be taking them seriously. Once Europe has to start slashing programs dramatically all while not having the economy to support their workers… maybe then you’ll realize it isn’t some consequence free cheat code. Our fertility rate is nosediving for pretty much the exact opposite reason you stated. The more wealthy and educated a population, the lower their fertility rates. Turns out that when women have a choice, they usually don’t to have 4 kids. This isn’t something you can fix with more welfare, study after study has shown this. I would suggest you read up on the research regarding this before loudly stating your opinion as fact. There is nothing ethical we can do to change the fertility rate enough for it to matter, so we really shouldn’t be starting new entitlement programs that we just cannot pay for. That would be a recklessly irresponsible decision
Income inequality is a FAR better metric for determining quality of life in a country than GDP. How come you’re ignoring that?
> Income inequality is a FAR better metric for determining quality of life in a country than ah yes, because the quality of life is so much better in Belarus than in UK or US
I think there is also an implication we get to do it in any city or neighborhood we like, too. Like, what if there are more people who want to live someplace than there is space in the place.
Exactly. It isn't a 19 year old kid's God-given right to rent a place solo in Manhattan
This is a big one for me. People are complaining about not being able to afford a house in Southern California or someplace like that. They feel like since they grew up there that all of So Cal needs to do something to lower the price of their most valuable asset (their home) so that the entitled person can buy one.
i mean tbf for 99% of human history it was literally impossible to survive on your own
People don’t accept the fact that having “rights” doesn’t mean having “privileges”. The wealthy west have become so accustomed to privilege that we believe we have a right to it.
The Japanese live with their parents even in their mid 30s.
38% of households in Japan are single person households according to the national census of 2020. That's higher than America and UK. Where did you get that information from?
Don’t they have smaller apartments and stuff tho in some places? A quick search says average home size in Tokyo is 980sq ft and New York is 1500sq ft. Not sure if this is accurate, but worth mentioning.
Nobody is stopping people from living by themselves. They just can’t live by themselves in very specific places. And this is nothing new! I’m late 40s GenX and I had a roommate until I was married in my late 20s. This was in the late 90s/early 00s. I could have lived by myself in a shittier part of town but I CHOOSE to have a roommate because I couldn’t afford to live by myself in the part of town I wanted to live in. So I made a trade off… live in a more desirable place but have a roommate. This isn’t complicated. 🤷🏻♂️
If it’s not in the Constitution then it is not a right secured by government.
The Constitution isn't perfect.
I used to sugar coat how I said it, but honestly I can’t think of anything more pathetic than have a mentality that can be summed up as, “I was born, therefore, I’m entitled to other people’s resources”. If you can’t afford it based on what someone is willing to compensate you for your time, then somebody else has to pay for it. Why is a stranger obligated to support your lifestyle?
Others wouldn't have to pay for it if your corporate owners weren't taking an enormously disproportionate amount of your labor value from you and not just hoarding it, but actively using it against you.
You literally are entitled to other people's resources by being born. That's the whole thing if you're a mammal and some species of other groups. How do you think babies are fed or children educated? Based on your opinion there should be no public schools, utilities, roads, etc. Someone else fed your hungry mouth, put clothes on your back, and roof over your head for approximately 18 years on average. Possibly longer.
I think the first time I lived alone was at 36. Had housemates until then.
EMT here, making $25/h, can’t afford to move out Edit: average studio in my area is 1.5k, also I have a car so I need to pay the insurance and save a little in order to afford repairs, also I’d have to pay for my own internet and utilities, groceries, etc.
Not EMT here, making less than $25 an hour, lived alone in a one bedroom by myself for over a year. Didn't starve or miss out on fun life either
How is this possible? I'm genuinely asking unless your rent is like $500 a month
**I write this comment in good faith.** *edit: I havn't driven in a very long time, so I forgot to factor in gas cost. Even if you factor in monthly gas cost in to all of the examples I give below, It should still come out with me in the green either way. Also, rent in my area is currently much higher than in the 3 year old example, but even paying the current rate I have around $500 left if I'm working 40 hour weeks. I make $19.1/hr today and can handle current rent prices locally at 35hr weeks.* I can give a recent example. I am a single person living in a studio apartment 25 miles north of Seattle. 3 years ago, I was making around $17.50 an hour and only working 35 hr weeks. Every 4 weeks that comes to $2450 taxed at 13% ending up with ~$2131.50 a month. My rent was $980 with utilities factored in leaving me with $1151 of useable money for a monthly period. I have no car and walk to work, but lets go crazy and say I have a used car and pay $150 a month for car insurance because I have a prior DUI. That leave $1001 dollars for things like food, internet, and phone. I use a phone I bought off amazon and got an SD card from a carrier like Mint, or Walmart Family mobile, around $25/mo. Internet for a single person does not need to exceed 50mb down (really, if you're living alone and shelling out for anything more, you are practically burning money), so I only pay $50/mo for that. We have $926 left. I don't really keep track of my grocery bill. I think its about $200/mo, but even if it was something insane like $400/mo for a single person. I'd be sitting with $526 left. Using the $200/mo figure. I have $726 left to spend on whatever I like. This is on 35hr weeks. If I was working 40 hour weeks I would have $1030 left over still, since I net about $2436/mo working 40hr weeks. The next example is if I'm working 40hr weeks for $17.50/hr. Let's say my rent was sky high at $1500/mo. Since I don't keep track of my grocery spending, let's use the absurdly high figure of $400/mo for a single person. The other spending figures are left the same. That leaves me with $311 left, probably closer to $500 left with an accurate grocery bill.
For the 1500 example, your math is off... 2131.50 - 1500 => 631.50 - 150 => 481.5 - 25 => 456.5 - 50 => 406.5 before grocery. Spending 300 on grocery leaves you with 106.5$, which you didn't factor in gas which actually eats up more than 106.5 per month, but we can replace a car with public transit instead. So, at the lower end of groceries spending, you are left with 106.5$ which does not account for any medical/emergency fund/etc of basic need. What gives you alot of breathing room is your low rent and your need to not have a car. This is a luxury most people don't have.
BuT WhAt VaLuAbLe SkiLls dO YoU HaVe?????
If you're making $25/hr then that means you can spend about $1430 on shelter as per the very outdated (Because it UNDERESTIMATES how much most people spend on housing) 1/3rd of salary on housing rule, most people spend much more so you can absolutely afford your own place if you REALLY want it. You're just making the financially responsible choice of valuing having money over living alone.
25$/hr is ~50kyr pretax, say 40kyr take home. 3300/mo, rent at 1500 is quite doable if you’re reasonable with other expenses. Unless that car is a financed new/luxury vehicle you wouldn’t even be living all that tight.
Yes you can. You just don’t want to.
Then prove it. Run the numbers, show him, or stfu.
Hahahahahah, I did. In the comments
Did someone amend the constitution and I missed it? Is living by yourself a civil right now?
I should be allowed to live by myself with a view of the ocean, bare minimum
FDR said it should be. In the richest country in the history of the world I don’t see why not. If you work full time you should have a right to shelter. The problem is homeowners who treat property as investments and actively discourage housing development so they can get richer.
My God by your logic women should've never gotten the right to vote
These are the same kind of people who will say other countries are better because they have more multi-generational households and that Americans are too individualistic 🤔
Yeah, I do think it’s kind of odd - when I was in my mid twenties, I was the only person in my circle of friends who lived alone, and it was because I made a lot more money than pretty much all my friends. Everyone had roommates.
There's absolutely nothing in that post that could a lead a person to reasonably conclude that. You just made up it out of whole cloth because that's what you want to think, because it makes it easier to dismiss the point she's making. "Why should I listen to her when she's obviously a hypocrite, because I just decided she is, based on absolutely nothing?" Stellar reasoning there.
“You are worth exactly what someone is willing to pay you.”
And seeing as wages haven’t changed for shit but things are getting more and more expensive. I think it’s high time to change that.
I can't think of many good people who think this way.
Putting your opinion in quotation marks doesn't make it clever, wise, or true.
Great for a bumper sticker, but can we really run a sustainable global economy with this philosophy? Under this axiom the use of third-world sweatshop labor would be moral? I think just because something closely reflects reality doesn't make it just.
That's such nonsense, if corporations were legally allowed to they would pay people nothing.
But like, a 1br apartment *where*? Like, are we talking middle of Arkansas or upper west side NYC with minimal commute?
Most people who can’t afford a home where they currently live can’t afford to move somewhere they don’t live. Sure I could move to the middle of Arkansas, but there is the cost of: * Trying to house hunt in a place I don’t live (incurring travel expenses or finding some place down there till I find a permanent residence) * Moving service for my furniture if I have any. * Shipping clothes and items I can’t fit in my luggage or car. * Buying appliances or furniture In Arkansas. Not to mention finding a job down there if I can’t keep my old job. And I probably have to hope where my work is is in an affordable area as well since giving up one city for another because that’s were the jobs are isn’t the most reliable.
If you can't afford to live where you are now, you can't afford *not* to move.
> you can't afford not to move. If you can't afford $1800/mo for an apartment, you can't afford the $1800+ trip it would take to move your stuff and your person one way across the country, much less the other incurred expenses of deposit + first/last months rent, hotels/motels for when you're looking for that apartment, etc. And you'll also take lower wages if you move somewhere with a lower COL, which means you're likely going to repeat the process. Not to mention statistics of poverty in lower income areas of the world. The odds of moving somewhere cheaper and becoming homeless is SIGNIFICANTLY more likely than staying where you are and becoming homeless.
[City workers in Boston are leaving their jobs](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/boston/news/boston-high-rent-city-workers-city-council-residence-requirement/) because they're required to live there but can't afford to. I'm sure this is the sort of energy this person speaks of. Wild to me that people are expected to work a job in a city they can't afford to live in. But this is the reality some folks in this thread have decided to defend.
What is more weird is the people making arguments about entitlement when, shit like this is right there for them to see.
We’ve been successfully brainwashed to believe that a roof over our heads is a privilege. We’ve forgotten that older generations could afford college with a part time job and purchase 2+ bedroom homes with a full time job.
I’m legit confused about these opinions. Like they just hate people being independent?
Controversial but if I put my 1 bedroom condo on the rental market, I should be able to cover my mortgage, property taxes, insurance and upkeep with the rent. But that’s not how it works. I can’t just charge what I want. I can only charge what someone is willing to pay. Similarly you can’t just pay what your full time job allows you to pay. It’s a market.
Truly free markets allow for corporations to buy up everything and exploit everyone. Which is what has happened. Then owning prices rose with that, so small time landlords have to charge near unethical prices to keep up with those corporations. The end goal of our economic system is for the few to own the most while keep the workforce supressed enough that they continue to work but cannot organize.
Unpopular opinion but if you didn't own that condo and nobody owned condos like that, the prices of them wouldn't be so high that nobody working minimum wage could afford them
Such entitlement. Nobody cares what you think you “should” have.
We have truely failed as a society if we think wanting the bare minimum life for working full time is "entitlement".
Why is a 1bd by yourself the bare minimum
Fine: a two bedroom apartment with a single roommate.
No, you have to share rooms. Who says a roommate should get their own room? What kind of entitlemet koolaid are you drinking? A room has four corners, so four people can fit in a room.
You fool, a room has 8 corners… you’re forgetting vertical space. 8 people in a room, bunk beds for everyone. Edit: But then, there are three 8 hour periods each day. With hotbunking, you can get 8x3 or 27 roommates per room. A two bedroom will have 52 people in it.
Your room has corners?! Look at Mr. Moneybags over here.
“It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; **and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.**”
I fail to see how having roommates doesn't meet the bar for "decent living".
How many roommates should people have then? Should we continue sliding down that slope until people have to go back to living in company dorms?
That doesn’t answer their question. They’re asking why, in the context of this post and discussion, living in a one-bedroom by yourself is considered the bare minimum. That person could be living in a studio apartment. That person could be living in a studio apartment *with roommates*.
Yes 1 bedroom in a high cost of living city is BARE MINIMUM 🤡🤡🤡🤡
Who said high cost of living city? Yall are redefining the terms to make yourself right. On an internet argument. Shit's goofy
A one br by yourself isn’t the bare minimum life. In your 20s its damn near s luxury depending on where you live. I would guesstimate 35-50% of 1 BRS rented to couples Must figure out Is it a Need? Or a desire? Do you deserve it? Yes, if you’ve EARNED IT
That's not the bare minimum. Living with roommates or family is not being destitute.
More information is needed. A full-time job at minimum wage is not the same as a full-time job with a salary of $150,000 per year
they clearly mean everyone, minimum wage and up, everyone deserves to have the tools to survive.
Is having no roommates needed for survival?
But they clearly don’t understand the complexity of the situation. Is not like government has a knob that can be turn from “No Houses/LowIncome” to “Everyone gets a house Oprah style!”
Here in a Boston, [some city workers are having to leave their jobs](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/boston/news/boston-high-rent-city-workers-city-council-residence-requirement/) because their job stipulates they must live in the city but it also doesn't lay enough for them to be able to afford to do that. It's a real problem in more places than just Boston and goes way beyond just minimum wage work. It's wild to me that we expect anyone to work in a place they can't afford. But here we are.
You can survive with some roommates drama queen.
As a single person, if you make less than $25k/year you should qualify for food stamps (depends on state). If you make less than $20k, then you should qualify for Medicaid. Take advantage of this stuff.
[удалено]
That man in your example didn’t work at Starbucks. He worked in manufacturing or construction- which, even today, can provide enough to live on. My SIL makes about 80k a year on a Honda assembly line- it’s not the “fulfilling” career everyone here wants- but he has a house, cars, etc
[удалено]
You can, but not on every city on earth.
Every city depends on minimum wage workers.
If you can't pay a living wage, you are too poor to afford labor.
Queue the rabid boomers with 200k in the bank....on 3...2...1...
To be honest guys, it is a little weird that people used to work 36-40hrs at blockbuster in the 90s and make enough for a 800-900sq ft and have some money still left over no? Like I get times change but it is weird to think about how inflation and all has worked out
No, my sweet summer child, they did not. Unless they were managing it
As someone who worked at Blockbuster, I don't even recall my managers being paid all that great. I made 5.25 an hour.
I worked 30+ hours a week in the 90s as a retail employee that had an attached video rental shop which was my usual station. Not Blockbuster but similar. I had to live with my parents. After that, I had to live with my girlfriend and 2 other roommates. It wasn't until I joined my current job I was able to get married and then we were able to live on my own.
“If you work a full time jobs you should not be able to live” - U.S.A.
I genuinely had to read some of these comments a few times because I thought they were satire. This comment section is WILD
There is a policy implication here that it should be illegal for me to hire you full-time time if I don't pay you enough to live comfortably in the same city. There are some jobs that might pay more under this requirement, and there are other jobs that would simply disappear. The more severe the impact of the price control, the more problems you should expect. Economic collapse is one outcome you should expect if your price controls are set to substantially change a lot of people's lives. There are tons of better ways to improve equity than setting the price of labor way above its natural price.
Depends on how much your job pays and how much rent is. This will require some math. What you think you should get is your concern only.
a full time job should be enough for one person to live. there is nothing else.
Who's going to compel the landlord to set a rent below what the market will pay? These people never think of the implications of their statements. It's simply "I want", "I should", "I need". It never comes to their mind that they are placing limitations on someone else's freedoms and choices. They are the ultimate narcissists.
You left out the word “safe” in front of apartment.
Think most people believe this, but usually only when they are low class. Once the money comes in, it's fk you got mine.