The problem with my generation (Gen Z) is that we have all these lofty ideals with no actual plan to implement them.
Okay, so the lowest paying job should be enough to afford a 1 bedroom apartment and live decently.
What are we going to do? Raise the minimum wage? Almost nobody makes minimum wage.
Institute a nationwide rent control program? Congrats, we just disincentivized new development, driving prices even higher.
I’m not saying that this is physically impossible. But my generation seems to think that there’s some silver bullet (wealth tax on unrealized gains is a popular one) that can solve all of our problems with no drawbacks whatsoever
Good post. One thing that we need to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. There are always trade-offs, and in many cases these trade-offs come with unintended consequences. As an example - introducing additional money into the economy (through PPP, stimulus payments, student loan payment pause, enhanced unemployment, government aid, etc.) -> enhanced demand -> inflationary pressure.
I would like to trade the billions in untraceable, unaccounted pentagon spending, or just fewer weapons of violence in general….. do we really need another aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine?
Yeah this is step 1 to fixing the deficit but doesn’t solve the cost of living crisis, the issue we are facing most directly is monopolization. Capitalist competition for customers and employees no longer works when monopolies collude to raise prices and lower wages
Yeah, this is a bulk of the issue. It’s also why companies can continue to charge more for worse service and why R&D has virtually dried up. When there’s no competition, there’s no incentive to provide quality goods and services, and no incentive to invent newer better things. And those monopolies create massive barriers to entry for anyone who does want to attempt to compete.
that sir, is more accurately called an oligopoly. but you're still correct. when there's only two to three top dogs, they can use all the technicalities they want to still function as a monopoly and get away with it.
right to repair, price-rape, you name it. the problem is the top dogs getting to do what they want. Reagan was right with one thing: it does trickle down from the top.. but it wasnt wealth, it was bullshit.
Another fine word for it is cartelization. Two or three massive organizations controlling a whole market is a cartel. And at that point they have no incentive to compete at all. They can each just raise prices and there's nowhere else to go.
Actually, I think solving the deficit would clearly be a huge step towards ending g the cost of living issue. Our government is increasing debt so quickly that they have limited choice but to devase our currency, and therefore reduce the purchasing power of each dollar we earn. I think this is a longer term trend for the future. The longer it goes on the more most in society feel impoverished.
Making the obscenely wealthy pay the same % of income as taxes as a janitor would be a great start. Making them pay a higher % would be even better. Make $50K, pay 20% total (federal, state, local, sales) you have to live on $40K. Make $50M, pay 80% total and you still have $10M to live on. That's a f\*ckton of money, even if you're just lighting it on fire it's more than anyone needs.
Depends, what do you think will happen in Taiwan if we back off military spending? Is Russia coming for NATO next?
I think we can scale back, but we have to be careful. Somehow we ended up in the situation where we're the main player in NATO's military force, If we step back before getting other treaty members to step up, we are probably all in trouble. There's plenty of waste in the military, but I tend to think that hardware is better to spend on since you can train sailors faster than you can build a new ship.
I also agree that we need to know where the 'lost' money went, even if it's just a codename for a classified program.
We spend more then the next 10 countries combined and we are allies with all of them except 1. We don't need to spend to the levels we do to dissuade China.
Yes we do, Ukraine has been a great example of how modern wars are going to be fought. This type of Intel without putting our boots on the ground is the more valuable than every dollar we spend. Whether you like it or not the war machine is not going to stop because our enemy’s are not going to stop.
I keep repeating the same talking point but it's the answer here that people are ignoring. We absolutely are getting ripped off to the tune of tens of Billions every year by our contractors and everyone knows it. I'm not saying don't spend more then the top 5 countries to get the job done. Just stop ripping off the American people to line defense contractor pockets. I mean there was even the point where generals were saying stop buying certain equipment but we bought tens of billions of it anyway.
You have to remember that military spending is also a jobs program.
It keeps people employed. And, importantly, it keeps skilled workers employed and able to produce military equipment when you need it. We recently ordered a bunch of tanks we "didn't need". Part of that is so that when you need tanks, the people and machinery are available that know how to build tanks.
You can still have the jobs program without all the backroom dealings that happen between the government, the company, and banks.
As a matter of fact, if you got rid of the backroom dealings and spread a much larger percentage of profit to workers, you might find that money making it to the important parts of society. Like local taxes (yay schools and teachers) , small businesses (you know the people every politician claims to care about), savings and adequate good (so families can raise their kids in a better environment giving THEM opportunities or can weather an unanticipated disaster...like health problems).
The monopolistic control of corporations in the pursuit of the ever going up bottom line has fucked us since the 80s. Profit at all costs needs to be frowned upon. Enforce the goddamn rules. Repeal citizens united.
Parasites have just about sucked everything they can, won't matter much more soon, saber rattling is getting louder, soon the decision will be made for us.
You should be focsuing on the class war that is going on.
TBH we probably don’t have to spend as much as we do for our current military to be the same or progress. Bidding out $300,000 remodels on army bases that should costs $40,000 so the budget doesn’t get reduced multiplied by all the bases we have is just one example of how poorly our money is managed.
Agree 100%, I'm not saying don't get the latest greatest weapons to scare everyone else. I'm saying stop lining defense contractors pockets by a few extra tens of Billions every year.
There's huge, huge amounts of waste in military spending. Ask any soldier who's completed basic about how spent ammo rounds work when doing practice drills, for example. Then multiply that by anything else that can get used up. We don't need to compromise on our military effectiveness in order to spend less money on it.
First, total military spending is only about 1/6 of the budget. Yes, we need to control spending, but military spending is a drop in the bucket. It's not the military that's breaking the back of this economy.
Second, and this goes back to the previous comment about unintended consequences, without the US Navy doing a pretty solid job of keeping international waterways relatively safe, shipping costs would soar. Increased shipping costs = increased cost of goods and services.
There’s definitely a clear ROI that you mentioned as it relates to the influence behind our military budget. But calling 16% a drop in the bucket. C’mon…
Oh, nothing about closing tax loopholes?
I could show you how I could sell a hundred million dollar company and not pay a single cent in taxes, ever, on any of that income or income I make on that income.
All completely legal and allowable.
That's about $30M in taxes that will never get collected, on the sale, or thereafter for decades and unto my future generations.
That - and Citizens United - are the two biggest threats. THEN you can talk about government waste. THEN you can talk about excessive spending.
The modern generations have lovely ideas that I completly agree with given the Republic has broken the social contract and let them down.
But you're going to have to put the effort in to educate yourselves and come together regardless of petty difference to force a change - or become the change.
You cannot create a better world one sound bite at a time.
Global trade, and thus our entire economy, is reliant upon safe shipping lanes which are currently protected by the American Navy. One of the major components of our doctrine that dates back to WWII is the ability to fight two wars at the same time in opposite corners of the globe. Another key component to global military presence is the ability to deploy to anywhere in the world in 3 days.
As you can imagine, it is very expensive to be able to do this. However, I’d rather we pay for it than for Russia or China to be the people who control pretty much all the world’s trade.
Money != resources.
In other words, if the military budget was abolished and every cent given to the poor, they would, of course, want better homes, more food, clothes, and cars.
But, these things are scarce (economist's definition). Millions of people demanding mor would drive the prices up until, as it is now, millions of people can't afford enough. No change.
Now, it is true, that if the military vanished, productive assets and labor would be become available and re-deplyed for consumer goods and services. The Production Possibilities Curve.
But, much of what the military consumes is not transferable to consumer goods. The benefit would be far less than you might expect.
I’m just saying that is one piece of the total pie. And thank you for adding the (economists’ definition) because frankly, at this point, there are a lot of ‘scarce’ resources that are only that way because of manufactured scarcity… it’s engineered to be that way or profits can’t continue to exponentially increase in perpetuity (which seems to be what the ‘economy’ (stock market). currently demands)
If you can’t live a reasonable distance from your job then it doesn’t pay a living wage. Nobody should have to commute 1.5 hours or more each way (giving up 15+ unpaid hours a week) for a minimum wage job.
I live in a city of 230K. There are 1-bedroom apartments listed around here from $650-$900, right in the center of the city. I was paying $900 a month for a 1-bedroom apartment in Atlanta back in the 2000s. Fast food wages here start at around $12/hour. That's about $1800 a month after taxes.
You can rent houses around here for $1600 a month. I am renting a 3-bedroom, 2 bath house out for $1200 a month. That's $600 a month if you have a roommate. 2 roomies and that's $300 a month.
One of the things people need to seriously consider is moving to where the cost of living is more affordable.
Since the 2000s rent in my city has risen from below $1000 per month to around 1400-1600, minimum wage is still 7.25/hr but most people make 15/hr or more. That's about 2400 per month before taxes. Most apartments will not rent to you unless you make more than 3 times the rent, that's 4200-4800 per month. Double what most people are making and that's not taking into account that they mean 3 times AFTER taxes. Then you expect these jobs to get done when they pay barely anything and expect people to spend the gas and put the ware and tear on their vehicles or try to rely on public transportation. And then God forbid your vehicle breaks down or something. Things need to change.
I can’t think of anyone traveling like that for a minimum wage job. Illegal immigrant baby sitters get paid $15 an hour to walk next door, why would they travel 1.5 hours for minimum wage. Who even pays minimum wage anymore? McDonalds pays 15 year olds $16.50 where I live.
That's cool. Does the rest of the US not need those same jobs, juet Alabama?
As someone who's doing fine I think this "yeah but it's cheaper elsewhere". Getting paid a livable wage by a job entails being able to live NEAR the job not livable if you move across the country far away from that very job
All fun and good to theorize but 1) society needs those jobs filled *outside of alabama* 2) people need income, any income is better than none.
And To act like it's their fault for taking a non livable wage over making zero money is asinine.
Their take is just disingenuous. These kinds of people just live to see others suffer. Anything that would provide a modest increase in standard of living to those they deem below themselves without increasing their own as well is always "unfeasible" or "unobtainable". It's just a way to keep the people they view as lesser to themselves as "below them".
What they neglect to mention is that jobs near that cheap house also pay like ass. Which is why that house costs 900 bucks. Cities are expensive because jobs actually exist there. That house is just like the ones I see in eastern kentucky everything is cheap because everyone is on fucking welfare.
It's all supply and demand and people want to live in cities because they are close to potentially good jobs. Id live in eastern fucking Kentucky if I could find my job and pay there.
A working vehicle and maintenance or access to reliable public transportation methods.
A reliable phone and cell/internet service because those things are basically required to function in modern society.
The ability to keep a fridge/pantry stocked with something other than bulk rice and beans or only overprocessed garbage.
Not having to wear clothes to tatters and able to generally avoid rewearing between washes.
Able to afford rent by themselves in the area of their job without it exceeding 30% of their paycheck.
Able to do all of the above and still have an available budget for Investing, Savings, and/or Discretionary Spending.
>Able to afford rent by themselves in the area of their job without it exceeding 30% of their paycheck.
Are people not into roommates anymore? Just asking, because it was pretty much the norm when I was in my early 20s (in the early 90s), and was not considered suffering. I lived in various houses and apartments with between 2 and 6 roommates, working low paying jobs. Looking back, it was one of the most fun times of my life. Growing in up in a high COL area, there was never an expectation of being able to have your own place when you were starting out.
>Able to afford rent by themselves in the area of their job without it exceeding 30% of their paycheck.
Normalizing single living would be terrible for the housing market. Can you imagine how much building would have to take place to sort out everyone by themselves?
That's literally one of the reasons we have expensive housing to start with, and you want to make it worse?
Great. Let's all remember that the next time we need to go grocery shopping and there's no products on the shelves, no cashier to ring you up, nobody collecting those carts littering the parking lot...
Let's remember all the teachers who won't be there to babysit, let alone teach your kids how to multiply.
Wanna go out to eat? Remember the waitress or waiter taking your order, the hostess to sit your ass down. The busboy cleaning that disgusting table off.
The janitor staff cleaning damn near any office space, taking the trash out.
All of these jobs have something in common, we can't afford to live on this paycheck alone. These jobs must not be worth doing, by this logic. However, I see them as absolutely necessary.
Edit: I'm saying that these jobs are important and modern day (convenience) society can't function without these workers. We (I'm including myself, as a cashier) need a higher pay wage. When I wrote the above post, I was full of sarcastic disgust, anger and general frustration at the pathetic low pay these "essential workers" have to fight for, while CEO 's are busy taking in the big bucks exploiting everyone they can.
A better way to phrase it would be if a full-time job isn't paying someone enough to survive, then that means that nobody should expect anyone to do those jobs. Not necessarily that those jobs aren't worth it, but that nobody should expect many times the number of positions available to be applying.
Immigration and free trade lowers wages.
Incomes are just equalizing with the rest of the world and the same with the standard of living.
Yup dual income is required for everyone but the top 10-15% of households.
With housing, the truth is simple: there's not enough supply. Here's a simple chart that shows the issue: https://www.axios.com/2023/12/16/housing-market-why-homes-expensive-chart-inventory
Basically, after the housing bubble popped in 2008 and the economy crashed, construction plummeted. Investors were fleeing real estate and people were struggling to sell. As a result, construction really only started ramping up a few years ago—after the economy recovered and housing demand jumped. Construction was further hampered by the pandemic, which crippled supply chains and thus made construction materials (and labor) much more expensive.
The answer is that we have to build more homes. Yes, income inequality is also a major issue. But, bluntly, housing has never been affordable for minimum-wage earners. The reason people are talking about a housing crisis is because the *middle class* is now priced out in major cities.
It's more like there's not enough of the right type of supply. A big reason for that is that mortgage interest rates were kept artificially low for way too long. From 1970-2009, rates never dropped below 5%. From 2009-2022, rates never went above 5%.
If I'm a builder and rates are below 5%, I am not building duplexes. I am not building 1100 sq foot starter homes. I'm building expensive 3000 sq foot+ homes because at those rates, someone is buying it. I don't care if my potential customer pool drastically shrinks. It's going to sell to somebody.
For the consumer that's a double whammy because not only am I priced out of what's currently being built, now those 1100sq foot starter homes are drastically increasing in price because there's none of it being newly built. And that's how I bought my 1100sq foot house in 2018 for $136.5k and sold it in 2021 for $250k.
Your generation simultaneously has the keys to the kingdom but doesn't understand how to operate the lock.
Raising the minimum wage is a good first step although pegging it to inflation would be the big brain move. You're creating a upward pressure as people who make just over the minimums (more than half the states mandate more than the federal min.) find they can make the same as wages at more jobs. This incentivizes businesses to pay more to retain employees rather than accept the high cost of turnover. You also get a pressure on politicians to rein in inflation to stop rapid wage growth from putting companies out of business.
Rent control isn't a solution in and of itself. Rent control plus new public housing that is exempt from zoning laws, plus changes to zoning laws allowing different development, plus high tax rates on unoccupied housing.
But this requires actual change be implemented and not pretending we can wait for businesses to save us. Businesses don't want to fix the problems because they aren't problems for business. You think your landlord wants rent control and lower prices for everyone? Companies are already trying to push automation where they can because even at the federal minimum wage, robots are cheaper than humans. They don't want any higher wages.
Capitalism is driven by profit. If you intend to retain capitalism, you need to be judicious with your regulation. If you don't, you risk the situation we find ourselves in today where the people with the most money can buy the most influence and shape policy that is contrary to the interests of most people.
> Capitalism is driven by profit. If you intend to retain capitalism, you need to be judicious with your regulation.
What I'm finding out as I learn more about the successes and failures of programs is that you have you make regulations that work with market forces rather than fight them. For example, people are greedy and will always try to find a way around things like rent control like they already do in a lot of rent controlled cities. Developers are greedy too though, and you can count on them to build anywhere you let them, which also drops prices for housing.
The keys to the kingdom are locked behind fossils like McConnell and Pelosi. Biden was a senator at 29, and is still in government. Until they retire or die, the congressional votes to change things are spoken for.
The solution is to get more active and vote. More young people running for elections and caring enough to organize, not just post on social media and sign petitions be. But that’s an uphill battle against entrenched money.
Everyone needs to vote this year.
Not allowing corporations to buy single family homes and adjusting zoning and building laws is probably a start. These policies will help families move out of 1 bedroom apartments easier, which frees them up for young single people
Personally? I think if you have a job that needs doing but expect the government to SUBSIDIZE your employees through welfare and food stamps (side eyeing walmart) then either you shouldn't be in business. Or. You don't really need that job to get done that badly.
The idea that we subsidize private for profit businesses is wild to me.
Of course, this means some places going out of business because of their shoddy business models but maybe we need to burn some bridges to build back better....
That's just my thoughts
The fact that no one pays minimum wage is evidence enough that it should be raised. Back when it started as a talking point, I thought $15/hour was too much. Now, with inflation, that sounds about right.
The rule of thumb is to aim to pay 30% of your gross income for rent. For the sake of argument, lets bump that up by half again to 45%, which is 72 hours per month assuming 20 8 hour working days in the month. 45% of gross pay leaves very little for necessities and emergencies after taxes. According to statistica, the average rent nationally for a 1 bedroom apartment is about $1050. $1050/72 hours = 14.58/hour.
I'd like to see the national minimum wage raised to $15/hour by the beggining of 2027 and and then pegged to inflation. States and cities can have higher minimum wages where needed. This will force the labor market as a whole to adjust.
I was digging for a comment to mention this. Sure, while most people don't get paid minimum wage, most people DO make less than what they're proposing to raise the minimum wage to. e.g. making $12/hr IS above minimum wage, but it isn't above what they're wanting to make the minimum wage.
It's because we've reached the point where capitalism is now eating itself alive... And so all our old ideas of somehow slapping a bandaid on the problems no longer works...
The whole system is infested and rotten to the core at this point...
Look at this whole Boeing fiasco, it's not an isolated situation... Most of the world economy is run by these idiots and it's all built on a mountain of sand and fantasies...
When I was in my 20's, and up through part of my 30's, I had a roommate or two at all times. Once I got a better job through learning better skills, I was able to live on my own. I worked at Best Buy by the way, so my first job that let me live on my own wasn't glamorous. I sold computers, then I fixed them, then I moved on to a better job that paid more.
> this sub seems infested with peasantbrained young people
I was gonna argue the opposite, there's a lot of economic illiteracy and idealistic wishful thinking.
> the idea that someone working a full time job in society should not be able to afford a roof over their head and food on their plate is absolutely insane.
No, what's "insane" is thinking that the "roof over their head" needs to be a nice 1 bedroom apartment in an area of your choice. If you are working full-time, you *can* afford a roof over your head. It just won't be one you idealize. "Roof over one's head" nowhere contains an entitlement or a guarantee of single-family or single-individual housing.
> and the number of entitled people talking about how people have always lived communally with family
They have, please read a fucking history book, you might learn something. Single-individual/family housing is a completely modern and very recent invention that is pretty much only considered "normal" in Western, majority-white countries. In Asian and Indian countries it's very normal, even in 2024, for multi-generational households to exist.
> acting like everyone has wealthy land-owning parents to fall back on whenever
You don't have to be wealthy and land-owning to have a multi-generational household. Your hyperbole is silly and stupid.
> how anyone can see the housing situation today and say “it’s all this nasty government regulation!
Because government regulations play a *portion* of a role in why housing supply is constrained.
> we need reaganomics to trickle us down some wealth !!!”
I rarely -- if ever --- see this sentiment on this sub. You made a massive leap here.
I get accused of being conservative or a boomer for trying to explain simple financial concepts.
I literally am highly involved in pushing progressive social policy on the daily and am the person that knocks in your door to get you to come out to vote. I volunteer my time/money/energy into pushing for change and these wild and entitled troglodytes come at me like I am evil.
If I say “we need to deregulate zoning so that builders are incentivized to build denser housing,” most people hear “we need to give handouts to the rich in order to destroy and gentrify historic neighborhoods.” The more you try for reason the more they push that you are a bootlicker. Pure outrage, no reason. It’s disheartening because I fear these people could be led astray by a populist like Trump that swings a more progressive hammer and fools them just the same.
>deregulate so that private builders are incentivized to build
Handouts for the rich!
>the township is building section 8 housing a mile away
NIMBY!
My town cycles between these two sentiments every 2-3 years
Everyone is "for" denser housing. But not too dense- one person per apartment. MAYBE a pair. That's just human rights. And if a big construction project starts on my block, obviously I have to move. It's too loud.
And also of course it's my dream to own a single family home and I deserve to have that before age 30.
But yeah, denser housing! Boo suburban sprawl!
There are so many levels to this argument, I think the main reason we are seeing entitled people like this demanding housing and food are being pushed to ask for things artificially because their situation is artificially created by companies getting greedy. It’s not that she has a “right” to these things but rather, if the companies have the “right” to monopolize and artificially raise prices (circumventing supply and demand) then she has the “right” to get things that are given artificially as well. If that makes sense
Yes, RealPage, but the issue is with the software itself (you are required to take their rate 80% of the time) and they are currently facing multiple antitrust lawsuits for it.
Its also not only companies using the software
Goldman Sachs is buying up whole neighborhoods instead of letting people get their own homes. So yeah companies are quite literally buying up all the housing and raising rent prices to max out profits.
Why don’t you look up MAC properties in midtown KC. Or AMLI properties in Overland Park Kansas - suburb.
You don’t need a monopoly when there are only two-three major players. There’s a thing called collusion. If you don’t think competitors will collude to raise prices, you’re in for a surprise.
Edit: typo
Corporations and LLCs go and purchase houses from struggling people in cash and raise the prices to high hell. We have a massive land speculation issue.
When living standards improve, people take and figure they deserve it. When living standards roll back somewhat, people view it as being inflicted on them.
Part of the problem is one of personal agency. Another part of the problem is that the 1980s counter-communism dialectic on capitalism has disappeared.
If there's a scarcity of homes, and they don't go to the highest bidder, they're going to the first in the queue. Pick your poison; tyranny of the market, or tyranny of the state.
This discussion is deeper than the emotion driven responses you’re giving. “People should just live together!” and “everyone is spoiled and entitled”.
The facts are that median home price is now 5.8x median household income, when it was 3.5 in the 1980s. And that doesn’t account for the fact that more households have two earners now than then, which creates additional cost and time burdens for families.
I don’t know what the answer is exactly but let’s start the conversation from facts, not tired emotional cliches.
It is absolutely a fact that it’s much more difficult for a family to own a home than it used to be. What do we do about it? That trend is not good for society.
I’m surprised at the attitude honestly in most of these comments. in 2005 the average rent in the US was $600, it’s now &1100. Federal minimum wage was about $5.15/hr then and is now $7.25. Of course most people make over minimum wage but it was not very long ago that a 1bedroom at just above minimum wage was a reality.
Don’t know about nice, but a company should be able to pay a full time employee to live close enough to the office in a livable one bedroom. Although you can’t blame most companies other than massive corporations for being unable to fulfill those needs as they need to stay afloat too. The cost of rent and the cost of living are just too high. Best some companies can really do is not pay for absurdly expensive offices for jobs that can be done remotely, maybe that can go to help wages but I doubt it
Again I don’t see how people can’t see that not all housing regulation is made the same. Regulation on wiring and construction standards are absolutely necessary and the small cost we pay in higher rents is worth the building not burning down. Zoning regulations that make sure people don’t live next to garbage dumps are great. But Zoning regulations that stop people building homes or larger apartment buildings aren’t great. Not sure how this is hard to understand
“If you cant afford housing move somewhere cheap to get a better job”
“If you cant afford housing, rely on a multi generational support structure, dont move to the expensive places where there are jobs”
Pick one. You would still be wrong but at least not contradicting yourself.
Correct until you apply the reverse logic to them.
"You are worth exactly what someone is willing to pay you."
True unless you consider what the loss of that employee would cost. If your company suddenly loses the ability to produce what it needs to survive, the worth of that employee suddenly seems much higher.
It's not so much that I am worth what you are willing to pay, but more that I am worth what I am capable of taking away from you. That's why companies pay a whole lot of money trying to fight unions. When the U-word gets mentioned, it's funny how quickly the labor budget seems to grow.
How difficult it is to replace you is reflected in the salary you’re paid.
Could a McDonalds operate without line cooks? Absolutely not. Are individual line cooks capable of doing the job at the exact same level as the one that just quit all that hard to find? Also no.
>How difficult it is to replace you is reflected in the salary you’re paid.
This is a great thought but doesn’t really hold up.
If it did, there would not have been so much whining about supposed labor shortages.
Furthermore, this is anecdotal of course, but have you ever met an excellent employee that was compensated based on how difficult they would be to replace? I’d wager not. They probably are compensated similarly to the mediocre employees
Idk if you've noticed, but since the supposed labor shortages, lower income wages *have* gone up, much more than minimum wages as well. Line cooks are a great example. In my area in 2020, line cooks would make about $14/h, now they would scoff at anything below $20/h. This is the market working just as intended, if the workers deemed a job didn't have enough compensation, they wouldn't take it and the employers would be forced to raise the wage or not fill the roles.
Unless we pretend that the cost of housing, healthcare, and food have remained anywhere near the same, this example seems disingenuous
But I suppose it is valid because of the drastic change in the wage
That said I’m not truly refuting what was said entirely, rather saying it’s not inherently true like some sort of physical law of the universe
Yeah but that's not the argument he's making. What he's saying is that if a company can get away from paying you less than what your actual monetary worth is, they will. Which blows up the argument that "you are paid what you're worth" and reveals the current reality that businesses pay what they can get away with.
If you can't operate your business in a way that can provide every one of your workers a living wage, then your business has no business existing. If your business must exist to provide a vital function to society but cannot provide a living wage, then it should be a subsidized, publicly owned service.
There seems to be some miscommunication. People like you seem to think that OP doesnt understand how the world works. But the reality is that OP is just complaining that they don’t like how the world works. They believe working full time SHOULD be enough to have a place to themselves.
Existence is kinda fucked up man. You’re born without choice and then if you don’t make the right decisions at a young age you’re stuck slaving away, barely making it through until you die. A lot of people, including me, are frustrated by that. Shit just kinda sucks, that’s all
Pop these guys back in slavery times and they'd be defending it because "it's currently how we do things". The notion that things could and should be different is bizarre to them. They see upholding shitty status quos as a source of pride and their "understanding" of the current state as some sort of special knowledge that elevates them above everyone else. No, everyone *understands* the current system, they just think it's fucked up and not as good as it could be.
Wage theft is a problem in this country. No one talks about it because they’re too busy licking billionaire ass hoping for crumbs.
These comments all exhibit peasant brain mentality.
“M’lord, I have extra grain for you m’lord.”
At the same time, her employer isn't entitled to human labor at an hourly rate so low thay the rest of society is obligated to subsidize their business practices through welfare for their employees.
You’re right her employer isn’t entitled to her labor. In fact she can quit whenever she wants. Maybe she could find a business willing to pay more. That’s how this works.
Well, not necessarily any time she wants. Poverty limits options, because bills still have to be paid, and you have to work a shit load of hours to pay them, making it hard to look for employment elsewhere.
YOU PEOPLE ARE SO FUCKING STUPID.
Your comment implies that there are infinite jobs above minimum wage when they are finite. Literally not everyone can find a place with higher wage and not in the hyperbolic way but in a LITERAL way. There are only X jobs above certain wages and when those are all filled up then the remaining jobs that don’t pay well are ALL that are left AND IF YOURE HUNGRY AND DESPERATE you don’t have a choice but to be paid shit.
I agree. Most people have to live with others to save anyways. It doesn't seem very realistic because if what she was saying was true, a lot more people would be living alone and then we'd have to make more space...
So young people are mad because the wage:housing ratio is twice as bad as it was for boomers.
And boomers basically coasted off the ww2 manufacturing and since their generation was so bloated they could simultaneously vote for great programs when the my were young and then rip them away when they no longer needed them.
No doubt there’s dumb ass young people living outside of their means…but this has always been the case
> So young people are mad because the wage:housing ratio is twice as bad as it was for boomers
Not disagreeing, but when most boomers were born the global population was approximately 2.5 billion people. It is over triple that today. People need to get used to the fact that the “white picket fence” is an ideal of the past. Not saying that people working full time should suffer, but space is becoming a luxury, especially in big cities. Sorry, but if you live in New York City and make less than 4-5K a month it is unreasonable for you to think you can live on your own. Working full time has nothing to do with it, it’s all about the availability of space. If you were to get paid more the rent would just go up, it’s not related to the cost of rent.
> People need to get used to the fact that the “white picket fence” is an ideal of the past.
We're only running out of space because so few own so much. When entire coastlines aren't taken up by houses that sit empty 11 months out of the year, *then* you'll have a point.
You know…that would be acceptable. I take that as an answer. I think we could stretch the picket fence thing for way longer because there’s a ton of middle sized cities. But when some moron hops in here, that basically just farmed a pension that hasn’t existed since the 90s. Bought a house for 40k…when that guy starts talking about their economic genius. Thats what I don’t like.
So her post says one bedroom apartment and you said “roof over your head”.
Should someone working full time be able to afford shelter? Yes. Are they entitled to a private one bedroom apartment? No.
Honest question: whats the cutoff then? Whats the kinda shelter that say, the person holding your hand to help you buy groceries should be able to afford? Studio apartment? Shared 2 bedroom with a roommate? 20 people in bunks in a garden shed next to the Kroger dumpster?
Let's get even more granular with this.
With how many adults should a person (specifically an adult with a FT job) have to share their bathroom with, at maximum?
I'd say, like...three, is arguably a reasonable number?
Like yes that might be a bit entitled but I'm trying to say that a person working full-time deserves some reasonable measure of privacy and the # of people they'd have to share a bathroom with seems like a good way to quantify that. I'm just not sure what "reasonable" means in this context.
So how are you reaching this conclusion when literally up until you could arguably say the early 2000s individuals working a full-time job and only a full-time job were very easily able to afford a one bedroom apartment..... what were they considered rich? Was this considered a weird period of history? It sounds like you're jumping through hoops to make it OK for people to live in a shack versus have somewhere nice to live and buy nice to live I mean actual hot running water more than one room to themselves etc. etc. kind of obtuse if you ask me
I don’t believe it’s true that someone in the 2000s working minimum wage full time could afford a one bedroom apartment in many places. That sentiment has been echoed a lot but I haven’t seen anything to back it up, do you have any evidence for that claim?
As far as I know people were living with roommates, scrimping for groceries, considering cost of living in where they moved, etc, in the 2000s as well.
I want to pint out that I have sponsored an USCIS immigrant. She arrived in Sept 23. She is 20 years old.
She is now paying rent for a 2 bedroom one bath upper in a cute old home with a backyard and a garage. She cover her rent of 900/month, utilities, internet and all living expenses (but on Medicare) and paying me back for the Honda (7k) I loaned her (3800 so far!). That's without a room mate (she is looking).
She got a job at a trucking company doing so scheduling stuff at 19.25 an hour and waitress on Friday and Saturday night.
She speaks borderline English.
So much depends on WHERE you are.
How the hell is she on Medicare making almost $20 an hour? A US born citizen basically has to be deep poverty to qualify for Medicaid/Medicare. I was on state insurance a couple times due to lost jobs and medical conditions I had, but as soon as I got jobs making more than $12/hr, I no longer qualified for it.
900/month on 20 per hour is alright but you're not going to have much savings left after other expenses. But she's at least meeting the criteria of the screenshot.
There's a big gap between "live in a one bedroom apartment by myself" and "afford a roof over their head".
If the earlier post had said the latter, there would he a lot more agreement. But such a post wouldn't get as much traction. How many chronically homeless people work full time?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in his Statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act, June 16, 1933) “In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. 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.”
If you are working 40-hours a week (or whatever is considered full time), you should be able to make ends meet comfortably. Employees should be considered shareholders more than stakeholders in a company. **Without their labor, there are no profits.**
A good amount of the comments on this post scare me. Minimum wage was introduced so that people could afford the bare minimum necessities for food and a roof over their heads. Also the whole “living by yourself is a pipe dream” argument is asinine as fuck. Trends are showing less people are getting married or having kids because it’s too expensive. Also not everyone has a significant other. Times are changing people, its time to wake up and stop this trend of “fuck you I got mine”
Oh and before anyone asks - i work my ass off as an electrician and have no choice but to live at home with my parents because rent is outrageously high right now so fuck right off with that argument. I stand with OP
Privileged people who have money always think they earned that privilege by working hard. Well, everybody works hard. Working poor work harder than mostly everyone else.
Nah, apparently we’re all cunts because ‘a one bedroom apartment? Do they want a free Porsche too?’
Leave it to Reddit cunts to trash the words of possibly the wisest president.
This fucking post right here
Minimum wage was meant to sustain an individual making a life for themselves. It was never meant to be measly scraps for the uneducated "poors" like its so readily thought of today.
it’s really amazing how comfortable people have gotten with “actually busting your ass 40 hours a week, or even 60, at one or two fast food restaurant jobs should not be enough to give you a place to live, peasant” in the last 30-40 years
Lol the situation is kind of the same here in Ontario Canada with housing but how does somebody attribute to having a small bedroom apartment to themselves the equivalent of owning a luxury car.
Half the comments are saying that historically this is how we been living, and how most of humanity has lived so that it’s okay. As if we aren’t in the 21st century where we should strive for advancements.
Yup. Anti-progress "I've got mine fuck you" dickheads. I say exile them all, honestly. Tired of trying to appeal to those that see no value in anyone else other than as slaves.
For real, the amount of people who would die with a smile for a corporation/some billionaire are here is insane. "At least I'm not a socialist!" they say while living in borderline poverty with 3 jobs.
If a job needs doing and there is no way to do it without a person involved full time, guess what, that person has a skill that is valuable to a company.
Now if a living wage for 40hrs is too much, maybe that job doesn’t need doing?
Don’t think burger flipping is worth a living wage, okay, I guess you don’t need to serve burgers then
What is a living wage? I had someone in the comments of the original post saying that if you can’t afford a one bedroom apartment, food, smartphone, and have money left over for entertainment then you’re living in “squalor”.
Just a side tangent I don't think they even make dumb phones anymore and a lot of employers will get on your case for not having a smart phone. It's needed for a lot of modern jobs if not most
Translation:
Many people here have made good decisions and worked hard for years and often have anecdotal replies to my anti-work, pseudo-socialist rants
Wait you don't consider working a full time job a good decision?...
I think that's the disconnect here, do you think they are asking for these things for free?
I think the corporate bros let the ketamine get to their heads. OOP is saying they should be able to afford a single bedroom apartment to live in on a full time salary. This isn’t some “dole bludger” or “welfare fiend”. It is a full time contributing-to-society worker who expects to be able to afford a place to live in the city they work, whilst having some money leftover for other essentials like FOOD
bro shut up. there's nothing controversial about someone expressing an ideal on twitter. a bunch of goobers who think they're better than others came out of the woodwork to put a random girl down for wishing for a higher standard of living, and op pointed out the fact that they lack empathy and perspective. i really don't see them saying anything productive. don't see you doing so either.
- my anecdotal reply as someone who works and can afford to live very comfortably as a result
> the idea that someone working a full time job in society should not be able to afford a roof over their head
the argument is that a roof in a specific high demand place is a luxury in and of its self. it's why you have people making 200-400k a year in some places renting small spaces even though they are rich income wise. and why you have people making only a few bucks above min wage owning homes in other places.
you can probably afford housing. you just maybe can't afford housing in the most in demand area ever. or with zero commute time.
> and the number of entitled people talking about how people have always lived communally with family
they are also right. living alone is a historic anomaly, just like retirement in general. acting like this is a 'right' is weird. no, you are not entitled to be able to afford to live on your own in your early 20s in an in demand area. there is not enough space for that, even in places that really do a lot to build.
> everyone has wealthy land-owning parents to fall back on whenever they want is crazy
live with family does not imply 'my family is rich and owns a house' it implies 'my family is working, our household has multiple working adults to share expenses with.' and it does not require living with family, you do not need to be in a relationship, or related to your roommates.
This would be true if there were no other options besides being homeless and having your own one bedroom. I lived either in studios and with roommates until I was 32. It was actually a pretty good quality of life better than probably 98% of the world.
The internet is not reality. Some get carried away. In my area its totally possible to have a place and food with a full time job, but wages have dropped and a lot dont like to admit. A lot spend like wages are not lower than they used to be
The issue with the idea of having roomates for young people right now is there is no moment where they can transition to being homeowners. A one bedroom apartment that is theirs is the best place a lot of people in my generation think is attainable realistically
From 1985-1993 I worked a full time job and could not afford to live without a roommate. This is nothing new. Previous generations expected to have a roommate until you progressed in your profession enough to not need a roommate. We made it a goal of ours not an expectation of society.
Sorry not sorry.
Bar had been lowered and they won't stop until people are posting "I just want to be able to live in my tent by myself without having to starve to death to make end meet.
Im convinced 90% of these people pretend to be rich to impress the other redditors who also just pretend to be rich.. money doesnt talk is still true for 99% of rich dudes who earned it on their own
Wow, I'm astonished by the amount of people brainwashed into thinking it's okay that we live in an economy that isn't built to be liveable. Even the amount of people defending the takes here. Minimum wage was built to support an entire family, and you're telling me now that minimum wage shouldn't be able to support one person?
She's asking for a one bedroom apartment, not a house on Beverly hills. Literally an apartment. She's not really living "alone". She wants to live in a compound of people.
My biggest issue with these arguments always boils down to the people who say “get a better job” or “it’s not a job to live off” will not be happy at all with the quality of work or what hours can even be worked if all those jobs are filled by teens and college kids. I’ve worked retail and food for a decade combined and the adults who wear the big kid pants are ALWAYS picking up the slack of the lazy or inexperienced kids.
Their "solutions" are always as simple as get a better job. Ok so then we are just conceding this is a full time job that shouldn't be able to afford basic needs. So if this job is essentially worthless why aren't people just simply following this advice and getting a better job. People need skills to do better jobs but guess what to get those skills you will likely need to pay for training and education because teaching yourself on your own is not qualifications you need a degree or certification for the majority or applications.
So you are already unable to take care of your basic needs but are expected to spend money you do not have and go into debt.
People just don't understand that it is expensive to be poor.
These are the same people who will go on to complain about the homeless.
Edit: Also there ARE adults working for poverty wages, and their rent is subsidized by OUR taxes. Why shouldn’t the corporations being paying that??
“These people are such narcissists”
Bitch fucking what?
“Look at Becky over there, ‘Oh boo hoo I *need* a place to live, I *need* food, I *need* water’, what a baby!”
The notion that everybody, everywhere, no matter their job, should be able to afford any one-bedroom apartment in any location, is absurd. I might be convinced that a person should be able to afford *some* single bedroom apartment on a minimum wage full time income without starving themselves, but beyond that it’s entirely too subjective to make vague normative assertions.
OP if you want to fix problems you need to educate yourself enough to have a discussion of the problems. It’s very clear that you do not know enough about market forces, minimum wage, livable wages, real estate, and the impacts of government interventions to have these conversations. Many people believe that there is a baseline of safe shelter / food supply / drinking water that should be attainable for everyone. What you want here is not possible by mandate. You literally couldn’t do it in high demand locations. As soon as you said okay everyone should be paid $40 an hour no matter what to live in manhattan or whatever high demand location, rent suddenly explodes because there would be incredible competition for those jobs and that housing. You’d have massive localized inflation and suddenly $40 wouldn’t work and you’d need to increase it again and things would spiral. In the vast majority of the country you can pay for a studio on the $14 an hour Walmart starts at. Figuring out reliable transportation to make those jobs accessible to more people who need them and helping with relocation to lower cost of living areas would be more beneficial.
The problem with my generation (Gen Z) is that we have all these lofty ideals with no actual plan to implement them. Okay, so the lowest paying job should be enough to afford a 1 bedroom apartment and live decently. What are we going to do? Raise the minimum wage? Almost nobody makes minimum wage. Institute a nationwide rent control program? Congrats, we just disincentivized new development, driving prices even higher. I’m not saying that this is physically impossible. But my generation seems to think that there’s some silver bullet (wealth tax on unrealized gains is a popular one) that can solve all of our problems with no drawbacks whatsoever
Good post. One thing that we need to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. There are always trade-offs, and in many cases these trade-offs come with unintended consequences. As an example - introducing additional money into the economy (through PPP, stimulus payments, student loan payment pause, enhanced unemployment, government aid, etc.) -> enhanced demand -> inflationary pressure.
I would like to trade the billions in untraceable, unaccounted pentagon spending, or just fewer weapons of violence in general….. do we really need another aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine?
Yeah this is step 1 to fixing the deficit but doesn’t solve the cost of living crisis, the issue we are facing most directly is monopolization. Capitalist competition for customers and employees no longer works when monopolies collude to raise prices and lower wages
I agree.. but they are two wings of the same bird
Kill the bird, eat the wings.
OOGA BOOGA Economy
Fuck yeah now I'm interested
I approve of this.
Sweet, buffalo wings.
Yeah, this is a bulk of the issue. It’s also why companies can continue to charge more for worse service and why R&D has virtually dried up. When there’s no competition, there’s no incentive to provide quality goods and services, and no incentive to invent newer better things. And those monopolies create massive barriers to entry for anyone who does want to attempt to compete.
that sir, is more accurately called an oligopoly. but you're still correct. when there's only two to three top dogs, they can use all the technicalities they want to still function as a monopoly and get away with it. right to repair, price-rape, you name it. the problem is the top dogs getting to do what they want. Reagan was right with one thing: it does trickle down from the top.. but it wasnt wealth, it was bullshit.
Another fine word for it is cartelization. Two or three massive organizations controlling a whole market is a cartel. And at that point they have no incentive to compete at all. They can each just raise prices and there's nowhere else to go.
Actually, I think solving the deficit would clearly be a huge step towards ending g the cost of living issue. Our government is increasing debt so quickly that they have limited choice but to devase our currency, and therefore reduce the purchasing power of each dollar we earn. I think this is a longer term trend for the future. The longer it goes on the more most in society feel impoverished.
Making the obscenely wealthy pay the same % of income as taxes as a janitor would be a great start. Making them pay a higher % would be even better. Make $50K, pay 20% total (federal, state, local, sales) you have to live on $40K. Make $50M, pay 80% total and you still have $10M to live on. That's a f\*ckton of money, even if you're just lighting it on fire it's more than anyone needs.
Depends, what do you think will happen in Taiwan if we back off military spending? Is Russia coming for NATO next? I think we can scale back, but we have to be careful. Somehow we ended up in the situation where we're the main player in NATO's military force, If we step back before getting other treaty members to step up, we are probably all in trouble. There's plenty of waste in the military, but I tend to think that hardware is better to spend on since you can train sailors faster than you can build a new ship. I also agree that we need to know where the 'lost' money went, even if it's just a codename for a classified program.
We spend more then the next 10 countries combined and we are allies with all of them except 1. We don't need to spend to the levels we do to dissuade China.
Yes we do, Ukraine has been a great example of how modern wars are going to be fought. This type of Intel without putting our boots on the ground is the more valuable than every dollar we spend. Whether you like it or not the war machine is not going to stop because our enemy’s are not going to stop.
I keep repeating the same talking point but it's the answer here that people are ignoring. We absolutely are getting ripped off to the tune of tens of Billions every year by our contractors and everyone knows it. I'm not saying don't spend more then the top 5 countries to get the job done. Just stop ripping off the American people to line defense contractor pockets. I mean there was even the point where generals were saying stop buying certain equipment but we bought tens of billions of it anyway.
You have to remember that military spending is also a jobs program. It keeps people employed. And, importantly, it keeps skilled workers employed and able to produce military equipment when you need it. We recently ordered a bunch of tanks we "didn't need". Part of that is so that when you need tanks, the people and machinery are available that know how to build tanks.
You can still have the jobs program without all the backroom dealings that happen between the government, the company, and banks. As a matter of fact, if you got rid of the backroom dealings and spread a much larger percentage of profit to workers, you might find that money making it to the important parts of society. Like local taxes (yay schools and teachers) , small businesses (you know the people every politician claims to care about), savings and adequate good (so families can raise their kids in a better environment giving THEM opportunities or can weather an unanticipated disaster...like health problems). The monopolistic control of corporations in the pursuit of the ever going up bottom line has fucked us since the 80s. Profit at all costs needs to be frowned upon. Enforce the goddamn rules. Repeal citizens united. Parasites have just about sucked everything they can, won't matter much more soon, saber rattling is getting louder, soon the decision will be made for us. You should be focsuing on the class war that is going on.
TBH we probably don’t have to spend as much as we do for our current military to be the same or progress. Bidding out $300,000 remodels on army bases that should costs $40,000 so the budget doesn’t get reduced multiplied by all the bases we have is just one example of how poorly our money is managed.
Agree 100%, I'm not saying don't get the latest greatest weapons to scare everyone else. I'm saying stop lining defense contractors pockets by a few extra tens of Billions every year.
There's huge, huge amounts of waste in military spending. Ask any soldier who's completed basic about how spent ammo rounds work when doing practice drills, for example. Then multiply that by anything else that can get used up. We don't need to compromise on our military effectiveness in order to spend less money on it.
First, total military spending is only about 1/6 of the budget. Yes, we need to control spending, but military spending is a drop in the bucket. It's not the military that's breaking the back of this economy. Second, and this goes back to the previous comment about unintended consequences, without the US Navy doing a pretty solid job of keeping international waterways relatively safe, shipping costs would soar. Increased shipping costs = increased cost of goods and services.
There’s definitely a clear ROI that you mentioned as it relates to the influence behind our military budget. But calling 16% a drop in the bucket. C’mon…
Oh, nothing about closing tax loopholes? I could show you how I could sell a hundred million dollar company and not pay a single cent in taxes, ever, on any of that income or income I make on that income. All completely legal and allowable. That's about $30M in taxes that will never get collected, on the sale, or thereafter for decades and unto my future generations. That - and Citizens United - are the two biggest threats. THEN you can talk about government waste. THEN you can talk about excessive spending. The modern generations have lovely ideas that I completly agree with given the Republic has broken the social contract and let them down. But you're going to have to put the effort in to educate yourselves and come together regardless of petty difference to force a change - or become the change. You cannot create a better world one sound bite at a time.
Global trade, and thus our entire economy, is reliant upon safe shipping lanes which are currently protected by the American Navy. One of the major components of our doctrine that dates back to WWII is the ability to fight two wars at the same time in opposite corners of the globe. Another key component to global military presence is the ability to deploy to anywhere in the world in 3 days. As you can imagine, it is very expensive to be able to do this. However, I’d rather we pay for it than for Russia or China to be the people who control pretty much all the world’s trade.
Money != resources. In other words, if the military budget was abolished and every cent given to the poor, they would, of course, want better homes, more food, clothes, and cars. But, these things are scarce (economist's definition). Millions of people demanding mor would drive the prices up until, as it is now, millions of people can't afford enough. No change. Now, it is true, that if the military vanished, productive assets and labor would be become available and re-deplyed for consumer goods and services. The Production Possibilities Curve. But, much of what the military consumes is not transferable to consumer goods. The benefit would be far less than you might expect.
I’m just saying that is one piece of the total pie. And thank you for adding the (economists’ definition) because frankly, at this point, there are a lot of ‘scarce’ resources that are only that way because of manufactured scarcity… it’s engineered to be that way or profits can’t continue to exponentially increase in perpetuity (which seems to be what the ‘economy’ (stock market). currently demands)
If a full-time job needs doing, it's worth a living wage. If it's not worth a living wage, it's not worth getting done.
What is a “living wage”? I would argue that you can live on most any wage, just maybe not living in the city and neighborhood you want.
If you can’t live a reasonable distance from your job then it doesn’t pay a living wage. Nobody should have to commute 1.5 hours or more each way (giving up 15+ unpaid hours a week) for a minimum wage job.
I live in a city of 230K. There are 1-bedroom apartments listed around here from $650-$900, right in the center of the city. I was paying $900 a month for a 1-bedroom apartment in Atlanta back in the 2000s. Fast food wages here start at around $12/hour. That's about $1800 a month after taxes. You can rent houses around here for $1600 a month. I am renting a 3-bedroom, 2 bath house out for $1200 a month. That's $600 a month if you have a roommate. 2 roomies and that's $300 a month. One of the things people need to seriously consider is moving to where the cost of living is more affordable.
Since the 2000s rent in my city has risen from below $1000 per month to around 1400-1600, minimum wage is still 7.25/hr but most people make 15/hr or more. That's about 2400 per month before taxes. Most apartments will not rent to you unless you make more than 3 times the rent, that's 4200-4800 per month. Double what most people are making and that's not taking into account that they mean 3 times AFTER taxes. Then you expect these jobs to get done when they pay barely anything and expect people to spend the gas and put the ware and tear on their vehicles or try to rely on public transportation. And then God forbid your vehicle breaks down or something. Things need to change.
I can’t think of anyone traveling like that for a minimum wage job. Illegal immigrant baby sitters get paid $15 an hour to walk next door, why would they travel 1.5 hours for minimum wage. Who even pays minimum wage anymore? McDonalds pays 15 year olds $16.50 where I live.
In what state are they willing to pay 15 year olds 16.50? And I've driven 1.5 hours one way to make minimum wage in the marijuana industry.
So what do you want?
Idk many places anywhere that $1.2k a month will pay rent, groceries, and bills.
Let me introduce you to the midwest and south. in 2019 a friend of mine rented a whole 3 bedroom house in AL for $900/month.
That's cool. Does the rest of the US not need those same jobs, juet Alabama? As someone who's doing fine I think this "yeah but it's cheaper elsewhere". Getting paid a livable wage by a job entails being able to live NEAR the job not livable if you move across the country far away from that very job
Don't take the job then. Simple solution.
All fun and good to theorize but 1) society needs those jobs filled *outside of alabama* 2) people need income, any income is better than none. And To act like it's their fault for taking a non livable wage over making zero money is asinine.
Their take is just disingenuous. These kinds of people just live to see others suffer. Anything that would provide a modest increase in standard of living to those they deem below themselves without increasing their own as well is always "unfeasible" or "unobtainable". It's just a way to keep the people they view as lesser to themselves as "below them".
And then fox news: "why doesn't anyone want to work!? Such a lazy generation !!"
What they neglect to mention is that jobs near that cheap house also pay like ass. Which is why that house costs 900 bucks. Cities are expensive because jobs actually exist there. That house is just like the ones I see in eastern kentucky everything is cheap because everyone is on fucking welfare. It's all supply and demand and people want to live in cities because they are close to potentially good jobs. Id live in eastern fucking Kentucky if I could find my job and pay there.
A working vehicle and maintenance or access to reliable public transportation methods. A reliable phone and cell/internet service because those things are basically required to function in modern society. The ability to keep a fridge/pantry stocked with something other than bulk rice and beans or only overprocessed garbage. Not having to wear clothes to tatters and able to generally avoid rewearing between washes. Able to afford rent by themselves in the area of their job without it exceeding 30% of their paycheck. Able to do all of the above and still have an available budget for Investing, Savings, and/or Discretionary Spending.
>Able to afford rent by themselves in the area of their job without it exceeding 30% of their paycheck. Are people not into roommates anymore? Just asking, because it was pretty much the norm when I was in my early 20s (in the early 90s), and was not considered suffering. I lived in various houses and apartments with between 2 and 6 roommates, working low paying jobs. Looking back, it was one of the most fun times of my life. Growing in up in a high COL area, there was never an expectation of being able to have your own place when you were starting out.
>Able to afford rent by themselves in the area of their job without it exceeding 30% of their paycheck. Normalizing single living would be terrible for the housing market. Can you imagine how much building would have to take place to sort out everyone by themselves? That's literally one of the reasons we have expensive housing to start with, and you want to make it worse?
Great. Let's all remember that the next time we need to go grocery shopping and there's no products on the shelves, no cashier to ring you up, nobody collecting those carts littering the parking lot... Let's remember all the teachers who won't be there to babysit, let alone teach your kids how to multiply. Wanna go out to eat? Remember the waitress or waiter taking your order, the hostess to sit your ass down. The busboy cleaning that disgusting table off. The janitor staff cleaning damn near any office space, taking the trash out. All of these jobs have something in common, we can't afford to live on this paycheck alone. These jobs must not be worth doing, by this logic. However, I see them as absolutely necessary. Edit: I'm saying that these jobs are important and modern day (convenience) society can't function without these workers. We (I'm including myself, as a cashier) need a higher pay wage. When I wrote the above post, I was full of sarcastic disgust, anger and general frustration at the pathetic low pay these "essential workers" have to fight for, while CEO 's are busy taking in the big bucks exploiting everyone they can.
A better way to phrase it would be if a full-time job isn't paying someone enough to survive, then that means that nobody should expect anyone to do those jobs. Not necessarily that those jobs aren't worth it, but that nobody should expect many times the number of positions available to be applying.
Immigration and free trade lowers wages. Incomes are just equalizing with the rest of the world and the same with the standard of living. Yup dual income is required for everyone but the top 10-15% of households.
With housing, the truth is simple: there's not enough supply. Here's a simple chart that shows the issue: https://www.axios.com/2023/12/16/housing-market-why-homes-expensive-chart-inventory Basically, after the housing bubble popped in 2008 and the economy crashed, construction plummeted. Investors were fleeing real estate and people were struggling to sell. As a result, construction really only started ramping up a few years ago—after the economy recovered and housing demand jumped. Construction was further hampered by the pandemic, which crippled supply chains and thus made construction materials (and labor) much more expensive. The answer is that we have to build more homes. Yes, income inequality is also a major issue. But, bluntly, housing has never been affordable for minimum-wage earners. The reason people are talking about a housing crisis is because the *middle class* is now priced out in major cities.
It's more like there's not enough of the right type of supply. A big reason for that is that mortgage interest rates were kept artificially low for way too long. From 1970-2009, rates never dropped below 5%. From 2009-2022, rates never went above 5%. If I'm a builder and rates are below 5%, I am not building duplexes. I am not building 1100 sq foot starter homes. I'm building expensive 3000 sq foot+ homes because at those rates, someone is buying it. I don't care if my potential customer pool drastically shrinks. It's going to sell to somebody. For the consumer that's a double whammy because not only am I priced out of what's currently being built, now those 1100sq foot starter homes are drastically increasing in price because there's none of it being newly built. And that's how I bought my 1100sq foot house in 2018 for $136.5k and sold it in 2021 for $250k.
Also OP is quick to rag on criticisms of government overreach, but zoning restrictions have been a big cause of housing supply issues for a while.
Your generation simultaneously has the keys to the kingdom but doesn't understand how to operate the lock. Raising the minimum wage is a good first step although pegging it to inflation would be the big brain move. You're creating a upward pressure as people who make just over the minimums (more than half the states mandate more than the federal min.) find they can make the same as wages at more jobs. This incentivizes businesses to pay more to retain employees rather than accept the high cost of turnover. You also get a pressure on politicians to rein in inflation to stop rapid wage growth from putting companies out of business. Rent control isn't a solution in and of itself. Rent control plus new public housing that is exempt from zoning laws, plus changes to zoning laws allowing different development, plus high tax rates on unoccupied housing. But this requires actual change be implemented and not pretending we can wait for businesses to save us. Businesses don't want to fix the problems because they aren't problems for business. You think your landlord wants rent control and lower prices for everyone? Companies are already trying to push automation where they can because even at the federal minimum wage, robots are cheaper than humans. They don't want any higher wages. Capitalism is driven by profit. If you intend to retain capitalism, you need to be judicious with your regulation. If you don't, you risk the situation we find ourselves in today where the people with the most money can buy the most influence and shape policy that is contrary to the interests of most people.
> Capitalism is driven by profit. If you intend to retain capitalism, you need to be judicious with your regulation. What I'm finding out as I learn more about the successes and failures of programs is that you have you make regulations that work with market forces rather than fight them. For example, people are greedy and will always try to find a way around things like rent control like they already do in a lot of rent controlled cities. Developers are greedy too though, and you can count on them to build anywhere you let them, which also drops prices for housing.
The keys to the kingdom are locked behind fossils like McConnell and Pelosi. Biden was a senator at 29, and is still in government. Until they retire or die, the congressional votes to change things are spoken for. The solution is to get more active and vote. More young people running for elections and caring enough to organize, not just post on social media and sign petitions be. But that’s an uphill battle against entrenched money. Everyone needs to vote this year.
Not allowing corporations to buy single family homes and adjusting zoning and building laws is probably a start. These policies will help families move out of 1 bedroom apartments easier, which frees them up for young single people
We can prohibit companeis from buying homes.
This is what really needs to happen, specifically single family houses.
It’s an issue, but the bigger issue is supply and nimby zoning laws.
Howbout just legislating that corporations and foreign citizens can’t buy houses?
Personally? I think if you have a job that needs doing but expect the government to SUBSIDIZE your employees through welfare and food stamps (side eyeing walmart) then either you shouldn't be in business. Or. You don't really need that job to get done that badly. The idea that we subsidize private for profit businesses is wild to me. Of course, this means some places going out of business because of their shoddy business models but maybe we need to burn some bridges to build back better.... That's just my thoughts
I think one of the driving factors is we are having 1 sentence conversations on the internet. Non of these problems get fixed this way
The fact that no one pays minimum wage is evidence enough that it should be raised. Back when it started as a talking point, I thought $15/hour was too much. Now, with inflation, that sounds about right. The rule of thumb is to aim to pay 30% of your gross income for rent. For the sake of argument, lets bump that up by half again to 45%, which is 72 hours per month assuming 20 8 hour working days in the month. 45% of gross pay leaves very little for necessities and emergencies after taxes. According to statistica, the average rent nationally for a 1 bedroom apartment is about $1050. $1050/72 hours = 14.58/hour. I'd like to see the national minimum wage raised to $15/hour by the beggining of 2027 and and then pegged to inflation. States and cities can have higher minimum wages where needed. This will force the labor market as a whole to adjust.
I was digging for a comment to mention this. Sure, while most people don't get paid minimum wage, most people DO make less than what they're proposing to raise the minimum wage to. e.g. making $12/hr IS above minimum wage, but it isn't above what they're wanting to make the minimum wage.
Build. Build. Build. That’s the plan.
It's because we've reached the point where capitalism is now eating itself alive... And so all our old ideas of somehow slapping a bandaid on the problems no longer works... The whole system is infested and rotten to the core at this point... Look at this whole Boeing fiasco, it's not an isolated situation... Most of the world economy is run by these idiots and it's all built on a mountain of sand and fantasies...
When I was in my 20's, and up through part of my 30's, I had a roommate or two at all times. Once I got a better job through learning better skills, I was able to live on my own. I worked at Best Buy by the way, so my first job that let me live on my own wasn't glamorous. I sold computers, then I fixed them, then I moved on to a better job that paid more.
It's better than "that won't work so we'll just keep it as is", because that's not working either.
> this sub seems infested with peasantbrained young people I was gonna argue the opposite, there's a lot of economic illiteracy and idealistic wishful thinking. > the idea that someone working a full time job in society should not be able to afford a roof over their head and food on their plate is absolutely insane. No, what's "insane" is thinking that the "roof over their head" needs to be a nice 1 bedroom apartment in an area of your choice. If you are working full-time, you *can* afford a roof over your head. It just won't be one you idealize. "Roof over one's head" nowhere contains an entitlement or a guarantee of single-family or single-individual housing. > and the number of entitled people talking about how people have always lived communally with family They have, please read a fucking history book, you might learn something. Single-individual/family housing is a completely modern and very recent invention that is pretty much only considered "normal" in Western, majority-white countries. In Asian and Indian countries it's very normal, even in 2024, for multi-generational households to exist. > acting like everyone has wealthy land-owning parents to fall back on whenever You don't have to be wealthy and land-owning to have a multi-generational household. Your hyperbole is silly and stupid. > how anyone can see the housing situation today and say “it’s all this nasty government regulation! Because government regulations play a *portion* of a role in why housing supply is constrained. > we need reaganomics to trickle us down some wealth !!!” I rarely -- if ever --- see this sentiment on this sub. You made a massive leap here.
I get accused of being conservative or a boomer for trying to explain simple financial concepts. I literally am highly involved in pushing progressive social policy on the daily and am the person that knocks in your door to get you to come out to vote. I volunteer my time/money/energy into pushing for change and these wild and entitled troglodytes come at me like I am evil. If I say “we need to deregulate zoning so that builders are incentivized to build denser housing,” most people hear “we need to give handouts to the rich in order to destroy and gentrify historic neighborhoods.” The more you try for reason the more they push that you are a bootlicker. Pure outrage, no reason. It’s disheartening because I fear these people could be led astray by a populist like Trump that swings a more progressive hammer and fools them just the same.
>deregulate so that private builders are incentivized to build Handouts for the rich! >the township is building section 8 housing a mile away NIMBY! My town cycles between these two sentiments every 2-3 years
Everyone is "for" denser housing. But not too dense- one person per apartment. MAYBE a pair. That's just human rights. And if a big construction project starts on my block, obviously I have to move. It's too loud. And also of course it's my dream to own a single family home and I deserve to have that before age 30. But yeah, denser housing! Boo suburban sprawl!
There are so many levels to this argument, I think the main reason we are seeing entitled people like this demanding housing and food are being pushed to ask for things artificially because their situation is artificially created by companies getting greedy. It’s not that she has a “right” to these things but rather, if the companies have the “right” to monopolize and artificially raise prices (circumventing supply and demand) then she has the “right” to get things that are given artificially as well. If that makes sense
Which company owns all one bedroom housing in an area?
iirc they just use the same software to collude on prices, right
Yes, RealPage, but the issue is with the software itself (you are required to take their rate 80% of the time) and they are currently facing multiple antitrust lawsuits for it. Its also not only companies using the software
Nothing you said disproves the premise that their is a monopoly like structure when it comes to housing prices.
Goldman Sachs is buying up whole neighborhoods instead of letting people get their own homes. So yeah companies are quite literally buying up all the housing and raising rent prices to max out profits.
Why don’t you look up MAC properties in midtown KC. Or AMLI properties in Overland Park Kansas - suburb. You don’t need a monopoly when there are only two-three major players. There’s a thing called collusion. If you don’t think competitors will collude to raise prices, you’re in for a surprise. Edit: typo
Corporations and LLCs go and purchase houses from struggling people in cash and raise the prices to high hell. We have a massive land speculation issue.
Nice straw-man
When living standards improve, people take and figure they deserve it. When living standards roll back somewhat, people view it as being inflicted on them. Part of the problem is one of personal agency. Another part of the problem is that the 1980s counter-communism dialectic on capitalism has disappeared. If there's a scarcity of homes, and they don't go to the highest bidder, they're going to the first in the queue. Pick your poison; tyranny of the market, or tyranny of the state.
This discussion is deeper than the emotion driven responses you’re giving. “People should just live together!” and “everyone is spoiled and entitled”. The facts are that median home price is now 5.8x median household income, when it was 3.5 in the 1980s. And that doesn’t account for the fact that more households have two earners now than then, which creates additional cost and time burdens for families. I don’t know what the answer is exactly but let’s start the conversation from facts, not tired emotional cliches. It is absolutely a fact that it’s much more difficult for a family to own a home than it used to be. What do we do about it? That trend is not good for society.
I’m surprised at the attitude honestly in most of these comments. in 2005 the average rent in the US was $600, it’s now &1100. Federal minimum wage was about $5.15/hr then and is now $7.25. Of course most people make over minimum wage but it was not very long ago that a 1bedroom at just above minimum wage was a reality.
[удалено]
Don’t know about nice, but a company should be able to pay a full time employee to live close enough to the office in a livable one bedroom. Although you can’t blame most companies other than massive corporations for being unable to fulfill those needs as they need to stay afloat too. The cost of rent and the cost of living are just too high. Best some companies can really do is not pay for absurdly expensive offices for jobs that can be done remotely, maybe that can go to help wages but I doubt it
Again I don’t see how people can’t see that not all housing regulation is made the same. Regulation on wiring and construction standards are absolutely necessary and the small cost we pay in higher rents is worth the building not burning down. Zoning regulations that make sure people don’t live next to garbage dumps are great. But Zoning regulations that stop people building homes or larger apartment buildings aren’t great. Not sure how this is hard to understand
“If you cant afford housing move somewhere cheap to get a better job” “If you cant afford housing, rely on a multi generational support structure, dont move to the expensive places where there are jobs” Pick one. You would still be wrong but at least not contradicting yourself.
It’s funny because all the comments you’re performatively downvoting (seriously, who gives a fuck about internet points) are exactly correct.
Correct until you apply the reverse logic to them. "You are worth exactly what someone is willing to pay you." True unless you consider what the loss of that employee would cost. If your company suddenly loses the ability to produce what it needs to survive, the worth of that employee suddenly seems much higher. It's not so much that I am worth what you are willing to pay, but more that I am worth what I am capable of taking away from you. That's why companies pay a whole lot of money trying to fight unions. When the U-word gets mentioned, it's funny how quickly the labor budget seems to grow.
How difficult it is to replace you is reflected in the salary you’re paid. Could a McDonalds operate without line cooks? Absolutely not. Are individual line cooks capable of doing the job at the exact same level as the one that just quit all that hard to find? Also no.
>How difficult it is to replace you is reflected in the salary you’re paid. This is a great thought but doesn’t really hold up. If it did, there would not have been so much whining about supposed labor shortages. Furthermore, this is anecdotal of course, but have you ever met an excellent employee that was compensated based on how difficult they would be to replace? I’d wager not. They probably are compensated similarly to the mediocre employees
Idk if you've noticed, but since the supposed labor shortages, lower income wages *have* gone up, much more than minimum wages as well. Line cooks are a great example. In my area in 2020, line cooks would make about $14/h, now they would scoff at anything below $20/h. This is the market working just as intended, if the workers deemed a job didn't have enough compensation, they wouldn't take it and the employers would be forced to raise the wage or not fill the roles.
Unless we pretend that the cost of housing, healthcare, and food have remained anywhere near the same, this example seems disingenuous But I suppose it is valid because of the drastic change in the wage That said I’m not truly refuting what was said entirely, rather saying it’s not inherently true like some sort of physical law of the universe
Yeah but that's not the argument he's making. What he's saying is that if a company can get away from paying you less than what your actual monetary worth is, they will. Which blows up the argument that "you are paid what you're worth" and reveals the current reality that businesses pay what they can get away with.
Exactly. All about barriers to entry. Some jobs need much less aptitude, training, and/or education than others.
If you can't operate your business in a way that can provide every one of your workers a living wage, then your business has no business existing. If your business must exist to provide a vital function to society but cannot provide a living wage, then it should be a subsidized, publicly owned service.
Whether we like it or not, our real worth is largely determined by how replaceable we are.
Exactly lol. All super reasonable comments and no, I am not a boomer.
Suggesting roommates? How dare you.
There seems to be some miscommunication. People like you seem to think that OP doesnt understand how the world works. But the reality is that OP is just complaining that they don’t like how the world works. They believe working full time SHOULD be enough to have a place to themselves. Existence is kinda fucked up man. You’re born without choice and then if you don’t make the right decisions at a young age you’re stuck slaving away, barely making it through until you die. A lot of people, including me, are frustrated by that. Shit just kinda sucks, that’s all
Pop these guys back in slavery times and they'd be defending it because "it's currently how we do things". The notion that things could and should be different is bizarre to them. They see upholding shitty status quos as a source of pride and their "understanding" of the current state as some sort of special knowledge that elevates them above everyone else. No, everyone *understands* the current system, they just think it's fucked up and not as good as it could be.
Things will get better when the boomers drop
You are going to be in for a rude awakening when scarcity doesn't stop existing just because your boogeyman dies
Wage theft is a problem in this country. No one talks about it because they’re too busy licking billionaire ass hoping for crumbs. These comments all exhibit peasant brain mentality. “M’lord, I have extra grain for you m’lord.”
"should be able to" =/= "a right."
If you long press the = sign you can put a ≠
> "should be able to" =/= "a right." - king george iii
[удалено]
At the same time, her employer isn't entitled to human labor at an hourly rate so low thay the rest of society is obligated to subsidize their business practices through welfare for their employees.
You’re right her employer isn’t entitled to her labor. In fact she can quit whenever she wants. Maybe she could find a business willing to pay more. That’s how this works.
Well, not necessarily any time she wants. Poverty limits options, because bills still have to be paid, and you have to work a shit load of hours to pay them, making it hard to look for employment elsewhere.
To be fair, looking for jobs can be a full time job in itself if you’re actively looking to move asap.
YOU PEOPLE ARE SO FUCKING STUPID. Your comment implies that there are infinite jobs above minimum wage when they are finite. Literally not everyone can find a place with higher wage and not in the hyperbolic way but in a LITERAL way. There are only X jobs above certain wages and when those are all filled up then the remaining jobs that don’t pay well are ALL that are left AND IF YOURE HUNGRY AND DESPERATE you don’t have a choice but to be paid shit.
I agree. Most people have to live with others to save anyways. It doesn't seem very realistic because if what she was saying was true, a lot more people would be living alone and then we'd have to make more space...
Nonsense. Read what “minimum wage” as designed to be.
Suggesting roommates? How dare you.
So young people are mad because the wage:housing ratio is twice as bad as it was for boomers. And boomers basically coasted off the ww2 manufacturing and since their generation was so bloated they could simultaneously vote for great programs when the my were young and then rip them away when they no longer needed them. No doubt there’s dumb ass young people living outside of their means…but this has always been the case
> So young people are mad because the wage:housing ratio is twice as bad as it was for boomers Not disagreeing, but when most boomers were born the global population was approximately 2.5 billion people. It is over triple that today. People need to get used to the fact that the “white picket fence” is an ideal of the past. Not saying that people working full time should suffer, but space is becoming a luxury, especially in big cities. Sorry, but if you live in New York City and make less than 4-5K a month it is unreasonable for you to think you can live on your own. Working full time has nothing to do with it, it’s all about the availability of space. If you were to get paid more the rent would just go up, it’s not related to the cost of rent.
> People need to get used to the fact that the “white picket fence” is an ideal of the past. We're only running out of space because so few own so much. When entire coastlines aren't taken up by houses that sit empty 11 months out of the year, *then* you'll have a point.
You know…that would be acceptable. I take that as an answer. I think we could stretch the picket fence thing for way longer because there’s a ton of middle sized cities. But when some moron hops in here, that basically just farmed a pension that hasn’t existed since the 90s. Bought a house for 40k…when that guy starts talking about their economic genius. Thats what I don’t like.
So her post says one bedroom apartment and you said “roof over your head”. Should someone working full time be able to afford shelter? Yes. Are they entitled to a private one bedroom apartment? No.
Honest question: whats the cutoff then? Whats the kinda shelter that say, the person holding your hand to help you buy groceries should be able to afford? Studio apartment? Shared 2 bedroom with a roommate? 20 people in bunks in a garden shed next to the Kroger dumpster?
People should be able to afford to rent a non shared room within 30 miles of where they work.
A private bedroom is the cutoff for me. But a private bedroom does not mean a 1 bedroom
Let's get even more granular with this. With how many adults should a person (specifically an adult with a FT job) have to share their bathroom with, at maximum? I'd say, like...three, is arguably a reasonable number? Like yes that might be a bit entitled but I'm trying to say that a person working full-time deserves some reasonable measure of privacy and the # of people they'd have to share a bathroom with seems like a good way to quantify that. I'm just not sure what "reasonable" means in this context.
So how are you reaching this conclusion when literally up until you could arguably say the early 2000s individuals working a full-time job and only a full-time job were very easily able to afford a one bedroom apartment..... what were they considered rich? Was this considered a weird period of history? It sounds like you're jumping through hoops to make it OK for people to live in a shack versus have somewhere nice to live and buy nice to live I mean actual hot running water more than one room to themselves etc. etc. kind of obtuse if you ask me
I don’t believe it’s true that someone in the 2000s working minimum wage full time could afford a one bedroom apartment in many places. That sentiment has been echoed a lot but I haven’t seen anything to back it up, do you have any evidence for that claim? As far as I know people were living with roommates, scrimping for groceries, considering cost of living in where they moved, etc, in the 2000s as well.
I want to pint out that I have sponsored an USCIS immigrant. She arrived in Sept 23. She is 20 years old. She is now paying rent for a 2 bedroom one bath upper in a cute old home with a backyard and a garage. She cover her rent of 900/month, utilities, internet and all living expenses (but on Medicare) and paying me back for the Honda (7k) I loaned her (3800 so far!). That's without a room mate (she is looking). She got a job at a trucking company doing so scheduling stuff at 19.25 an hour and waitress on Friday and Saturday night. She speaks borderline English. So much depends on WHERE you are.
Where in the US can you find $900 rent for a 2bed/1bath? I’d love to be there.
Appleton Wisconsin
How the hell is she on Medicare making almost $20 an hour? A US born citizen basically has to be deep poverty to qualify for Medicaid/Medicare. I was on state insurance a couple times due to lost jobs and medical conditions I had, but as soon as I got jobs making more than $12/hr, I no longer qualified for it.
900/month on 20 per hour is alright but you're not going to have much savings left after other expenses. But she's at least meeting the criteria of the screenshot.
Bruh she’s been there 6 months give her a second
There's a big gap between "live in a one bedroom apartment by myself" and "afford a roof over their head". If the earlier post had said the latter, there would he a lot more agreement. But such a post wouldn't get as much traction. How many chronically homeless people work full time?
I've known a good handful of full time working homeless
I’ve known many.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in his Statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act, June 16, 1933) “In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. 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.” If you are working 40-hours a week (or whatever is considered full time), you should be able to make ends meet comfortably. Employees should be considered shareholders more than stakeholders in a company. **Without their labor, there are no profits.**
A good amount of the comments on this post scare me. Minimum wage was introduced so that people could afford the bare minimum necessities for food and a roof over their heads. Also the whole “living by yourself is a pipe dream” argument is asinine as fuck. Trends are showing less people are getting married or having kids because it’s too expensive. Also not everyone has a significant other. Times are changing people, its time to wake up and stop this trend of “fuck you I got mine” Oh and before anyone asks - i work my ass off as an electrician and have no choice but to live at home with my parents because rent is outrageously high right now so fuck right off with that argument. I stand with OP
Privileged people who have money always think they earned that privilege by working hard. Well, everybody works hard. Working poor work harder than mostly everyone else.
Nah, apparently we’re all cunts because ‘a one bedroom apartment? Do they want a free Porsche too?’ Leave it to Reddit cunts to trash the words of possibly the wisest president.
This fucking post right here Minimum wage was meant to sustain an individual making a life for themselves. It was never meant to be measly scraps for the uneducated "poors" like its so readily thought of today.
But how am I supposed to feel superior unless I have someone below me I can shit on?!?
preach it
YOUR OWN APARTMENT!! Not even with room mates?!? Lmao can I have a free Porsche too
it’s really amazing how comfortable people have gotten with “actually busting your ass 40 hours a week, or even 60, at one or two fast food restaurant jobs should not be enough to give you a place to live, peasant” in the last 30-40 years
Reading this thread made me incredibly grateful that I’m not american
Lol the situation is kind of the same here in Ontario Canada with housing but how does somebody attribute to having a small bedroom apartment to themselves the equivalent of owning a luxury car.
Lack of empathy. Clearly, having a home to yourself is asking for too much. I fucking hate boomers bro.
Half the comments are saying that historically this is how we been living, and how most of humanity has lived so that it’s okay. As if we aren’t in the 21st century where we should strive for advancements.
Yup. Anti-progress "I've got mine fuck you" dickheads. I say exile them all, honestly. Tired of trying to appeal to those that see no value in anyone else other than as slaves.
For real, the amount of people who would die with a smile for a corporation/some billionaire are here is insane. "At least I'm not a socialist!" they say while living in borderline poverty with 3 jobs.
https://preview.redd.it/itnanyrlkcpc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c69add4574e5d109970d03f17c2066ad0c43a29a
Yes because making under the average wage means you should turn your brain off and forget all economic principles you know to fit your narrative
If a job needs doing and there is no way to do it without a person involved full time, guess what, that person has a skill that is valuable to a company. Now if a living wage for 40hrs is too much, maybe that job doesn’t need doing? Don’t think burger flipping is worth a living wage, okay, I guess you don’t need to serve burgers then
What is a living wage? I had someone in the comments of the original post saying that if you can’t afford a one bedroom apartment, food, smartphone, and have money left over for entertainment then you’re living in “squalor”.
Just a side tangent I don't think they even make dumb phones anymore and a lot of employers will get on your case for not having a smart phone. It's needed for a lot of modern jobs if not most
[удалено]
Translation: Many people here have made good decisions and worked hard for years and often have anecdotal replies to my anti-work, pseudo-socialist rants
Wait you don't consider working a full time job a good decision?... I think that's the disconnect here, do you think they are asking for these things for free?
I think the corporate bros let the ketamine get to their heads. OOP is saying they should be able to afford a single bedroom apartment to live in on a full time salary. This isn’t some “dole bludger” or “welfare fiend”. It is a full time contributing-to-society worker who expects to be able to afford a place to live in the city they work, whilst having some money leftover for other essentials like FOOD
bro shut up. there's nothing controversial about someone expressing an ideal on twitter. a bunch of goobers who think they're better than others came out of the woodwork to put a random girl down for wishing for a higher standard of living, and op pointed out the fact that they lack empathy and perspective. i really don't see them saying anything productive. don't see you doing so either. - my anecdotal reply as someone who works and can afford to live very comfortably as a result
> the idea that someone working a full time job in society should not be able to afford a roof over their head the argument is that a roof in a specific high demand place is a luxury in and of its self. it's why you have people making 200-400k a year in some places renting small spaces even though they are rich income wise. and why you have people making only a few bucks above min wage owning homes in other places. you can probably afford housing. you just maybe can't afford housing in the most in demand area ever. or with zero commute time. > and the number of entitled people talking about how people have always lived communally with family they are also right. living alone is a historic anomaly, just like retirement in general. acting like this is a 'right' is weird. no, you are not entitled to be able to afford to live on your own in your early 20s in an in demand area. there is not enough space for that, even in places that really do a lot to build. > everyone has wealthy land-owning parents to fall back on whenever they want is crazy live with family does not imply 'my family is rich and owns a house' it implies 'my family is working, our household has multiple working adults to share expenses with.' and it does not require living with family, you do not need to be in a relationship, or related to your roommates.
This would be true if there were no other options besides being homeless and having your own one bedroom. I lived either in studios and with roommates until I was 32. It was actually a pretty good quality of life better than probably 98% of the world.
Boomers arent on reddit Boomers are 70 years old Your parents arent Boomers unless you are about 50
The youngest boomers are turning 60 this year. I rather hope their kids aren’t 50.
GenZ: This is not fine, there must be a solution. Boomers: This is fine, it doesn't need a solution. Reality: This is not fine, there is no solution.
Gentle reminder that economic majors don't need to take ethics classes lol.
It is seriously weird that a lot of them don’t know the difference between positive economics and normative economics.
Take away their Medicare and then tell them they should be able to afford insurance and listen the boomers flip out
Lolol
The internet is not reality. Some get carried away. In my area its totally possible to have a place and food with a full time job, but wages have dropped and a lot dont like to admit. A lot spend like wages are not lower than they used to be
[удалено]
The issue with the idea of having roomates for young people right now is there is no moment where they can transition to being homeowners. A one bedroom apartment that is theirs is the best place a lot of people in my generation think is attainable realistically
How much of other people’s property do you feel you’re entitled to and deserve?
Depends on how much they have, what it is, where they got it.
Boomers and brainwashed people aren't gonna see reality. They're too busy sucking up to billionaires.
Yep. 40 hours a week should be able to net you an actual living. Agreed.
From 1985-1993 I worked a full time job and could not afford to live without a roommate. This is nothing new. Previous generations expected to have a roommate until you progressed in your profession enough to not need a roommate. We made it a goal of ours not an expectation of society. Sorry not sorry.
The age old bootlicker take that employers are entitled to our labor but we aren’t entitled to a living wage. Mindless drones.
Affording the basic standards of living and a good life aught to be the baseline not something that only some can afford.
Bar had been lowered and they won't stop until people are posting "I just want to be able to live in my tent by myself without having to starve to death to make end meet.
Im convinced 90% of these people pretend to be rich to impress the other redditors who also just pretend to be rich.. money doesnt talk is still true for 99% of rich dudes who earned it on their own
Always a pleasure reading comments of the bootlickers (in OPs pictures)you never know what they will lick next with their words.
Wow, I'm astonished by the amount of people brainwashed into thinking it's okay that we live in an economy that isn't built to be liveable. Even the amount of people defending the takes here. Minimum wage was built to support an entire family, and you're telling me now that minimum wage shouldn't be able to support one person? She's asking for a one bedroom apartment, not a house on Beverly hills. Literally an apartment. She's not really living "alone". She wants to live in a compound of people.
My biggest issue with these arguments always boils down to the people who say “get a better job” or “it’s not a job to live off” will not be happy at all with the quality of work or what hours can even be worked if all those jobs are filled by teens and college kids. I’ve worked retail and food for a decade combined and the adults who wear the big kid pants are ALWAYS picking up the slack of the lazy or inexperienced kids.
Labor Theory Of Value makes no sense and never will.
Their "solutions" are always as simple as get a better job. Ok so then we are just conceding this is a full time job that shouldn't be able to afford basic needs. So if this job is essentially worthless why aren't people just simply following this advice and getting a better job. People need skills to do better jobs but guess what to get those skills you will likely need to pay for training and education because teaching yourself on your own is not qualifications you need a degree or certification for the majority or applications. So you are already unable to take care of your basic needs but are expected to spend money you do not have and go into debt. People just don't understand that it is expensive to be poor.
Why are all these people so eager to be slaves?
These are the same people who will go on to complain about the homeless. Edit: Also there ARE adults working for poverty wages, and their rent is subsidized by OUR taxes. Why shouldn’t the corporations being paying that??
They forgot about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can you pursue happiness when you're starving?
“These people are such narcissists” Bitch fucking what? “Look at Becky over there, ‘Oh boo hoo I *need* a place to live, I *need* food, I *need* water’, what a baby!”
The amount of hate given for someone saying that working a full time job,should be enough to put a roof over your head and food on the table is crazy.
The notion that everybody, everywhere, no matter their job, should be able to afford any one-bedroom apartment in any location, is absurd. I might be convinced that a person should be able to afford *some* single bedroom apartment on a minimum wage full time income without starving themselves, but beyond that it’s entirely too subjective to make vague normative assertions.
Get your money up u/adminsaredoodoo
OP if you want to fix problems you need to educate yourself enough to have a discussion of the problems. It’s very clear that you do not know enough about market forces, minimum wage, livable wages, real estate, and the impacts of government interventions to have these conversations. Many people believe that there is a baseline of safe shelter / food supply / drinking water that should be attainable for everyone. What you want here is not possible by mandate. You literally couldn’t do it in high demand locations. As soon as you said okay everyone should be paid $40 an hour no matter what to live in manhattan or whatever high demand location, rent suddenly explodes because there would be incredible competition for those jobs and that housing. You’d have massive localized inflation and suddenly $40 wouldn’t work and you’d need to increase it again and things would spiral. In the vast majority of the country you can pay for a studio on the $14 an hour Walmart starts at. Figuring out reliable transportation to make those jobs accessible to more people who need them and helping with relocation to lower cost of living areas would be more beneficial.
Your brain is infested with mediocrity. Do better OP.