No shit. People ought to be able to access (comfortable, safe, respectful, ongoing) housing for the cost of what they get paid in ten to fifteen hours a week, that being the 25-33% of one's income that is the advised percentage to spend on housing. So in four weeks that's forty to sixty hours, and at New York's minimum wage of 7.25 an hour that's $290 to $435 a month.
If that isn't available, then perhaps they ought to consider indexing the minimum wage to the rent prices. If apartments can't be had in New York City for under $1000 a month, then perhaps the minimum wage ought to be raised to $20 per hour, that being what's necessary to work full time and only spend 33% of one's income on housing.
Or even, the city could do the simplest thing and look at people's income and pay stubs and give them housing stipends for the difference between 25-33% of their take-home pay and what it costs to rent a baseline apartment. Cheaper than the two-grand-plus they say they're paying now.
God, that's $320 - $480 in my state ($8/hr min wage)--and that is STILL not enough to afford housing where I live! The very lowest you can get is still nearly $600 for a studio, and I live in a very suburban satellite city to the capital, not a major metropolitan area.
they ought to consider indexing the minimum wage to the rent prices.
FUCKING THIS. You don't even need to index it to the mean-average rent cost in the area since it's minimum wage, you can index it to the median-average to cut out the extremely high-end luxury outliers.
but lol businesses would throw a gigantic fucking fit so THAT'LL never happen, housing stipends are more feasible but with the way the government is right now that will ALSO never happen.
The average monthly cost for the government to shelter a family is more than $3,000; the cost for a single person is more than $2,300.
At that rate wouldn't it be less expensive to give that money to families so that they can afford their own housing? I get that this includes things like electricity but wow that seems almost counter-productive since the article specifically points out that certain areas are $1,000/month.
There's a mental health center locally that focuses on the poor specifically. They even have a case worker to help their clients in the building. You know, with applying for Medicaid, SNAP, things like that?
She went off on this tangent of how higher wages would encourage people to work less, and about how there was a real problem with trading food stamps for heroin. At my husband.
That doesn't even make any sense. If the woman above was making $10/hour instead of $8, she could just afford more food or rent and maybe ballet lessons for her daughter. She's not going to start working less.
This makes me sad to my soul. There should be dignity in work. People should be paid a living wage. Jesus! Are Americans still in the Victorian era? The poor are criminals and should be punished? Any society where you can hold a job and can't afford housing is fucked. Simple as.
I don't even have to look at the comments at the source to know that there are probably a ton of people saying "well then move!" who don't understand how balls ass expensive moving is.
Not to mention where are they going to move to? How are you going to look for low-income work remotely in the cheaper cities? And often less expensive areas require cars, which is a tremendous investment in the beginning even if it pans out to be cheaper.
Same in my community, I could squeak by on $200 a month for mortgage/util, but I can't afford the initial downpayment for a home which would be $13,000. How will I or anyone making minimum wage ever make that much and have that much in savings so that we can actually "be poor" and not be jacked every month for rent.
Comments 51
get your fucking shit together america, oh my god.
Reply
If that isn't available, then perhaps they ought to consider indexing the minimum wage to the rent prices. If apartments can't be had in New York City for under $1000 a month, then perhaps the minimum wage ought to be raised to $20 per hour, that being what's necessary to work full time and only spend 33% of one's income on housing.
Or even, the city could do the simplest thing and look at people's income and pay stubs and give them housing stipends for the difference between 25-33% of their take-home pay and what it costs to rent a baseline apartment. Cheaper than the two-grand-plus they say they're paying now.
Reply
they ought to consider indexing the minimum wage to the rent prices.
FUCKING THIS. You don't even need to index it to the mean-average rent cost in the area since it's minimum wage, you can index it to the median-average to cut out the extremely high-end luxury outliers.
but lol businesses would throw a gigantic fucking fit so THAT'LL never happen, housing stipends are more feasible but with the way the government is right now that will ALSO never happen.
Reply
Reply
At that rate wouldn't it be less expensive to give that money to families so that they can afford their own housing? I get that this includes things like electricity but wow that seems almost counter-productive since the article specifically points out that certain areas are $1,000/month.
Reply
/sarcasm
Reply
She went off on this tangent of how higher wages would encourage people to work less, and about how there was a real problem with trading food stamps for heroin. At my husband.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment