Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many minimum-wage workers can't even afford a modest one-bedroom apartment, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition's annual report.
The national housing wage for a modest one-bedroom apartment is $17.90, while the federal minimum wage is $7.25.
A low-income worker earning the federal minimum wage would need 2.5 jobs to afford a one-bedroom apartment.
By these posts you would think that half of Americans are making $7.25 an hour. Its a national emergency, an epidemic that needs to be dealt with at once!
Reality is 98% of people make more than that. And most who actually do make $7.25 are students living at home, its a second part time job or someone supplementing the head of households income. And they are likely living in places where it does not take 2.5 times their income to afford a place to live.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,352 posts, read 8,578,998 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla
Many rich kids I know got their career through their parents. They never had to interview for a job or write a resume in their life. They are more likely get support and training they need on the job to be successful, and promoted; while temps and contract workers are simply chewed up and spit out by the corporation. The rich kids will give themselves all the credit for being successful, but in reality, they were propped up by their rich families.
Fair enough. How did the rich kids' parents get rich? Somewhere along the family line someone worked hard to become rich. Some of them were probably spit out by companies at one time too.
But how does that affect the OP? Rich kids, they are what they are. They have the easier path. Is the solution that if one isn't born into a rich family with the easier path that you should just give up and accept your lot in life?
Many immigrants come to this country with way less than the OP yet work to raise themselves up. Many surpass the OP wealth wise despite not having the edge the OP has on them.
How is it a myth? u just said it your self. it takes money to make money, even its not mine, still have to pay it back.
That partner got his money with other money somewhere, so no myth about it. cant get ahead in life with out, but can go in more debt with it.
I'd say I agree that it takes money to make money. But that again, is a vague statement. I started out in the hole making $12 an hour (granted, this was 21 years ago, but it was also in the high cost SF Bay Area). I moved to this area for the job. I had previously rented a 1BR apartment where I lived before, but I knew if I wanted to get ahead financially in the Bay Area, I wouldn't be able to afford what I wanted. So I rented a room. For 8.5 years. Heaven forbid! And I saved the difference. I was in debt at the time. But I started saving/investing money right away and paying off debt at the same time. I put $50 a paycheck into my 401k type plan at work and increased it as time went on. Now, I have a nice multiple of my salary (and an even larger multiple of my living expenses) stashed away in retirement accounts as well as plain vanilla savings accounts, etc. I'm not rich. But I am financially comfortable. You would never know or guess that I have much more financial security than most people (including many with higher incomes) if you walked past me on the street.
So yes, it takes money to make money. But it doesn't necessarily take a lot of money to make money....which is what people usually mean when they say it.
It's not something that can be fixed easily, all I'm trying to get across is that if you think there are too many homeless now, just wait a few years..unless something dramatic changes those homeless numbers are going to go way up.
If housing is expensive, then we have to start looking at the reasons WHY it's expensive.
You can start here, and this is from liberal leaning media outlets:
Blue America has a problem: Even after adjusting for income, left-leaning metros tend to have worse income inequality and less affordable housing.
The deeper you look, the more complex the relationship between blue cities and unaffordable housing becomes. In 2008, economist Albert Saiz used satellite-generated maps to show that the most regulated housing markets tend to have geographical constraints—that is, they are built along sloping mountains, in narrow peninsulas, and against nature's least developable real estate: the ocean. (By comparison, many conservative cities, particularly in Texas, are surrounded by flatter land.) "Democratic, high-tax metropolitan areas... tend to constrain new development more," Saiz concluded, and "historic areas seem to be more regulated." He also found that cities with high home values tend to have more restrictive development policies.
....the churning economy has run up against 30 years of resistance to the kind of development experts say is urgently needed. California has always been a desirable place to live and over the decades has gone through periodic spasms of high housing costs, but officials say the combination of a booming economy and the lack of construction of homes and apartments have combined to make this the worst housing crisis here in memory.
The NY Times also recently did a piece on new ways to do pre-fabricated housing. The article mentioned that productivity in home construction has been the same since 1945. I'd list the quote but I hit the paywall.
No one is arguing that it takes money. Your point is that you don't have the money. His way was to find a way to get the money. He didn't work 20 jobs, he worked 2 for a period of 4 years. In return he got financial security for the rest of his life. 4 years of sacrifice for 50 years of financial freedom and time to spend with friends and family. Now he mostly raises money for orphanages and now he is building homes in Latin America for habitat for humanity.
As mentioned before, this is the game. You can't change it, so play it as you see fit.
I started working for minimum wage in 1973, when I was a teenager. I made $2.00 an hour. Adjusted for inflation that is $11.36 in today's dollars. The current minimum wage in that state is $8.30 an hour. As a teenager at my first job I got paid considerably more in 1973, than millions of adults do today. That is how bad the situation is getting.
Once again, you're cherry picking from the most favorable time period. The late '60s and early '70s was the most favorable time for low wage earners. Those days are gone and not coming back. Time to move on. That was already 45+ years ago. The irony is, the more people face reality and move on, the less desperate they'll be and the less they'll need to snap at the first job offered.
And when will all that free market magic start? Employees got a 2.6% pay raise and Corporations have saved 1.6 trillion from the tax cuts, most of which went to stock buybacks.
That's yet another thing people don't understand. We don't have anything that actually resembles true, free market capitalism in America (or anywhere else). We have Cartel-ism. The OPEC oil cartel is open about what it really is...a collusion of players who rig the oil market to limit supply and get higher prices than they ordinarily would. The banking, health care, and many other industries also act as cartels, but are not as honest about it as the oil industry is.
Unfortunately, the solutions that most people want aren't to have a true free market economy that introduces real competition to break up the cartels. Instead, people run to the government--the ultimate monopoly/cartel--for protection. We don't advocate for a free and open economy that would create more opportunities and goods and services at lower cost. Instead, we essentially say "The big businesses get protection from the government, so should everyone else!". This Cartel-ism is also more evident further down the economic scale. Liberal leaning writers like Richard Reeves are noting how the upper middle class through things like over credentializing jobs and pushing for ever more stringent housing regulations is hurting the poor and middle class.
So what we have is a formula for an economy that slows down and eventually declines; because when people and businesses are protected, they produce less. It's just human nature. People want prosperity, but they don't like putting in the effort to get it. Take away incentives for prosperity, and you get an ever increasing number of lazy people and lazy businesses. This is the situation we have in most so called "rich" countries these days. 2% economic growth sucks. It's not getting us what we want and doesn't generate enough tax revenue for the all the government programs people want--but that's the situation most rich countries are in these days.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 06-16-2018 at 06:12 PM..
Again, for those who can't or won't read anything:
F.D.R. Makes the Case for the Minimum Wage
“By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)
We're not stupid and we can read. "Decent standard of living" is a vague and very subjective term. We have people here on CD who've argued quite seriously that a family with 2 kids in an average cost of living area with a paid off house plus a $1,500,000 investment portfolio that generates 40k a year aren't living a decent standard of living.
Do you really think people in 1935 thought that all single people should be out on their own living in their own apartments? That really wasn't the norm at that time. People had much less living space at that time.
To all America's youth, this is why you absolutely must finish high school, and preferably college (or trade school) also, before popping babies out.
Absolutely
Education or training (for a field that pays substantially more than minimum wage--i.e. not most restaurant or retail jobs)
Marriage (and to someone who has their act together, who isn't irresponsible with money, etc. Hints: Attraction isn't enough. Birth Control is hugely important for those who choose to be sexually active.)
THEN Kids (and not out of wedlock or to someone who doesn't have their act together).
Even politically liberal researchers are now pointing this stuff out.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 06-16-2018 at 06:14 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
