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.
In theory you can, you save $50/month in a mutual fund, after 40 years you'll have enough to buy a house that's worth about $100k today and pay cash ( no mortgage). Or you can do what this guy did:
Or you could, you know, just borrow $100k which would cost around $500/mo.
Here you can get a 2bd/1ba home for less than $100k. Is it going to be in a posh neighborhood with great schools? No. It's going to be in Rio Linda, which is white trash which is why it's so cheap. That and people with money don't want 900 square foot 2bd houses that are very basic.
Now, if all you need is a bed room, it's still a little excessive. A room offers much more flexibility in a nicer neighborhood in a nicer house for $500/mo, plus the split utilities, no responsibility for house repairs. On the other hand, not having roommates is basically a very, very nice luxury. Or maybe you have a kid and would need two rooms and having kids really limits your ability to find rooms to rent.
Or you could save up from 25 to 65 at 50/mo paying $500/mo to rent a room.
Or you could buy a piece of land in an abandoned subdivision that will cost you $500 every time you go home. Look, the guy is just weird, and that's okay. It just doesn't mean it make sense to anyone else to do something like that. That's ridiculous. It's cost prohibitive to me and I make more than $20,000/yr. I just can't afford $500 every time I want to spend a few days at my home that I own as opposed to the apartment actually live in.
Or you could, you know, just borrow $100k which would cost around $500/mo.
Here you can get a 2bd/1ba home for less than $100k. Is it going to be in a posh neighborhood with great schools? No. It's going to be in Rio Linda, which is white trash which is why it's so cheap. That and people with money don't want 900 square foot 2bd houses that are very basic.
Now, if all you need is a bed room, it's still a little excessive. A room offers much more flexibility in a nicer neighborhood in a nicer house for $500/mo, plus the split utilities, no responsibility for house repairs. On the other hand, not having roommates is basically a very, very nice luxury. Or maybe you have a kid and would need two rooms and having kids really limits your ability to find rooms to rent.
Or you could save up from 25 to 65 at 50/mo paying $500/mo to rent a room.
Or you could buy a piece of land in an abandoned subdivision that will cost you $500 every time you go home. Look, the guy is just weird, and that's okay. It just doesn't mean it make sense to anyone else to do something like that. That's ridiculous. It's cost prohibitive to me and I make more than $20,000/yr. I just can't afford $500 every time I want to spend a few days at my home that I own as opposed to the apartment actually live in.
BZZT! Oh the humanity, oh the fail!
A lot of housekeeppers are not going to be able to borrow $100K.
A lot of housekeepers are not going to be able to save $50/mo for 40 years; that $500 rent is going to necessarily skyrocket over those 40 years.
Or you could, you know, just borrow $100k which would cost around $500/mo.
Here you can get a 2bd/1ba home for less than $100k. Is it going to be in a posh neighborhood with great schools? No. It's going to be in Rio Linda, which is white trash which is why it's so cheap. That and people with money don't want 900 square foot 2bd houses that are very basic.
Yes, but for someone making minimum wage, $500/month is not affordable once you account for property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and repairs.
They can only afford a house by saving for it, not borrowing. The middle class can afford to spend money on interest, the working class has to pay cash.
^^This. The implication that MW is supposed to pay enough to live alone is ABSURD
Agreed. And in expensive housing markets, building new housing helps low earners A LOT more than raising the minimum wage. If you maintain the same number of housing units, the highest earners will always outbid the lowest.
Yes, but for someone making minimum wage, $500/month is not affordable once you account for property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and repairs.
They can only afford a house by saving for it, not borrowing. The middle class can afford to spend money on interest, the working class has to pay cash.
I really doubt there are many people making minimum wage that are buying houses, saving or borrowing doesn't materially change how affordable it is and it's basically not. Maybe if you lived rent free and basically saved everything you made for a few decades it would be possible.
minimum wage = the law says you have to at least pay this minimum
it's not about rent or utility bills
i remember like in the early 90's minimum wage was $2.85/hr and then they bumped it to $3.15 and then it was $3.25/hr so on and so forth
you could also get a 2 bedroom apt in the hood for $300/mo and a loaf of bread was like $1 and a gallon of gas could be had for like $0.89/gallon
so you see it's all relative
the minimum wage could be $19/hr now and relative costs of things would go up
so it will always come back to trying to get out of minimum wage land
no sense in folks bisching about it like they will be rich or something...it will not make a difference
A loaf of bread can still be got for a $1.00 today. The issue is that $300/mo 2 bedroom is now $900+ in Phoenix, the $0.89/gallon of gas is about $2.00 more. When the minimum wage was 2.85/hour a gallon of gas made up around 31% of an hour's pay. Today at the federal rate a gallon of gas is now up to 40% of an hour's pay. Gas shot up 3.2 times the rate in the 90's while minimum wages shot up only 2.5 times in the same time. Now, yes only a small amount are paid minimum wage but most jobs created during the recovery have been within $5.00 above minimum wage and most are part time to avoid giving benefits.
A loaf of bread can still be got for a $1.00 today. The issue is that $300/mo 2 bedroom is now $900+ in Phoenix, the $0.89/gallon of gas is about $2.00 more. When the minimum wage was 2.85/hour a gallon of gas made up around 31% of an hour's pay. Today at the federal rate a gallon of gas is now up to 40% of an hour's pay. Gas shot up 3.2 times the rate in the 90's while minimum wages shot up only 2.5 times in the same time. Now, yes only a small amount are paid minimum wage but most jobs created during the recovery have been within $5.00 above minimum wage and most are part time to avoid giving benefits.
I found a bunch for $500-600 in about 15 seconds, so not really. $300 in 1990 would be about $520 today.
Low wage jobs coming out of a recession is nothing new anyway. You're really talking about a difference in scope, not a new phenomenon.
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.
