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.
When the person to whom you pay rent is one of your roommates, you don't get to instantly double your financial power because the person to whom you pay rent has already done that to YOU.
When will you grasp the fact that your living situation is not even close to the norm?
When the person to whom you pay rent is one of your roommates, you don't get to instantly double your financial power because the person to whom you pay rent has already done that to YOU.
Stop complaining and start doing. When you are paying rent towards your roommates housing costs they get a savings and so do you. It is cheaper per person for 2 in a 2 bedroom place than 1 in a 1 bedroom. The more people you add the less expensive it can be for each. Work a lot of hours, learn some useful skills and then you can be in the position of owning the home and charging rent to some roommate(s).
Stop complaining and start doing. When you are paying rent towards your roommates housing costs they get a savings and so do you. It is cheaper per person for 2 in a 2 bedroom place than 1 in a 1 bedroom. The more people you add the less expensive it can be for each. Work a lot of hours, learn some useful skills and then you can be in the position of owning the home and charging rent to some roommate(s).
Um, my living situation is not typical nationally but is very common locally in this tight rental market.
When, say, four roommates rent a house from a 'normal' nonresident landlord, they split the cost and save money. Or, as you say, they "get a savings".
When an individual rents a house from an absentee landlord and overcrowds the house with (a) individuals paying higher room rents and (b) family and friends who pay nothing, the individuals paying higher room rents DO NOT "get a savings". Only the middleman - the individual renting the house from the absentee landlord and then charging higher room rents - and his special friends get a savings.
I wonder how Barney Fife made it work ? who is Barney Fife ? The deputy in Mayberry who lived in a boarding house
In Albuquerque, New Mexico, the minimum wage is about $8.50, but housing costs for a one-bedroom would require a wage of $13.77 an hour. In Saint Louis, Missouri, the minimum wage is $10 but $13.27 is needed; in Tacoma, Washington, the minimum wage is $11.15, lagging the one-bed cost of $17.02.
Like everyone else, SSI recipients are fine to live with IF THEY HAVE A LIFE. Most Americans have a life, they have jobs, girlfriends, boyfriends, they go to bars and clubs and restaurants, they hang out with friends, they go places and do things. Where I live, people sit on their rears all day, they stay home and mooch off others and bark out orders to the paying customers.
The thing about SSI recipients is that they basically cannot afford to have a life.
You define "having a life" as: they have jobs, girlfriends, boyfriends, they go to bars and clubs and restaurants, they hang out with friends, they go places and do things. Which I am okay with as a working definition.
So if a person on SSI can not afford to have a life, I must ask how much does it cost to have a friend?
I wonder how Barney Fife made it work ? who is Barney Fife ? The deputy in Mayberry who lived in a boarding house
In Albuquerque, New Mexico, the minimum wage is about $8.50, but housing costs for a one-bedroom would require a wage of $13.77 an hour. In Saint Louis, Missouri, the minimum wage is $10 but $13.27 is needed; in Tacoma, Washington, the minimum wage is $11.15, lagging the one-bed cost of $17.02.
yikes, that's the truth though. And Tacoma/ Pierce County is considered affordable here
Let's pretend for a moment that the 30% metric isn't BS that doesn't match the huge variation in people's situations.
The math wilberry posted (not picking on you) is highly skewed. It assumes that the other 70% is needed for non-housing costs, whether 70% is $1,000 per month or $4,000. It assumes that if your rent goes from $1,000 to $1,500, expenses for everything else must go up by half too, even when your food, income taxes, etc. might be the same regardless of which apartment you choose.
Even then I'm misspeaking...the metric assumes nothing like that. It's not intended to make sense after scrutiny.
Um, my living situation is not typical nationally but is very common locally in this tight rental market.
Prove it.
How do you define "very common" and what data are you using to quantify the number of other people in your market who are living with ten other roommates while paying rent to one, who is paying rent to the owner?
Such a bizarre living situation being claimed as "common" from someone who uses it as a crutch/excuse for so much fail reeks of BS, so show me I'm wrong here.
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.
