Phoenix is no longer such an affordable place to live (subsidized, utilities)

[jgustav]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Ask NYC, who still has public housing. It works and helps the city to function. If all the people who live in NYC's public housing (2,000,000 approx) were suddenly subject to market rates and were forced to move up to Dutchess County or somewhere in North New Jersey and commute in, several businesses would lose workers

Are you aware that there are NYC taxes in addition to the significantly higher NY state tax versus AZ? The taxpayers end up paying for it. Not a good model for AZ.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by jgustav

Are you aware that there are NYC taxes in addition to the significantly higher NY state tax versus AZ? The taxpayers end up paying for it. Not a good model for AZ.

I'm originally from NY, so yes I'm familiar with NY taxes. Low taxes aren't everything, just ask the citizens of Kansas or Mississippi how that's working out for them......

[Burkmere]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

If the market were providing enough housing, minimum wage earners wouldn't have to spend more than 30% of their income to share a 2 bedroom apartment with a roommate. It means there isn't enough supply

Who says they are entitled to anything more?? Where is it written? Who says even if supply was increased they'd be able to afford an apartment on minimum wage? Who says they should?? Who says someone earning 16k a year should be able to afford an apt. on their own????

Maybe Bernie Sanders who gave whopping 3% of his income to charity as opposed to someone who was actually productive ....Romney who gave 29% to charity?

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Burkmere

Who says they are entitled to anything more?? Where is it written? Who says even if supply was increased they'd be able to afford an apartment on minimum wage? Who says they should?? Who says someone earning 16k a year should be able to afford an apt. on their own????

Maybe Bernie Sanders who gave whopping 3% of his income to charity as opposed to someone who was actually productive ....Romney who gave 29% to charity?

Do you have reading comprehension issues? I never once wrote that a minimum wage earner should be able to afford an apartment on their own. What I wrote was they should be able to afford a 2 bedroom SHARED WITH A ROOMMATE WITH EACH PAYING HALF THE RENT!!!! And with the affordability threshold the same one the US government uses, where housing cost not counting utilities shouldn't exceed 30% of gross monthly income

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Burkmere

Who says they are entitled to anything more?? Where is it written? Who says even if supply was increased they'd be able to afford an apartment on minimum wage? Who says they should?? Who says someone earning 16k a year should be able to afford an apt. on their own????

Maybe Bernie Sanders who gave whopping 3% of his income to charity as opposed to someone who was actually productive ....Romney who gave 29% to charity?

And I find it funny that you use corporate raider Mitt Romney, whose job was to break up companies bought on margin, to profit from their destruction as someone productive. Romney was a real life Gordon Gekko

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

No, not exactly. His guess was completely wrong!

For example look at NYC. A median market rate 1 bedroom apartment is about $2k/month in the boroughs and $3,500/month in Manhattan. But also consider that 25% of NYC's population lives in public housing, and another 50% have either rent control or rent stabilization. That means that only 25% of the city is having to actually pay those market rates.

If they were like us with no rent control and no public housing, those market rates would probably be double what they are now or more

That's an absolute disgrace.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

That's an absolute disgrace.

That's not a disgrace, if not for all that, NYC would solely be a playground of the wealthy, and all the workers who make the city function would be pushed 50 miles out of town, and NYC traffic is bad enough as it is

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

For intents and purposes, anything less than $3/hr over minimum wage might as well be minimum wage.

When I worked construction labor, I made between $10 and $12/hr (depended on the company), and that was back breaking work. You ever see a former mason or carpenter now in their 50s, but look like they're 70? That's what that field does to you, and the wages aren't there anymore. I mainly worked with masons, and they were getting paid only $15-$16/hr at the time (07-09). No OT either. So $31k-$33k/year for a job where you'll be lucky if you make it to 55 years old......

The point you're missing is minimum wage increases don't help the lower income people, and they certainly don't benefit the middle class. What usually happens is prices for basic goods & services increase, so any raise which the lower income workers receive is eaten up by the rising cost of living. Middle class workers rarely ever see their wages increase, so they end up being squeezed tighter with the higher prices. Also when the minimum wage increases, businesses can reduce workers' hours, and some even turn to robotics & automation to replace the cost of overhead.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

The point you're missing is minimum wage increases don't help the lower income people, and they certainly don't benefit the middle class. What usually happens is prices for basic goods & services increase, so any raise which the lower income workers receive is eaten up by the rising cost of living. Middle class workers rarely ever see their wages increase, so they end up being squeezed tighter with the higher prices. Also when the minimum wage increases, businesses can reduce workers' hours, and some even turn to robotics & automation to replace the cost of overhead.

You live here, so you should know that hasn't been happening here with our constantly increasing minimum; economic theory and reality don't always match. In fact, everywhere the minimum wage has been raised, employment has increased

Part of the reason is that inflation is constant, the federal reserve even targets 2% per year. So if you have rising prices with no increase in wages, everyone falls behind.

It's getting to the point where capital is becoming more valued than labor. People are busting their butts at their jobs, but being told the goods and services they produce are more valuable than they are; and I'm talking all workers, not just the lower class

[yukon]

Originally Posted by Burkmere

I'm not sure what you mean "the market isn't providing enough housing." The "market" is the "market." Supply an demand.

I think you are misguided in thinking that "someone else should pay for what I want." Even if that someone is the taxpayers to provide this and that.

Part of the problem what is perceived as the "demand". Yes, companies are building new housing...but it's higher priced SF homes and luxury apartments. Builders build what will bring the most profit, not necessarily what the local market might demand (or need). Very few builders build lower priced housing (example, under $160,000) and even fewer apartment developers are willing to build non-luxury apartments. When they do build non-luxury, the properties are usually tax credit properties and income is restricted. Great for senior citizens and minimum wage, not so great for the low to mid middle class (married or single).

Those of you who own your own homes and have for years probably don't see this. Those of us who rent and/or are trying to buy something and don't have a quarter of a million bucks to spend on a house see it every day.