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.
Why not? Why would anyone fail to negotiate a better situation? Lets look at McDonald's. I have a niece that works at a McDonald's near us. She has been working at that location for five years I think. During that time frame she moved up the ranks and now is a shift Supervisor. For her she likes McDonald's and plans on going into management.
I never knew to much about McDonald's and how you can move up in the business. We have become close to a couple. The husband got his start at McDonald's He had been general manager for McDonald's in our area overseeing 15 locations at one time. A couple years ago the owner sold most of his locations keeping just two in his portfolio. Our friend ran those locations for the owner until the owner decided to sell them. After those two sold my friend left McDonald's after a 32 year career. Interestingly enough, he had job offers coming from everywhere. For a 6 month period he did not work. He took time off. Last month he went back to work for a nationwide company, outside of the fast food industry. Him and his wife own a beautiful home, have a solidly middle class lifestyle.
Another family member also worked at McDonald's. He started in high school and continued on when he started going to the local Junior College. He met his girlfriend there and both of them transferred to a university in another part of the state. He ended up getting a job in a bank while he was going to school. The bank took him because of his work ethic that he learned at McDonald's.
In each of these cases the people moved up within the organization. They never sat idle. You can say that they did not negotiate. I would say that they were negotiating all along. It was their actions that did the talking. They worked hard to make improvements in their life.
Minimum wage is a sore subject for me. I would dismantle the law stating we need a minimum wage. Let the market say how much someone is worth. Minimum wage is saying someone is worth something and that may not be a correct assumption. Many people are worth more than minimum wage and many people are worth less than minimum wage. Those that move up within the ranks have proved that they are worth more than minimum wage. Those that continue to stay at minimum wage are probably not worth the money they are being paid.
I'm fine with that as long as we also let the market decide what housing is worth. If a worker is free to work for $1 per hour, the private sector should be free to affordably provide housing to that worker. Obviously that housing is not going to meet middle class standards, but poor people can't afford middle class standards and the middle class has no right to impose them on the poor.
Simple as that.
Minimum wages are a cost of excess housing regulation, which exists for the benefit of the middle class, not of the poor.
I'm fine with that as long as we also let the market decide what housing is worth. If a worker is free to work for $1 per hour, the private sector should be free to affordably provide housing to that worker. Obviously that housing is not going to meet middle class standards, but poor people can't afford middle class standards and the middle class has no right to impose them on the poor.
Simple as that.
Minimum wages are a cost of excess housing regulation, which exists for the benefit of the middle class, not of the poor.
Other than rent control (holding prices down for certain markets), the market does decide as to the cost of rent. You and every other person has the choice to invest your money in rental property and offer it at any rent you want (other than rent controlled property, which holds prices down).
I'm fine with that as long as we also let the market decide what housing is worth. If a worker is free to work for $1 per hour, the private sector should be free to affordably provide housing to that worker. Obviously that housing is not going to meet middle class standards, but poor people can't afford middle class standards and the middle class has no right to impose them on the poor.
Simple as that.
Minimum wages are a cost of excess housing regulation, which exists for the benefit of the middle class, not of the poor.
The market does decide and the market has decided that rents where you live (in a high COL area) will be much higher than in a low COL area. You want the market to decide, it has, and yet you don't like it's decision.
And no, the market keeping you from buying a guest house years ago is not pertinent to today. If all of a sudden zoning disappeared and that very same guest house became available for sale, could you buy it at current market rates? Because that's the rate the owner would want, not the one offered to you a couple decades ago.
You're priced out of the market where you live whether discussing a rental you'd like to live in or buying a property because you make minimum wage in a high COL area. Simple as that.
(scratching head) So people are qualified to pay $2N rent but not qualifoed to pay $N to buy. Got it.
Rent is month to month or six to twelve months. Mortgages are 360 months. Having $2N in your pocket is not the same as having $N (plus other costs) in your pocket 360 times in a row. Or proving that you're capable of the latter.
But you knew that. It's really time to shop for a new hobbyhorse.
(scratching head) So people are qualified to pay $2N rent but not qualifoed to pay $N to buy. Got it.
Happens all the time. There are huge differences in how much it costs to rent and how much a house in a different neighborhood would be worth. Depending on credit and down payment along with how long the mortgage has lasted if fixed you could easily be paying less than rent in mortgage payments. It is just that someone on minimum wage has very little cash left over to save up and buy a house.
As for food, the problem isn't that the rent is too high. The problem is that the renter does not have enough money to afford the food nor as many options as a homeowner to handle the problem. Renters also often have extra expenses that homeowners might not have like going to the laundromat(it is cheaper to do it at home).
An homeowner who is in trouble can refinance the home. Can bring in renters without permission from a landlord. Can plant a garden. Has space for a freezer or to store bulk amounts of food. Can run an home base business to raise some extra money. Can sell the home and downsize to something smaller. Can control to some degree when repairs get done or can do some of the work themselves. The homeowner simply has more control over his housing situation than the renter.
Other than rent control (holding prices down for certain markets), the market does decide as to the cost of rent. You and every other person has the choice to invest your money in rental property and offer it at any rent you want (other than rent controlled property, which holds prices down).
Regulation imposes costly minimum standards on housing and supply control (zoning) artificially caps the supply, creating a rigged market.
Zoning is actually the mirror image of rent control, for the collective benefit of property owners.
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.
