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.
The numbers you're utilizing are against the federal minimum wage which is a ridiculous $7.25 an hour. 26% of all Americans earn less than $10.55 an hour, which is less than $22,000 per year and still speaks to the "minimum wage" as it's higher than $7.25 an hour in most heavily populated areas. 75% of those working in that salary range are adults (age 20 or higher) and 34% of that overall group are parents with children.
Very cool map that shows some of the most affordable and least affordable counties for us low wage workers... using MIT's living wage calculator Living Wage Calculator
The south being such a cheap place, is actually not so cheap when they have such low minimum wages... low wage workers are better off in parts of California than most of the south
Washington state is by far the most affordable where the minimum wage is set above the living wage.
Wonder what this map will look like with the minimum wage hikes in New York & California?
Well, when you look at the government's ACCRA that takes into account cost of living by region, as opposed to this map which was created to serve a political agenda, places such as California, New York, and New Jersey, et al, are actually at rock bottom in terms of discretionary income. I mean, when research shows that 85% of all homes in California are off-limits to a schoolteacher's salary, that's a much bigger problem.
Further, minimum wage workers are a tiny fraction of the workforce, around 3% of the total workforce. Further roughly half of those earning minimum wage are below 25, and the bulk of those 19 and under. The service industries are also heavily represented, chiefly because revenues from tips make up a lot.
So if you're above 19 and still earning minimum wage and not waiting tables or mixing drinks, chances are you really need to acquire skills and other qualities attractive to employers. Because that's what's going to get you a bigger paycheck, not a government mandate.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,592,398 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
Well, when you look at the government's ACCRA that takes into account cost of living by region, as opposed to this map which was created to serve a political agenda, places such as California, New York, and New Jersey, et al, are actually at rock bottom in terms of discretionary income. I mean, when research shows that 85% of all homes in California are off-limits to a schoolteacher's salary, that's a much bigger problem.
Further, minimum wage workers are a tiny fraction of the workforce, around 3% of the total workforce. Further roughly half of those earning minimum wage are below 25, and the bulk of those 19 and under. The service industries are also heavily represented, chiefly because revenues from tips make up a lot.
So if you're above 19 and still earning minimum wage and not waiting tables or mixing drinks, chances are you really need to acquire skills and other qualities attractive to employers. Because that's what's going to get you a bigger paycheck, not a government mandate.
The real big problem is housing supply is too low. At the end of the day, the buck stops at housing for COL, and thanks to stupid NIMBYs, housing supply gets held below demand, just so said NIMBYs can make a windfall when they finally sell. Lower housing costs and wages and prices would not need to keep going up
The real big problem is housing supply is too low. At the end of the day, the buck stops at housing for COL, and thanks to stupid NIMBYs, housing supply gets held below demand, just so said NIMBYs can make a windfall when they finally sell. Lower housing costs and wages and prices would not need to keep going up
Not saying the NIMBYism isn't a problem, but many of the rich, prestigious areas of the country are hemmed in by some sort of natural barrier and land availability is low.
You can't build around San Francisco or Seattle the way you can Indianapolis or Columbus. That's a huge reason why prices are high in these major areas.
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, formerly NoVA and Phila
9,777 posts, read 15,783,646 times
Reputation: 10886
I wonder how much online commerce affects the COL these days. Compared to the past, when almost everything was priced locally such as housing, utilities, taxes, food, and clothing, today many things are available online. And the prices are the same whether you live in Manhattan, NY or Manhattan, KS. Of course, with housing, utilities, and taxes usually making up the biggest part of ones budget, online purchases ares not going to change ones COL dramatically. However, with the growth of Amazon and other online retailers, food, clothing, furniture, household items, etc. cost virtually the same no matter where you live. This is beneficial to those who live in high cost/high income cities.
For example, buying a 32-roll pack of toilet paper on Amazon costs the same whether you live in Los Angeles or in Des Moines. Buying an LL Bean bathing suit is the same cost to someone in DC as it is to someone in Spartanburg, SC. Streaming movies cost the same to someone in Chicago as to someone in Columbus. And although not related to online commerce, a vacation in Paris, France costs the same to a person in NYC as it does to a person in Omaha, Nebraska (excluding transportation to and from, which usually benefits the big city in any case).
In some ways, you are better off living in a high income area because "everything else" (mostly after housing) is more affordable to you compared to someone in a low income area.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,592,398 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation
Not saying the NIMBYism isn't a problem, but many of the rich, prestigious areas of the country are hemmed in by some sort of natural barrier and land availability is low.
You can't build around San Francisco or Seattle the way you can Indianapolis or Columbus. That's a huge reason why prices are high in these major areas.
There is a crap ton of land on the SF peninsula as well as in Marin, Napa and Sonoma Co's that is completely undeveloped due to the Urban Growth Boundary. Even if you left the UGB, you could densify already built in areas, especially in Santa Clara Co, but again, the NIMBYs
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.
