In Many Cities, Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class (party, governor)

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by natalie469

Rent is absolutely out of control. I had an efficiency in DC making minimum wage. My dad had to co sign because I didn't make enough. But I made every single payment on time. You can't afford an apartment now making minimum wage

Depends on where one works/lives and number of dependents.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by freemkt

Of course it was tongue in cheek.

But the reality of zoning means there is no free market and there has been no free market for the better part of a century. In a free market, there would be homes in all markets that burger flippers could afford.

Zoning = supply controls = no free market - flip side of rent controls. Symmetry would suggest that zoning and rent control should either both be allowed or both be prohibited at the state level. But that also is a tilted playing field; zoning is not prohibited in any state, but rent control is prohibited in a number of states.

I am not aware that any state requires zoning. Such laws vary municipality to municipality. It seems most folk prefer to live in communities with zoning laws. Go figure, eh.

[Erratikmind]

For some renters in rent controlled San Francisco, their rents will be going up beyond the allowable yearly increase allowed to landlords.

I have 2 apartment buildings, which require a city mandated "Soft Story" seismic upgrades. Currently, my estimated costs to comply with the said is some $265,000.00. Unforeseen circumstance will add additional costs.

I will pass on the construction costs to tenants. At this time, I believe that the City is still deciding on a plan for landlords to recover these expenses.

Anticipating future mandated construction costs, many landlords will increase their rents above what they normally would have for new rental agreements.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by freemkt

In a free market, developers would build (tiny) homes that burger flippers could afford to own. But incumbent homeowners have used government to make the market unfree, and developers are not allowed to build those affordable homes.

On a price per square foot, tiny homes usually sell for more than larger homes.

There are many tiny homes, all over the U.S., especially in unincorporated areas.

Tiny homes in urban areas are usually called condos.

Originally Posted by Driller1

I am a contractor.....permits are a PITA!!!

But, most are needed.

It is the way codes are enforced....we do not always see the reason for the codes but, more come from a past problem or, safety issue.

I know in my business if it were not for permits, codes and inspectors many people would have water wells with questionable water.

Ah, someone with some sense.

Sure permits and inspections cost money (just checked, it costs in the neighborhood of 1% here, including inspections), but people want those permits and inspections. I don't want my neighbor to be draining his sewage into the ground water, or to be using sub-standard wiring that causes his house to burn down, or to be cutting corners on framing that causes his house to topple over when a storm hits. And I don't want him to be putting up some shack that drives down property values either.

The fantasy of a 10k house is just that, a fantasy. The only way that's going to work is if your idea of a house is a pre-made shed from Lowe's sitting on some land in the middle of nowhere. In urban areas (or even small towns), that amount won't even get you an empty piece of land.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by Tassy001

Yes, this is true. And, we are still losing jobs as technology advances. I don't believe the new technology is creating as many jobs, as it is eliminating. The new technology is also limiting those with little to no skills, raising minimum wage is not answer. We are essentially doing this to ourselves, the jobs back in the 1950's (that employed many) are now automated and do not require workers. The jobs in the 1990's of the postal worker delivering the mail...are no longer required, due to the advancement of the internet and paperless. The clerk who posted your payment to your electric account, is no longer needed due to the advancement of technology.

It is not all because of government...it is because of companies looking to save money by not having to employ people. Has technology created more inconveniences then conveniences?

When was the last time you 'balanced' your bank account? Not, logging on to your banks website and checking your balance....but, actually balancing your bank account.

Even in the 1990's, very few had cell phones, computers, big screen tv's, the mansions belonged to the truly wealthy. As technology advances the need/want/desire for the newest/shiniest gadgets increase. Money is being spent in all different directions for things that were not normal to the middle class in previous years.

I entered the full time work force in the back office of the financial services sector in the 70's. Within 20 years every single entry level job that existed in the 70's had been eliminated by technology.

By the 80's, Walmart had replaced IBM as the nation's single largest employer.

People with no answers to this global dilemma tend to blame government and/or greedy corporations.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by freemkt

It is almost certain that a clear majority of low-income renter households are childless. I'm tired of being lumped in with the baby mama families.

According to this link,

Percentage of people in the lowest income bracket:
83% are single parent families or single
47% are 35-64 years old
67% did not work
98% had less than a 4 year degree

Conversely.

Percentage of people in the highest income bracket:
78% are married
80% are 35-64 years old
78% worked full time
77% have for or more years of college

Income2012 | AEIdeas

I don't know what percentage of renters are childless. It would seem that a higher percentage are childless given sooner or later, the kids become adults. I think the percentage is variable by geography. For example renters in Manhattan are considerably more likely to not have children.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by freemkt

dang, here i just saw 80/20 on sale at 3.99 a pound
here there is also 73/27 and 85/15 and 93/7

Good catch.

[CK78]

Originally Posted by gen811

and this is why the housing market NEEDS to crash.

not just crash but crash AND BURN.
let the so called investors lose everything.

then we can start the real economy again.
it was a shame they got BAILED out in the 2008 crisis.

now the real middle class is being destroyed by such bailed out people.
but again whom was bailed out again?

whom are really losing their jobs?

wait that's right the middle class is being gutted and destroyed
so that the elites can keep their jobs.
way to go socialism for the elites.

now suggestion to those that cannot get any rent control etc homes/appartments LIVE IN your car if you have no family.

do not touch appartments that would make it go above 33% of income. after taxes that is.

so if you make 40 k per year average wage now for americans.
after tax 30000 you can only afford about 10k rent or

833 per month for yourself.
if it goes beyond 833 then IGNORE
that rental apartment it is a SCAM.

move to another state if you have to.

if the employer cannot even pay enough to their full time workers for the rent in the city
where they have their business then they have NO business having workers there.
they should have at least pay for shelter food and water.

that is the bare min for slavery it seems that some want to pay below slavery levels.

Great Post. That's something I also thought of as I looked at the wages and salaries of the last 30 years
compared to cost of living or inflation.

In pre-Civil War America or the era of legalized slavery in the United States the plantation owner had to provide all their slaves with enough food/meals a day that the slaves had enough proper nutrition and energy to do their jobs. They also needed to clothe them and house them with sufficient warmth in the winter. In other words they needed to provide their workers with adequate food, shelter and clothing to keep them alive and working. And even had to take care of sickness or ailments that could keep them from working.

In modern America we know that around 60% of all jobs are $20.00 or less an hour and that the lowest paid workers, which number well into the millions, need section 8 housing, food stamps and medicare to survive and meet their cost of living.

The point is that modern 21st century business owners and corporations are being asked to do less for their labor force than 18th century slave owners had to do in order to keep a system that people now regard as grossly immoral and for which a bloody Civil War was fought.

Think about this for one minute. If the United States government had welfare, section 8 housing and food stamps in pre-Civil War America then the South may have never rose (now I understand the reason we have these is precisely based in principles the South was fighting about but hear me out...) because the plantation owners could have had the slaves live in housing they did not need to provide but could have been subsidized partially by the U.S. government, would only have to pay or provide one meal a day and not 2 or 3 so could have the bulk of the food be subsidized by the government and welfare payments could've been used for some or all of the clothing expenses.

In other words the system now would've been cheaper for the slave owners who had to be responsible for all the food, all the shelter, all the clothing and medical needs of 10 or more slaves instead they could have paid them the equivalent of minimum wage or even $10-12 dollars an hour and saved money! Because in many parts of the nation now those hourly wages would not be enough to pay rent, buy food and take care of any hygiene and all nutrition needs. A lot of businesses today are getting off easier then slave owners did back in the day.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by freemkt

Alviso is at the north end of San Jose, it is part of the city but has its own post office. It was reputed to be a low-rent area when I visited there several years ago.

I've been looking online trying to find places for two friends who each have cats, and pets sure do make it hard to find a place to live.

Yup, especially when one of them is a dog! My dog is 8 1/2 years old, perfectly housebroken, friendly, and doesn't even bark very often - but the landlords don't care about all that, as around 80-90% (if not more) of local rentals are strictly "no dogs." I love my pooch, though, even if he does make my life as a renter somewhat difficult.

I do plan to purchase a home in the near future, which is also obviously expensive here, but probably a better use of my money. Just waiting until I've been at my job a bit longer, so I don't commit without knowing I'll be here long-term. It's tempting to move somewhere with a lower COL, but as others have said on this thread, the jobs are much more plentiful in these bigger metros. My job can be done anywhere, it's just a matter of waiting for those openings in desirable (but cheaper) areas.