What you’d need to make to afford a decent one-bedroom

confuzzled dude wrote:No single county in America has a one-bedroom housing wage below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 (several counties in Arkansas come in at $7.98).

Coastal and urban counties are among the most expensive. The entire Boston-New York-Washington corridor includes little respite from high housing wages. Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties in California rank as the least affordable in the country. In each of those counties, a one-bedroom hourly housing wage is $29.83, or the equivalent of 3.7 full-time jobs at the actual minimum wage (or an annual salary of about $62,000).

While it suggests that a minimum-wage worker can't afford housing in Seattle (where the one-bedroom housing wage is $17.56 an hour), in reality that person probably finds housing by renting a room in someone else's home, by living in the cheapest part of town, or by working considerably more than 40 hours a week. (Remember George W. Bush's praise for the "uniquely American" story of the single mother of three who worked three jobs in Omaha?).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/22/what-youd-need-to-make-in-every-county-in-america-to-afford-a-decent-one-bedroom/?hpid=z5

Kris wrote:
>Ok, I am not sure what the solution is here. Minimum wage in Marin cannot be increased to $62,000. The housing prices/rents are high in certain area because there are people willing to pay them. I am not sure why the solutions above (see bolded section) are bad. These folks have made these choices. In the California areas cited, the same people can move inland by a couple of hours and housing prices/rents drop drastically.  If they have chosen not to do that, why is that a problem for other members of society?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>Ok, I am not sure what the solution is here. Minimum wage in Marin cannot be increased to $62,000. The housing prices/rents are high in certain area because there are people willing to pay them. I am not sure why the solutions above (see bolded section) are bad. These folks have made these choices. In the California areas cited, the same people can move inland by a couple of hours and housing prices/rents drop drastically.  If they have chosen not to do that, why is that a problem for other members of society?

Do you think that is practical, how many minimum wage jobs would be available inland, is public transportation available for them to travel daily to the city (work location)?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>Ok, I am not sure what the solution is here. Minimum wage in Marin cannot be increased to $62,000. The housing prices/rents are high in certain area because there are people willing to pay them. I am not sure why the solutions above (see bolded section) are bad. These folks have made these choices. In the California areas cited, the same people can move inland by a couple of hours and housing prices/rents drop drastically.  If they have chosen not to do that, why is that a problem for other members of society?

Do you think that is practical, how many minimum wage jobs would be available inland, is public transportation available for them to travel daily to the city (work location)?

>>>If they find jobs in the lower rent areas and they are willing to take them, they will move. The people in Marin will face a shortage of this type of labor and the wages will go up till supply and demand coincide. If there are not enough jobs in the low rent areas, they will continue making the compromises they are making now. Yes, many people do commute to the bay area from the outskirts and there is even some public transportation, although maybe not the greatest in the world.  In the case of the bay area, you don't have to go even to the outskirts, if you are willing to compromise on the quality of the housing and neighborhoods. Nevertheless, these are choices people make. I am not sure what the other solution is here. Raising the wage of a movie ticket clerk or a waiter to $62,000 a year is needless to say a business  model that is not worth dignifying with a discussion.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>Ok, I am not sure what the solution is here. Minimum wage in Marin cannot be increased to $62,000. The housing prices/rents are high in certain area because there are people willing to pay them. I am not sure why the solutions above (see bolded section) are bad. These folks have made these choices. In the California areas cited, the same people can move inland by a couple of hours and housing prices/rents drop drastically.  If they have chosen not to do that, why is that a problem for other members of society?

Do you think that is practical, how many minimum wage jobs would be available inland, is public transportation available for them to travel daily to the city (work location)?

>>>If they find jobs in the lower rent areas and they are willing to take them, they will move. The people in Marin will face a shortage of this type of labor and the wages will go up till supply and demand coincide. If there are not enough jobs in the low rent areas, they will continue making the compromises they are making now. Yes, many people do commute to the bay area from the outskirts and there is even some public transportation, although maybe not the greatest in the world.  In the case of the bay area, you don't have to go even to the outskirts, if you are willing to compromise on the quality of the housing and neighborhoods. Nevertheless, these are choices people make. I am not sure what the other solution is here. Raising the wage of a movie ticket clerk or a waiter to $62,000 a year is needless to say a business  model that is not worth dignifying with a discussion.

I don't think that article is suggesting a steep minimum wage hike (to $30/hr). Solution would be somewhere in the middle

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>Ok, I am not sure what the solution is here. Minimum wage in Marin cannot be increased to $62,000. The housing prices/rents are high in certain area because there are people willing to pay them. I am not sure why the solutions above (see bolded section) are bad. These folks have made these choices. In the California areas cited, the same people can move inland by a couple of hours and housing prices/rents drop drastically.  If they have chosen not to do that, why is that a problem for other members of society?

Do you think that is practical, how many minimum wage jobs would be available inland, is public transportation available for them to travel daily to the city (work location)?

>>>If they find jobs in the lower rent areas and they are willing to take them, they will move. The people in Marin will face a shortage of this type of labor and the wages will go up till supply and demand coincide. If there are not enough jobs in the low rent areas, they will continue making the compromises they are making now. Yes, many people do commute to the bay area from the outskirts and there is even some public transportation, although maybe not the greatest in the world.  In the case of the bay area, you don't have to go even to the outskirts, if you are willing to compromise on the quality of the housing and neighborhoods. Nevertheless, these are choices people make. I am not sure what the other solution is here. Raising the wage of a movie ticket clerk or a waiter to $62,000 a year is needless to say a business  model that is not worth dignifying with a discussion.

I don't think that article is suggesting a steep minimum wage hike (to $30/hr). Solution would be somewhere in the middle

And you think this will have no domino effect?