Wage Required to Afford a 2-Bedroom Rental in Every State

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Try being a low income or even lower middle income person in SF or NYC. They say that 50% of renters in NYC are what is called rent-burdened, as even in the ghetto the rents are ridiculous.

I live in one of the ghettos of NYC, and for a marginal three bedroom apartment we are paying $817 each a month for a room, and that is considered a GREAT deal. This is in Brooklyn.

Yikes. For a ROOM in a 3-br!?? Our house payment is $750. 1300 modest square feet. 2 BR with a basement and 1/3 of an acre. 76-year old house.

I know when my daughter was in school, each renter paid about $650 or so. For an apartment in a 'converted' Victorian house or an old building close to campus who shared 2- or 3-br apartments. And that was VERY CLOSE to her campus. When I was in college (late 70s) I finally got my own apartment, a one-BR with a kitchenette in a converted Victorian (the bedroom was actually a 'sun porch). It was $75/month.

Now, though, my daughter lives in Minneapolis and has a roommate, not near a campus, and they each pay $600 or something like that.
Fortunately, she is earning good money as an Engineer, but she is also paying off student loans. $900/month. For the student loan. She can't afford to live on her own AND have a 'decent' modest place. She shares half of a duplex.

originally posted by: Pants3204
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

True. If you can't afford kids, then don't have them. Simple as that.

If you are living with roommates and splitting the rent, you can work far less than 40 hours a week to meet rent. My point is that the numbers mentioned in OP don't match reality, unless they are taking into account some large, non obvious expenses in addition to rent, because clearly $2500/month is not a realistic price for a one bedroom apartment.

No you cannot if you live in SF or NYC. I was paying around $1300 for a room in a 3 bedroom within a somewhat nice neighborhood in Manhattan. The whole apartment was around $4000 a month. Unless you are working at a job that pays you a very high wage or salary for part-time, you can't work part time and pay rent and all of the other expenses.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Try being a low income or even lower middle income person in SF or NYC. They say that 50% of renters in NYC are what is called rent-burdened, as even in the ghetto the rents are ridiculous.

I live in one of the ghettos of NYC, and for a marginal three bedroom apartment we are paying $817 each a month for a room, and that is considered a GREAT deal. This is in Brooklyn.

Yikes. For a ROOM in a 3-br!?? Our house payment is $750. 1300 modest square feet. 2 BR with a basement and 1/3 of an acre. 76-year old house.

I know when my daughter was in school, each renter paid about $650 or so. For an apartment in a 'converted' Victorian house or an old building close to campus who shared 2- or 3-br apartments. And that was VERY CLOSE to her campus. When I was in college (late 70s) I finally got my own apartment, a one-BR with a kitchenette in a converted Victorian (the bedroom was actually a 'sun porch). It was $75/month.

Now, though, my daughter lives in Minneapolis and has a roommate, not near a campus, and they each pay $600 or something like that.
Fortunately, she is earning good money as an Engineer, but she is also paying off student loans. $900/month. For the student loan. She can't afford to live on her own AND have a 'decent' modest place. She shares half of a duplex.

Yup. New York and San Francisco are insane for cost of living. Manhattan is FAR worse than the prices I am paying here. I was just writing above how I was paying $1200-1300 in Manhattan for a room in a 3-bedroom in a decent area of Manhattan. This is totally normal..

We aren't even talking about the stuff rich people get. Nice condos, nice apartments, in the prime locations in NYC, will cost you anywhere from double to many multiples of the prices I just noted.

nypost.com...

According to this, last summer the average two-bedroom in Manhattan was around $4000 per month.

The tradeoffs for both cities, of course, are that they are the most international, diverse, have the most music/art/fashion/museums/culture/history, have more jobs, higher salaries, etc. So one has to pay for it.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Why?

originally posted by: Pants3204
$7.25/hr @ 85 hours a week is about $620/week, or $2500/month. How is this not enough to rent a single bedroom apartment? Where are you living that has rent this high, and maybe the better question is, why are you still living there?

If you lived in Silicon Valley (San Jose/Sunnyvale), a one bedroom apartment rents for US $1300/month. A four bedroom house in Menlo Park/Palo Alto rents for US $3000+ . In Canada in the 1990's, an apartment rented for around CA $850

In Norway, an apartment rents for NOK $15000 (£1500). In London, a single bedroom rents for £200/week (or US$450/week).

The major differences are that the expensive places are in "low-rise" cities where it's not permitted to build high-rise apartment blocks. In California, this is because the existing home owners resented the loss of sunlight and having their property tax double or even rise astronomically simply because their next door neighbor decided to sell up to condo developers. London is another low-rise city. The only high-rise buildings being built are either for the extremely poor (council homes), the super-wealthy (luxury apartment blocks) and for commercial use (office blocks).

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
But, "heavens no! we can't increase the federal minimum wage!
No! Absolutely not!" squawk those in high cotton with no money woes of their own.

If you increase the minimum wage, the rent will go up.

Rent has always historically tracked as a fairly consistent percentage of median income (with minor deviations on area/amenities) no matter what part of the country you're looking at. When the median income goes up (if wages go up), rents will go up.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

So, it won't ever end.
Great.
There will ALWAYS be people who can't afford a place to live - ALWAYS be homelessness, etc.

ALWAYS someone who'll putter along on minimum wage and STILL can't make ends meet.
But -
WHY?

a reply to: Ultralight

Why?

Because no one should not earn a living wage.
And unions protect the workers from being paid a less-than-living wage.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It's because the "minimum wage" was never intended to be a "living wage." It's the bottom of the income curve.

The only way to make it end is to get beyond it, and have skills that are worth more than the minimum wage in a job category with demand for new employees.

There are lots of arguments for alternatives, and some countries do it better, but there are no economically viable fixes here in the US without systemic changes in other areas of the federal budget.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I totally agree with you.

It's become a real mess, though. In my opinion.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Because no one should not earn a living wage.

I don't believe that to be true.

While I'm generally somewhat socially uh… [progressive] (there, I said it), we can't as a society support career-level pay for unskilled people. It's just not a sustainable formula.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

we can't as a society support career-level pay for unskilled people. It's just not a sustainable formula.

She had asked why I was pro-Union.
I don't think teachers, and crack housekeepers at giant hotels, and back-hoe operators are "unskilled."
And for many of them - it IS a career.

originally posted by: intrptr
The "Housing Bubble" (over inflated values) are the cause of higher rents. The more a house is determined to be "worth" the higher the cost of real estate, mortgage, taxes, maintenance, whatever.

Higher the value and cost, the higher the rent. You don't own the place, just pay for it.

Feeling the austerity?

I counter that Foreign Sovereign Funds and a lot of private equity (hedge) funds are the cause for the unnatural homebuilding and squeeze of available rentals at realistic prices...

the hedge funds have cornered the available market in 99% of the locales... because there ain't no 5-10% return-on-investment anywhere else--stocks or bonds or municipalities....


the casino markets are a direct boon to the top 1%'ers

you the bank depositer have no guaranteed checking or savings balance ~~ as all the money belongs to the Bank, when they decide to call in the 'bail in' process to protect the Banks
(off balance sheet) balance sheet of liabilities/derivative exposure


The Obama 'recovery' & GDP Growth is only allowed for the 1% and the TBTF mega banks and the subordinates like various hedge funds...
let's not forget the Stock market in which the TBTF play big time on ZIRP Money that the taxpayer and retired folks are suffering from no-interest

its all a stacked deck---- the whole (or 99.98% of congress) is all in the pockets of corporations with their frontmen termed K Street gang, AKA: www.opensecrets.org...

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I don't think teachers, and crack housekeepers at giant hotels, and back-hoe operators are "unskilled."

Three very different job categories there.

Yes, the hotel housekeeper is generally considered unskilled (no education needed to vacuum and make beds).

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Ultralight

Why?

Because no one should not earn a living wage.
And unions protect the workers from being paid a less-than-living wage.

Joining the unions 10 yrs ago was the best economic decision I ever made. My membership dues pale in comparison for the benefits I receive.

Proud SAG/AFTRA, IATSE

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What is your definition of a living wage?

It seems to me that the amount of my paycheck gets reduced primarily by my rent/mortgage and food. Of course there are other bills to pay, gas, medicines to buy, etc.

So, if I shop at Grocery Oulet, $1 type stores for 75% of my food and household needs, buy my clothes, shoes, etc at Wal-Mart type stores, I would have more of my paycheck to spend. In contrast, if I get Starbucks once or twice a day, shop at the nationaly recognized grocery stores, get non generic meds, buy Chevron gas, buy my clothes from Nordstrom type stores, etc....then I have much less money from my paycheck.

In my mind, a living wage is subject to the lifestyle of the wage earner. We all love to live beyond our means, buy things we cannot afford via credit, have children we cannot support, and buy by the latest trend.

There is a reason for Starbucks success.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

we can't as a society support career-level pay for unskilled people. It's just not a sustainable formula.

But we are, as a society, collectively, via our taxes - supporting and paying for those 'unskilled people' to survive, because they don't earn a living wage. And many, many skilled and educated 50-somethings whose jobs were out-sourced, or their employer 'down-sized', or a robot/computer replaced their skill.....or an unpaid intern fresh out of college with enormous student-loans to pay -- or whatever.

How is it that taxpayers' dollars are required to make up the difference? While their employers pay them less than they need and get away with it?

Because profit trumps lives.

(BTW, I'm, as you are possibly aware, a progressive also - and thanks very much for participating - duplicate thread and all.....)

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Who do you consider "unskilled"?

a reply to: Ultralight

I will just say that for my part, my husband and I have no common debt except the mortgage - I personally have a student loan that I'd pay if I could find a JOB. ANY JOB. I have an advanced degree, too.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Pants3204
$7.25/hr @ 85 hours a week is about $620/week, or $2500/month. How is this not enough to rent a single bedroom apartment? Where are you living that has rent this high, and maybe the better question is, why are you still living there?

If you lived in Silicon Valley (San Jose/Sunnyvale), a one bedroom apartment rents for US $1300/month. A four bedroom house in Menlo Park/Palo Alto rents for US $3000+ . In Canada in the 1990's, an apartment rented for around CA $850

In Norway, an apartment rents for NOK $15000 (£1500). In London, a single bedroom rents for £200/week (or US$450/week).

The major differences are that the expensive places are in "low-rise" cities where it's not permitted to build high-rise apartment blocks. In California, this is because the existing home owners resented the loss of sunlight and having their property tax double or even rise astronomically simply because their next door neighbor decided to sell up to condo developers. London is another low-rise city. The only high-rise buildings being built are either for the extremely poor (council homes), the super-wealthy (luxury apartment blocks) and for commercial use (office blocks).

That sounds a bit low for recent bay area prices.. The Bay Area just surpassed NY for most expensive area in the country. I'm from there originally.