A minimum-wage worker needs 2.5 full-time jobs to afford a one-bedroom apartment in most of the US

Nice to know. The US usually sets an example for these kinds of slavery tactics.
Soon now Germany and the rest of Europe will follow.
That's the way to get rich quick!

originally posted by: SummerRain
I feel like playing Jones in the Fast Lane, again now.

Holy crap that is such a fun game! You are the first person outside of my close group of friends to have played it. Now I am going to play it again.

Link to game

originally posted by: CB328
You really don't need any more proof of the failing of capitalism than this. At a time when corporations and CEO's are raking in gigantic profits, the people actually doing the hardest and worst jobs can't even afford an apartment. We hear a lot of proganda on here about how capitalism provides for people so well and creates so much prosperity. The truth is it creates prosperity for those at the top by destroying and enslaving those at the bottom. How is this any different than communism? It's just slavery with lipstick.

A minimum-wage worker needs 2.5 full-time jobs to afford a one-bedroom apartment in most of the US

www.yahoo.com...

Ok Time to call bullshiz for bullshizz.

2.5 full-time jobs = 100 hours a week
Federal minimum wage is $7.25

Lets for the sake of argument eliminate overtime wages, ok?

100 hours per week at minimum wage would equal $725 per week in income.

Who is struggling on $725 a week income? Please show me this demographic.

a reply to: Vector99

Those that have children and actually have insurance and pay for school supplies and all the other things that follow. Including babysitting and many other aspects.
Are you being serious right now or just pretending to be a know it all?

a reply to: Vector99

Also you may be forgetting to account for insurance and taxes that get taken out of pay.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Ok, so wait we added a variable.

An individual CHOSE to have a child.

Therefore they are now entitled?

Work harder and get a better job. Capitalism is competitive, which is why lazy people don't like it.
If you REALLY want a property then work work work. Get on the ladder and build something for your future family and make it easier for them than it was for you.

In the UK it's the same, but we do have affordable housing... where a person can buy a small percentage of their first property to get on the ladder and over time buy more and more of the equity. It's not a scheme for lazy people, it's a scheme for poor people who want to work and want to succeed.

a reply to: UKTruth

Well some people think 100 hours of miminum wage is what it takes to survive.

I understand why they stay in their parents basement, real life is scary.

These entitled kids do amuse me though.

originally posted by: CB328

So tell me... what is your answer to the problem?

There are a lot of things that need to be done. First of all, raise the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour. Secondly we need to raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy and use them to bring back more government and union jobs. That would help the American people tremendously. Also we could do infrastructure repair that Trump promised, but put it almost entirely on the states to pay for, so nothing is being done.

So your answer is to destroy prosperity by getting other people to pay for the underachievers and lazy people in life.
Got it.

a reply to: Vector99

It is not adding a variable necessarily. But for someone that does not have a child I would imagine they would not work 100+ hours a week.
The point I am trying to make is that it seems wrong to seemingly assume someone that cannot work that schedule is at fault. In a lot of situations yes you are correct but that is not true for all. Let’s say that a mother of 2 or 3 has to stay home most the time and only work part time and the husband works those hours. Now take into account the expenditures of raising a child let alone 2-3 and maintaining a home. That money would hardly cut it. Food, electric, gas, insurance on all fronts, and cloths. It is just the way it is but a fact. Now if you want to go raise a child whilst working 100 hours a week be my friend.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

You are describing people that made CHOICES.

Erhhh merrr gerddd You had 2 kids and have to work 80 hours a week to support them because you don't have skills? boo-hoo.

There isn't a single individual in this country that would be struggling with $725 a week income. Not Anywhere.

You add variables? Those are called life choices, not taxpayer burdens.

a reply to: Vector99

The way I presented the situation does not have tax payer burdens. But yes you are correct as those are life decisions 90% of the time.
Look man we as a society should not be complacent with such crap paying jobs for things that get used everyday. Obviously this problem will never get fixed but I believe it is better to recognize the issue than to not.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

There are more jobs available at the moment than there are unemployed individuals.

You know what the disparity is? LACK OF SKILLS!

There are literally jobs willing to rain you, move you, and pay you well available. Right at this moment.

How many people are jumping on those?

a reply to: CB328


Its not the failure of capitalism. Capitalism is working just fine. Capitalism's purpose is to send money to capitalists. If you are working for someone else, you are making money for them, not yourself. People start a business to make money for themselves, and an employee is just an expense. You get a stipend, but the purpose of you being there is not for you to prosper, its for your employer to prosper. No one owes you ANYTHING other than the wage you agree on. I know when people are young, they think altruism should work on a large scale. It doesn't. People are greedy pricks and they don't want to share with you. Awful, yes, but its a fact of life. Arguing about it is like wishing the sky was another color. Rather than get angry, you should direct your energy to finding a solution for yourself. If you want to prosper, find a way to own a business. That's the only way out of poverty. Its harsh and its probably not even fair, but its the way things are. Is life supposed to be fair? Look at nature, its survival of the fittest. At least with capitalism, you stand a chance of having a decent standard of living. But you might have to fight your way up to get to that, no guarantees. Actually low wages should be an impetus to improve yourself. And you may have to think outside the box and really fight to do that. The end result is you have bettered yourself and made yourself stronger in the process. If everything is handed to us we will live in a very mediocre society in the end. No innovation, no greatness, just bland people living in their living wage jobs with no reason to improve themselves or the system they live in. No thanks, I will take some adversity and uncertainty over that. With socialism, you go as far as the state lets you go. Communism is worse. I work with two people who lived under communism and trust me, if you think capitalism is cruel, go live in a communist country for a year. I work with a guy from Vietnam who did just that, he hates communism and is the biggest capitalist in the world, and he came from nothing, dirt poor but he worked and used his head and has a pretty good life now. Its the only way.

a reply to: CB328

I looked up rent cost and found this linky. www.apartmentlist.com...
Interesting article. Holy crap the rent in NY is out of this world. Cali isn't a cheap place live either.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Xcathdra
When you have people in San Francisco making 80k a year living in homeless shelters there is a problem. With that said in a recent poll 46% of the people living in San Francisco who were surveyed said they have plans to move out of the city within the next year due to government policies and the high price of everything.

It is a liberal paradise isnt it.

"making 80k a year living in homeless shelters"

Is that a serious figure?

In costly Bay Area, even six-figure salaries are considered ‘low income’

San Francisco and San Mateo counties have the highest limits in the Bay Area — and among the highest such numbers in the country. A family of four with an income of $105,350 per year is considered “low income.” A $65,800 annual income is considered “very low” for a family the same size, and $39,500 is “extremely low.” The median income for those areas is $115,300.

Other Bay Area counties are not far behind. In Alameda and Contra Costa counties, $80,400 for a family of four is considered low income, while in Santa Clara County, $84,750 is the low-income threshold for a family of four.

* - San Jose Reddit users: You can't live here on an $85,000 salary!
* - Scraping by on six figures? Tech workers feel poor in Silicon Valley's wealth bubble
* - The San Francisco housing market is so absurd that teachers are living in dorms — even though their salaries are some of the highest in the country
* - A Twitter employee earning $160,000 in San Francisco says he's scraping by
* - San Francisco Bay Area Experiences Mass Exodus Of Residents

It is because people like the Trumps continue to manufacture goods in China and bring them to the USA. And because people like Trump use guest workers instead of Americans at their resorts.

You need a six figure income, which only 1% of people are able to achieve, but everyone is just lazy, seriously?

So your answer is to destroy prosperity by getting other people to pay for the underachievers

No wealthy person is going to not be prosperous because they have to pay a bit more in taxes.
"Underachievers" deserve to live too, especially the ones who have no options in life because they were born into poverty and have no ability to pay for education. We live in a society, and that means that the wellbeing of all people is supposed to be accounted for, not just the luckiest, greediest and luckiest people.

I will be fair here. The old wisdom is that housing should be 1/4 of your income. Section 8 pays $650/mo so rentals in areas that look like demilitarized zones are $650. Price go up for better areas, feature, etc due to this. 40 hours at $7.25 is $290 times 2.5 is $725, $650 is roughly 11.5% for taxes (which is about right for final taxes owed on a single minimum wage job—but is not what is deducted throughout the year nor takes in account the higher bracket for income derived from the extra job and a half) hence (using fuzzy math) the article says 2.5 jobs are needed for an apartment at $650/mo.

Living wage, uses that 1/4 income for housing, 1/4 income for savings, 1/2 income for living expenses and luxuries. There is the problem with using minimum wage for a living wage...following the standard model of budgeting. On a minimum wage luxuries have to be sacrificed and savings are all but eliminated in order to pay housing and expenses. Unexpected expenses like car repair or clothing replacement are emergencies requiring dipping into the food budget.

Add children to the mix, and a minimum wage earner is in a real pickle from the word go. Especially if a single father, WIC is women, infants and children for a reason and gender equality is not a strong suit of the welfare system.

But individual responsibility doesn’t come into play in these articles. You have to identify what are luxuries and cut into them. Do you absolutely need a phone? Can you use WiFi hotspots? Do you have to run up the electric bill watching over the air TV and DVD’s? Can you get by on beans and rice or something similar for most of the week instead of more extravagant meals three times a day? Do you have to eat three meals a day? Can you buy a better car that doesn’t nickel and dime you? Do you have low cost hobbies that can be profitable?

Got to tell you, I have been in bad spots in my life. Ate quite a number of blue gill over the years. Nothing is a permanent situation, you have to adapt. Opportunities are a gamble that can sometimes make your situation worse. Just have to keep plugging away and take the lumps when they come.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: CB328

Government jobs are a net loss to GDP. Period. It doesn't matter if you don't believe it.

Hogwash.

Government jobs are a net gain to GDP like every job.

GDP is the sum of private transactions and investment, government investment and spending, and the balance of trade.

The money paid to government employees and the money those employees spend ALL contribute to GDP.

What doesn't contribute to GDP is money stored in the system as capital.

As for wage growth being a good thing, look at what happened in most wester nations in the early seventies....


Like you said, a basic understanding of economics would help you. You're on the internet, the most powerful research tool in history: there is no excuse for ignorance.