Hours to pay for rent at minimum wage.

Very depressing.

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/417092_10150674664707980_31151752979_9288951_2089558495_n.jpg

My state of Ohio is in the light grey for less than 70 hours work needed to pay the rent on a minimum wage. Go figure, the midwest probably has the cheapest cost of living in the US.

Morgan,

Without knowing a lot more about how this graphic was created we should not draw any conclusions from it.

My observations:

1. Minimum wages: Some states have none at all, some have but apply only to employers of a certain minimum number of employees or $$ revenue, some apply exceptions (eg setting rates lower for "tipped" workers), and the rest vary from $5.15 in WY to $9.04 in WA. I am not jumping into any kind of debate about the efficacy of a minimum wage, or the level it should be, simply stating I have no idea how this graphic was created given these differences (especially the former two).

2. Market Rents: These are set at county or Metro Statistical Area (MSA) level. Unless someone has converted these to State averages (and by what method?) there is a disconnect with the wages. Furthermore, the FMRs are set at 40-50th percentile range of existing accomodation, in other words half or nearly half of all accomodation is available at a lower rent than is published as a FMR.

3. Giving somewhere like CA equal billing with somewhere like MT (by using a graphic by state rather by pop) is very misleading in cases where we are concerned with a population issue. There will also be significant intra-state differences if one value is fixed (min wage) and the other variable (FMR) - for example in my state of WA, I suspect the eastern 2/3rds would really be light grey, and the western 3rd dark blue. At the individual county or MSA level more differences would occur, of course.

R

My van is my home.

It costs $50 per month to insure the van.

The absolute minimum wage that I will accept for work that I really like is $25 per hr.

So I guess it takes two hours per month for me to pay the rent.

One of my favorite sayings is , "Rent is for chumps".

These sorts of reports are very faulty. Live with someone else, several as needed. Be it family or room mates. Having a house or apartment all to yourself is a luxury. Don't expect it on minimum wage. They're filled with this sort of bad thinking that people need luxuries. They are promoting over consumption.

I think they're probably trying to promote the idea of a living wage. I agree our modern western idea of the one-family, nuclear family household is probably faulty.

The whole "Living Wage" thing is unreasonable. If you are at the bottom of the pay scale then the economic necessity is you will make do with less and share more with others. I know. I did it and I do it. When renting you have roommates. There's no necessity to have a room all to yourself never mind a whole apartment or house.

Do you think US wages should be as low as employers can push them, say, competitive with China?

Tyler Ludens wrote:Do you think US wages should be as low as employers can push them, say, competitive with China?

No, that wasn't what I said at all. Please don't put words in my mouth.

The Living Wage concept, notice the capitals, is an artificial idea of some people. They expect that everyone deserves everything. This is entitlement theory.

I was asking a question. Some people seem to feel that people deserve to have the basics of life (water, food, clothing, shelter) simply because they are humans, others seem to feel that people do not deserve anything, that no-one is entitled to anything they do not work for (or happen to have money to pay for). I'm not convinced that the living wage implies "everyone deserves everything." I'm not getting the idea of "everything" from "living wage." It implies some minimum standard of "living."

Anyway I think I'm getting too close to having a political discussion here (socialism versus libertarianism) so I think I'll walk away from it.

Tyler Ludens wrote:I was asking a question. Some people seem to feel that people deserve to have the basics of life (water, food, clothing, shelter) simply because they are humans, others seem to feel that people do not deserve anything, that no-one is entitled to anything they do not work for (or happen to have money to pay for).

I feel we deserve the right to have a chance at earning those things but not that we deserve to be given those things.

If the government chooses to give those things, then beware of its motivations. It may have good reasons, such as a healthy population works harder at jobs and earns more money that can be taxed. But it may also have nasty motivations such as a healthy population provides more cannon fodder.

A study of history shows governments having many of these and other motivations. I don't trust the people who say to give it all away freely to everyone. If for no other reason that they create a sense of entitlement that will then diminish the accomplishment of actually working for things. Again, study history. Cuba, China and the Soviet Union come to mind. With their recent changes they're doing better.

Beware the bearer of gifts. Understand their motivations before feeding at the trough.

I agree we should be critical of those in power (not just "the government").

Tyler Ludens wrote:I agree we should be critical of those in power (not just "the government").

Definitely. Often it is done under the disguise of government.