$15 minimum wage

[The Feral Slasher]

I assume a lot of expenses other than rent are being factored in there.

Not sure if the map shown above used this methodology or not, the articles below provide some explanation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-much-income-you-need-to-afford-rent-by-state_us_574880cae4b0dacf7ad4c828

https://mic.com/articles/120428/1-map-shows-how-many-hours-you-need-to-work-minimum-wage-to-rent-an-apartment-in-any-state#.9U8pur2Cx

[TranaGreg]

utilities are included, but not other expenses ... here was the definition used:

The Housing Wage is based on HUD FMRs, which are the Department’s
best estimate of what a family moving today can expect to pay for a modest
rental home, not what all current renters are paying on average. ... Fair Market Rent (FMR) is typically the 40th
percentile of gross rents for standard rental units.
FMRs are determined by HUD on an annual basis,
and reflect the cost of shelter and utilities. FMRs are
used to determine payment standards for the Housing
Choice Voucher program and Section 8 contracts.

Here's the link to the report this came from. (by the way, this info is on pages 1 & 7 in case you were wondering ... )

and a bit more about which utilities are included ...

Utilities include electricity, gas, water and sewer, and trash removal services but not telephone service.

So bottom line is that all of the items baldgriff listed above are not included in the costs & would be additional expenses that someone would have to pay.

[cardboardbox]

utilities are included, but not other expenses ... here was the definition used:

Here's the link to the report this came from. (by the way, this info is on pages 1 & 7 in case you were wondering ... )

and a bit more about which utilities are included ...

So bottom line is that all of the items baldgriff listed above are not included in the costs & would be additional expenses that someone would have to pay.

the map is 1 br and that link is 2 br.

The pdf is basing their $/hr on housing (rent + util) being <= 30% of income. Thats stupid. When you make min wage, of course a large % of your income will go to pay for basic needs of which rent will be the costliest.

[TranaGreg]

the map is 1 br and that link is 2 br.

the report covered both situations, 2 bedrooms & 1 bedrooms (p13 & 15); the map I posted is from p15, for 1 bedrooms.

The pdf is basing their $/hr on housing (rent + util) being <= 30% of income. Thats stupid. When you make min wage, of course a large % of your income will go to pay for basic needs of which rent will be the costliest.

the 30% figure is the federal standard for affordability; the report only references it to point out that there are only 12 counties in the country where this can be met at minimum wage.

also from pg 1:

Affordability in this report is consistent with
the federal standard that no more than 30% of a
household’s gross income should be spent on rent
and utilities. Households paying over 30% of their
income are considered cost burdened. Households
paying over 50% of their income are considered
severely cost burdened.

But the main thing that I took from the report is that in almost every major urban centre, at minimum wage it takes over 80 hours of work per week to pay the rent+utilities for a 1 bedroom. That's incredible.

[cardboardbox]

the report covered both situations, 2 bedrooms & 1 bedrooms (p13 & 15); the map I posted is from p15, for 1 bedrooms.

I was on page 224, the chart seems to only have 2 BR on it but I do see on the previous page some mention of 1 BR.

the 30% figure is the federal standard for affordability; the report only references it to point out that there are only 12 counties in the country where this can be met at minimum wage.

also from pg 1:

But the main thing that I took from the report is that in almost every major urban centre, at minimum wage it takes over 80 hours of work per week to pay the rent+utilities for a 1 bedroom. That's incredible.

only if you spend a lot of money on things you shouldnt. I could do rent and util for less than $1k/month. $900 I think is reasonable but I cant remember elec bills from my apt days. So according to your 30% rule, I'd need $3000/mo to be able to pay $900 rent/util and since I'm sure they figured everything after taxes I'm guessing thats maybe $45,000/yr before taxes?

[TranaGreg]

only if you spend a lot of money on things you shouldnt.

huh? as mentioned, there was no discretionary spending included

edit: and just to play along, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25:

$7.25 * 80 hour work week(!) = $580 per week
$580 * 52 weeks (no vacation) = $30,160

That's a far cry from your $45,000 /yr

[cardboardbox]

huh? as mentioned, there was no discretionary spending included

edit: and just to play along, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25:

$7.25 * 80 hour work week(!) = $580 per week
$580 * 52 weeks (no vacation) = $30,160

That's a far cry from your $45,000 /yr

i was using the 30% rule to figure how much I would need to make per year to cover just 900/month in rent and util. It's completely ridiculous to think that someone needs to make that much to pay 900/month. Also I guessed at the net income needed to have 36k left after tax. I prob guessed too low?

edit: I see now the numbers are before taxes.

[umjewman]

I was on page 224, the chart seems to only have 2 BR on it but I do see on the previous page some mention of 1 BR.

only if you spend a lot of money on things you shouldnt. I could do rent and util for less than $1k/month. $900 I think is reasonable but I cant remember elec bills from my apt days. So according to your 30% rule, I'd need $3000/mo to be able to pay $900 rent/util and since I'm sure they figured everything after taxes I'm guessing thats maybe $45,000/yr before taxes?

I have no doubt I could have done better, but in my apartment days in Manhattan, I had a 500 sq. foot studio for 1,800/month (it went up to $2,000 one year but came back down during the housing crisis). Gotta love NYC.

[Hi.I'm.Mandy]

I saw a couple interesting links related to minimum wage today:

The first one the link back to McDonalds/Visa apparently disappeared, but if the claims in the article are accurate...wow

https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/07/19/look-you-can-live-on-minimum-wage-say-modern-slavers/

This one is long but interesting.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/to-my-fellow-plutocrats-you-can-cure-trumpism-215347

I believe that we in the American political and economic elite face an extraordinarily inconvenient but undeniable truth: Our country will not get better until our fellow citizens feel better; and they will not feel better until they actually do better. And this is the hard part for many of you: The American people will not do better until they are actually paid more

And they won’t be paid more until we change the way we manage our economy. This is the stark, simple fact at the heart of our ailing political system. Nothing is going to get better until we enact laws and standards that persuade or oblige every business to pay every worker a fair, dignified and livable wage. Everything else, from Trump on down, is a distraction or a lie.

[TranaGreg]

I saw a couple interesting links related to minimum wage today:

The first one the link back to McDonalds/Visa apparently disappeared, but if the claims in the article are accurate...wow

https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/07/19/look-you-can-live-on-minimum-wage-say-modern-slavers/

This one is long but interesting.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/to-my-fellow-plutocrats-you-can-cure-trumpism-215347

...

I saw that too. Here's the pic of the "budget" they came up with. Note income is based on someone having two full time jobs, monthly rent of $600, and $0 budgeted for heating.

[chancellor]

This one is long but interesting.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/to-my-fellow-plutocrats-you-can-cure-trumpism-215347

I believe that we in the American political and economic elite face an extraordinarily inconvenient but undeniable truth: Our country will not get better until our fellow citizens feel better; and they will not feel better until they actually do better. And this is the hard part for many of you: The American people will not do better until they are actually paid more

And they won’t be paid more until we change the way we manage our economy. This is the stark, simple fact at the heart of our ailing political system. Nothing is going to get better until we enact laws and standards that persuade or oblige every business to pay every worker a fair, dignified and livable wage. Everything else, from Trump on down, is a distraction or a lie.

I believe you misspelled "interesting" as "flamingly stupid" or "devoid of fact".

His assessment of the UWash versus UC-Berkeley studies is a perfect illustration. Because it's meaningless that the UWash study had a vastly better pool of data to pull from, and was significantly more rigorous in their analysis, by God, it's going well now, so they must be wrong. Let's just ignore that unemployment is down nation-wide, and it's hardly just Seattle that has a difficult time filling job positions. We're paying more in Seattle, so he says, so that MUST be the driver for lower unemployment. Correlation, you know, MUST equal causation.

His preaching is particularly rich coming from a guy who made a fortune as one of the lead investors in a company that has probably destroyed more jobs domestically than any other.

[Moonlight J]

Who gets a $150 car payment? Also, I guess gas for said vehicle is covered under the "other" category"

[baldgriff]

Who the hell only pays 20 bucks a month for Health Insurance............ Thats not even close.

[Redbirds Fan]

Silly boys.

There is no 'heating' expense because his home is all-electric, and that cost is part of his $90 a month electric bill.

Health insurance is only $20 because that is the cost of an 'apple a day', and we all know that keeps the doctor away.

Gasoline prices will soon be well under a dollar a gallon once we obtain the energy dominance that Secretary Perry will achieve, saving countless millions for hard-working Americans.

I realize the daily spending goal of $27 dollars a day may seem small, especially since there is no line item for groceries or entertainment, but what with working 80+ hours a week, there will be very little time for eating or other such tomfoolery.

Bottom line...don't be such Negative Nellies. MAGA!

[Sour Masher]

Something that is often under-emphasized in this debate is that the inflation adjusted national minimum wage today is a good bit lower than it has been. Adjusted for inflation it was over $10 in the late 60s--it's currently as low as it has been in 50 years. Personally, that, at least, is where I think it should be today, and there is a lot of evidence that raising the floor to around $10 should be economically sustainable for the vast majority of business in the vast majority of places. It is also a level at which people can live okay in some parts of the country. My sister is the only working person in a household of 5--three kids and one deadbeat boyfriend--and she manages making $10 an hour working at a high end sub shop, in Florida. They do get $600 in social security because her boyfriend's first kid has death benefits from his mother, and she does work some overtime, and I do occasionally give her a few bucks, but overall, she manages (should could manage without any help from me if she cut some stuff, like trips to Disney, but I'm happy to help with such things), in part, because her effective tax rate is close to zero with so many dependents. In fact, although I have grossed over 60k a year the last couple of years, her take home making $10 an hour, plus some tips at the sub shop, is about the same as mine (although, I am paying a big chunk for health care, which she doesn't have, and retirement benefits, which she doesn't have, and I have a working spouse, which she doesn't have, and she has more mouths to feed, so i am not complaining about our relative tax rates--they seem fair given the circumstances).

Because of me and my family's past and current experience getting by on very little, I do shy away from a hard line stance on a national floor of $15, because I do think, in some places, that could hurt businesses and lower employment rates. Given the radical differences in cost of living across the country, I don't think the minimum should be the same in places like NYC and Cali as rural Kentucky. Ideally, I think, minimum wage could be "park adjusted" to borrow a baseball term, for relative cost of living, so that the stats are as even as possible across the nation. That would be a complicated set up though, and there would be debate about exactly how cost of living is calculated by region. Still, it would be the fairest solution, starting with a $10 floor in the cheapest places to live, and adjusting upward to $15+ for more expensive regions/cities (in a place like NYC or San Fran, I imagine the fair living minimum wage would be even higher than $15).