Shared publicly  - 
26
8
Chris Kunzler's profile photoFjord Lynn's profile photoTurkka Hynynen's profile photoShawn Thompson's profile photo
21 comments
 
Hell, even a one bedroom is going to be hard to pull off at minimum wage. If you can find a studio in a place that isn't so ghetto you sleep cuddled to a weapon just in case, then you're doing well or receiving additional housing assistance.
 
I think finding a studio apartment on minimun wage is short of a miralce.
 
Pardon me, I may be confused by the terminology but why does a minimum wage worker (singular, not plural) need a two-*bed*room apartment? I personally live in a three rooms and a kitchen apartment (two bedrooms, living room, kitchen) alone and this is way too big for my needs.
 
Right you are. But then it is not the minimum wage worker who needs the two-bedroom apartment anymore, is it?

Doesn't take away the point of maybe one needs to afford such an apartment and I readily admit my error in thinking bigger here. A minumum wage single parent definitely should be able to afford an apartment big enough for the whole family. I do apologize for me err here.

There are no government subsidies available for such situation there?
 
+Turkka Hynynen For government help you must be disabled or senior citizen.  There is government housing. The waiting list is 2 - 5 years,  However, the point here is; it should not be this way.  We can go on and on about this and abouit that but this is a RICH country and a worker should be able for afford housing for his family,.  For that matter, himself.  Minimum wage workers have families and may need a two bedroom apartment. 
 
Provided the worker has a family to, well, provide for. But again I am splitting hairs and arguing about semantics while the issue itself is something I agree with.

How common are the household that have only one worker providing for more than him-/herself there? Now, I am not asking this to reinforce any argument of mine but from genuine curiosity.
 
+Shirley Thomas Yes, I didn't think it all the way through, I admit. I just got tangled to the assumption I made that a single person would need a two-bedroom apartment which I see a bit excessive.

As well pointed out there may be pothers for a single person to provide not just oneself. Didn't think it that far.

Then again I am a bit biased for here where I live it is relatively easy to get government benefits and welfare if you happen to be a single parent (child benefits) or providing for your senior parents (who then receive more or less adequate pension).

I have been kind of cushioned with the baaaaaad socialism here.
 
No, I am not trying to say that it is easier for two minimumwagers to pay for a family than it is for a single minimumwager to pay just for oneself.

I just come from a completely different culture in that sense. Here if people get kids they get benefits automatically, children being taken to daycare is commonplace (it is rare to have stay-at-home moms or dads) and people can apply for government benefits if their wages fall short of what is considered minimum for surviving. For me the - shall I say - cutthroat world of the U.S. is unfamiliar and strange.

The generation of my parents had such families where one of the parents stayed home and took care of the kids but that has - as stated before - practically vanished with the industrialization of the 1800s and early 1900s.

Here people do not need to work their fingers to the bone to just provide roof over their heads. It is no rose garden here either and we have our fair share of government benefit exploiters but it is a small price to pay for humane housing for the people.
 
I own and rent out low income housing. I offer 3 bedroom units with the most expensive being $430, hours needed to work at minimum wage to be affordable: 45. Contrast this to the HUD FMR of over $880 a month.

This statistic is a little twisted. It comes from this graphic:
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/paying-rent-on-minimum-wage/
which is talking about two bedroom homes and is using the average FMR in those states. The problem it is stating is that minimum wage workers can't afford an average apartment. It's not that they can't afford any housing, but that they can't afford the average price of an apartment. This shouldn't be surprising as they are earning the lowest amount possible.
 
One more thing, for a single person with 2 children making $14,500 (2000 hours at $7.25), they would get an earned income credit of $5,110, making apartments up to $490/month affordable.
 
I'd love to see a $490/mo apartment anywhere in Boston.  Minimum studio is around $1500/month.   Supply has not kept pace with demand.
 
In the case of Boston, +Armando Lioss , all of the vacant land is held by invisible 'family trusts' who refuse to sell or built anything on it.  And unfortunately our tax policy allows them to claim this as a loss and extract generous subsidies.   We have thousands of acres of empty land all throughout the city.
 
Not to throw a monkey wrench, here in the pool, but to add insult to injury, how many minimum wage jobs do you know of that pay health insurance benefits? So just to talk about whether or not they can afford an apartment is only half the battle.

Even if they can keep their noses above water at some spithole apt. they can afford, they're already sunk if anything, and I mean _anything_  goes wrong with anybody in the family health wise. They don't even have enough to get basic preventative care.
 
You raise a very valid point, +Lisa Larson , except for here in Massachusetts which has universal health insurance regardless of income. And not that craptastic fake care, but actual credible coverage, in fact you get to choose whatever company and plan you want.
 
Duly acknowledged +Frederick Wright. Unfortunately, that's only one state out of 50. Let's talk when the entire country has universal health care. :)
 
+Lisa Larson Well Lisa you did not throw in a monkey wrench. What you did was add a reality check.
Add a comment...