You Can't Afford A One-Bedroom Apartment On Minimum Wage

I oppose the Obama liberal mass offshoring TPP agreement libs are trying to fuck us with.
I oppose the NAFTA deal that the Clinton fucked us with.

Just so we are all clear, Bush Sr was the one who drafted the NAFTA deal. Clinton later signed it, as a political move. Meaning, the deal left a bad taste in his mouth, like Monica's pussy, but it was certainly a Republican agenda.
 
On the original subject and it's validity, a one bedroom were I am right now ranges from 1600-3500 a month. Minimum wage is 9/h. Which ends up being 1440/month before taxes. So I mean by those standards this article is correct. You could however move 30 miles from were you work in la and afford to rent a place on min wage, you would not be able to also eat though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I oppose the Obama liberal mass offshoring TPP agreement libs are trying to fuck us with.
I oppose the NAFTA deal that the Clinton fucked us with.
"In December 2013, 151 House Democrats signed a letter written by Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and George Miller (D-CA), which opposed the fast track trade promotion authority for the TPP. Several House Republicans opposed the measure on the grounds that it empowered the executive branch. In January 2014, House Democrats refused to put forward a co-sponsor for the legislation, hampering the bill's prospects for passage"

"Senate Democrats defy Obama on trade agenda"

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...-fails-vote-in-senate-as-dems-buck-obama.html

Look in the mirror, asshat. Republican politicians are trying to fast track this shit, not the dems
 

map-800x430.jpg



A new report by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition shows that there is no state in the U.S. where a full-time, minimum-wage worker can afford the rent of a one-bedroom apartment, Vox reports.

According to the report, the national average Housing Wage in 2015 is $19.35 for a two-bedroom unit, and $15.50 for a one-bedroom unit, while the federal minimum wage remains at $7.25 per hour in 2015, which hasn’t been raised since 2009. In 13 states and D.C., Housing Wage is more than $20 per hour. The Housing Wage is an estimate of the full-time hourly wage that a household must earn to afford a decent apartment at HUD’s estimated Fair Market Rent (FMR) for no more than 30% of their income.

The data from the report show a gap between wages and rents across the country. In no state or D.C. can a full-time minimum-wage earning worker at the federal minimum wage afford a one- or two-bedroom apartment for his or her family. With the exception of just a few counties in Washington and Oregon (where the state minimum wage is $9.47 and $9.25, respectively), in no county in the U.S. a one-bedroom unit at the FMR is affordable to someone working 40 hours a week at the minimum wage, according to the report.

A map included in the report shows the hours a worker would have to work each week to afford a one-bedroom apartment. Among the states where a worker has to work the most hours to afford housing are Hawaii (125), Maryland (101), DC (100), New Jersey (100) and California (92).

In some localities where the state and local minimum wages are higher than the federal minimum wage, the Housing Wages are also much higher than the minimum wages, according to the report. In San Francisco, California, for instance, the state and local minimum wages are $9.00 and $12.25, respectively, while the Housing Wages for a one- and a two-bedroom apartment are $31.44 and $39.65, respectively.

These data may help explain the findings of a Brookings Institution report. According to the report, an average resident of a U.S. metro area lives 90 minutes or less away from only 30 percent of the jobs in that area.

Living far away from jobs, in turn, can impede residents’ ability to earn more, Vox’s Joseph Stromberg points out. A recent study which tracked 5 million children starting in the 1980’s found that among factors such as crime rates, schools, and levels of inequality, a neighborhood’s average commuting time strongly correlated with its residents’ ability to ascend to a higher income bracket than their parents.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/you...nt-anywhere-in-america-on-a-minimum-wage-job/

http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2015_FULL.pdf


Blame the poor!

Pada.

I couldn't afford an apartment back in the early 70's with a minimum wage of 1.75 per hour. So it's been that way for a very long time.

I guess it would of helped if I would of got food stamps but I didn't want to be seen at the welfare office.
 
Are you opposed to enacting legislation preventing American companies from offshoring jobs?

I find it very odd you believe American companies ship jobs overseas because of the "high" (the fuck?) corporate tax rate instead of the low labor costs

Why didn't American companies like GM, Ford or American Airlines offshore their jobs in the 50's when corporate tax rates were twice as high as they are now?
The cost of importing was crippling in the 50s, once it became less costly the trend started. Low wages also plays a role though, that's true. We also blew up most of the developed world's manufacturing base during the 40's, that had a shit ton to do with the lack of off-shoring too. It's not like we would blow shit up in a country then be welcome to open up shop immediately after. It took a while.

What type of legislation are we talking about? I'm in favor of making our business climate as friendly as possible to attract not only people here to start a business but people to bring businesses from other countries too.

I think the answer to creating jobs here is layered, but none of those layers involves fencing the country in. In fact restricting trade by legislation in a global economy just adds more barriers to success here.
 
Just so we are all clear, Bush Sr was the one who drafted the NAFTA deal. Clinton later signed it, as a political move. Meaning, the deal left a bad taste in his mouth, like Monica's pussy, but it was certainly a Republican agenda.

Originally, wasn't NAFTA just Mexico Canada and the US? And then Clinton included the third world into the equation? Thats when I remembered everything getting fucked up is when Clinton was playing politics with free trade.
 
This is exactly the 'logic' that got us INTO the mess we're in.

Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
The system we currently have sees massive corporations like GE pay effectively a 0% tax while any potential competition would have to jump through a myriad of expensive hoops just for the right to compete followed up by paying the highest statutory rate in the free world. Does this promote or impede competition here in your mind?

What is your logic?
 
The cost of importing was crippling in the 50s, once it became less costly the trend started. Low wages also plays a role though, that's true. We also blew up most of the developed world's manufacturing base during the 40's, that had a shit ton to do with the lack of off-shoring too. It's not like we would blow shit up in a country then be welcome to open up shop immediately after. It took a while.
OK, so you are opposed to enacting legislation preventing American corporations from offshoring jobs?

"The cost of importing was crippling in the 50s" - Do you have a source for this claim?

What type of legislation are we talking about? I'm in favor of making our business climate as friendly as possible to attract not only people here to start a business but people to bring businesses from other countries too.
You live in America, you operate in America. You wanna do business elsewhere, you live there
none of those layers involves fencing the country in
So you believe growing the American economy doesn't involve ensuring American companies don't offshore their jobs to pay lower labor costs?

Yeah, I would disagree with that..
 
Originally, wasn't NAFTA just Mexico Canada and the US? And then Clinton included the third world into the equation? Thats when I remembered everything getting fucked up is when Clinton was playing politics with free trade.
That's because you're partisan and will find any reason to blame problems on those you disagree with
 
The system we currently have sees massive corporations like GE pay effectively a 0% tax while any potential competition would have to jump through a myriad of expensive hoops just for the right to compete followed up by paying the highest statutory rate in the free world. Does this promote or impede competition here in your mind?

What is your logic?

I can't remember his name but wasn't the CEO of GE one of BarryO's advisers for something to do with money?
 
Cause I don't need a car to get to work, or pay vehicle insurance.

Even if I didn't have a car, I'd need a monthly bus pass at the least. What about ANY other bills you have?

What about medical insurance? And there are still co pays and deductibles...

Forget going to the dentist, better pray you don't get sick or hurt.

Just plan on wearing the same clothes for the next few years...good luck holding down a job or finding one with holes in your pants.

You like wiping your ass with toilet paper? Showering with soap an shampoo? You shave, bro? Even shit from the 99 cent store ain't free.

And good luck finding a one bedroom apt in LA county for under 700 a month. Even that is a stretch. San Fernando valley, you're looking at at least 800 a month for a tiny one bedroom in a shitty complex...

Real secure knowing that ANY unexpected monetary setback could lead to an eviction notice due to not being able to make rent. What a way to
Live
anywere nice in la county is 700/800 just to rent a ROOM off someone... with the exception of palmdale and lancaster
 
OK, so you are opposed to enacting legislation preventing American corporations from offshoring jobs?

Yes, I'm in favor of enacting legislation that would entice not just American corporations to stay here, but that would entice corporations from all of the world to COME here.

"The cost of importing was crippling in the 50s" - Do you have a source for this claim?

LOL do you really need one? You can't figure out for yourself the advancements we've made in transport in the last 60 years? We used to not only make our own TVs here, we made the components that went in them because the costs to ship them here from overseas were not worth it at the time. I sincerely hope that if you can't figure that out for yourself you can use google and educate yourself.

You live in America, you operate in America. You wanna do business elsewhere, you live there
So everyone that owns a piece of Kia, Toyota, Mercedes etc must live here or take their business elsewhere? How does this help? Or are you saying you want one set of rules here for American Businesses to operate here under but a different set for foreign business to operate here? Do you think that will encourage or discourage growth of American entrepreneurship?


So you believe growing the American economy doesn't involve ensuring American companies don't offshore their jobs to pay lower labor costs?

Yeah, I would disagree with that..
I believe there are many methods to growing our economy and most have to do with enticements, not restrictions. What would Apple be today if they weren't allowed to operate at least partly offshore? Do you think their ability to offshore production has increased the jobs they have available here or do you think if they had to build here they would still be the giant they are?



I never saw you as an isolationist before...
 
Back
Top