patrick.net

Unaffordable rental market hits record heights
February 18, 20246:01 PM ET
Heard on "All Things Considered"

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/18/1232335095/unaffordable-rental-market-hits-record-heights

Over the past two decades, according to Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, median rents went up a whopping 21%, but the median income for renters, only 2%.

It is, but they're definitely not the only ones because, again, prices are up across the board. In fact, the Harvard study finds middle-income renters - making between about 30,000 and $75,000 - were the most likely to see their rent go up to the point where it became unaffordable. And even people working full time, the study found one-third of them cannot afford their housing costs.

But absolutely, for the lowest-income renters, they are squeezed the hardest. Harvard finds that a record 83% of them now pay more than a third of their income for rent and utilities.

AmericanKulak says

Has 16 years of not raising the minimum wage kept store costs and manual services affordable? Or are there other factors at work?

the top 10% of US households, those making $250,000 or more annually, are responsible for nearly 50% of all consumer spending

and the top 10% of US households own about 93% of the stock market

so what is the income disparity between the worker class and the top 10% ?

I see it at the local businesses where the owners ( a lot inherited the family businesses) making an obscene amount of money whereas their workers barely get by

and a lot of the top 10% in Panama City Florida own a lot of rental real estate especially AirBnB homes

I recommend to the local young service workers earning $15 to $20 an hour to try to do a side hustle like online surveys at home, an hour of Door Dash a couple of nights a week, etc and then to invest at least 50% of that money in an ETF or mutual fund like Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund

and I tell them to try to get along with people enough to share an apartment with someone else to reduce the housing costs

.

The father of a college girlfriend, a rich guy, suggested to me that there be no minimum wage, but instead a reverse income tax, where people who work full time are guaranteed to get the same income as they would from a minimum wage.

His argument was that you want as many people engaged in productive labor as possible at all times.

I haven't really thought it through, but maybe it's a good argument.

Patrick says

I haven't really thought it through, but maybe it's a good argument.

It is a horrible argument. With a "reverse income tax" employers would pay low wages knowing the government will pick up the difference.

Patrick says

His argument was that you want as many people engaged in productive labor as possible at all times.

For that, just take away all forms of welfare and have the government be the employer of last resort with picking up litter, sorting recyclables, digging replacement water pipes, and so on.

Patrick says

The father of a college girlfriend, a rich guy, suggested to me that there be no minimum wage, but instead a reverse income tax, where people who work full time are guaranteed to get the same income as they would from a minimum wage.

His argument was that you want as many people engaged in productive labor as possible at all times.

I haven't really thought it through, but maybe it's a good argument.

That's Milton Friedman's thing: The Negative Income tax.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

He tried to pursuade Nixon to push for that, I believe. Some now argue that NIT is a form of UBI but it's not unless money for dependents are added in. If that means we abolish welfare, I'd support that. Because over time, most workers will move up the income ladder and so their NIT payments will reduce or even completely go away.

Milton's NIT rolled all the previous programs into it...including Social Security. But if we did thar, then the program will never completely go away unless workers had to participate in a mandatory pension/invested program for retirement.

We could transform DINK families to SIWK ones, again.

Sheeeeeit, that's what the EIC is. My baby daddy is out on Paroul but I's got my IRS check so I can take him to Popeyes an sheit.

Nobody getting EBT or HUD should get EIC.

We have a female subsidy problem that brings no benefits to society, only costs.

AmericanKulak says

Sheeeeeit, that's what the EIC is. My baby daddy is out on Paroul but I's got my IRS check so I can take him to Popeyes an sheit.

Yup.

In 1975 the United States implemented a negative income tax for the working poor through the earned income tax credit. A 1995 survey found that 78% of American economists supported (with or without provisos) the incorporation of a negative income tax into the welfare system.

Patrick says

The father of a college girlfriend, a rich guy, suggested to me that there be no minimum wage, but instead a reverse income tax, where people who work full time are guaranteed to get the same income as they would from a minimum wage.

That sets up the lazy girl jobs. "Just got a body to make some copies and answer the phone, and the taxpayer will subsidize her"

Better that we just set the minimum wage to inflation plus a quarter of GDP growth (to make sure it's really "trickling" downwards)

MolotovCocktail says

Now the rents will really come down. It's gonna take a lot of Chinese multi-millionaires buying Katy, TX suburban homes and paying those ever-increasing property taxes and insurance bills to keep the real estate prices up

MolotovCocktail says

Does anyone actually eat McDonalds anyways? I'd need to shit immediately.

AmericanKulak says

The father of a college girlfriend, a rich guy, suggested to me that there be no minimum wage, but instead a reverse income tax, where people who work full time are guaranteed to get the same income as they would from a minimum wage.

Was this rich guy a fast-food restaurant owner? I don't think any business with low skill jobs would pay more $0.50 per hour so that the gov't could pay their employees. Maybe there is more to this scenario that I am missing.

https://ground.news/article/santa-fe-tackles-rental-rates-with-first-in-us-minimum-wage-approach

Santa Fe is taking an unprecedented approach to addressing affordability by tying the city's minimum wage to rental costs, with the goal of enabling workers to afford living in the city.

The new ordinance aims to preserve the diversity of Santa Fe's population by ensuring those who work in the city can afford to live there, according to Mayor Alan Webber.

About 20% of Santa Fe's workforce, or roughly 9,000 workers, will see a wage increase when the ordinance takes effect, with the minimum wage reaching $17.50 by 2027.

That's kind of interesting, pitting business owners against landlords.

If rents go up, business owners will have to pay out more in wages.

Maybe businesses will close because their incomes can't cover wages.

This all has nothing to do with that evil word "diversity". Why did they put that in there? Diversity divides us and should never be praised. We need the government to praise assimilation and unity.

Patrick says

About 20% of Santa Fe's workforce, or roughly 9,000 workers, will see a wage increase when the ordinance takes effect, with the minimum wage reaching $17.50 by 2027.

Let's see ho many of those 9,000 workers still have jobs after that ordinance takes effect.

https://x.com/Thevictoria76/status/1994226890626769176?s=20

5K Starbucks employees in NYC lose jobs overnight because they elected Moron Zomdummy. CEO is closing 194 (all) store locations after Moron attacked him.

NYC just lost $80M in tax revenue. Overnight.

Maga_Chaos_Monkey says

5K Starbucks employees in NYC lose jobs overnight because they elected Moron Zomdummy. CEO is closing 194 (all) store locations after Moron attacked him.

You may want to fact check this.