4 ms·

I have two nitpicks with the study: 1. It uses a two-bedroom home as a baseline instead of a one-bedroom. While I understand that may be interesting for histor

I have two nitpicks with the study: 1. It uses a two-bedroom home as a baseline instead of a one-bedroom. While I understand that may be interesting for historical reasons, it's not a practical metric for modern considerations. If we want to talk about housing affordability, it's more honest to discuss one-bedroom apartments for single earners. We could also talk about two-bedroom apartments for dual-income earners. 2. The 30% pre-tax rent metric doesn't make sense to me at all. Why would that be invariant across income levels, and across states, given both graduated taxation and the vast differences in both income tax and sales tax across different states? In California, 30% pre-tax works might work out to more than 40-45% post-tax, depending on your income, and the remainder doesn't translate well to purchasing power given varying state sales taxes. I'm not saying that affordable housing is not a problem, because it clearly is. Just that, to address the problem honestly, we need to use better metrics to figure out what a fair solution is.

djrogers 8y ago
Re #1 - why would a 2 bedroom not be more applicable when discussing affordability? Having a roommate is pretty standard when trying to save money, and I don’t think ‘not wanting one’ changes wether or it it’s not affordable that way.
- SoylentOrange 8y ago
  The study talks about a 2-bedroom apartment on a single, minimum-wage income. There is no discussion of dual incomes or roommates. The idea is for a single family to live in the 2-bedroom
- thedirt0115 8y ago
  My gut feeling is that they had the prices for 1BRs and for 2BRs, and the numbers sounded more impressive with the 2BR. They could've easily displayed both so people could do their own calculations for roommates, etc.
briffle 8y ago
We'll just forget people have kids..
- ggg9990 8y ago
  You’re not supposed to be able to support a kid on a minimum wage. The minimum wage supports the minimum lifestyle - single person household with minimally acceptable levels of food/clothing/shelter/other.
  - jimbofisher1 8y ago
    And there's the libertarian.
    - ggg9990 8y ago
      Not really... most of my voting has been aligned with moderate redistribution. But I’m more for taking the destitute and giving them a minimal lifestyle (housed, fed, clothed, small amount of entertainment) than taking people with minimal lifestyles and giving them more for no additional economic output. I don’t think there should be people getting too few calories in the US, or living in mold infested slums, but I don’t see a problem with a minimum wage worker living in a small bedroom with shared bathrooms and beans/rice with chicken three times a week.
      - jimbofisher1 8y ago
        The problem with this assumption is that you imagine all minimum wage workers are 18 year olds living on their own. In reality there are countless(millions?) of people trying to support a family on those wages and are forced to turn to government assistance to make up the difference. As a libertarian I'm sure you hate the idea of people using government assistance more than forcing corporations to pay them a fair wage in the first place.
      - Spooky23 8y ago
        Sweet. Will they get a hard roll once a week too? SROs and workhouses... what a vision for the future. It’s a shame that we’ve given back all of the advances of the 20th century.
jahewson 8y ago
2. The standard in the Bay Area is for landlords to require tenants have gross earnings of 2.5 to 3.5 times the rent and to verify this with pay stubs. Personally I think this is ridiulous and antiquated as it should be my personal choice to blow half my cash on rent if I want to! But that’s the way it is.
- sjg007 8y ago
  Yeah it's weird b/c they can easily rent it out for more if you default. Some of the big corp run apartments only require $500 security.
- nradov 8y ago
  Landlords don't care about personal choices. They want tenants who can still afford to pay rent even if they have an unexpected major expense one month. In practice some prospective tenants simply falsify their incomes. I'm not condoning this but all it takes is Photoshop and a ladder printer.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Hmm? Blowing 1/3rd of your gross income and 1/2 your cash are approximately the same thing under our tax rates.

djrogers 8y ago

Re #1 - why would a 2 bedroom not be more applicable when discussing affordability? Having a roommate is pretty standard when trying to save money, and I don’t think ‘not wanting one’ changes wether or it it’s not affordable that way.

SoylentOrange 8y ago
The study talks about a 2-bedroom apartment on a single, minimum-wage income. There is no discussion of dual incomes or roommates. The idea is for a single family to live in the 2-bedroom
thedirt0115 8y ago
My gut feeling is that they had the prices for 1BRs and for 2BRs, and the numbers sounded more impressive with the 2BR. They could've easily displayed both so people could do their own calculations for roommates, etc.

briffle 8y ago

We'll just forget people have kids..

ggg9990 8y ago
You’re not supposed to be able to support a kid on a minimum wage. The minimum wage supports the minimum lifestyle - single person household with minimally acceptable levels of food/clothing/shelter/other.
- jimbofisher1 8y ago
  And there's the libertarian.
  - ggg9990 8y ago
    Not really... most of my voting has been aligned with moderate redistribution. But I’m more for taking the destitute and giving them a minimal lifestyle (housed, fed, clothed, small amount of entertainment) than taking people with minimal lifestyles and giving them more for no additional economic output. I don’t think there should be people getting too few calories in the US, or living in mold infested slums, but I don’t see a problem with a minimum wage worker living in a small bedroom with shared bathrooms and beans/rice with chicken three times a week.
    - jimbofisher1 8y ago
      The problem with this assumption is that you imagine all minimum wage workers are 18 year olds living on their own. In reality there are countless(millions?) of people trying to support a family on those wages and are forced to turn to government assistance to make up the difference. As a libertarian I'm sure you hate the idea of people using government assistance more than forcing corporations to pay them a fair wage in the first place.
    - Spooky23 8y ago
      Sweet. Will they get a hard roll once a week too? SROs and workhouses... what a vision for the future. It’s a shame that we’ve given back all of the advances of the 20th century.

jahewson 8y ago

2. The standard in the Bay Area is for landlords to require tenants have gross earnings of 2.5 to 3.5 times the rent and to verify this with pay stubs. Personally I think this is ridiulous and antiquated as it should be my personal choice to blow half my cash on rent if I want to! But that’s the way it is.

sjg007 8y ago
Yeah it's weird b/c they can easily rent it out for more if you default. Some of the big corp run apartments only require $500 security.
nradov 8y ago
Landlords don't care about personal choices. They want tenants who can still afford to pay rent even if they have an unexpected major expense one month. In practice some prospective tenants simply falsify their incomes. I'm not condoning this but all it takes is Photoshop and a ladder printer.
closeparen 8y ago
Hmm? Blowing 1/3rd of your gross income and 1/2 your cash are approximately the same thing under our tax rates.