4 ms·

> only 20 percent of consumers were meaningfully better off in 2017 than they were in 2007, with precious little income left to spend on discretionary retail R

by aries1980 7y ago

> only 20 percent of consumers were meaningfully better off in 2017 than they were in 2007, with precious little income left to spend on discretionary retail Reading this I assume it is rather caused by housing and food cost in metropolitan areas.

dmix 7y ago
Every city job I’ve seen outside of the minimum wage service jobs pay better than all the surrounding small cities and towns. Which helps offset costs. But certainly many urban areas have been very slow to match the right level and type of housing development for the needs of a growing population. The effects of building laws, zoning, political influence, rent control (particularly how it was done in 70s/80s), etc has a long recorded negative pressure on supply vs demand. So it’s very likely the wage differences aren’t sufficient for most people.
- aries1980 7y ago
  Above a given paygrade, yes, it offsets, but for most people, especially people working for public services, a fiver per hour more won't offset the extra thousands per month. Note: one of my former landlord said he bought the property in the '70s we lived in for £25K, when he worked as delivery postman for £500/month. With living on his own in London, he bought the property after 6 years working for Royal Mail. Today, the median RML postman salary https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Postman/Salary https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Postman/Salary is £18K (take-home pay is £1315/m), a 1-bedroom flat rental in the outskirts according to Numbeo (https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/London https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/London) is £1215, without the utilities and council tax (which was £92/mo for me) The remaining £100 is enough for nothing. But even if let's say share the flat with an SO and split the costs, it is unlikely you can ever afford a 1-bedroom flat. The same for my parents' case in Hungary ('90s). My mom was a PA, my dad a factory worker. They were able to buy a flat when they were 20, a year after my sister born. My wife parents (factory workers) bought a small house in a village when they were 19. Both family needed no financial aid from their parents. Both properties had an interest-free mortgage around the 30% of the property value. I wouldn't compare that era with the current one , because neither my landlord, nor our parents could afford holidays abroad or a car. But neither had to worry about where will you sleep or whether your family can afford fresh, quality food if you have to find an other job.
  - dmix 7y ago
    > I wouldn't compare that era with the current one When it comes to housing stock these past gov policies and local private+public development grants can have a long term impact on any city well beyond any decade. The various building/zoning/etc policies are often long lasting: Prior land use could have been terribly inefficient from some half-failed social housing project, left to arson/deterioration of perfectly good buildings in Harlem in the 80s due to rent control and impossible-to-evict tenants not allowing renovations on the building. Plenty of middle-class & wealthy people keeping (now) expensive apartments under rent-control, reducing new development appropriate for that market and taking stock and taxes/income the area. Prior low-density developed areas can be locked down for decades due to elderly and other single-family homeowners staying for long periods of time. The well-covered complete lack of development of anything in-between a single-family houses and condo/office highrises in most cities also for decades. Etc, etc. There's plenty of legacy decisions keeping housing expensive and highly inefficient.
  - vkou 7y ago
    > Above a given paygrade, yes, it offsets, but for most people, especially people working for public services, a fiver per hour more won't offset the extra thousands per month. Unless you're comparing San Francisco with East Bufu, Nowhere, living in a city does not cost 'extra thousands' a month.

dmix 7y ago

Every city job I’ve seen outside of the minimum wage service jobs pay better than all the surrounding small cities and towns. Which helps offset costs. But certainly many urban areas have been very slow to match the right level and type of housing development for the needs of a growing population. The effects of building laws, zoning, political influence, rent control (particularly how it was done in 70s/80s), etc has a long recorded negative pressure on supply vs demand. So it’s very likely the wage differences aren’t sufficient for most people.

aries1980 7y ago
Above a given paygrade, yes, it offsets, but for most people, especially people working for public services, a fiver per hour more won't offset the extra thousands per month. Note: one of my former landlord said he bought the property in the '70s we lived in for £25K, when he worked as delivery postman for £500/month. With living on his own in London, he bought the property after 6 years working for Royal Mail. Today, the median RML postman salary https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Postman/Salary https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Postman/Salary is £18K (take-home pay is £1315/m), a 1-bedroom flat rental in the outskirts according to Numbeo (https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/London https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/London) is £1215, without the utilities and council tax (which was £92/mo for me) The remaining £100 is enough for nothing. But even if let's say share the flat with an SO and split the costs, it is unlikely you can ever afford a 1-bedroom flat. The same for my parents' case in Hungary ('90s). My mom was a PA, my dad a factory worker. They were able to buy a flat when they were 20, a year after my sister born. My wife parents (factory workers) bought a small house in a village when they were 19. Both family needed no financial aid from their parents. Both properties had an interest-free mortgage around the 30% of the property value. I wouldn't compare that era with the current one , because neither my landlord, nor our parents could afford holidays abroad or a car. But neither had to worry about where will you sleep or whether your family can afford fresh, quality food if you have to find an other job.
- dmix 7y ago
  > I wouldn't compare that era with the current one When it comes to housing stock these past gov policies and local private+public development grants can have a long term impact on any city well beyond any decade. The various building/zoning/etc policies are often long lasting: Prior land use could have been terribly inefficient from some half-failed social housing project, left to arson/deterioration of perfectly good buildings in Harlem in the 80s due to rent control and impossible-to-evict tenants not allowing renovations on the building. Plenty of middle-class & wealthy people keeping (now) expensive apartments under rent-control, reducing new development appropriate for that market and taking stock and taxes/income the area. Prior low-density developed areas can be locked down for decades due to elderly and other single-family homeowners staying for long periods of time. The well-covered complete lack of development of anything in-between a single-family houses and condo/office highrises in most cities also for decades. Etc, etc. There's plenty of legacy decisions keeping housing expensive and highly inefficient.
- vkou 7y ago
  > Above a given paygrade, yes, it offsets, but for most people, especially people working for public services, a fiver per hour more won't offset the extra thousands per month. Unless you're comparing San Francisco with East Bufu, Nowhere, living in a city does not cost 'extra thousands' a month.