18 ms·

>two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. My immediate reaction to this statement was.. it's insane? In my

>two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. My immediate reaction to this statement was.. it's insane? In my opinion it should read 'a single person able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within an hour of public transport commute.' Otherwise it sounds like you don't think anyone should be able to live anywhere reasonable without roommates?

namecheapTA 5y ago
He didn't say that no one should live reasonable places without roommates. He said that the few percent of people making the lowest wages in the country might have to have roommates.
srjek 5y ago
That was also my first reaction, but an alternate reading is that it's two people living on the (minimum) wages of one person.
monkeybutton 5y ago
Perhaps the assumption is of a couple living together? Also known as: shack up and produce offspring/future worker bees.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Yes, that’s what I was assuming here
shafyy 5y ago
Exactly. Even the mindset of thinking in "driving" vs. walking or public transport shows a lot.
- XorNot 5y ago
  It is however realistic given the the US's urban layout and population preferences. Also nowhere has succeeded in keeping essential, low paid workers living near where they work - gentrification forces them out.
  - astrange 5y ago
    Tokyo has. Their population continually grows and their rent is flat. The secret is Japan doesn't let cities run their own zoning, because they'd just use it to ban new people but try to keep the jobs.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      You can also rent really small apartments that wouldn’t be allowed in the west. 2.5 tatami, no shower in building, shared toilet, no central heating, $250/month.
  - daniel-cussen 5y ago
    That's because their work has so much value and they get paid none of it. EDIT: That's what Henry George said. The reason San Francisco land has so much value and the land in an undeveloped part of California has nearly none is the development, meaning the work of developing it, what human hands do to the land to transform it, the construction. You can sprinkle gold on it and nothing, put a bulldozer there (capital) and nothing, send an entrepreneur or economist to look at it and nothing. It's when people work that it becomes worth something.
    - erik_seaberg 5y ago
      Most of the price is due to the shortage of land, near the employment market, where the government has permitted any housing to exist. Someone paid over a million for a half-burned shell in Walnut Creek, which is a lot more than a very nice house in the middle of nowhere.
      - daniel-cussen 5y ago
        Yeah exactly. Couldn't have put it better myself.
  - kasey_junk 5y ago
    How do you define success in this case? I live in a neighborhood where the median income is below the national average by about 10% and above the national average by about the same amount. This implies to me that there are is a fair bit of economic diversity. Also, I very rarely encounter a service worker that does not live within 25 minutes of the establishments in my neighborhood unless they do so by choice to live in a much hipper neighborhood. Part of this is a university that stabilizes the real estate prices and attracts a lot of low income students who take on service jobs, but also a big part of it is housing diversity. Within 1 block of me are a commercial district, a high rise building, many mid-rise buildings, lots of townhomes and a handful of single family homes including at least 2 I’d call mansions. This housing diversity came about due to several phases over the course of over 100 years of urban planning that specifically centered on making it possible for lots of housing desires to be fulfilled in a single place. It’s entirely possible if there is enough will. But that will is lacking.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
An hour? Why is it acceptable or reasonable to spend 2 hours of your unpaid time wasted on commuting?
- IMTDb 5y ago
  Because the only way to guarantee that people have less than an hour of commute to their job is to create extremely dense population center which means extremely small living spaces which are almost universally hated. And most jobs cannot be done remotely, so to guarantee that each individual has space, he must accept to be some distance ways from the hub where people concentrate to perform their daily tasks. Think of how many people a big hospital employs, and how you'd need to organise living center if all of them had to have a reasonable living space within few minutes of commute. Now you need stores and restaurant there as well and the space to host the workers of these places too, etc. The only way is to build huge tower hosting tons of small appartements, kill all green areas to gain as much space as possible. People don't seem to like that idea that much.
  - andrekandre 5y ago
    > Because the only way to guarantee that people have less than an hour of commute to their job is to create extremely dense population center the other alternative is work from home no? EDIT: in the context of applebees, i suppose there isnt an alternative hmmmm....
    - IMTDb 5y ago
      The vast majority of jobs cannot be done remotely. The HN crowd is heavily skewed toward programming / engineering jobs that can sometimes be done remotely. But overall, most jobs do require a physical presence. Think "people care" (and all the ramifications or that: babies, children, sick, elders + everything around that). All people working in stores (unless we exclusively want online shops). Transportation of goods. Building, sanitation, construction. Any job that requires specialised equipment (like factories), ... . The whole idea that we can transition to a society where people don't have to move to get to work is an illusion. COVID gave us a false glimpse because most activities were closed or significantly reduced, so it felt like people didn't need to get to work anymore but that's just because they simply did not work. And it was not sustainable on the long run. We made the - right IMHO - choice to subsidise their income, wether directly via stimulas checks, or indirectly by helping their employers, but all that was based on the bet/assumption that we would be able to resume "normal society" and we would be able repay the debt we incurred over the next years.
jpcfl 5y ago
>Otherwise it sounds like you don't think anyone should be able to live anywhere reasonable without roommates? I think your confusing "should be able to" with "shall be able to, enforceable by law". I don't expect that a 15 year old working his first job as a fry cook at an Arby's should be compensated enough that he can afford to live on his own. In fact, that could be dangerously disincentivizing his hard work toward his education.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  This rationale is always based on the fact that a "teenager" doesn't need a livable wage. The problem with this, is that not every fry cook is a teenager that doesn't need to pay for food and shelter. Fast food is a $300bn industry in the US. It doesn't need to be subsidized by parents.
  - redwall_hp 5y ago
    Also...the whole argument falls apart when you realize fast food is open during school hours. Legal working hours for teenagers start after school and end before typical closing times.
- monkeybutton 5y ago
  Pay should scale with the value of work produced, not the perceived "worth" of the worker. You argue with a hypothetical teenager. But what about my racist and sexist hypothetical uncle who owns an Arby's?
- ramones13 5y ago
  But should a 27 year-old fry cook make enough money to live alone? Labor is labor. Pay shouldn’t be less because it’s going to an acceptable to abuse class of person.
  - xapata 5y ago
    What's wrong with roommates?
licebmi__at__ 5y ago
It’s funny that the ideals of granting everyone “life, liberty and a the pursuit of happiness” are regarded as wisdom, but as soon as somebody tries to ponder of what that might be on the specific, then it’s regarded as crazy.
- Seattle3503 5y ago
  The quote talks about the pursuit of happiness, not happiness.
  - TecoAndJix 5y ago
    I think you need some level of opportunity to pursue, though
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bee_rider 5y ago
Also, you'd think the people with 'traditional values' or whatever would be really excited if a single worker could support a couple.
- astrange 5y ago
  Dual-income families are because of equality, not poverty. When women earn nearly the same pay, it's worth it for them to work (and hire childcare) because then you can use the money to buy stuff. When they don't work, it's because it wouldn't allow the household to buy more stuff on the margin - but rather than "spouse earns so much their income doesn't matter", it's more likely "they wouldn't earn enough to pay for the services they have to hire". Which is a bad thing.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    In general? Yeah, I'm sure both factors are considered in many cases (as well as things like keeping long term career options open). But this thread was specifically about where the floor for minimum wage should be set. If it is set to a point where a couple can just afford a place to live with two workers, then the decision is by definition made based on poverty, right?
- gruez 5y ago
  The reason why single earner households can't afford a house on a single earner wage isn't because houses got 2x harder to build, or a single earner got half as productive. It's because there's only so many houses (land) available, and therefore the people with money (mostly 2 earner households) bid up the price until the people who can afford it equal the number of houses available. So yes, those people "with 'traditional values' or whatever" could certainly get that implemented, but that'll involve banning women from the workplace (or similar legislation to prevent 2 earner households from out-bidding 1 earner households).
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    The original suggestion was to tie the minimum wage to housing costs, so I guess this should cancel out the up-bidding.
Aeolun 5y ago
This sounds to me like they want to be able to provide for a SO?
foolfoolz 5y ago
living alone is a luxury all over the world. i don’t think it’s good to expect minimum wage will afford you a luxury style of living. we don’t have the infrastructure to support that for all. nor does any country
- caddemon 5y ago
  2 people sharing a 1 bedroom is a pretty low bar, I think minimum wage should afford someone their own bedroom. However I do often see people claiming no one should have to have any sort of roommates, even if they are a single minimum wage earner trying to support a spouse and children. I agree with you in that I don't understand why having to share a kitchen or living room is such an issue.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    The problem is always finding good roommates who aren’t secretly murder hobos. Sharing can work, but it seems to be getting harder and harder as we have to rely more and more on close vetting via friends and family.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Why is it hard, and harder now, to find "good roommates who aren’t secretly murder hobos"? I and many others I know have found plenty of roommates, no problem. Not every roommate is perfect, including you and me, but there have been zero murder hobos.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        I think the internet might be the problem? It used to be that we would use personal networks to find roommates because that was all there was, but with the internet, more people are connected to each other, and there is less intrinsic vetting via social circles. So that friend of a friend on Facebook could be anyone.
        5y ago
syshum 5y ago
Why is it reasonable to expect people to live alone. I would think people would desire people to have roommate for environmental and other reasons?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

namecheapTA 5y ago

He didn't say that no one should live reasonable places without roommates. He said that the few percent of people making the lowest wages in the country might have to have roommates.

srjek 5y ago

That was also my first reaction, but an alternate reading is that it's two people living on the (minimum) wages of one person.

monkeybutton 5y ago

Perhaps the assumption is of a couple living together? Also known as: shack up and produce offspring/future worker bees.

endisneigh 5y ago
Yes, that’s what I was assuming here

shafyy 5y ago

Exactly. Even the mindset of thinking in "driving" vs. walking or public transport shows a lot.

XorNot 5y ago
It is however realistic given the the US's urban layout and population preferences. Also nowhere has succeeded in keeping essential, low paid workers living near where they work - gentrification forces them out.
- astrange 5y ago
  Tokyo has. Their population continually grows and their rent is flat. The secret is Japan doesn't let cities run their own zoning, because they'd just use it to ban new people but try to keep the jobs.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    You can also rent really small apartments that wouldn’t be allowed in the west. 2.5 tatami, no shower in building, shared toilet, no central heating, $250/month.
- daniel-cussen 5y ago
  That's because their work has so much value and they get paid none of it. EDIT: That's what Henry George said. The reason San Francisco land has so much value and the land in an undeveloped part of California has nearly none is the development, meaning the work of developing it, what human hands do to the land to transform it, the construction. You can sprinkle gold on it and nothing, put a bulldozer there (capital) and nothing, send an entrepreneur or economist to look at it and nothing. It's when people work that it becomes worth something.
  - erik_seaberg 5y ago
    Most of the price is due to the shortage of land, near the employment market, where the government has permitted any housing to exist. Someone paid over a million for a half-burned shell in Walnut Creek, which is a lot more than a very nice house in the middle of nowhere.
    - daniel-cussen 5y ago
      Yeah exactly. Couldn't have put it better myself.
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  How do you define success in this case? I live in a neighborhood where the median income is below the national average by about 10% and above the national average by about the same amount. This implies to me that there are is a fair bit of economic diversity. Also, I very rarely encounter a service worker that does not live within 25 minutes of the establishments in my neighborhood unless they do so by choice to live in a much hipper neighborhood. Part of this is a university that stabilizes the real estate prices and attracts a lot of low income students who take on service jobs, but also a big part of it is housing diversity. Within 1 block of me are a commercial district, a high rise building, many mid-rise buildings, lots of townhomes and a handful of single family homes including at least 2 I’d call mansions. This housing diversity came about due to several phases over the course of over 100 years of urban planning that specifically centered on making it possible for lots of housing desires to be fulfilled in a single place. It’s entirely possible if there is enough will. But that will is lacking.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

An hour? Why is it acceptable or reasonable to spend 2 hours of your unpaid time wasted on commuting?

IMTDb 5y ago
Because the only way to guarantee that people have less than an hour of commute to their job is to create extremely dense population center which means extremely small living spaces which are almost universally hated. And most jobs cannot be done remotely, so to guarantee that each individual has space, he must accept to be some distance ways from the hub where people concentrate to perform their daily tasks. Think of how many people a big hospital employs, and how you'd need to organise living center if all of them had to have a reasonable living space within few minutes of commute. Now you need stores and restaurant there as well and the space to host the workers of these places too, etc. The only way is to build huge tower hosting tons of small appartements, kill all green areas to gain as much space as possible. People don't seem to like that idea that much.
- andrekandre 5y ago
  > Because the only way to guarantee that people have less than an hour of commute to their job is to create extremely dense population center the other alternative is work from home no? EDIT: in the context of applebees, i suppose there isnt an alternative hmmmm....
  - IMTDb 5y ago
    The vast majority of jobs cannot be done remotely. The HN crowd is heavily skewed toward programming / engineering jobs that can sometimes be done remotely. But overall, most jobs do require a physical presence. Think "people care" (and all the ramifications or that: babies, children, sick, elders + everything around that). All people working in stores (unless we exclusively want online shops). Transportation of goods. Building, sanitation, construction. Any job that requires specialised equipment (like factories), ... . The whole idea that we can transition to a society where people don't have to move to get to work is an illusion. COVID gave us a false glimpse because most activities were closed or significantly reduced, so it felt like people didn't need to get to work anymore but that's just because they simply did not work. And it was not sustainable on the long run. We made the - right IMHO - choice to subsidise their income, wether directly via stimulas checks, or indirectly by helping their employers, but all that was based on the bet/assumption that we would be able to resume "normal society" and we would be able repay the debt we incurred over the next years.

jpcfl 5y ago

>Otherwise it sounds like you don't think anyone should be able to live anywhere reasonable without roommates? I think your confusing "should be able to" with "shall be able to, enforceable by law". I don't expect that a 15 year old working his first job as a fry cook at an Arby's should be compensated enough that he can afford to live on his own. In fact, that could be dangerously disincentivizing his hard work toward his education.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
This rationale is always based on the fact that a "teenager" doesn't need a livable wage. The problem with this, is that not every fry cook is a teenager that doesn't need to pay for food and shelter. Fast food is a $300bn industry in the US. It doesn't need to be subsidized by parents.
- redwall_hp 5y ago
  Also...the whole argument falls apart when you realize fast food is open during school hours. Legal working hours for teenagers start after school and end before typical closing times.
monkeybutton 5y ago
Pay should scale with the value of work produced, not the perceived "worth" of the worker. You argue with a hypothetical teenager. But what about my racist and sexist hypothetical uncle who owns an Arby's?
ramones13 5y ago
But should a 27 year-old fry cook make enough money to live alone? Labor is labor. Pay shouldn’t be less because it’s going to an acceptable to abuse class of person.
- xapata 5y ago
  What's wrong with roommates?

licebmi__at__ 5y ago

It’s funny that the ideals of granting everyone “life, liberty and a the pursuit of happiness” are regarded as wisdom, but as soon as somebody tries to ponder of what that might be on the specific, then it’s regarded as crazy.

Seattle3503 5y ago
The quote talks about the pursuit of happiness, not happiness.
- TecoAndJix 5y ago
  I think you need some level of opportunity to pursue, though

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bee_rider 5y ago

Also, you'd think the people with 'traditional values' or whatever would be really excited if a single worker could support a couple.

astrange 5y ago
Dual-income families are because of equality, not poverty. When women earn nearly the same pay, it's worth it for them to work (and hire childcare) because then you can use the money to buy stuff. When they don't work, it's because it wouldn't allow the household to buy more stuff on the margin - but rather than "spouse earns so much their income doesn't matter", it's more likely "they wouldn't earn enough to pay for the services they have to hire". Which is a bad thing.
- bee_rider 5y ago
  In general? Yeah, I'm sure both factors are considered in many cases (as well as things like keeping long term career options open). But this thread was specifically about where the floor for minimum wage should be set. If it is set to a point where a couple can just afford a place to live with two workers, then the decision is by definition made based on poverty, right?
gruez 5y ago
The reason why single earner households can't afford a house on a single earner wage isn't because houses got 2x harder to build, or a single earner got half as productive. It's because there's only so many houses (land) available, and therefore the people with money (mostly 2 earner households) bid up the price until the people who can afford it equal the number of houses available. So yes, those people "with 'traditional values' or whatever" could certainly get that implemented, but that'll involve banning women from the workplace (or similar legislation to prevent 2 earner households from out-bidding 1 earner households).
- bee_rider 5y ago
  The original suggestion was to tie the minimum wage to housing costs, so I guess this should cancel out the up-bidding.

Aeolun 5y ago

This sounds to me like they want to be able to provide for a SO?

foolfoolz 5y ago

living alone is a luxury all over the world. i don’t think it’s good to expect minimum wage will afford you a luxury style of living. we don’t have the infrastructure to support that for all. nor does any country

caddemon 5y ago
2 people sharing a 1 bedroom is a pretty low bar, I think minimum wage should afford someone their own bedroom. However I do often see people claiming no one should have to have any sort of roommates, even if they are a single minimum wage earner trying to support a spouse and children. I agree with you in that I don't understand why having to share a kitchen or living room is such an issue.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  The problem is always finding good roommates who aren’t secretly murder hobos. Sharing can work, but it seems to be getting harder and harder as we have to rely more and more on close vetting via friends and family.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Why is it hard, and harder now, to find "good roommates who aren’t secretly murder hobos"? I and many others I know have found plenty of roommates, no problem. Not every roommate is perfect, including you and me, but there have been zero murder hobos.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      I think the internet might be the problem? It used to be that we would use personal networks to find roommates because that was all there was, but with the internet, more people are connected to each other, and there is less intrinsic vetting via social circles. So that friend of a friend on Facebook could be anyone.
      - 5y ago

syshum 5y ago

Why is it reasonable to expect people to live alone. I would think people would desire people to have roommate for environmental and other reasons?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]