Well, this map is depressing if not unsurprising.
June 4, 2015 11:29 AM Subscribe
One of my part time jobs is at a trendy restaurant in Manhattan where I handle payroll. The other day I was handling payroll and my savvy employer was assisting in processing a new hire for the kitchen who we'd brought on for a respectable 16/hr.
The backbone of the restaurant is not our salaried chef but someone who makes 13/hr supervising essentially everything that goes on in the back of house. This individual works well over 40 hours a week, every week, year round. It just so happened that this individual had worked more than 80 hours the prior week.
Noticing the discrepancy in rate my employer said "If [supervisor] saw this they'd throw a fit," to which I silently agreed. Then they looked at the week's earnings, 80hr x $13 supervisor, 35hr x $16 new hire, and said "Oh, well at least [supervisor] made a killing this week."
Of course! If you work 80 hours a week you can get by on minimum wage. 80 fucking hours.
Our tipped front of house staff make $20 to $45 an hour when all's said and done. He complains that they make too much.
So I don't know who to blame for the state of affairs but I will spare a healthy portion for business owners like my employer.
posted by an animate objects at 11:47 AM on June 4, 2015 [14 favorites]
The backbone of the restaurant is not our salaried chef but someone who makes 13/hr supervising essentially everything that goes on in the back of house. This individual works well over 40 hours a week, every week, year round. It just so happened that this individual had worked more than 80 hours the prior week.
Noticing the discrepancy in rate my employer said "If [supervisor] saw this they'd throw a fit," to which I silently agreed. Then they looked at the week's earnings, 80hr x $13 supervisor, 35hr x $16 new hire, and said "Oh, well at least [supervisor] made a killing this week."
Of course! If you work 80 hours a week you can get by on minimum wage. 80 fucking hours.
Our tipped front of house staff make $20 to $45 an hour when all's said and done. He complains that they make too much.
So I don't know who to blame for the state of affairs but I will spare a healthy portion for business owners like my employer.
posted by an animate objects at 11:47 AM on June 4, 2015 [14 favorites]
It'd be interesting to see this broken down by county or zip code instead of state. I don't know that this map is all that useful except for making the overall outrage-link-bait point, which I think most of us knew already.
posted by aught at 11:48 AM on June 4, 2015
posted by aught at 11:48 AM on June 4, 2015
If you follow the link to the full report, it is broken down by county.
posted by Rock Steady at 11:50 AM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Rock Steady at 11:50 AM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's easy to say, oh, well, this is just by state, I'm sure there are cities or neighborhoods where things are relatively affordable. I live in an extremely inexpensive part of Chicago. I will note here that I just realized the family who lives in one of the coach house apartments behind my building that I thought was a family of five is actually a family of eight. I saw them coming home last night from mass. That's 8 people in a two bedroom apartment in a cheap part of a very affordable city. This is a big deal problem no matter where you are.
posted by phunniemee at 11:52 AM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 11:52 AM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
Completely unsurprising. I don't think I've ever known anyone who paid less than 30% of their paycheck for rent.
I personally pay more than half, which I can only do because I'm single, have healthcare provided by my employer, and my parents are still helping me out with car insurance. My rent goes up every time I renew my lease. I could move further out, but I wouldn't save very much - and it would take a while to recoup the costs of moving.
My stepdad is in the business of renting houses, and has many renters on public assistance. His houses are often the cheapest ones that are available without being a literal health or safety hazard, and still, when I help him balance his books I am amazed at how expensive rents are. And many of his tenants are supporting families.
Actually, I take that back: I'm amazed that we let people get away with paying their employees so little that they literally cannot afford a place to live. Rent's not the only problem - not even the main problem.
Like, the kind of underclass we are busy at work creating here in the US is the kind of thing you read about in futuristic dystopias. We just don't notice because it's, like, their fault for not getting better jobs or something. And we have absolutely no sense of there being a collective responsibility to create a better society.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:53 AM on June 4, 2015 [33 favorites]
I personally pay more than half, which I can only do because I'm single, have healthcare provided by my employer, and my parents are still helping me out with car insurance. My rent goes up every time I renew my lease. I could move further out, but I wouldn't save very much - and it would take a while to recoup the costs of moving.
My stepdad is in the business of renting houses, and has many renters on public assistance. His houses are often the cheapest ones that are available without being a literal health or safety hazard, and still, when I help him balance his books I am amazed at how expensive rents are. And many of his tenants are supporting families.
Actually, I take that back: I'm amazed that we let people get away with paying their employees so little that they literally cannot afford a place to live. Rent's not the only problem - not even the main problem.
Like, the kind of underclass we are busy at work creating here in the US is the kind of thing you read about in futuristic dystopias. We just don't notice because it's, like, their fault for not getting better jobs or something. And we have absolutely no sense of there being a collective responsibility to create a better society.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:53 AM on June 4, 2015 [33 favorites]
I should add that I know some places have exorbitantly high rents - especially places with a lot of demand, which, of course, tends to be where a lot of the jobs and opportunities are...
But even more affordable rents in more affordable places are too much, which points to an even bigger problem than just rent. One that those in power will never willingly address.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:57 AM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
But even more affordable rents in more affordable places are too much, which points to an even bigger problem than just rent. One that those in power will never willingly address.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:57 AM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
The thing that really upsets me, apart from how high the DC/MD rents are, is that I am always seeing ads for new luxury apartments, luxury condos, luxury studios, luxury lofts, luxury "village" enclaves. Luxury everywhere, for everyone who can afford it, but there are no non-luxury apartments anywhere, apparently. These "luxury" places cost thousands of dollars a month, and they are being built all over the DC area, and there will never be a day in my life when I can afford to live in any of them.
The apartments that are only 40% of my income are the ones that advertise having food banks on-site. "If you live here you are probably unable to afford food" is a message that they ADVERTISE. As a perk! If you live here we will give you some free bread and peanut butter so that you don't starve to death paying your rent.
I live with father instead, and my commute is obscene, but at least it means more of my money is going to...my savings? JUST KIDDING, student loans. Just thinking about it makes me feel exhausted.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:03 PM on June 4, 2015 [29 favorites]
The apartments that are only 40% of my income are the ones that advertise having food banks on-site. "If you live here you are probably unable to afford food" is a message that they ADVERTISE. As a perk! If you live here we will give you some free bread and peanut butter so that you don't starve to death paying your rent.
I live with father instead, and my commute is obscene, but at least it means more of my money is going to...my savings? JUST KIDDING, student loans. Just thinking about it makes me feel exhausted.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:03 PM on June 4, 2015 [29 favorites]
I'm all for increasing the minimum wage specifically and the labor and renter's movements in general, but I don't know that the expectation that everyone should and is entitled to live alone is a good one or ultimately workable. That's just not been how human societies have worked for more or less the entire length of time there have been humans, and economies of scale are a thing. Single occupancy housing, especially on the scale Americans seem to expect is a birthright, is fairly egregiously inefficient and environmentally unfriendly in a whole bunch of different ways.
That's not to say that rent isn't a problem because it is, but I think to some degree this anti-community, anti-collective but still entitled and almost socially avoidant mindset, more by the middle-class than anyone else, is part of what what caused the problem in the first place. Hugely profitable real estate developers and rental outfits became so powerful because of a demand for this particular kind of housing: effectively anonymous, atomic, and commodified.
I'm all for taking power back from the overclass, but at some level you do have to confront that what's really driven a lot of this is some very fucked up consumer demand and choices people have made in how they want to live.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 12:07 PM on June 4, 2015 [11 favorites]
That's not to say that rent isn't a problem because it is, but I think to some degree this anti-community, anti-collective but still entitled and almost socially avoidant mindset, more by the middle-class than anyone else, is part of what what caused the problem in the first place. Hugely profitable real estate developers and rental outfits became so powerful because of a demand for this particular kind of housing: effectively anonymous, atomic, and commodified.
I'm all for taking power back from the overclass, but at some level you do have to confront that what's really driven a lot of this is some very fucked up consumer demand and choices people have made in how they want to live.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 12:07 PM on June 4, 2015 [11 favorites]
The cheapest rent I ever paid as a single woman working a coffee shop job in intown Atlanta was $600/mo, not inc utilities. The most I ever paid under the same circumstances was $1200 inc utilities (that was because I couldn't find anything cheaper after a tornado destroyed my $600 apartment that wasn't too far from my job--I didn't have a car--or wasn't a pit). But even then, my then fiancee in Canada had to float me money occasionally because I often couldn't pay something (phone bill, vet bill). I was working less than 40 hours a week at $9.00, a princely sum compared to most in retail. I was not allowed to work a full 40, none of us were, so I really did depend on tips for groceries, cat food, and any entertainment. It was incredibly depressing to have to ask the man I eventually married for money to help me, or my estranged father who had more money than my mom and stepdad. This was eight years ago. I cannot imagine how I would ever do it again if I needed to.
posted by Kitteh at 12:08 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 12:08 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
I wish the article had charted the cost of studio apartments as well. In my adult life after leaving my parents' house I lived in studio apartments until I had enough saved up to put a down payment on a house. I thought one bedroom apartments were too expensive.
posted by King Sky Prawn at 12:08 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by King Sky Prawn at 12:08 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
If your business idea cannot turn enough of a profit by paying properly for its human resources as for any other resources required, then you deserve to go out of business. There is nothing morally valuable about the continued existence of a company that means rules need to be bent or changed in order that it keep going. This sentiment refers to both minimum-wage-cheating restaurants as to H1B-abusing software-developer employers.
So: minimum wage should be set at a living wage level. Period. If that means most city service businesses and restaurants will close, so be it. People will eat at home, or automation will progress to cover the demand, or the market will adjust. Similarly, if Silicon Valley entrepreneurs require tech employees so skilled that, in the absence of indentured-servant competition, they could command half-a-million bucks a year, then most of those startups are just not economically viable and should fail.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 12:14 PM on June 4, 2015 [31 favorites]
So: minimum wage should be set at a living wage level. Period. If that means most city service businesses and restaurants will close, so be it. People will eat at home, or automation will progress to cover the demand, or the market will adjust. Similarly, if Silicon Valley entrepreneurs require tech employees so skilled that, in the absence of indentured-servant competition, they could command half-a-million bucks a year, then most of those startups are just not economically viable and should fail.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 12:14 PM on June 4, 2015 [31 favorites]
I think the one-bedroom is a better indicator than the studio apartment. There are a ton of single mothers (and some fathers) who are really trying to make ends meet and are willing to sleep in the living room so their kid or kids can have the bedroom. I can't imagine how they'd make it work in a studio.
And multi generational living is an option for some, but not for me. In fact, not for many of the people I know. I moved out when I was 16, because trying to cope with my mother's drug and alcohol self-destructive behavior was making life unbearable. Out of a family with 12 aunts and uncles on one side and 5 on the other, I considered myself lucky to have one, ONE aunt who was stable and financially secure enough to take me in until I was able to graduate and get a full-time job.
Even now, even after mom has cleaned up, I can still only stand her in about 2-hour doses. The rest of my family is just as toxic or distant. I thank God everyday I didn't get pregnant. I was lucky. There are a lot of people who aren't, and won't ever be able to live with their families again.
(And considering all the roommate horror stories I've read on the Green, sometimes people need to live alone for at least a bit to get back to a stable, healthy place)
posted by sharp pointy objects at 12:18 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
And multi generational living is an option for some, but not for me. In fact, not for many of the people I know. I moved out when I was 16, because trying to cope with my mother's drug and alcohol self-destructive behavior was making life unbearable. Out of a family with 12 aunts and uncles on one side and 5 on the other, I considered myself lucky to have one, ONE aunt who was stable and financially secure enough to take me in until I was able to graduate and get a full-time job.
Even now, even after mom has cleaned up, I can still only stand her in about 2-hour doses. The rest of my family is just as toxic or distant. I thank God everyday I didn't get pregnant. I was lucky. There are a lot of people who aren't, and won't ever be able to live with their families again.
(And considering all the roommate horror stories I've read on the Green, sometimes people need to live alone for at least a bit to get back to a stable, healthy place)
posted by sharp pointy objects at 12:18 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
Actually what this shows is that you can't afford to pay only a third of your income to live solo anywhere in America. This 30% rule actively fucks the poor though. Right this second, I have a client who wants to move somewhere and pay 40%, but can't because even low income housing demands 3x the rent.
posted by corb at 12:20 PM on June 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by corb at 12:20 PM on June 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm all for increasing the minimum wage specifically and the labor and renter's movements in general, but I don't know that the expectation that everyone should and is entitled to live alone is a good one or ultimately workable.
In more "traditional" American family units, people didn't live alone, but only one person worked.
Whether or not people should aspire toward living alone, the fact remains that it is impossible for someone who is making minimum wage in the US to be entirely self-sustaining, which is what all the bootstrap-loving folks say is what people should aspire to be.
posted by xingcat at 12:23 PM on June 4, 2015 [10 favorites]
In more "traditional" American family units, people didn't live alone, but only one person worked.
Whether or not people should aspire toward living alone, the fact remains that it is impossible for someone who is making minimum wage in the US to be entirely self-sustaining, which is what all the bootstrap-loving folks say is what people should aspire to be.
posted by xingcat at 12:23 PM on June 4, 2015 [10 favorites]
That's okay--there's barely such thing as a full-time minimum wage job anyway. Your hours come up a bit short so you don't qualify for benefits, or you're a temp and your agent skims a hunk off your pay, or you're an intern and you don't get paid at all.
No, not okay. The other thing.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:31 PM on June 4, 2015 [18 favorites]
No, not okay. The other thing.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:31 PM on June 4, 2015 [18 favorites]
My former employer used to aggressively boast to us that because he paid like 1/4 dental or something for his employees, that we were very very lucky.
posted by Kitteh at 12:32 PM on June 4, 2015
posted by Kitteh at 12:32 PM on June 4, 2015
The thing that really upsets me, apart from how high the DC/MD rents are, is that I am always seeing ads for new luxury apartments, luxury condos, luxury studios, luxury lofts, luxury "village" enclaves. Luxury everywhere, for everyone who can afford it, but there are no non-luxury apartments anywhere, apparently. These "luxury" places cost thousands of dollars a month, and they are being built all over the DC area, and there will never be a day in my life when I can afford to live in any of them.
Keep in mind that:
1) The DC government has clearly pinned a large amount of its hopes for future growth, or the required lifestyle underpinnings of future growth, on the city's service sector - restaurants, bars, clubs, yoga studios, etc.
2) No one running the city today is old enough to remember what a functional, economically integrated (however messily) American city actually looked like, or how they worked.
There is a fantasy at work in local government, abetted by developers, that DC can function without a working class. For now, this is being supported by marginally more affordable rents at the periphery that are rapidly disappearing, and by cash transfers from the soon-to-be formerly middle class and affluent to their children (many of who are those college grads serving us craft beers and pour-over coffee, sharing tiny, expensive apartments).
It will punch us in the chin economically in the very near future, though, stifling growth, undermining the satisfaction with amenities of the wealthy people that have already settled here, and catching the powers that be, in all likelihood (and despite Bowser's recent rhetoric about affordable housing) mostly flat-footed. What looks like a boom is just an ahistorical rush to unsustainability.
posted by ryanshepard at 12:36 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
Keep in mind that:
1) The DC government has clearly pinned a large amount of its hopes for future growth, or the required lifestyle underpinnings of future growth, on the city's service sector - restaurants, bars, clubs, yoga studios, etc.
2) No one running the city today is old enough to remember what a functional, economically integrated (however messily) American city actually looked like, or how they worked.
There is a fantasy at work in local government, abetted by developers, that DC can function without a working class. For now, this is being supported by marginally more affordable rents at the periphery that are rapidly disappearing, and by cash transfers from the soon-to-be formerly middle class and affluent to their children (many of who are those college grads serving us craft beers and pour-over coffee, sharing tiny, expensive apartments).
It will punch us in the chin economically in the very near future, though, stifling growth, undermining the satisfaction with amenities of the wealthy people that have already settled here, and catching the powers that be, in all likelihood (and despite Bowser's recent rhetoric about affordable housing) mostly flat-footed. What looks like a boom is just an ahistorical rush to unsustainability.
posted by ryanshepard at 12:36 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
I don't know that the expectation that everyone should and is entitled to live alone is a good one or ultimately workable.
Well, a lot of people in this situation aren't living alone - they're supporting family members.
Also, while it's true that there's been an increase in the number of people living alone, there have been a lot of other changes that make comparisons to times with more communal living complicated. It's not as simple as living alone being an anomaly.
The question is about money: wages versus rent. It's not really about the number of people living in an apartment, although sometimes you can add to the wages column by adding another person. Why address it in terms of "living alone" being unrealistic, rather than "living on a single wage"?
Is it unrealistic to want a society in which you can afford adequate housing on a single wage? I don't think so - because in fact, there are places in the world where it's possible, and in was possible in the past.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:38 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
Well, a lot of people in this situation aren't living alone - they're supporting family members.
Also, while it's true that there's been an increase in the number of people living alone, there have been a lot of other changes that make comparisons to times with more communal living complicated. It's not as simple as living alone being an anomaly.
The question is about money: wages versus rent. It's not really about the number of people living in an apartment, although sometimes you can add to the wages column by adding another person. Why address it in terms of "living alone" being unrealistic, rather than "living on a single wage"?
Is it unrealistic to want a society in which you can afford adequate housing on a single wage? I don't think so - because in fact, there are places in the world where it's possible, and in was possible in the past.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:38 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
Our tipped front of house staff make $20 to $45 an hour when all's said and done. He complains that they make too much.
Wait so even though he's not paying them those tips, they "make too much"? So literally he's just enough of an evil shitbag that he's mad about anyone making any money, whether or not it is coming from him.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:16 PM on June 4, 2015 [17 favorites]
Wait so even though he's not paying them those tips, they "make too much"? So literally he's just enough of an evil shitbag that he's mad about anyone making any money, whether or not it is coming from him.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:16 PM on June 4, 2015 [17 favorites]
The market is heavily incentivized to build spacious expensive amenity-heavy luxury developments because the rich people in this country have all the money, or close enough as makes no difference. Some people, who I used to agree with before I realized how badly their ideas work in practice, argue that unleashing market forces — allowing developers to use up scarce urban land on luxury developments — will ultimately lower rents in the non-luxury sector. The idea here is that increased supply will loosen pressure on older, non-luxury buildings, thus driving down rents as a whole. Often urbanists will take this argument so far as to oppose affordable housing set-asides and other ameliorative measures, believing that even the relatively small constraint imposed by affordable housing set-aside requirements will suppress market forces and thereby paradoxically result in less affordable housing on the whole.
There are a number of problems with this econ 101 conception of the housing market. Among them:
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:32 PM on June 4, 2015 [42 favorites]
There are a number of problems with this econ 101 conception of the housing market. Among them:
- Because of the strong incentives for suburbanization over the past 50 years — urbanists tend to blame historic preservation laws and low height limits in cities for this, but these effects are dwarfed by other incentives toward suburban sprawl, like subsidized freeways and tax incentives that prefer sprawling single-family development — ahem, because of the strong incentives for suburbanization over the past 50 years, even if the market were interested in providing sufficient housing, it would take decades for these supply-side effects to start reducing rents. I recall reading a while back that San Francisco, for example, would need to immediately add 100,000 new units of housing for supply-side effects to stabilize rents at their current levels; actually adding enough to reduce rents through market-driven supply-side effects might be literally impossible at this point.
- The construction of new luxury housing in a neighborhood tends to, long term, drive up rents in that neighborhood; once richer, whiter people move into a neighborhood, it becomes attractive to other richer, whiter people, businesses catering to richer, whiter people move in, further attracting richer, whiter people, and well, long story short there goes the neighborhood.
- New tall luxury buildings can often contain fewer units of housing than the smaller, shorter buildings they replace. This is because of the large floorplans of units in luxury buildings, and the amount of building space that's given over to parking garages.
- Tightly limiting supply is a way to keep rents high and extract more value from property holdings. Undersupplying housing makes more money than supplying housing does. Developers and property-holders, who are not stupid people, understand this. Something that really clarified my thinking on this was this quote related to management of rail systems in the 1800s, which explains why train companies actually preferred to provide terrible third-class service, and would not provide decent third-class service even if they were paid to, because the presence of truly terrible third-class service makes it easier to gouge people who can pay for mediocre second-class service.
- With this in mind, one can view city laws that constrain market-based development (low height maximums, expensive parking minimums, and so forth) not as restraints imposed on the market that prevent them from supplying enough housing, and instead as a coordination tool used by market players, who understand that limiting supply is the best way to maximize profits, but who don't have the monopoly advantage that would make limiting supply without coordination possible.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:32 PM on June 4, 2015 [42 favorites]
If your business idea cannot turn enough of a profit by paying properly for its human resources as for any other resources required
Wal-Mart is the US's largest employer (and then some). Wal-Mart's ability to turn a profit would in no way be impaired by paying its workers somewhat more. It would just mean less profit going to its shareholders.
posted by Gelatin at 1:40 PM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wal-Mart is the US's largest employer (and then some). Wal-Mart's ability to turn a profit would in no way be impaired by paying its workers somewhat more. It would just mean less profit going to its shareholders.
posted by Gelatin at 1:40 PM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
he's just enough of an evil shitbag that he's mad about anyone making any money, whether or not it is coming from him
99% of all people are unredeemable shitheels who are more or less functionally indistinguishable from chimpanzees shitting into their hands and baring their teeth at thunderstorms. Be a true 1%er.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 1:47 PM on June 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
99% of all people are unredeemable shitheels who are more or less functionally indistinguishable from chimpanzees shitting into their hands and baring their teeth at thunderstorms. Be a true 1%er.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 1:47 PM on June 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
I can literally see the luxury apartments pushing out the poorer community near where I work. I used to be surrounded by regular affordable but not great apartments, but not anymore. Across the street there used to be several small 4-6 unit buildings. Now it's a massive luxury apartment complex. Next door was another group of apartments. Another luxury complex is currently being built on that site. None of these buildings are for the community that's been living there though because anyone living there before couldn't afford them. So they have to live further away, commute longer, pay higher rents (because the luxury apartments nearby raised the average) with nothing to show for it. But they're not wealthy, so the city doesn't care. As usual.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:47 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:47 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
downtohisturtles: I know at least three people who think of themselves as hip young left urbanists who argue that the localized, individualized pain experienced by the people chased out of their neighborhoods by the rich is more than balanced out by the distributed benefits of having additional housing supply; basically, they believe that even though a few people are good and well fucked, everyone on the whole is in utilitarian terms better off with rather than without the new luxury buildings.
These people are wrong (I've already given my list of reasons why they're wrong), and moreover, despite their pretensions to lefthood, they are without a doubt within ten years going to be core players in the new rich urban right wing.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:55 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
These people are wrong (I've already given my list of reasons why they're wrong), and moreover, despite their pretensions to lefthood, they are without a doubt within ten years going to be core players in the new rich urban right wing.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:55 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
The secret to the Uber economy is wealth inequality
posted by bukvich at 2:07 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by bukvich at 2:07 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
The secret to the Uber economy is wealth inequality
Buried lede: Gini income inequality in San Francisco is substantially higher than either Mubmai or Istanbul. Below Sao Paulo though (for the moment!)
posted by junco at 2:43 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
Buried lede: Gini income inequality in San Francisco is substantially higher than either Mubmai or Istanbul. Below Sao Paulo though (for the moment!)
posted by junco at 2:43 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
5. With this in mind, one can view city laws that constrain market-based development (low height maximums, expensive parking minimums, and so forth) not as restraints imposed on the market that prevent them from supplying enough housing, and instead as a coordination tool used by market players, who understand that limiting supply is the best way to maximize profits, but who don't have the monopoly advantage that would make limiting supply without coordination possible.
On this issue, if you are concerned about affordability and gentrification, you should be on the side of developers vs the "market players": incumbent property owners and landlords. Developers aren't stupid, they would much rather build in already in-demand areas and reap higher profits, were it not a brutal local political fight every time.
posted by ghharr at 2:43 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
On this issue, if you are concerned about affordability and gentrification, you should be on the side of developers vs the "market players": incumbent property owners and landlords. Developers aren't stupid, they would much rather build in already in-demand areas and reap higher profits, were it not a brutal local political fight every time.
posted by ghharr at 2:43 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
I refer you to the other 4 points; even if constraints against development were lifted, the market on the whole would prefer undersupplying workforce/middle-class housing, because undersupplying workforce/middle class housing is where the money is. Although developers who aren't quite on the inside under actually existing capitalism may prefer lifting height limits and removing historic preservation zoning under the current situation, these limits are not to be understood as a chief driver of housing undersupply. The chief driver of housing undersupply is, in fact, the market itself; should developers make legislative wins for their fraction of capital, the business opportunities they see would dry up long before sufficient workforce housing became available.
This is one reason why alleged-left market-oriented urbanists are so frustrating to talk with; when faced with a rhetorical situation wherein it's not possible to claim that supply-side market interventions will by themselves solve the housing crisis once constraints on market activity are lifted, they tend to retreat to the position that market-rate housing at least won't hurt. Unfortunately, increased market-rate housing can hurt (see the other 4 points above). Moreover, despite the tendency to retreat to a "well you should be on the side of developers against landlords I mean more market-rate development can't hurt" position when pressed, the people making these arguments (and I apologize if I'm talking past you at people who aren't in the room) end up devoting all of their political time and energy toward lifting restrictions on market-rate housing, behaving exactly as if they think that increased market-rate development will solve the housing crisis, regardless of whether or not they'd express that view in words.
As you can probably tell, my opinion of market-rate housing developers on the whole is roughly equivalent to my opinion of Enron executives; although housing needs to be supplied, like utility services need to be supplied, this supply is better accomplished through public agencies working primarily in the public interest, not private firms primarily established to further private interests.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:08 PM on June 4, 2015 [7 favorites]
This is one reason why alleged-left market-oriented urbanists are so frustrating to talk with; when faced with a rhetorical situation wherein it's not possible to claim that supply-side market interventions will by themselves solve the housing crisis once constraints on market activity are lifted, they tend to retreat to the position that market-rate housing at least won't hurt. Unfortunately, increased market-rate housing can hurt (see the other 4 points above). Moreover, despite the tendency to retreat to a "well you should be on the side of developers against landlords I mean more market-rate development can't hurt" position when pressed, the people making these arguments (and I apologize if I'm talking past you at people who aren't in the room) end up devoting all of their political time and energy toward lifting restrictions on market-rate housing, behaving exactly as if they think that increased market-rate development will solve the housing crisis, regardless of whether or not they'd express that view in words.
As you can probably tell, my opinion of market-rate housing developers on the whole is roughly equivalent to my opinion of Enron executives; although housing needs to be supplied, like utility services need to be supplied, this supply is better accomplished through public agencies working primarily in the public interest, not private firms primarily established to further private interests.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:08 PM on June 4, 2015 [7 favorites]
If you're interested in a practical example of how market-rate housing developers are absolutely not to be trusted by people who want sufficient housing for workers and the middle class, I encourage you to google up coverage of the current debate in Seattle over linkage fees. It's enlightening reading, if uh more than a little bit dry.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:14 PM on June 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:14 PM on June 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
Not that gentrification isn't definitely an issue in many parts of the country, but really, we all knew that you can't afford to live on even inflated minimum wage in SF. It's SF. What a lot of people need drilled through their heads is that this isn't a "well move out of NYC/SF" problem.
You have to make $14.13 to afford a two-bedroom in Ohio, apparently. But here's the thing: The lower your income, the less you can really afford to have 30% of your income eaten by rent alone. On $15/hour, my weekly paycheck is, we'll say, around $500 after taxes. Or very approximately about $2k a month. That says I should be able to afford a $600 apartment. Wait. It says that a 2-bedroom in my area is about $776 (including utilities) and that I can afford that. Oh, now it wants me to spend 30% of GROSS on rent? Great. That plus my transportation expenses alone will eat half my take-home pay. But I still have $1k! Less $250 for groceries and household supplies? $750. $250 to basically do the minimum recommended for retirement? $500. $500 seems like a lot to me, until I realize that it needs to cover phone and internet and health coverage and the cats. It has to cover laundry and work-appropriate clothes. It has to be able to at some point replace my aging mattress. It's a tight fit even for my fantasy self that didn't accumulate six figures in student loans.
I'm able to live alone in a one-bedroom unit with two cats on $15/hour and have a few small splurges, in one of the cheapest parts of the country, in a neighborhood that isn't really that bad but has a bad enough reputation to scare my mother. But the real insanity of it? My whole four-unit building is worth under $100k. I could buy a house in this neighborhood for under $50k. If I had the savings and the credit for it, which I don't. I've done some rough estimates, and my landlord spends about half the building's rents on mortgage/maintenance, max, and otherwise he earns $1k a month for... well, for having had the wealth already to buy the place.
How does this disparity happen? Well, among other things, social programs designed to help the poor are not designed to help them ever be not-poor. They're designed to keep you from starving or dying of exposure. My neighbor on housing assistance, ten years from now, still needs housing assistance. Meanwhile, my landlord will have made $30k in profit on section 8. Maybe he'll go out and buy another house, and rent it out to another person, and make more money. More and more of the houses in this neighborhood are rentals every year. Nothing's gentrifying. The homes are decaying from lack of real maintenance. But as far as most of the middle class is concerned, better that than the undeserving poor possibly getting assets.
Gentrify, drive it all into the ground, whatever, just don't let Those People start owning things, they'll get uppity. A minimum wage that comfortably covered rent on a two-bedroom apartment would also cover a mortgage on a small home in places like this, and that will never be tolerated.
posted by Sequence at 3:36 PM on June 4, 2015 [21 favorites]
You have to make $14.13 to afford a two-bedroom in Ohio, apparently. But here's the thing: The lower your income, the less you can really afford to have 30% of your income eaten by rent alone. On $15/hour, my weekly paycheck is, we'll say, around $500 after taxes. Or very approximately about $2k a month. That says I should be able to afford a $600 apartment. Wait. It says that a 2-bedroom in my area is about $776 (including utilities) and that I can afford that. Oh, now it wants me to spend 30% of GROSS on rent? Great. That plus my transportation expenses alone will eat half my take-home pay. But I still have $1k! Less $250 for groceries and household supplies? $750. $250 to basically do the minimum recommended for retirement? $500. $500 seems like a lot to me, until I realize that it needs to cover phone and internet and health coverage and the cats. It has to cover laundry and work-appropriate clothes. It has to be able to at some point replace my aging mattress. It's a tight fit even for my fantasy self that didn't accumulate six figures in student loans.
I'm able to live alone in a one-bedroom unit with two cats on $15/hour and have a few small splurges, in one of the cheapest parts of the country, in a neighborhood that isn't really that bad but has a bad enough reputation to scare my mother. But the real insanity of it? My whole four-unit building is worth under $100k. I could buy a house in this neighborhood for under $50k. If I had the savings and the credit for it, which I don't. I've done some rough estimates, and my landlord spends about half the building's rents on mortgage/maintenance, max, and otherwise he earns $1k a month for... well, for having had the wealth already to buy the place.
How does this disparity happen? Well, among other things, social programs designed to help the poor are not designed to help them ever be not-poor. They're designed to keep you from starving or dying of exposure. My neighbor on housing assistance, ten years from now, still needs housing assistance. Meanwhile, my landlord will have made $30k in profit on section 8. Maybe he'll go out and buy another house, and rent it out to another person, and make more money. More and more of the houses in this neighborhood are rentals every year. Nothing's gentrifying. The homes are decaying from lack of real maintenance. But as far as most of the middle class is concerned, better that than the undeserving poor possibly getting assets.
Gentrify, drive it all into the ground, whatever, just don't let Those People start owning things, they'll get uppity. A minimum wage that comfortably covered rent on a two-bedroom apartment would also cover a mortgage on a small home in places like this, and that will never be tolerated.
posted by Sequence at 3:36 PM on June 4, 2015 [21 favorites]
God I am 26 and so fucked I'm going to end up living with my elderly parents until they're dead aren't I?
posted by gucci mane at 4:38 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 4:38 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
Single occupancy housing, especially on the scale Americans seem to expect is a birthright, is fairly egregiously inefficient and environmentally unfriendly in a whole bunch of different ways.
This presumes that the square footage required for the average single-occupant apartment is greater than the square footage of the average single-family home divided by the average number of family members, which is not self-evident.
posted by threeants at 4:47 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
This presumes that the square footage required for the average single-occupant apartment is greater than the square footage of the average single-family home divided by the average number of family members, which is not self-evident.
posted by threeants at 4:47 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
And I agree strongly with others upthread that there is much magical thinking around density-boosting infill. In the city where I work, a progressive citizen group is pushing a new development in a historically low-income neighborhood, under auspices that something like 17% of units will be "affordable housing". You can't really blame them for trying to house, like, 20 working-class families instead of 0, but is that ultimately worth the triggering of a gentrification tipping point? Meanwhile, the wait list for public housing, which is literally officially frozen right now, approaches 10,000 people, in a city of barely over 100,000.
Fuck, all urban housing should be "affordable". If you want a floor made out of plasma TVs or something, build it on a man-made island in the Persian Gulf.
posted by threeants at 5:07 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
Fuck, all urban housing should be "affordable". If you want a floor made out of plasma TVs or something, build it on a man-made island in the Persian Gulf.
posted by threeants at 5:07 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don't really understand why there's no rent ceiling set to 30 percent of the federal poverty level, adding a certain percentage per bedroom after the first one.
I'm sort of terrified because I don't have an extended family, and I don't have any expectation of having a partner (nor would I want to depend on someone like that) so I don't know what I'm going to do once I run out of habitable roommate situations. I am sort of counting on a housing market crash once the generation with all the wealth in their houses starts trying to sell to the generation that can't afford a house.
posted by blnkfrnk at 6:19 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm sort of terrified because I don't have an extended family, and I don't have any expectation of having a partner (nor would I want to depend on someone like that) so I don't know what I'm going to do once I run out of habitable roommate situations. I am sort of counting on a housing market crash once the generation with all the wealth in their houses starts trying to sell to the generation that can't afford a house.
posted by blnkfrnk at 6:19 PM on June 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
I have an older friend, an artist, who lives in a small area set aside in some sort of construction company in Bushwick, basically off someone's charity. He managed to get some money from an Indiegogo and today we talked and he unveiled his plan... he's moving to India to work.
He has been there before, he has contacts, there, he has some money. I honestly was very positively surprised. It's very risky but as I said - staying where he is isn't risky - it's *certain* that things will go bad for him in his current situation sooner or later.
What is happening where "moving to India" is a rational solution to trying to find affordable housing in Brooklyn?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:13 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
He has been there before, he has contacts, there, he has some money. I honestly was very positively surprised. It's very risky but as I said - staying where he is isn't risky - it's *certain* that things will go bad for him in his current situation sooner or later.
What is happening where "moving to India" is a rational solution to trying to find affordable housing in Brooklyn?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:13 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
I am sort of counting on a housing market crash once the generation with all the wealth in their houses starts trying to sell to the generation that can't afford a house.
Frankly, this cannot happen soon enough for my taste. I turn 30 this year, I want to be a foster parent by the time I'm 35, and there's no way in hell I'd do it sharing a rental with housemates.
posted by nonasuch at 7:17 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Frankly, this cannot happen soon enough for my taste. I turn 30 this year, I want to be a foster parent by the time I'm 35, and there's no way in hell I'd do it sharing a rental with housemates.
posted by nonasuch at 7:17 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
a 2-bedroom in my area is about $776 (including utilities) ... But the real insanity of it? My whole four-unit building is worth under $100k. I could buy a house in this neighborhood for under $50k.
That really is crazy -- that rent is more than the mortgage for your entire building.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:11 PM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
That really is crazy -- that rent is more than the mortgage for your entire building.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:11 PM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
Pros And Cons Of Raising The Minimum Wage
A Fascinating Minimum Wage Experiment Is About To Unfold
New report puts more momentum behind LA minimum wage hike
Seattle Finally Hired Someone to Enforce Its New Minimum-Wage Law
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:04 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
A Fascinating Minimum Wage Experiment Is About To Unfold
This week’s decision by the Los Angeles City Council to raise the local minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour by 2020 is part of an intriguing development in urban politics and social policy. Reacting to grassroots campaigns carried out by labor unions and other progressive groups, some of the biggest cities in America are now defying several decades of economic orthodoxy, as well as challenging a set of social norms that regarded low-wage jobs as unavoidable and acceptable.Los Angeles' minimum wage on track to go up to $15 by 2020
New report puts more momentum behind LA minimum wage hike
Seattle Finally Hired Someone to Enforce Its New Minimum-Wage Law
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:04 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
blnkfrnk: “I am sort of counting on a housing market crash once the generation with all the wealth in their houses starts trying to sell to the generation that can't afford a house.”Don't hold your breath.
“Wall Street Is My Landlord: Private Equity's Instant Rental Empire,” Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg, 26 February 2015
posted by ob1quixote at 9:06 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
That really is crazy -- that rent is more than the mortgage for your entire building.
Yeah. I mean, utilities are clearly also factored into that $700-some number, but virtually my whole neighborhood is owned by people who would never dream of actually living here. But the bank will give them loans to buy our houses. They won't give US loans to buy our houses. There's no way for inequality not to happen, under those circumstances.
Blackstone built its rental-home business with an advantage few if any other buyers could match: a $3.6 billion credit line. Its Invitation Homes subsidiary quickly became the largest single-family home landlord in the U.S., with 41,000 properties. Altogether, hedge funds, private-equity firms and real estate investment trusts have raised about $20 billion to purchase as many as 200,000 homes to rent.
From ob1quixote's link, there. It doesn't really matter if it's some big private-equity firm or just some upper-middle-class local who wants "passive income" and gets annoyed that his "passive income" actually wants the lawn mowed before the weeds get knee high. The American Dream used to involve everybody owning their home, but now it involves your home being a business opportunity for someone worthier than you. Given that, I worry that while a minimum wage increase would probably be a good thing generally, I'm not sure we'd see them go up enough to substantially increase home ownership. As long as we're still pretty much a captive audience for the landlords, they're going to keep charging as much as we can afford to pay.
I'll probably be out of here in five or ten years, but most of my neighbors won't be, and it breaks my heart.
posted by Sequence at 5:12 AM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah. I mean, utilities are clearly also factored into that $700-some number, but virtually my whole neighborhood is owned by people who would never dream of actually living here. But the bank will give them loans to buy our houses. They won't give US loans to buy our houses. There's no way for inequality not to happen, under those circumstances.
Blackstone built its rental-home business with an advantage few if any other buyers could match: a $3.6 billion credit line. Its Invitation Homes subsidiary quickly became the largest single-family home landlord in the U.S., with 41,000 properties. Altogether, hedge funds, private-equity firms and real estate investment trusts have raised about $20 billion to purchase as many as 200,000 homes to rent.
From ob1quixote's link, there. It doesn't really matter if it's some big private-equity firm or just some upper-middle-class local who wants "passive income" and gets annoyed that his "passive income" actually wants the lawn mowed before the weeds get knee high. The American Dream used to involve everybody owning their home, but now it involves your home being a business opportunity for someone worthier than you. Given that, I worry that while a minimum wage increase would probably be a good thing generally, I'm not sure we'd see them go up enough to substantially increase home ownership. As long as we're still pretty much a captive audience for the landlords, they're going to keep charging as much as we can afford to pay.
I'll probably be out of here in five or ten years, but most of my neighbors won't be, and it breaks my heart.
posted by Sequence at 5:12 AM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
I am sort of counting on a housing market crash once the generation with all the wealth in their houses starts trying to sell to the generation that can't afford a house.
Frankly, this cannot happen soon enough for my taste. I turn 30 this year, I want to be a foster parent by the time I'm 35, and there's no way in hell I'd do it sharing a rental with housemates.
The last time we had a housing market crash it was also combined with massive layoffs, recession and extreme tightening of credit.
If you think a housing market crash is going make housing suddenly affordable for those in already precarious economic situations you may need to reassess - Looking at who made out with killer deals on homes from the 2008 crash I'm not going to say it was largely working class folks.
posted by Karaage at 9:30 AM on June 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
Frankly, this cannot happen soon enough for my taste. I turn 30 this year, I want to be a foster parent by the time I'm 35, and there's no way in hell I'd do it sharing a rental with housemates.
The last time we had a housing market crash it was also combined with massive layoffs, recession and extreme tightening of credit.
If you think a housing market crash is going make housing suddenly affordable for those in already precarious economic situations you may need to reassess - Looking at who made out with killer deals on homes from the 2008 crash I'm not going to say it was largely working class folks.
posted by Karaage at 9:30 AM on June 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
Maybe it's because I just binge-watched Agent Carter, but I do think bringing back boarding houses could solve a lot of these woes.
posted by bgal81 at 10:01 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by bgal81 at 10:01 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
I genuinely wish for the return of boarding houses every day. I think it would really help a lot of very-low-income individuals who want their own space, but still need meals cooked by someone else and their own private space. You could live on social security with that.
posted by corb at 10:17 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 10:17 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why We Shouldn't Raise The Minimum Wage
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:18 PM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:18 PM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not going to argue that there isn't a serious housing affordability problem, especially in cities and high-wage areas. However, this map doesn't actually mean what it says it means. That's because it's comparing a household with one full-time minimum wage earner, which puts that household in the ~13 percentile income-wise, with the "fair market rent" of an apartment, which is based on the 40th percentile of standard-quality rental units. That is, HUD looks at the amount that a family, moving today, would have to pay in rent and utilities to occupy a new unit, and 40% (or sometimes 50%, depending on the region) of these families would pay at or below the fair market rent.
If you want to ask the question "can I afford a one-bedroom apartment on a full time minimum wage salary?" this isn't the comparison you want to make. If you assume that, roughly, households whose income fall in the bottom 40% will rent the housing units that fall in the bottom 40%, price wise, then you can assume that somebody in the 13th income percentile will be able to pay less that the fair market rate for housing. They may very well still be able to find a one-bedroom apartment for less than 30% of their income. Or they may not, but this map doesn't show that one way or another.
Why go through all of this? Because even though there are parts of the country where decent housing is simply not affordable to somebody making minimum wage, or even double minimum wage (and all you DC metro-area folks, I feel your pain), I do believe that there are still low cost of living areas where you can make $7.25/hr, work 40 hours a week, and have a reasonable quality of life. The study says that housing is affordable on minimum wage if it costs less than $377/mo. I know plenty of buildings in the part of Missouri where I grew up that still offer one-bedrooms for less than that, and that are in safe neighborhoods, and that are reasonably well maintained. My brother lives in a one-bedroom in a complex with a pool, next to a golf course, for less than that in northwestern Arkansas. So the lesson, I guess, is to shed your shackles and come to the oft-overlooked midwest.
posted by exutima at 8:49 AM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you want to ask the question "can I afford a one-bedroom apartment on a full time minimum wage salary?" this isn't the comparison you want to make. If you assume that, roughly, households whose income fall in the bottom 40% will rent the housing units that fall in the bottom 40%, price wise, then you can assume that somebody in the 13th income percentile will be able to pay less that the fair market rate for housing. They may very well still be able to find a one-bedroom apartment for less than 30% of their income. Or they may not, but this map doesn't show that one way or another.
Why go through all of this? Because even though there are parts of the country where decent housing is simply not affordable to somebody making minimum wage, or even double minimum wage (and all you DC metro-area folks, I feel your pain), I do believe that there are still low cost of living areas where you can make $7.25/hr, work 40 hours a week, and have a reasonable quality of life. The study says that housing is affordable on minimum wage if it costs less than $377/mo. I know plenty of buildings in the part of Missouri where I grew up that still offer one-bedrooms for less than that, and that are in safe neighborhoods, and that are reasonably well maintained. My brother lives in a one-bedroom in a complex with a pool, next to a golf course, for less than that in northwestern Arkansas. So the lesson, I guess, is to shed your shackles and come to the oft-overlooked midwest.
posted by exutima at 8:49 AM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older "'Excuse me,'" I said, using my bony ass to crush... | Blood Will Have Blood Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
like a heavy load.
posted by truex at 11:43 AM on June 4, 2015 [14 favorites]