I remember a Colbert Report, where he was discussing the relevance of findings that 99.8% of people underneath the federal poverty level had access to a refrigerator, and the majority had access to a microwave.
So evidently for some people, this is a discussion we need to have. The conservative study was held out on Fox News in support of the asinine narrative that people on public assistance programs were freeloaders, and getting a comfortable lifestyle while refusing to work.
My opinion, I think minimum wage should put someone right about where they need 1-2 roommates to split rent with at a 2-bedroom apartment, with 40% of disposable income going to housing. The federal guideline for lending on income to expense ratio is 28%. The other 60%-72% can and should go to other living expenses like food, utilities, appliances, and investing in the betterment of a person’s ability to earn. It’s not reasonable to expect 70%+ of someone’s income to go to housing, and them living on uncooked beans, rice, etc.
Right now where I live, a 2 bedroom apartment rents for $1500/mo and the minimum wage is $9.50/hr. That means that about 45% of someone’s income who works 40 hrs and splits rent goes to housing. I’d say it needs to be improved.
Also opinion mine, living conditions of being barely above water at this 40% while splitting rent and working 40hrs a week should mainly be understood as pertaining to single people under age 30. If people who are getting more experience and taking on more life responsibilities are still not able to make ends meet, that’s also a problem. Also, it’s a problem if capable people are strictly unable to find work, even at minimum wage. Furthermore, those unable to work due to documented conditions should not be turned out on the street like animals.
But as to the Living Wage, I think 40% income to housing expense ratio is not overly generous at all, and would probably put me on the more austere end of the political spectrum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
His response, “You mean, they can preserve and reheat food? Oooh-la-la! I guess the poor are too good for mold and trichinosis.” (http://maspower.tumblr.com/post/8139350541/they-can-preserve-and-reheat-foods-oooh-la-la )
So evidently for some people, this is a discussion we need to have. The conservative study was held out on Fox News in support of the asinine narrative that people on public assistance programs were freeloaders, and getting a comfortable lifestyle while refusing to work.
My opinion, I think minimum wage should put someone right about where they need 1-2 roommates to split rent with at a 2-bedroom apartment, with 40% of disposable income going to housing. The federal guideline for lending on income to expense ratio is 28%. The other 60%-72% can and should go to other living expenses like food, utilities, appliances, and investing in the betterment of a person’s ability to earn. It’s not reasonable to expect 70%+ of someone’s income to go to housing, and them living on uncooked beans, rice, etc.
Right now where I live, a 2 bedroom apartment rents for $1500/mo and the minimum wage is $9.50/hr. That means that about 45% of someone’s income who works 40 hrs and splits rent goes to housing. I’d say it needs to be improved.
Also opinion mine, living conditions of being barely above water at this 40% while splitting rent and working 40hrs a week should mainly be understood as pertaining to single people under age 30. If people who are getting more experience and taking on more life responsibilities are still not able to make ends meet, that’s also a problem. Also, it’s a problem if capable people are strictly unable to find work, even at minimum wage. Furthermore, those unable to work due to documented conditions should not be turned out on the street like animals.
But as to the Living Wage, I think 40% income to housing expense ratio is not overly generous at all, and would probably put me on the more austere end of the political spectrum.