54
mic drop (lemmy.world)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 7 points 8 months ago

Say it with me now: Fuck the family income metric!

FUCK THE FAMILY INCOME METRIC!

how many millions of single people/perpetually single people are out there? We're defining the economic health of our population by a metric that demands a dual income. So yes, 2x the typical salary is enough for a person to get by on. 2 people have to share resources to make ends meet.

For someone like myself who is perpetually and indefinitely single, working full time in a psudo-managment position, it's beyond insulting that I'm "forced" to live in people's basements or garages if I want to keep the slightest glimmer of hope of retirement... A "legitimate" apartment would cost the entirety of my income not even the sadly "typical" 3/4ths.

(don't castrate me for the management thing lol. I'm not the coffee holding office whip cracker, I'm working directly along side my team in a factory doing most of the heavy lifting so they don't need to.)

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

What older folk often forget is that not only could they easily afford a house in the 60s and 70s, but they likely also could on a single income. Many people nowadays are having trouble affording a house on dual incomes.

Housing keeps going up and couples are now having to split them with other couples just to raise a family. My sister and her fiance live in the basement of a house where his brother and sister-in-law live upstairs with a toddler and twins on the way. They won't have enough room soon and can't afford anything larger, and my sister wants to start having kids soon but the basement isn't exactly larger either.

That's one house for 4 working adults and potentially 4 children, when back in the day you could have a full house with 2 adults and 3-4 children on a single income.

My grandpa worked as a landscaper/gardener and was still able to support his stay-at-home wife and 3 children.

[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago

You can afford a 2 bedroom apartment now though. You just need to sleep in your car because you live 300 miles from work.

[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 3 points 8 months ago

Don't give them ideas. Speculators will sell you apartments that don't exist betting most people can't visit it anyway.

[-] zedgeist@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

Sounds like living in an NFT. Non-Fungible Apartment?

[-] KillerTofu@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago
[-] zedgeist@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

Ohh, well played

That is one good thing that WFH did. I know several people who moved from LA to our middle of nowhere town where a nice 3br house is under $150k.

[-] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

Damn bro, that's actually pretty inexpensive. Do you have fiber out there, or heck cable? Because that's... That's some pretty cheap housing.

Yup, they're actually installing FTTC in my neighborhood now.

The only drawback is that it's rural Texas.

But, if enough liberals move here for affordable housing...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 8 months ago

the minimum wage should be enough to afford a house...like it was for boomers.

[-] Zink@programming.dev 3 points 8 months ago

Or put in a way that the conservatives can understand: if a person works full time for a company, the tax payers should not have to subsidize that company by supplying the necessary benefits to bridge the pay gap for basic necessities.

(Unfortunately, their leaders would easily convince them how good an idea it is to give tax dollars back to the corporations, and how it is a social good to humiliate lesser people that don’t deserve full personhood, in order to inspire them to be more valuable resources for their employers)

[-] Fleamo@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Average in the US for a 2 bedroom is $1317 per statista.

Triple that for a monthly income = $3951

x12 for annual = $47,412

/2080 for hourly full time = $22.79/hr

A 1 bedroom (or 2br with a $200/mo UBI) at $1100ish brings the minimum to $19ish.

A 2 bedroom but working 60hrs/week or using 50% of income on rent instead of 33% is around $15/hr.

Just trying to play around with the numbers to see what a real political proposal might look like. Feels great to meme a declaration, people start disagreeing when you start putting numbers to it.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Genuine question:

Is minimum wage being rent for a 2br/1ba actually the goal? Why?

I assume the idea is to be able to support a family and the sad logic that it often comes out "cheaper" to have one parent work and one stay at home rather than try to afford daycare.

But rent is just a drop in the bucket when you are raising a kid. Which gets back into the mess of how you can afford to have a family on minimum wage.

If the idea is just cost of living then the answer is actually a one bedroom (which would also, theoretically, help with housing shortages). If the idea is to be able to have a family then it needs to be a whole lot higher than a two bedroom (unless you work in NY and commute from one of the last remaining cheap parts of Jersey, I guess?).

[-] scutiger@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

This is saying that minimum wage should be enough to afford a 2br apartment. If all your money goes to rent, you can't afford it.

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah, ideally rent should be around 1/3rd of your income. In my town, a conservative 2br 1ba apt is gonna cost you about $2000. That means minimum wage would have to be around $34.

Alternatively, with our minimum wage currently at $15.45, that means a two bedroom apartment would have to be priced below $900.

[-] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Ideally rent shouldn't exist because everyone needs housing.

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Sure, but then you gotta build your own, and provide protection for yourself, and maintain your own power grid, water supply, garbage, and sewage. I get what the libertarians dream of with their limited government and no taxation, but we can't do it all ourselves, at least not anymore. If someone wants to live in western Wyoming and work the land, then good for them, but I like my internet and my frozen pizza.

I'd like to expand (ramble) on this a little more and say that "necessities" aren't free and never have been (Disclaimer: I'm America, and this written from an American's perspective, ymmv). You could find a cave near a river and try to make due with what nature gave you, but you're gonna fight a bear for the cave eventually. Can you kill a bear? Or would you rather pay someone who knows how to kill bears to kill the bear for you. Suddenly your free housing isn't free any more. Humanity is based on the exchange of goods for services. Money facilitates that trade because it allows the buyer and the seller to determine what they need and be agnostic to where the money comes from or goes to. A lot of people (not you, I don't know you), think that we should return to a bartering system, but the current economy is still just that, but instead of trading a three loaves of bread for a pound of chuck we give the equivalent of three loaves of bread as slips of paper that can be exchanged for things other than bread because not everyone needs three loaves of bread.

Now, back to "free" housing, I agree. In a modern society like the one we have supposedly built, housing (and healthcare, basic food needs, education, protection, etc.) should be provided by the government as an assurance for a better civilization. However, that money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is taxes. So, in order for those free things to be "free" we need an overhaul of the tax system and the welfare system, but neither of those will come because we have many different groups of people in power that have done an exceedingly good job of dividing us while consolidating their empires. So, we're fucked.

However, there is a solution, and often you can see it tagged on the concrete monoliths erected to the power-hungry overloads. We have to eat the rich, and I mean that literally. We have to eat a few of them. Make an example of them. Let the other rich know that we mean business. If they start to get out of line, eat a few more. But we have to be united across borders. If I'm eating an oligarch in New York, I need to be sure that another is being eaten in Seoul, Paris, and Tokyo. We can't give them a safe haven. They have to believe that no matter where there go, there is some dude with a bucket of bourbon maple glaze and stronger will than them. If Musk is going to Mars, we need to get there first. We must establish a base of operations throughout the solar system to ensure that no planet is a safe space for the masters. We need to be able to dip them in the atmosphere of Venus like a sulfur fondue. We split their yolk on Mercury's sunny-side. We scrape off layers like Italian ice on Neptune. The universe holds a diverse and wonderful menu for us, we need but provide the ingredients.

[-] volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Ok this took a turn. I was fearing you would go another direction. I mean, I don't think we need to turn to literal cannibalism or start spending money on sending people to be dipped in Venus's atmosphere, but I strongly believe that there needs to be a very low cap on how much money an individual can legally hold. And disowning is a necessary step.

I honestly would have no problem with my paycheck going to taxes like 90%. As long as this means I am provided with groceries, housing, necessities, transportation, healthcare and retirement. And as long as everyone else is provided the same. Imagine being like a child again, having pocket money that you can spend on whatever gadgets serve your interest, instead of having to save it for worse times or spend it on necessities.

I also believe that people would still pursue higher education and leading positions even if they would be paid more or less the same as a fast food job. It is just a much more comfortable life, I've been there and I've been there. Working as a cashier for 8 hours is exhausting. Waiting is exhausting. Sitting at your desk doing excel stuff for a meaningless project, talking to colleagues and taking endless coffee breaks is not exhausting. The strive would still exist, simply because no one wants to have a broken back by 35. And people like the sense of responsibility, of meaning and power and leadership, they like to learn and develop. At least most do.

[-] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Sure, but then you gotta build your own, and provide protection for yourself, and maintain your own power grid, water supply, garbage, and sewage.

Ouch, imagine believing this. No wonder you can't help but gag on the capitalist cock that's been shoved down your throat, you're so downtrodden that you need it as a feeding tube.

Go look at more competent socialist democracies before you say something can't be done when it already is.

I'll even give you a clue where it starts, with limiting the amount of personal value an individual can extract from the sum total of society.

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

God you people are fuckin insufferable.

[-] aniki@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

We're insufferable because you lack vision beyond the capitalistic hellscape you already inhabit?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Zess@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

You didn't stutter but I'm not sure you understand cost of living differences.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 1 points 8 months ago

Either raise the minimum wage or restrict rents to meet it.

[-] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Minimum wage goes up with inflation with a 1932 basis and rent is restricted to 1/3rd of monthly wages at minimum wage with obvious exeptions for students and those on a fixed income for one bedroom apartments.

[-] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

A two bedroom for minimum wage?! Hmmm suppose that's only ridiculous if you think that little should not be allowed to live inside and ALSO eat for working at what should be a living wage

[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That's not how supply and demand works. If you raise minimum wage so that it can pay for a two bedroom apartment, then demand for two bedroom apartments will skyrocket pushing the price put of range once more. The only way to do this is to couple the wage increase with artificial availability by creating rent controlled, minimum wage housing.

I live in the "Greater Jackson Hole" metro area which includes two Teton counties. One in Wyoming and one in Idaho (Wydaho). Our area is full of billionaires as well as double and triple digit millionaires. You will never see a "conservative" area with more aggressive nature conservation efforts than here. Why? Because the area is paradise and the billionaires have bought all the land in order to keep it pristine (and get a nice tax break). Unfortunately, everyone tried to move here during and after lockdown and now prices are ludicrous. The thing is that the rich still need services and workers to keep that quality of life up. What was the fix? They built affordable housing for the local workforce. Some of these include store/shop spaces on the first floor for practically zero rent as long as your business is helpful to the community or raises the quality of life. So many artisinal bakeries, coffee shops, yoga/Pilate's studios, high end dog supplies and grooming, cultural artifact shops, etc. Seriously, the entire population of the area is roughly about 30k and I have access to more top tier coffee shops here than I did in the infamously hipster Austin, Texas.

If you ever want to know what systems will be effective, just look at what the mega-rich do for their own self-interest.

EDIT: During the early days of the lockdown, private jets were flying in with medical equipment (respirators) and supplies for the entire community. A billionaire couple donated some of the first COVID-19 blood test machines in the nation. If you tell me that in five years this area will have government subsidized living wages and free healthcare for all, I will believe you...as long as the program is tied to local service industry employment because the mega-rich won't do anything unless it benefits them somehow.

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

No certain I agree 2 bedroom for minimum, but definitely getting a single bedroom or studio near where they work makes a whole lot of sense.

[-] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That sounds ok until you realize how many people have kids at least half time, but no adult partner. And a lot of those people don’t make much above min wage.

Even if they make slightly more than minimum now, a rising tide lifts all ships.

Plus minimum wage was intended to be the lowest single wage a family could be supported on. Just requiring it cover a 2br apartment is a far cry from the original intent

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago

Good point. I'd kinda expect the government to help in that situation more.

[-] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago

Why should the government support bad businesses? Serious question, because we socialize losses (tax-paid anssistance) and privatize profits (they keep it, regardless how many employees are on assistance).

We do that already with welfare for people working a surprising number of places (Walmart and McDonald’s are prime examples, where they have published budgets assuming you will get government assistance)

Why is that ok, but requiring living wages isn’t?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago

Why don't you agree with the 2 bedroom? Why can't the working class have some leg room?

[-] AgentGrimstone@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Fuck it. Let's make it 3 and build a gym for the whole complex while you're at it.

[-] ForrestGrump@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 8 months ago

I know you guys are talking about the US and some things work differently over there, but why should a minimum wage cover more than... the minimum? Want more, do more.

[-] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago

You ever worked minimum wage jobs? Loads of them suck and many have to work harder than the better paid jobs.

What would you like the minimum standard of living to be?

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Why is one roommate the minimum? Why not 10, or 20, or 50?

[-] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

The problem is these are full time jobs. Its not like you are putting in minimum effort.

[-] zarp86@sh.itjust.works -1 points 8 months ago

Because the idea was always that we need a living wage.

It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living. -FDR

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9075220-it-seems-to-me-to-be-equally-plain-that-no

[-] FarmTaco@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

1 person requires 2 rooms now

also a fountain

[-] ForrestGrump@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 8 months ago

And you can't live in a single bedroom apartment?

I mean, I would understand if someone didn't have enough to eat or a roof over their head. A meme about it would be understandable. But why 2 bedrooms? Personally, one is enough for me and I earn a good living.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] randon31415@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

The cost of a 2 bedroom apartment always costs what someone working for minimum wage makes plus $100. Why? Because landlords don't want people making minimum wage living at their apartments - never mind the (perceived)increased maintenance and crime - people working minimum wage are people that don't have income security and more likely to miss payments or need to be evicted.

If you raise minimum wage, the price of rent just goes up. Now that isn't a argument against raising it more that an argument against renting and an argument for housing reform, but that is a whole different post.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
54 points (95.0% liked)

Work Reform

9857 readers
924 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS