• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can you live on Minimum Wage

Can you live on Minimum Wage

  • Total voters
    63
DVSentinel said:
Even if they "cannot" handle going to college for a "college" degree. There are still trade schools. There are skilled jobs, like auto mechanics, that you can go to trade school for or get hired by a local dealer and the company will train you (if you show you have the attitude and aptitude for them to spend the money on you).

A friend of mine is a welder. He didn't go to college, but instead learned welding at a welding school. He worked hard, became skilled and now qualifies as a master welder who can work pipeline and power plant work. He is around 30 years old now, can earn $40/hr or more and never has problems finding a job (in right to work states, he is not union).

My brother works as a field service technician for a Caterpillar dealership. He got out of the Air Force, went there to ask what schools he needed to get hired and got hired on the spot. He worked hard, kept a good attitude and was sent to specific schools that he needed (the dealership paid for them). I don't know his exact salary, we never talked about it, but I overheard somewhere around $35/hr. He could probably make more if he moved from the field, but he likes it and makes enough to suit him that he is not interested in moving and since he is good at it, the dealer has no reason to move him.

There a slew of skilled jobs out there for those who will at least make the effort to become skilled. Welder, mechanic, plumber, electrician, etc, that do not require college. Are you going to end up on the Top Earners list, no, but you can make a damned good living at these trades.
Click to expand...

Heres another secret most of those guys will probaley aspire to their own shop which while not make them extravagantly rich will make them quite comfortable with time and indutriusness.
 
OscarB63 said:
he lived in a POS apartment complex with door-to-door crack dealers and hookers.
Click to expand...


Thats what "LIVING" on minimum wage gets you :)
 
Zyphlin said:
And here's where I'm admittedly somewhat heartless when talking about a political issue...because frankly allowing emotional overreactions to a few to damage the country as a whole is wrong in my opinion in terms of political thought. And my view on this is similar regardless of which party a particular issue may favor.

Do I feel for a single mother in such a situation? Absolutely. Does every single mother experience that because of poor decisions on their part? No, they don't. However...the reality is that society should not be promoting such a thing as the baseline, and making sure that such a thing is absolutely comfortably livable is setting it as a baseline. While not everyone in such a situation is there due to their own choices, making it far less sustainable through massive government assistance or mandate deters it.

The problem with Poverty and other such things is it's a self fulfilling issue. The more you strive to make poverty or bad situations not just livable, but comfortably livable, then the more you promote people being in that condition. Maybe it's a conscious thought, maybe it's coincidence, maybe it's unconsious, maybe it's laziness or perhaps contented ness or possibly bad luck (and the acceptance of that bad luck as being the norm). But however it may be, the more you enhance the "livability" of life in poor situations, the more you encourage those poor situations to propagate and expand.

The other issue is that actually ELIMINATING those poor situations is an impossibility due to human nature and reality. Our minimum wage is higher than it's ever been. Our amount of public aid, free/subsidized services, and assistance is greater than any time before. And yet we're still at roughly similar (and as you pointed out) higher number than in the past. Despite all our efforts it's not like this has changed and the call is simply for more, more, more.

No, not all American's are entitled to their own individual two bedroom apartment. No, I disagreed with Bush and the Republicans when they suggested every American deserves a house. Yes, you know what, there are going to be people in ****ty...****ty situations. Some of which completely, or largely, beyond their own control. ANd you know what, I'm in favor of some safety nets for those individuals. My issue however, as clearly evidenced throughout the years and even by your own statements in this thread, is that there is a dishonest and disgusting tactic by some who suggest that if you don't constantly say "MORE, MORE, MORE" that somehow you want none. My issue is that I believe there's a difference between a safety net, something to catch you when you fall to ATTEMPT to climb back up, and simply installing a hammock down there that one can just kind of hang in while it's continually attempted to be raised higher and higher. I disagree, entirely, with this ridiculous and impossible notion of attempting to essentially "eliminate" poverty or assure everyone has some sort of "livable" situation which, based on your description, is actually a comfortable situation sans significant, or even minor, sacrifices or compromises.

Now...if you want to simply, in a typical intellectually empty manner, decry me as "heartless" or go on some stereotypical hyper partisan anti-conservative rant instead of actually addressing what I say, be my guest. It simply highlights that your arguments is based off nothing but base emotional platitudes without an actual practical political or sociological application. If you disagree on specific points based on actual opinions/views backed by facts and prefer a different identifiable method, or a reason you dislike mine, then that's great. But it's see,img most responses is "grr greedy uncaring conservatives suck. People should be made comfortable because that'd be nice and stuff and well, um, just make 'the rich' pay for it somehow"
Click to expand...

I fully agree with this post. And yet the greater issue, imo, is corruption within the current political system. If welfare is to be eliminated, or cut significantly, all welfare not excluding corporate bailouts and subsidies also need to be reversed. Rich people also receive welfare which is even more unjust. The government should exist only to keep law and order; not to maintain a standard of living for people.
 
Mycroft said:
Seems to me there was a thread about this here before...unless I'm mistaken and actually saw it in another forum.

Anyway, there were two objections to this graphic and the article:

1. Rents vary in any location. It's entirely possible to secure housing at less than whatever amount the article comes up with. That kind of negates the stated hours required.

2. I haven't read this whole thread, but as Tigger says...minimum wage is not intended to be a living wage. For that reason, the article is disingenuous.

So it goes.
Click to expand...


The article uses average rent like any other comparisons...and less rent can be totally unacceptable living conditions.

If millions of americans work for min wage and its not supposed to be livable...what does that mean you work and cant live ?
 
lpast said:
The article uses average rent like any other comparisons...and less rent can be totally unacceptable living conditions.

If millions of americans work for min wage and its not supposed to be livable...what does that mean you work and cant live ?
Click to expand...

The economy is going through a major shift. People either have to adopt or they don't- in which case they become welfare cases. Without a safety net, they starve. But this has always happened. Human beings are not exempt from the natural course of life.
 
Evenstar said:
I fully agree with this post. And yet the greater issue, imo, is corruption within the current political system. If welfare is to be eliminated, or cut significantly, all welfare not excluding corporate bailouts and subsidies also need to be reversed. Rich people also receive welfare which is even more unjust. The government should exist only to keep law and order; not to maintain a standard of living for people.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree here. Many of the corporate subsidies and things we do I think are also problematic. I think a lot of these types of thing, both with the general public and with business, may even have a generalized good purpose but the METHOD in which they're persued actually run counter, or at least inefficient, towards that purpose.
 
Zyphlin said:
You're correct, he's not entitled to that. It doesn't change the fact that the repercussions he's speaking of are possibilities and would not just affect him but also those making the new minimum wage. Meaning, sure...they're getting more money. Their cost of living also has gone up, and the potential job opportunities have potential shrunk for them. We're not "entitled" to having a cheap goods and services, but that doesn't counter the argument he's making. Perhaps you should attempt to comprehend and understand my points before you parrot them in a way that they don't apply.
Click to expand...

I understand completely what your points are...you dont seem to want to accept I disagree with you. I also dont believe raising the minimum wage is going to diminish jobs...thats just excuse rhetoric used as filler to make an argument against it...anyone that NEEDS an employee to make money for them doesnt get rid of the job for 50cts an hour.
I employed dozens and dozens of employees over the years and my wife many many more...so please spare me the parroting of the anti minimum wage rhetoric I dont buy it and I lived it as an employer who always paid more than minimum wage and always made more money than any of close competitors. A few bucks more in wages can make you alot more money...not this ridiculous claim by the opponents of it that its going to somehow crash the minimum wage job market...nonesense.
 
Zyphlin said:
Oh, I agree here. Many of the corporate subsidies and things we do I think are also problematic. I think a lot of these types of thing, both with the general public and with business, may even have a generalized good purpose but the METHOD in which they're persued actually run counter, or at least inefficient, towards that purpose.
Click to expand...

I think people have the mentality that bad things aren't supposed to happen. But they are. And the government can't step in to prevent it without increasing in size exponentially. Nothing good comes from that.

Benjamin Franklin said it best: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

While I do believe that there's a place for charity, it is undeniable that government intervention, in any fashion, only creates a larger and more intrusive government. I prefer liberty, and I believe that people are more capable of providing for their own security than society is being led to believe.
 
lpast said:
The article uses average rent like any other comparisons...and less rent can be totally unacceptable living conditions.

If millions of americans work for min wage and its not supposed to be livable...what does that mean you work and cant live ?
Click to expand...

"...totally unacceptable living conditions."

Ummmm....yeah...if anything less than a two bedroom apartment for one person is considered unacceptable then that, alone, should invalidate that whole article.
 
lpast said:
I understand completely what your points are...you dont seem to want to accept I disagree with you. I also dont believe raising the minimum wage is going to diminish jobs...thats just excuse rhetoric used as filler to make an argument against it...anyone that NEEDS an employee to make money for them doesnt get rid of the job for 50cts an hour.
Click to expand...

First, your own arguments aren't making logical sense.

In one post you talk about a $12 minimum wage (and I believe even then you're suggesting it's not enough) That's a $3.75 increase, not a "50 ct" bump. Are you suggesting that $8.75 would be "livable"? Or are you just pulling an imaginary number out of thin air simply because it tries to make your point look better?

Second, please then explain to me how it is you don't bleieve that raising minimum wage is going to diminish jobs. How you can sit here and give stereotypical anti-corporation rants about the evil rich people not caring about anyone and shipping out jobs and then turn around and act like they'll all bite a large hike right in the ass makes no sense.

10 people making minimum wage, working a total of 40 hours a week, would be $3,300 in flat pay roll costs.

10 people making the number you stated earlier, $12, for that same time span would be $4,800.

That's a bit over a 45% increase in the cost of their payroll. Or roughly the equivilent of that person bringing on 4 1/2 new people in the old pay cycle.

Now...you're correct. If that persons business REQUIRES 10 people to actually run, he's probably going to keep them employed if he wants to run his business. Which means he'll either have to take the $1,500 a month hit out of his own pocket OR through other savings around the office. OR he could deem that the business would no longer be practically profitable and thus close it down, losing all those jobs. Or, he decides that he can cut a portion of the business out to reduce overhead and need less people for smaller hit to profitability.

Of course, this is assuming the business HAS to have those 10 and those 10 are all minimum wage workers. Lets say 7 of them are minimum wage, 2 make $16.50, and one (the manager) makes $33.

His pre-increase payroll cost is $4,950. His post-incrase payroll cost would be $6,000. A little over a 21% increase in payroll. Again, could potentially take that money out of profits or some other part of the business. Or, you succeeded in redistributing that from one employee to the next as they'd potentially lower the other employees pay. So you get those 7 making $12 now, but the two people with the higher level job...they're now at $12 as well. And the one high end guy drops to $15.75, nearly cutting his pay in half. That would take it to a neutral point revenue wise.

I employed dozens and dozens of employees over the years and my wife many many more...so please spare me the parroting of the anti minimum wage rhetoric I dont buy it and I lived it as an employer who always paid more than minimum wage and always made more money than any of close competitors. A few bucks more in wages can make you alot more money...not this ridiculous claim by the opponents of it that its going to somehow crash the minimum wage job market...nonesense.
Click to expand...

Well golly gee, your singular experience naturally makes you a greater expert on this than anyone else, regardless of their own experiences, and clearly anything people disagreeing with you state is just "anti-minimum wage rhetoric" (Note, perhaps you should comprehend what I right before slinging out insults considering I haven't once advocated against the minimum wage in this thread).

You're right, sometimes paying more to your employees generates greater revenues for yourself because you attract a higher caliber of employee that functions at a better level and improves your business as a whole in a way greater than you'd have by simply saving on payroll. But even with your own constant stereotyping of the evil rich business owners being greedy and purely seeking money, if that is the case then those people already WOULD be paying more for their employees. If all business owners now care about is profit, regardless if that means shipping jobs overseas or whatever else, then in a situation you describe they'd be giving their employees more money. Unless yo'ure at this point suggesting its not "greed" but now just outright disdain and hate for others motivating them and thus they pay less to SPITE their employees despite making less profit for themselves.

Your logic is ALL OVER the place and it's not surprising, because you're not actually arguing based on logic but based purely on emotion and platitudes. I don't have an issue that you disagree with me. There's many people that do, I fully get and understand that. My issue is your continual repeated attempts to demonize those that disagree with you as some kind of insult worthy individual, your misrepresentation of what people are actually suggesting, and your flippant dismissal of others points through the use of inconsistent arguments
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
My wife and I owned several business...Im not making this comment about you..I dont know you or anything about you...but I love how everyone that owned a business tells me how they busted their ass..and how I know many of them that are full of crap
Not everyone can own a business or start one...many arent smart enough or could never get the start money.
Just think if everyone was well off...who would clean the toilets and cut the grass and raise the richs kids while they play
Click to expand...
I'm not making this comment about you..I don't know you or anything about you...but I love how people would rather make excuses,complain,argue,rather than simply ask the question "how did someone like me go from making minimum wage ($2.30 in 1977) to owning his own businesses".

If someone isn't smart enough or can't get the start up money,that's just the way the "Game" is played.
Don't hate the Player,hate the Game.
All I can say is that I found a way to do it.
(and I'm no one special)
Too bad no one seems to interested in how I did it.

I volunteer (and give considerable amounts of money) at a program that teaches at risk teens the restaurant business.
So I have no problem reaching out to those who want to better themselves.
And I have no problem walking over those who rather wallow in self pity and make excuses to reach those who want to better themselves.
 
Catawba said:
Conditions have changed. There are 4 times as many people as there are jobs openings. Way more than that if you look at just the jobs openings that pay more than minimum wage. So, we either agree to a living wage, or taxpayers agree to pay more in welfare to those for whom there are no jobs or are paid substandard wages by employers.

Do you have another alternative?

Keep in mind also, there would be no better way of stimulating the economy than raising the minimum wage to a living wage.
Click to expand...

What would be the job ratio if we included the 7.7 million jobs held by illegals( figure was given for 2008)?

You apparently believe that there should be a basic level of standard of living. As Zyphlin pointed out, if it is comfortable at the bottom, the why move up and do more? I also believe in Zyphlin's hypothesis. Basic needs should be met, that is humane, but only when someone puts forth the effort to earn them. Minimum wage is just that, minimum to meet basic needs. Food, clothing and shelter.

People can get shelter, it may not be what someone likes or desires, but it is obtainable. Shelter is simply a living space where one can have some protection from the elements. If you think minimum wage earners in this country have it bad, let me relate to you something I once saw in Thailand, people lived in a series of large rooms and rented a space large enough for a sleeping mat and the "bathroom" was a walled off hole in the floor in one corner that had one faucet. However minimum, it did indeed meet the need of those people to have shelter. No one, not even welfare recipients or minimum wage earners in this country are forced to live at that basic of a level.

People can get food. People need to get minimum daily nutritional requirements not eat filet mignon every meal. Variety is a luxury, not a necessity. As a child, we often ate pinto bean and rice with vegetables on the side, why, because that is what we could afford.

Clothing can also be obtained. Clothes bought from Good Will and the Salvation Army meet basic needs just as well as designer fashions from popular trend stores. Fashion is a luxury. More than a few changes of clothes is a luxury. More than one pair of shoes is a luxury. Even if you don't go to GW or SA to buy clothes, I buy jeans at Walmart for around $10-$12 a pair, shirts for around the same. I don't know their prices for cheap jackets, socks, and underwear, but they probably have a cheap store brand. These items fill the need for clothing very affordably.

Anything above fulfilling these basic needs at the minimum level is luxuries. Welfare should only afford a person the means to meet these basic needs at the minimum sustainable level only. Minimum wage in this country not only allows the meeting of these basic needs but allows luxuries also. So many luxuries that in many places throughout the world, our standard of living for Minimum Wage and Welfare would be considered comfortable middle class.

Since minimum wage not only can meet the minimum level of meeting peoples needs and allows them luxuries, then it is already more than a living wage. When people on minimum wage can no longer afford the bare basic level of food clothing and shelter, then it should be raised. But we are no where near that base level.

A higher minimum wage or "living wage" is not the best way to stimulate the economy. Can you provide any evidence that it can even have any stimulating affect upon the economy? How are you going to stop the entire economy from adjusting to that raise? Do you think that those who control companies will just say "hey, you know, they are right and I will accept less money this year"?

The best way to stimulate the economy is to loosen credit. We saw that during the Clinton years, but what was the longterm affect of a credit based economy? CRASH. A credit based economy will always be unstable and will always eventually crash. If you want to stimulate and stabilize the economy for the longterm, you create an environment where the economy can flourish.

"The only thing known to mankind that is immortal is a government spending program." probably a paraphrase and I don't know who said it.
 
lpast said:
The article uses average rent like any other comparisons...and less rent can be totally unacceptable living conditions.

If millions of americans work for min wage and its not supposed to be livable...what does that mean you work and cant live ?
Click to expand...

The map you cited does not use average rent. It uses market rent. Market rent is significantly higher than the actual rent agreed upon during lease implementation in most cases. The "market rent" for my last apartment was $870/month. Our actual rent was $635. The apartment before that had a market rent price of $950. We paid $675. In fact, every apartment I've lived in, both in Texas and in Indiana, had a similar structure. The "market rent" was based upon some manufactured value, but was never applied to actual leases. It's all a gimmick used by property managers to make people feel good about the rent they actually pay. "Well, I pay $800, but the market price was $1150!".

Besides that, many people have shown how the "market rate" in the map is not representative of the actual options available. I can find 15 1-bedroom apartments near several job sources and public transit outposts that would be less than $450/month...and these apartments are relatively safe and in acceptable condition.
 
Zyphlin said:
Now...you're correct. If that persons business REQUIRES 10 people to actually run, he's probably going to keep them employed if he wants to run his business. Which means he'll either have to take the $1,500 a month hit out of his own pocket OR through other savings around the office. OR he could deem that the business would no longer be practically profitable and thus close it down, losing all those jobs. Or, he decides that he can cut a portion of the business out to reduce overhead and need less people for smaller hit to profitability.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying. However you left out the possibility of automation. Further automation may not be possible, but then again, the business owner may have been putting it off because of costs to acquire it and maintain it. That raise in payroll cost could possibly make that automation more affordable and attractive and cause the owner to adopt it, again costing jobs.

If Walmart suddenly found itself having to pay $12/hr for cashers, how many would they replace with automated self check out registers instead of maned registers? How many maned registers would they choose to keep open at a given time? They could choose to do away with the counters in jewelry, automotive, hardware and sporting goods, consolidating them into a singe register with tobacco that has to be maned anyways. If they cut those positions and converted 50% of existing registers to self check out, how many employees could walmart cut?
 
Mycroft said:
"...totally unacceptable living conditions."

Ummmm....yeah...if anything less than a two bedroom apartment for one person is considered unacceptable then that, alone, should invalidate that whole article.
Click to expand...

Thats not what I said but you will continue to make what I say into what you want it to be...no need to continue
 
longview said:
You could do it, but your entire frame of reference would have to change.
You would need to share an apartment or rent a room from someone.
You diet would be very limited. You would learn all about real economy.
No cell phone, no cable TV, can't afford to run the AC.
Sort of like life in the 50's!
You get excited if they open a day old bread store within walking distance.
People live among us who struggle with this every day, it is only a temporary station.
This is the beauty of the USA, we are not assigned to a place in life for life.
We can, through hard work, and commitment get promoted and get rises.

As a young man I lived this life, it is hard, but it makes you appreciate the little things.
Click to expand...
In 1985 I was living on $400 per month while living alone at my new job in AZ. The car was paid for, a 79 Volare. I paid rent, food, utilities, gasoline, car insurance. I was working 60 hours a week, making $1000 per week take-home pay, and saving $600 per week.....
Did that for 4 months.....
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
First, your own arguments aren't making logical sense.

In one post you talk about a $12 minimum wage (and I believe even then you're suggesting it's not enough) That's a $3.75 increase, not a "50 ct" bump. Are you suggesting that $8.75 would be "livable"? Or are you just pulling an imaginary number out of thin air simply because it tries to make your point look better?

Second, please then explain to me how it is you don't bleieve that raising minimum wage is going to diminish jobs. How you can sit here and give stereotypical anti-corporation rants about the evil rich people not caring about anyone and shipping out jobs and then turn around and act like they'll all bite a large hike right in the ass makes no sense.

10 people making minimum wage, working a total of 40 hours a week, would be $3,300 in flat pay roll costs.

10 people making the number you stated earlier, $12, for that same time span would be $4,800.

That's a bit over a 45% increase in the cost of their payroll. Or roughly the equivilent of that person bringing on 4 1/2 new people in the old pay cycle.

Now...you're correct. If that persons business REQUIRES 10 people to actually run, he's probably going to keep them employed if he wants to run his business. Which means he'll either have to take the $1,500 a month hit out of his own pocket OR through other savings around the office. OR he could deem that the business would no longer be practically profitable and thus close it down, losing all those jobs. Or, he decides that he can cut a portion of the business out to reduce overhead and need less people for smaller hit to profitability.

Of course, this is assuming the business HAS to have those 10 and those 10 are all minimum wage workers. Lets say 7 of them are minimum wage, 2 make $16.50, and one (the manager) makes $33.

His pre-increase payroll cost is $4,950. His post-incrase payroll cost would be $6,000. A little over a 21% increase in payroll. Again, could potentially take that money out of profits or some other part of the business. Or, you succeeded in redistributing that from one employee to the next as they'd potentially lower the other employees pay. So you get those 7 making $12 now, but the two people with the higher level job...they're now at $12 as well. And the one high end guy drops to $15.75, nearly cutting his pay in half. That would take it to a neutral point revenue wise.



Well golly gee, your singular experience naturally makes you a greater expert on this than anyone else, regardless of their own experiences, and clearly anything people disagreeing with you state is just "anti-minimum wage rhetoric" (Note, perhaps you should comprehend what I right before slinging out insults considering I haven't once advocated against the minimum wage in this thread).

You're right, sometimes paying more to your employees generates greater revenues for yourself because you attract a higher caliber of employee that functions at a better level and improves your business as a whole in a way greater than you'd have by simply saving on payroll. But even with your own constant stereotyping of the evil rich business owners being greedy and purely seeking money, if that is the case then those people already WOULD be paying more for their employees. If all business owners now care about is profit, regardless if that means shipping jobs overseas or whatever else, then in a situation you describe they'd be giving their employees more money. Unless yo'ure at this point suggesting its not "greed" but now just outright disdain and hate for others motivating them and thus they pay less to SPITE their employees despite making less profit for themselves.

Your logic is ALL OVER the place and it's not surprising, because you're not actually arguing based on logic but based purely on emotion and platitudes. I don't have an issue that you disagree with me. There's many people that do, I fully get and understand that. My issue is your continual repeated attempts to demonize those that disagree with you as some kind of insult worthy individual, your misrepresentation of what people are actually suggesting, and your flippant dismissal of others points through the use of inconsistent arguments
Click to expand...

Im not addressing all that sorry...I didnt have a singular experience, I had many over many years...have you ever owned a business if so what kind and how many employees have you had
 
Verthaine said:
I'm not making this comment about you..I don't know you or anything about you...but I love how people would rather make excuses,complain,argue,rather than simply ask the question "how did someone like me go from making minimum wage ($2.30 in 1977) to owning his own businesses".

If someone isn't smart enough or can't get the start up money,that's just the way the "Game" is played.
Don't hate the Player,hate the Game.
All I can say is that I found a way to do it.
(and I'm no one special)
Too bad no one seems to interested in how I did it.

I volunteer (and give considerable amounts of money) at a program that teaches at risk teens the restaurant business.
So I have no problem reaching out to those who want to better themselves.
And I have no problem walking over those who rather wallow in self pity and make excuses to reach those who want to better themselves.
Click to expand...

You did it the same way I did it and my wife...I owned several business' for many years and so has my wife...but umm not everyone is you and I and are in the same circumstances..
 
tessaesque said:
The map you cited does not use average rent. It uses market rent. Market rent is significantly higher than the actual rent agreed upon during lease implementation in most cases. The "market rent" for my last apartment was $870/month. Our actual rent was $635. The apartment before that had a market rent price of $950. We paid $675. In fact, every apartment I've lived in, both in Texas and in Indiana, had a similar structure. The "market rent" was based upon some manufactured value, but was never applied to actual leases. It's all a gimmick used by property managers to make people feel good about the rent they actually pay. "Well, I pay $800, but the market price was $1150!".

Besides that, many people have shown how the "market rate" in the map is not representative of the actual options available. I can find 15 1-bedroom apartments near several job sources and public transit outposts that would be less than $450/month...and these apartments are relatively safe and in acceptable condition.
Click to expand...

Ok Im trying to find another chart with actual rent...which you cant afford on minimum wage..Im not going to nor can anyone discuss every single small nuance of a subject that someone wants to use to make themselves right, its just impossible to do...like my trying to answer 26 posts in response to mine which im not nearly organized or smart enough to do lol...
 
lpast said:
Im not addressing all that sorry...I didnt have a singular experience, I had many over many years...have you ever owned a business if so what kind and how many employees have you had
Click to expand...

Its a singular experience in that it's YOUR experience. Your experience may be encompassing multiple instances, but its still only YOUR experience. It is not somehow more important or knowledgable than others who also have had experiences on this topic and is not some kind of trump card saying "I've experienced this so that's how it is all the time". It's great you paid your employees more and that you feel it generated you more profit and that you reached a point in your own profitability and chance to have luxuries that you deemed yourself "good enough" that you began to give back. But that doesn't mean your experienecs are the same as others are are directly correlating to all others.

I've assisted with running one of my father's business (a training school) for half a year while he was away, however largely my experience is from the experiences from my father (has ran three businesses. A gym, the training school I mentioned, and now a private security company) and my Grandfather (who ran a dress company for decades until cheap overseas labor basically made it impossible to remain in business) that they're related to me.

That said...please, continue to "not address" and just revert back to stereotypical hyper partisan rhetoric, blanket statements without anything backing it up, and inconsistent illogical waffling arguments rather than actually. I'd hate to let actual debate or discussion get in the way, so go right ahead and continue to not address it. For example, feel free not to address the issues in your logic regarding your feelings and views regarding the greed of corporations and business owners and the expectation that somehow if the minimum wage is raised to a "living wage" that such wouldn't result in potential negatives in terms of job numbers, job conditions, or other thing other than simply "profit" of the business owner. Or the logical issue with suggesting that business owners are motivated by greed and the desire to make money and that's why they're paying their people minimum wage but at hte same time that paying more than minimum wage makes one more profitable. Go ahead and "not address" those things.
 
Last edited:
Aderleth said:
1)
2) Visiting a city is not remotely the same as living in one. There're many, many things that I have at my fingertips all the time that you just don't.
Click to expand...

I agree it's not the same. I lived in Philadelphia for most of my life, thought it was great. Moved and couple years later Went back to visit Philly and it completely sucked. People who visit cities can see how much it sucks and be grateful they live in small towns.
 
tessaesque said:
The map you cited does not use average rent. It uses market rent. Market rent is significantly higher than the actual rent agreed upon during lease implementation in most cases. The "market rent" for my last apartment was $870/month. Our actual rent was $635. The apartment before that had a market rent price of $950. We paid $675. In fact, every apartment I've lived in, both in Texas and in Indiana, had a similar structure. The "market rent" was based upon some manufactured value, but was never applied to actual leases. It's all a gimmick used by property managers to make people feel good about the rent they actually pay. "Well, I pay $800, but the market price was $1150!".

Besides that, many people have shown how the "market rate" in the map is not representative of the actual options available. I can find 15 1-bedroom apartments near several job sources and public transit outposts that would be less than $450/month...and these apartments are relatively safe and in acceptable condition.
Click to expand...

Good points. Another factor in setting "actual rent" is the desire to get and keep good tenants, as the "make ready" costs, coupled with vacancy periods often create a false economy of establishing and maintaining the "maximum" possible market rate. My landlord has tenents that have remained in place for over a decade and care well for the structure and lot, in order to enjoy "below market" rental rates. If the landlord encounters a "bad tenant" they thus can simply up the rent to the "market" rate, effectively forcing the tenant to move "on their own". ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom