Single Status Update
I'm sure some of you have seen this:
Let's make fun of everything here, because it's ridiculus from all sides:
To the CEO: If we assuming you are paying a resident in California, it is your job as an Employer to pay your Employees a Salary that they personally can afford to pay their bills based on the local cost of living. Otherwise she will require governmnet assistance, and that means us, the taxpayers, end up paying her bills. This pay scale will change wildly depending on where you live. If this single Mother lived for Example in Marion, Illinois this salary would actually be just fine (by my math she would have surplus of $1100 every month). But she lives in California where cost of living is just completely stupid. As such, he needs to make up the slack.
Now does the CEO not want to pay his employees a living wage? Not a problem. Just hire high School students, or college students, or young single people with no dependents who will work part-time. To them, a $16.50 an hour salary would be just fine, and could be used to pay off their student loans or their personal rent. To a college student of high School Student, $16.50 an hour would be a great way to reduce their debt load. Now as an employer you take two risks hiring younger people: they aren't always reliable, they need training, and after you train them, they can be stolen by competitors. But if you want to go cheap, this is the only good way I could see of doing it.
You have, for some reason, completely ignored that Patricia can actually do something about this set of circumstances she is in. She isn't just stuck there, and she can climb her way out, as many immigrants and Americans have. She can move to a state with no income taxes and this saves her about $220 a year. She can move to a state where living costs are afforable like pretty much anywhere in the Midset or the south. This saves her $900 a month on rent. She can go with a cheaper cell phone plan to save $30 a month (Unreal Mobile has $10 a month cell phone plans). She can ditch the car and take a bus or ride a bike (riding a bike is a strategy the Mr Money Mustache writers personally use), and this saves her $350+ a month. Also, the $400 a month quoted food budget is for a family of four, not just two people. When I was a college student at UofM and did my own cooking, I only spend $100, yes $100, a month on food. I did it by clipping coupons, only buying duing sales, and eating lot's of fruits and vegetables. That saves her an additional $200 a month. Now our friend Patricia has a surplus of $913 a month in this example. Even If Patricia just moves out of the state and does nothing else, she will still have a surplus of $333 a month because of lower rent costs.
WTF is wrong with your state? A big part of the Reason Patricia can't afford her living expenses is because she's blowing all her money on rent. A One bedroom apartment here in The midwest can be found for between $400-700 a month. There's not reason it should cost $1600 a month for the same space, in the same country. This is a failue on government for not loosening zoning regulations to allow for more housing, or building subsidized housing for those who need it. This is a failue of government, not a failue of business.
- Show previous comments 1 more
Then how would you, @Damascus, propose in solving such a housing problem? Because to me, the housing crisis seems like a problem of economics 101. The demand for housing is too high, and supply is too small. Therefore we must increase supply to fufill demand, and prices will decrease. Decreasing demand also has a negative function on price level. Government housing is only a one soloution, even if is a very poor soloution.
Here in Michigan, there are new apartment complexes and factories being developed everywhere near our hometown, and rent has remained the same. It seems to me free markets are keeping housing prices at appropriate levels.Quote
Are there mythical places in the center of the city where a new highrise could be built, but aren't for some stupid reason?
Mow that you mention it, yes actually. Here is an example straight from San Francisco:
As much as I liked visiting Vancouver, I could never in a million years live there. I prefer places where the cost of living is properly adjusted towards what people can actually afford, unlike the coastal cities where the chinese artifically pump up the price of real estate to totally artifically high levels. When china's real estate market does eventually crater, you can bet Vancouver's and san francisco's will too.
At this point, I'm too tired to enunciate properly. The long and short of it is that there are plenty of houses already, and the supply will never keep up with the demand as long as North America and Asia are trading partnersQuote
Here in Michigan, there are new apartment complexes and factories being developed everywhere near our hometown, and rent has remained the same. It seems to me free markets are keeping housing prices at appropriate levels.
Irrelevant. It is impossible to compare any town or city in Michigan to a city of 900,000 sitting on 121.4 km2 (San Fran again) ie. 6,632 people per km2, or 6.6 people per meter.
This is a level of density that the human mind has a difficult time comprehending, and while I haven't touched on (/watched) the video, unless they are preparing efficient, well placed homes for tens of thousands, it is essentially meaningless PR and one step away from propaganda.Quote
Then how would you, @Damascus, propose in solving such a housing problem?
The only honest, genuine solution to overcrowded cities is to say fuck it, and leave. No city in NA was built with the current population trends in mind, and as such they are all finicky, basically broken rube-goldberg machines that are one good push away from collapse. Most cities didn't even have sewage systems for a third of their existence, let alone one tenth of what we expect from them in this era.
We now basically get to choose - planned human sprawl or unplanned human sprawl? Eventually, something will crack.