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.
Purchasing homes in coastal hub cities costs a lot because of people, not governments. "California" as a state has reasonable cost of living until you factor in the mega city trade hubs. You have competition from corporations, incredibly wealthy individuals, regular wealthy individuals, foreign interests, individuals from other countries looking to be close to a hub, so on and so forth. This, paired with investing in housing being a safe way to invest money out of China means that everyone and their dog wants to pay a fucktonne of money for a house in Vancouver or San Francisco.
This being the case, paired with the fact that cities need to have a certain level of density to function properly, leads to a problem with your stated solutionQuote
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.
Where are these facilities being built? 4.5 hours out of the city center? Because that already exists in spades in every large city in the world, and doesn't work because there aren't any jobs out there. Are there mythical places in the center of the city where a new highrise could be built, but aren't for some stupid reason? Probably not! City infrastructure is delicate, and putting the load of a hundred highrises near the city core would cripple the power grid, strain any water systems and absolutely DEMOLISH any semblance of livable traffic. There's a reason people get PHD's for urban planning.
Also, how is thisQuote
Otherwise she will require governmnet assistance, and that means us, the taxpayers, end up paying her bills.
Different from thisQuote
building subsidized housing for those who need it.
/REEE over. TLDR: Cities are expensive because people have agency, this is a complex problem
- Show next comments 3 more