#OOR23 shows how difficult it is for renters to find affordable housing. Find out how much a renter must earn to afford a modest home at https://nlihc.org/oor
This site has these sorts of stats for each state.
I agree with the sentiment. There’s a large gap between minimum wage and housing. I don’t think anybody expects to afford an ultra luxurious three-story corner penthouse loft from working full time at Taco Bell, but I do think it’s reasonable to expect to be able to afford a simple, safe, one-bedroom in good repair.
I own so I’m completely out of touch with rent prices. I know what they were when I was renting 10+ years ago but things are a lot different now. I went on apartments.com to see if I could prove this study wrong.
TL/DR: I could, but … not really.
My criteria was: (1) under $1002 / month, (2) in a safe area, (3) with free parking, (4) within a 10-minute drive of at least two supermarkets, and (5) within a 20-minute drive of most of our metro area. I found multiple apartment complexes that met all those criteria, along with multiple independent rentals. All of the complexes were within the $900 - $1000 range. So … yes, technically I just proved the survey wrong. But that $100 savings doesn’t really exist.
First, you need a car to get from there to here. That’s non negotiable. Our mass transit here sucks and you’re either going to be two hours early or 15 minutes late, and that’s assuming you have a regular, consistent schedule to work with. So let’s assume you buy a sensible 10-year-old Civic / Corolla / whatever with 90k miles in immaculate condition. I found a few options nearby for $12k, and let’s assume you talk the dealer down another $2k, you have a $2500 downpayment, and there’s no tax because we’re in magical la-la land. Let’s also assume you got zero percent interest because it’s 2003 again for some reason. A 60-month loan would be $125, or an additional 4 hours a week.
Next, let’s talk groceries. Let’s say you are exceptionally frugal and can prepare nutritious, filling meals for yourself with only a $200 / month grocery spend. That’s an extra 7 hours of work per week.
Next, gotta put gas in that car. Your friend, who happens to a magical elf, magically conjures up gasoline just for you for the low, low price of $2 / gallon. Wow! Combined with your extremely thrifty vehicle (and your commute, which also just happens to be entirely on interstate at 40 MPG), you only go through 10 gallons of fuel a week. At $80 / month, that’s an extra 3 hours of work per week.
Don’t forget car insurance! Your driving record is spotless, your FICO score makes TransUnion weep like that statute of liberty from The Onion’s political cartoons, and your driving is angelic. Your full-coverage premium (because you don’t want to get hit with surprise bills) is only $75 per month. You pay in full to avoid fees, so that’s another two hours of work each week.
Did I mention car maintenance? You do all your own oil changes, filter changes, tire rotation, everything, because you’re a frugal bastard. I don’t even know what oil costs because I’m fortunate enough to be able to pay people to do that for me, so just for the sake of making things easy, let’s say one banana ten dollars per week. Heck, let’s just round that down an hour of work per week.
Oh and let’s make utilities super simple. That apartment includes water, sewer, trash, cable, and internet. You only have to pay electric and gas. And because it’s exceptionally well insulated and you’re very frugal with your electricity, your combined electric and gas bill is only $75 / month, averaged year round. That’s only two hours of work per week.
You use an MVNO to save a fortune, and your phone is only $20 / month. That’s a half hour of work per week.
And I know it’s exorbitant, but you have the audacity to want to go out once in a while. You splurge by getting the dollar menu at McDonald’s (which doesn’t exist anymore BTW) so you budget an extra $30 / month on “fun money”. That’s an extra hour a week.
So with those extremely unrealistic and lowball numbers, you’re looking at an additional 20-ish hours of work each week. To afford that barebones and frankly impossible lifestyle, you’re looking at working 125 hours a week. That’s 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, with no downtime ever. And again, I’m using impossibly low numbers here and making a lot of assumptions that will never happen.
That’s before taxes. That assumes you never get sick. You never splurge on luxuries like “plates” or “clothing”. Your car lasts forever. You’re never a victim of crime. Your rent never increases. Inflation never happens. And you never take time to go on interviews for a better paying job.
So yeah, I technically proved the study wrong, but not in any remotely good way.
It’s late, so I could be making dumb mistakes here, but I think the numbers are at least loosely factoring in those sort of expenses. It’s not 100 hours/week just to cover rent, it’s 100 hours/week to actually maybe afford that rent.
$7.25/hour x 40 hours/week x 4 weeks/month = $1160/month gross income
Assuming a maximum of 1/3 of gross income goes to housing, that’s $383/month available for rent. The site calculates $377/month as “affordable rent” for the minimum wage worker, so for the sake of the argument, I think my calculations are close enough.
So, that means for every hour worked, about $2.39 is going towards rent ($7.25x0.33).
$2.39/hour x 106 hours/week x 4 weeks/month = $1013, which is just over their “1-Bedroom Fair Market Rent” rate of $1002/month.
You did not prove the study wrong. The study looked at average rents across the state. Finding a cheap apartment in Lewisburg is not the same as finding something in Lower Merion.
Yes, you started and ended by saying you have technically proven the study wrong. In the middle, you pulled some sample numbers from various sources and agreed with the general premise that the cost of living is too damn high. But then you went back to claiming to have technically disproven the study. Which you didn’t, not in any sense.
I agree with the sentiment. There’s a large gap between minimum wage and housing. I don’t think anybody expects to afford an ultra luxurious three-story corner penthouse loft from working full time at Taco Bell, but I do think it’s reasonable to expect to be able to afford a simple, safe, one-bedroom in good repair.
I own so I’m completely out of touch with rent prices. I know what they were when I was renting 10+ years ago but things are a lot different now. I went on apartments.com to see if I could prove this study wrong.
TL/DR: I could, but … not really.
My criteria was: (1) under $1002 / month, (2) in a safe area, (3) with free parking, (4) within a 10-minute drive of at least two supermarkets, and (5) within a 20-minute drive of most of our metro area. I found multiple apartment complexes that met all those criteria, along with multiple independent rentals. All of the complexes were within the $900 - $1000 range. So … yes, technically I just proved the survey wrong. But that $100 savings doesn’t really exist.
First, you need a car to get from there to here. That’s non negotiable. Our mass transit here sucks and you’re either going to be two hours early or 15 minutes late, and that’s assuming you have a regular, consistent schedule to work with. So let’s assume you buy a sensible 10-year-old Civic / Corolla / whatever with 90k miles in immaculate condition. I found a few options nearby for $12k, and let’s assume you talk the dealer down another $2k, you have a $2500 downpayment, and there’s no tax because we’re in magical la-la land. Let’s also assume you got zero percent interest because it’s 2003 again for some reason. A 60-month loan would be $125, or an additional 4 hours a week.
Next, let’s talk groceries. Let’s say you are exceptionally frugal and can prepare nutritious, filling meals for yourself with only a $200 / month grocery spend. That’s an extra 7 hours of work per week.
Next, gotta put gas in that car. Your friend, who happens to a magical elf, magically conjures up gasoline just for you for the low, low price of $2 / gallon. Wow! Combined with your extremely thrifty vehicle (and your commute, which also just happens to be entirely on interstate at 40 MPG), you only go through 10 gallons of fuel a week. At $80 / month, that’s an extra 3 hours of work per week.
Don’t forget car insurance! Your driving record is spotless, your FICO score makes TransUnion weep like that statute of liberty from The Onion’s political cartoons, and your driving is angelic. Your full-coverage premium (because you don’t want to get hit with surprise bills) is only $75 per month. You pay in full to avoid fees, so that’s another two hours of work each week.
Did I mention car maintenance? You do all your own oil changes, filter changes, tire rotation, everything, because you’re a frugal bastard. I don’t even know what oil costs because I’m fortunate enough to be able to pay people to do that for me, so just for the sake of making things easy, let’s say
one bananaten dollars per week. Heck, let’s just round that down an hour of work per week.Oh and let’s make utilities super simple. That apartment includes water, sewer, trash, cable, and internet. You only have to pay electric and gas. And because it’s exceptionally well insulated and you’re very frugal with your electricity, your combined electric and gas bill is only $75 / month, averaged year round. That’s only two hours of work per week.
You use an MVNO to save a fortune, and your phone is only $20 / month. That’s a half hour of work per week.
And I know it’s exorbitant, but you have the audacity to want to go out once in a while. You splurge by getting the dollar menu at McDonald’s (which doesn’t exist anymore BTW) so you budget an extra $30 / month on “fun money”. That’s an extra hour a week.
So with those extremely unrealistic and lowball numbers, you’re looking at an additional 20-ish hours of work each week. To afford that barebones and frankly impossible lifestyle, you’re looking at working 125 hours a week. That’s 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, with no downtime ever. And again, I’m using impossibly low numbers here and making a lot of assumptions that will never happen.
That’s before taxes. That assumes you never get sick. You never splurge on luxuries like “plates” or “clothing”. Your car lasts forever. You’re never a victim of crime. Your rent never increases. Inflation never happens. And you never take time to go on interviews for a better paying job.
So yeah, I technically proved the study wrong, but not in any remotely good way.
It’s late, so I could be making dumb mistakes here, but I think the numbers are at least loosely factoring in those sort of expenses. It’s not 100 hours/week just to cover rent, it’s 100 hours/week to actually maybe afford that rent.
$7.25/hour x 40 hours/week x 4 weeks/month = $1160/month gross income
Assuming a maximum of 1/3 of gross income goes to housing, that’s $383/month available for rent. The site calculates $377/month as “affordable rent” for the minimum wage worker, so for the sake of the argument, I think my calculations are close enough.
So, that means for every hour worked, about $2.39 is going towards rent ($7.25x0.33).
$2.39/hour x 106 hours/week x 4 weeks/month = $1013, which is just over their “1-Bedroom Fair Market Rent” rate of $1002/month.
Pretty sure they are using 56/12=4.667 weeks per month and 0.3 ratio instead of a third, that makes the numbers line up for me
Yeah, my numbers were definitely very round, but if we are trying to get more exact, aren’t there only 52 weeks per year, so 4.33 weeks per month?
Typo, 52 is what I meant. Good catch!
You did not prove the study wrong. The study looked at average rents across the state. Finding a cheap apartment in Lewisburg is not the same as finding something in Lower Merion.
Did you actually read my reply?
Yes, you started and ended by saying you have technically proven the study wrong. In the middle, you pulled some sample numbers from various sources and agreed with the general premise that the cost of living is too damn high. But then you went back to claiming to have technically disproven the study. Which you didn’t, not in any sense.
I did, in fact disprove the study. I found an apartment for under the claimed amount. I then went on to explain exactly why that doesn’t matter.
Context is king.
Right, that doesn’t disprove the study, though.
deleted by creator
On average. You demonstrated it is possible somewhere in Pennsylvania. That’s not even close to the same thing.