Jump to content

Menu

Do you think a lot would change if jobs paid a living wage?


Ottakee
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

I don't know the answer but I'm not too positive that living wage is the right focus.  Maybe the gov should do cost analysis on companies and how many of their workers get welfare/gov assistance/student loans etc and make those companies pay better if the percentage is out of whack.  

 

How would this work?  It would be much better for me to own an engineering company than a home nursing service, janitorial service, or burger bar.  Not because I was a better employer, but because I was in a different industry with a different type of worker input.  If I did hire lower-skilled workers, I would make sure that I hired the teenager from the wealthy neighborhood, not the single mother on government assistance so that I wasn't penalized.  Is that the incentive we really want to give? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is precisely why socialism did not work: human nature.

The communists tried to "educate" and mold humans to create the "communist human" who is altruistic, devoid of greed and envy, voluntarily hard working for the greater good, without a direct personal incentive. It failed spectacularly, because they did not take into account human nature.

 

I wouldn't disagree with you (as I noted in my post, I'm not promoting socialism or communism).

 

But I would point out that one of the main factors in communism and socialism gaining footholds in mass swaths of the population in previous times is the existence of huge inequalities in income and wealth. 

 

A lesson the U.S. is currently ignoring or arguing away by way of ideology.

Edited by Happy2BaMom
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people can live off one salary it's ok if there are not as many jobs.

 

Then how would you propose to ration those jobs?  What would ensure that the fewer jobs got allocated as one across each family instead of having some families with two jobs and other families with none?  Or, what would ensure that a single person got on of those scarce jobs? 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then how would you propose to ration those jobs?  What would ensure that the fewer jobs got allocated as one across each family instead of having some families with two jobs and other families with none?  Or, what would ensure that a single person got on of those scarce jobs? 

 

We've been there before in the past, when women were only allowed to work in very limited jobs, and got fired upon marriage. Because, jobs are for men, and a woman's place is in the kitchen. Thanks, not going back there.

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is precisely why socialism did not work: human nature.

The communists tried to "educate" and mold humans to create the "communist human" who is altruistic, devoid of greed and envy, voluntarily hard working for the greater good, without a direct personal incentive. It failed spectacularly, because they did not take into account human nature.

This is what I told my history teacher in 8th grade in France when he was singing the praises of communism. It's a wonderful ideal but goes against human nature.

 

He looked at me like I had two heads; arguing with a teacher just was not done in French schools.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if folks this discussion have actually thought out these ideas or whether this is just a sounding board for thinking out loud?

 

"Jobs" are not a fixed element bestowed upon people, they are opportunities created by people just like you. The great thing about America.. If you want people in your community to have jobs you can start a business and hire them. Sounds kind of hard? It is. And that is why those who succeed and run those businesses are well compensated. The motivation for that compensation is what drives people to create those businesses that offer those jobs that everyone is crazy about getting.

 

And when people start raging against companies moving over seas? We are all humans on this one earth together. "People over there" don't deserve work and income as much as your neighbors? Those lower cost products let people live a higher quality of life on lower income.

 

Global wealth is not a zero sum game and it's not locked in a tower by some greedy old men.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people can live off one salary it's ok if there are not as many jobs.

Doesn't this assume zero population growth? As more people are born, more jobs are needed. Even if we assume that only half of those born will choose to work, there will still need to be job growth.

 

Doesn't it also assume that people will become part of a couple? What about those who choose to remain single or just can't find a mate/partner?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't this assume zero population growth? As more people are born, more jobs are needed. Even if we assume that only half of those born will choose to work, there will still need to be job growth.

 

Doesn't it also assume that people will become part of a couple? What about those who choose to remain single or just can't find a mate/partner?

I meant if a person currently working two jobs can afford to just work one due to a better wage. Nothing to do with couples.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global wealth is not a zero sum game and it's not locked in a tower by some greedy old men.

Actually, it kinda is.

 

http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/

 

Aside from that, I have no issue with jobs in other countries unless itĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s to promote substandard business practices exactly because I think people in those other countries also deserve universal healthcare and a living wage. My disgust with shipping jobs to other countries is not in the fact that it isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t here, itĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s that they do it to have unethical practices that we would not stomach in our country.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it kinda is.

 

http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/

 

Aside from that, I have no issue with jobs in other countries unless itĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s to promote substandard business practices exactly because I think people in those other countries also deserve universal healthcare and a living wage. My disgust with shipping jobs to other countries is not in the fact that it isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t here, itĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s that they do it to have unethical practices that we would not stomach in our country.

No it is not. Here is a Forbes article:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/

but you should really get a basic high school level economics text book to understand where wealth and profit come from (and what the differences are). Arnold Kling Specialization and Trade is great, also Modern Principles by Tabarokk and Cowen for a real text book.

 

When you say that everyone deserves __blank__, I think you are really saying that since a high level of certain things exist somewhere in the world, everyone should have those same thing. This is akin to trying to make the world a fair place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it is not. Here is a Forbes article:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/

but you should really get a basic high school level economics text book to understand where wealth and profit come from (and what the differences are). Arnold Kling Specialization and Trade is great, also Modern Principles by Tabarokk and Cowen for a real text book.

 

When you say that everyone deserves __blank__, I think you are really saying that since a high level of certain things exist somewhere in the world, everyone should have those same thing. This is akin to trying to make the world a fair place.

No crap? I want to make the world better? More fair?

 

Why yes, I sure do. Unapologetically.

 

None of this is new or impossible. Catholics have been pushing for healthcare and living wages for centuries. It does not mean the same thing for everyone. It means a minimum standard of humanity being maintained in a just society. It means creating genuine opportunity for more people instead of the constant two prong strategy of telling people to pull up by the bootstraps of boots they don't have and, when called on that lack, telling them to just learn to be grateful their betters do so much already.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it is not. Here is a Forbes article:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/

but you should really get a basic high school level economics text book to understand where wealth and profit come from (and what the differences are). Arnold Kling Specialization and Trade is great, also Modern Principles by Tabarokk and Cowen for a real text book.

 

When you say that everyone deserves __blank__, I think you are really saying that since a high level of certain things exist somewhere in the world, everyone should have those same thing. This is akin to trying to make the world a fair place.

Hi, it's completely unnecessary for you to condescend to make your point to a long-time poster here who you presumably don't know from Adam.

 

" you should really get a basic high school level economics text book to understand where wealth and profit come from (and what the differences are"

 

It might be worth considering that other people know the same things as you, or different things, and just disagree with you for perfectly valid reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, it's completely unnecessary for you to condescend to make your point to a long-time poster here who you presumably don't know from Adam.

 

" you should really get a basic high school level economics text book to understand where wealth and profit come from (and what the differences are"

 

It might be worth considering that other people know the same things as you, or different things, and just disagree with you for perfectly valid reasons.

Thank you. I couldn't think of a polite response. Tho I typed and deleted many an impolite one. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, it's completely unnecessary for you to condescend to make your point to a long-time poster here who you presumably don't know from Adam.

 

" you should really get a basic high school level economics text book to understand where wealth and profit come from (and what the differences are"

 

It might be worth considering that other people know the same things as you, or different things, and just disagree with you for perfectly valid reasons.

Sorry I didn't know long term poster was criteria for exemption from disagreement.

Should I have suggested a college level book instead?

 

I can be more polite by suggesting that *anyone* who thinks that wealth is a finite resource should go out and read a book or three on economics, the two I recommended being pretty great, because clearly you (general) are lacking basic understanding.

 

It's totally fine to disagree when we do all know the same things and are coming at them from different values and world views. Happens all the time and I'm totally cool with that. But arguments that more or less stem from the idea that "if only we could make those people give up their money, we could buy cancer treatment, college education and a puppy for all the poor people" are really not sound economics discussions. I personally think this idea is really unhealthy for society in general and should be solved through education. I'll start with my own kids but I hope one day to be able to provide this education to others as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't know long term poster was criteria for exemption from disagreement.

Should I have suggested a college level book instead?

 

I can be more polite by suggesting that *anyone* who thinks that wealth is a finite resource should go out and read a book or three on economics, the two I recommended being pretty great, because clearly you (general) are lacking basic understanding.

 

It's totally fine to disagree when we do all know the same things and are coming at them from different values and world views. Happens all the time and I'm totally cool with that. But arguments that more or less stem from the idea that "if only we could make those people give up their money, we could buy cancer treatment, college education and a puppy for all the poor people" are really not sound economics discussions. I personally think this idea is really unhealthy for society in general and should be solved through education. I'll start with my own kids but I hope one day to be able to provide this education to others as well.

 

With an attitude like that, good luck. 

 

Please point to the place where someone stated "if only we could make those people give up all their money.....a puppy for all the poor people." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it kinda is.

 

http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/

 

Aside from that, I have no issue with jobs in other countries unless itĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s to promote substandard business practices exactly because I think people in those other countries also deserve universal healthcare and a living wage. My disgust with shipping jobs to other countries is not in the fact that it isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t here, itĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s that they do it to have unethical practices that we would not stomach in our country.

I am not seeing how you conclude from this article that wealth creation is a zero sum game.  This article is about income distribution, but that can widen as everyone becomes more wealthy.  Say we both have an income of $100 in the first year.  Then I create a machine which allows me to earn an income of $2000 the next year and hire you so that your income increases to $500.  We now both have an increase in income (and can have more wealth) although the income distribution has widened greatly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think they would. Why? Think about the reason they went into the field in the first place. Did they pursue the education and accrue the debt in order to make a certain amount of money *more than others* OR in order to make a certain amount of money or because of interest/passion?

 

If the field still makes a fair wage based on what the workers put into it, then the fact that other groups of people make more than they did before doesn't change what your dh, for example, is making. He is not making less. He is still being fairly compensated.

 

I don't think most of us choose our profession based on how much we make in comparison to others. We may choose it based on how much we make, but whether or not others make a fair wage usually doesn't factor into our decision. IMO of course.

People may not chose their profession based upon how much they will make in comparison to other people, but they do make their decision based, in part, on how much they will make in that profession relative to how much they would be able to make in another profession.  Thus, a significant different wage structure would impact choices and decisions workers make.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People may not chose their profession based upon how much they will make in comparison to other people, but they do make their decision based, in part, on how much they will make in that profession relative to how much they would be able to make in another profession. Thus, a significant different wage structure would impact choices and decisions workers make.

Absolutely. Would I have spent all of those years in college working my butt off to earn degrees in my field if I could have gone out and got another job for similar pay? Heck no. It comes down to level of responsibility. One takes a great risk to work in science, medicine, counseling, etc. It is a huge level of responsibility. Those wages are usually salaried and while it seems like so much money ask white collar professionals how many hours they work each week? If you figure an hourly wage from salaries based on both hours spent in office and at home on work coupled with higher stress and responsibility it is not great. My DH works 60+ hours per week. He tends to pull 10 hour days and often has to go in on weekends and then brings work home constantly. There is always pressure of grant writing, publishing the next journal article, getting scooped and so forth. Massive amounts of stress.

 

Now with a push for higher wages if someone else could potentially work as a barista and get a comparable hourly wage that seems odd. I wouldn't have bothered going to college and neither would DH. I chose my job because it made substantially more and I was interested in it. I could have begun my job earlier in my life, had no college debt with less stress and responsibility and more time at home. Where is the incentive to actually do these other jobs if the wage gap shrinks? I would love to say people want to do a job they love so they will go to college anyway but if it isn't happening now why would it happen then?

 

I don't know. Idealism looks pretty on paper but we have alot of examples throughout history of this going quite bad.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A business taking on apprentices is providing them with an education. The business should not be required to pay minimum wage, because the apprentice is not yet a useful employee.  

There is already provision for a lower minimum wage for apprentices. This could be continued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider.  Compare the older and newer housing in your area.   By older, I mean pre-1950's and newer I mean after 2000.   There is no comparison in the amount of space and luxury.   There is house next to ours that was probably built in the 1900's and moved here in the mid-1950's.   About 1000 sq. ft.   It is used as a storage shed.   A shed!   Not that we are complaining, a shed is an excellent neighbor.   The new houses being built are 200K+ in a low COL area.   Huge houses.    But, in general, any town with a mix of old houses and new houses, the old houses will be much smaller with fewer bathrooms and garage spaces.   I think that the definition of what a living wage should buy has changed.  For example, in seems that instead of one car per family.   It is now one car per adult.  Families spending more than $100/month on TV and also cell phones.  

 

I'm not knocking the desire for a large house with lots of stuff on it, and a car per person, and access to the Game of Thrones as they come out.  But, it isn't required that a living wage support these things.  

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has even slightly suggested everyone get any of the ridiculous things being claimed by some in this thread. Not one person has argued everyone should have the same pay, puppies, large houses full of stuff and cars.

 

Saying everyone should have a basic minimum living wage and UHC because we as a society deem it basic and minimum is not saying any of those things. To suggest it does is utter rot nonsense and being purposely obtuse.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider. Compare the older and newer housing in your area. By older, I mean pre-1950's and newer I mean after 2000. There is no comparison in the amount of space and luxury. There is house next to ours that was probably built in the 1900's and moved here in the mid-1950's. About 1000 sq. ft. It is used as a storage shed. A shed! Not that we are complaining, a shed is an excellent neighbor. The new houses being built are 200K+ in a low COL area. Huge houses. But, in general, any town with a mix of old houses and new houses, the old houses will be much smaller with fewer bathrooms and garage spaces. I think that the definition of what a living wage should buy has changed. For example, in seems that instead of one car per family. It is now one car per adult. Families spending more than $100/month on TV and also cell phones.

 

I'm not knocking the desire for a large house with lots of stuff on it, and a car per person, and access to the Game of Thrones as they come out. But, it isn't required that a living wage support these things.

The older homes in my area are huge compared to the newer ones. If you want a large home here, look pre1985 build. Some of the most expensive areas of town are full of homes built pre1950.

 

Tiny homes are trendy for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The older homes in my area are huge compared to the newer ones. If you want a large home here, look pre1985 build. Some of the most expensive areas of town are full of homes built pre1950.

 

Tiny homes are trendy for a reason.

 

This doesn't take a lot of research:

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+house+size+1950&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS758US758&oq=average+house+size+1950&aqs=chrome..69i57.3848j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

House sizes have more than doubled since 1950, while family sizes have lost about 25% (8/10 of a person).

 

The second statistic was more surprising than the first, to me - I thought household sizes were significantly larger in the 50s. (Granted, I thought that about today's households, too).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't take a lot of research:

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+house+size+1950&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS758US758&oq=average+house+size+1950&aqs=chrome..69i57.3848j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

House sizes have more than doubled since 1950, while family sizes have lost about 25% (8/10 of a person).

 

The second statistic was more surprising than the first, to me - I thought household sizes were significantly larger in the 50s. (Granted, I thought that about today's households, too).

Not really bc average doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter much to me. Median gives a more accurate picture. Even so, much of the nation is currently in a housing crunch. And poor people arenĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t the ones buying new construction housing.

 

The problem of wealthier people buying newly constructed more house than they need or even their grandma needed does not do much to address the problems of poor people wrt to living wages, healthcare or affordable housing.

 

So if your point is that wealthier people are building/buying larger houses than they likely need - okay. Sounds about right.

 

But if your point is that the problem with poor people is they have expectations beyond their proper station in life and just need to live in a smaller houses than most of them already do - thatĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s just BS. And even if it were true, which it isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t, poor people donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t build new construction and have almost zero say in its development. A development that often prices them out of neighborhoods their grandma could afford to live in back in the day.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really bc average doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter much to me. Median gives a more accurate picture. Even so, much of the nation is currently in a housing crunch. And poor people arenĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t the ones buying new construction housing.

 

The problem of wealthier people buying newly constructed more house than they need or even their grandma needed does not do much to address the problems of poor people wrt to living wages, healthcare or affordable housing.

 

So if your point is that wealthier people are building/buying larger houses than they likely need - okay. Sounds about right.

 

But if your point is that the problem with poor people is they have expectations beyond their proper station in life and just need to live in a smaller houses than most of them already do - thatĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s just BS. And even if it were true, which it isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t, poor people donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t build new construction and have almost zero say in its development. A development that often prices them out of neighborhoods their grandma could afford to live in back in the day.

This has happened with the median, as well as the mean, and has been well documented by Nobel Laureate Robert Shiller in his work on the housing market.  It is not simply the fact that the wealthier are buying more house than they need.  What is considered "minimum" has changed a great deal.  My maternal grandparents lived in a one bedroom apartment (which shared one bath with another family) until my mom was in third grade.  Then they moved to a house with two bedrooms and one bath--no microwave, no washing machine, now dryer, no dishwasher, no garbage disposal, no AC (south Louisiana).  I think most of us would agree that if we saw two parents raising one child living in a one bedroom apartment with a shared bath today we would say that they were living in poverty--my grandfather had a good job with the railroad and my grandmother did some part-time work.  They were considered middle class.

 

My paternal grandfather worked at the turpentine plant and the family "gardened"--what would be considered a small farm today.  They raised six children in a two bedroom house--and it wasn't until after the youngest was starting school that they had indoor plumbing or electricity.  If we saw a family living in south Louisiana today without electricity--or even electric fans--I doubt we would think that was minimum living standards.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really bc average doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter much to me. Median gives a more accurate picture. Even so, much of the nation is currently in a housing crunch. And poor people arenĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t the ones buying new construction housing.

 

The problem of wealthier people buying newly constructed more house than they need or even their grandma needed does not do much to address the problems of poor people wrt to living wages, healthcare or affordable housing.

 

So if your point is that wealthier people are building/buying larger houses than they likely need - okay. Sounds about right.

 

But if your point is that the problem with poor people is they have expectations beyond their proper station in life and just need to live in a smaller houses than most of them already do - thatĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s just BS. And even if it were true, which it isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t, poor people donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t build new construction and have almost zero say in its development. A development that often prices them out of neighborhoods their grandma could afford to live in back in the day.

It's more that middle class housing development is increasing in cost and square footage, compared to existing homes, and usually with shoddy workmanship to boot.

 

For example, I own a 4 bed/3 bath house build in the late 70s, about 1400sf. Houses in my subdivision with this model sell for about $160K move in ready. There are also 2-3bed models, from 975-1200sf, that sell for $95-135K. Unless they need a ton of work, most houses here go under contract a day or two after listing. These used to be the houses middle-class families bought when the kids were older, and sold after retirement. Now they are just starter houses (we bought with the intention of never moving, lol).

 

New construction is ALL 3+ bedroom, ALL 2000+sf, and all over $250K for the cheapest base model.

 

We don't have old, old houses around here. Except a couple dilapidated outhouses on farm properties.

 

To add to the problem in our area, most upper-priced, but still middle class homes are inhabited by contractors and tradespeople, who can get materials at lower cost and put in a ton of sweat equity. So you end up with heavily improved homes with higher end finishes as the "new normal" for the after-starter homes, which are far more expensive than the older, starter homes. And those are rare, driving up those home prices.

 

I do think the middle class aims a bit too high with what they have to work with, which is an indictment on consumerist culture and constantly changing technology, not families that are struggling to make ends meet. It drives me crazy to find a recipe online that says, "Put ingredients in the bowl of a stand mixer," because I've never owned one. I grew up with the idea that KitchenAid mixers were decorations for rich people's kitchens. Everyone else used hand mixers or just stirred with an old spoon. They're fairly normalized in middle class homes now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has happened with the median, as well as the mean, and has been well documented by Nobel Laureate Robert Shiller in his work on the housing market.  It is not simply the fact that the wealthier are buying more house than they need.  What is considered "minimum" has changed a great deal.  My maternal grandparents lived in a one bedroom apartment (which shared one bath with another family) until my mom was in third grade.  Then they moved to a house with two bedrooms and one bath--no microwave, no washing machine, now dryer, no dishwasher, no garbage disposal, no AC (south Louisiana).  I think most of us would agree that if we saw two parents raising one child living in a one bedroom apartment with a shared bath today we would say that they were living in poverty--my grandfather had a good job with the railroad and my grandmother did some part-time work.  They were considered middle class.

 

My paternal grandfather worked at the turpentine plant and the family "gardened"--what would be considered a small farm today.  They raised six children in a two bedroom house--and it wasn't until after the youngest was starting school that they had indoor plumbing or electricity.  If we saw a family living in south Louisiana today without electricity--or even electric fans--I doubt we would think that was minimum living standards.

 

I agree housing sizes and luxuries have increased, but a lot of this is due to the double-edged sword of zoning. We've legislated our way to better housing and sometimes larger housing, which is good in that people aren't living with no electricity and no indoor plumbing, but bad in that it puts more of a squeeze on the poor and working classes.

 

I live in a mobile home. It's a large mobile home, but our rental lease on our lot stipulates we have to have 197 square feet per person who lives here. By local law we have to have working plumbing and electricity and can only have a mobile home in a park (we cannot plop our house on our own land). We cannot use our local electric company's money-saving program that cycles off our electricity during peak times because they don't want poor elderly people expiring in the heat (despite the fact that the oldest person in the house is 43). 

 

My dad grew up the youngest of 7; his father would simply go down to the abandoned railroad and take some ties and build a new room on the house whenever the family needed more space. That would no longer be allowed, which is not necessarily a bad thing since the chemicals in the railroad ties aren't a good thing to live with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree housing sizes and luxuries have increased, but a lot of this is due to the double-edged sword of zoning. We've legislated our way to better housing and sometimes larger housing, which is good in that people aren't living with no electricity and no indoor plumbing, but bad in that it puts more of a squeeze on the poor and working classes.

 

I live in a mobile home. It's a large mobile home, but our rental lease on our lot stipulates we have to have 197 square feet per person who lives here. By local law we have to have working plumbing and electricity and can only have a mobile home in a park (we cannot plop our house on our own land). We cannot use our local electric company's money-saving program that cycles off our electricity during peak times because they don't want poor elderly people expiring in the heat (despite the fact that the oldest person in the house is 43).

 

My dad grew up the youngest of 7; his father would simply go down to the abandoned railroad and take some ties and build a new room on the house whenever the family needed more space. That would no longer be allowed, which is not necessarily a bad thing since the chemicals in the railroad ties aren't a good thing to live with.

Yep, housing sizes and allowed occupancy aren't always within an individual family's control.

 

My city, for example, has required minimum square footage for all homes in new subdivision developments. My home wouldn't qualify.

 

I would have been happy to stay longer than we did in a two bedroom apartment--but the landlord wouldn't approve more than five people in two bedrooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, housing sizes and allowed occupancy aren't always within an individual family's control.

 

My city, for example, has required minimum square footage for all homes in new subdivision developments. My home wouldn't qualify.

 

I would have been happy to stay longer than we did in a two bedroom apartment--but the landlord wouldn't approve more than five people in two bedrooms.

I donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t think that is up to the landlord, either.

 

ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s another Ă¢â‚¬ËœcodeĂ¢â‚¬â„¢, set by someone higher up the chain. In this case, I think itĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s fire code. ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s fairly standard, 2 people per bedroom +1, so a 2 bdrm is 5 people, 3 bdrm can house a maximum of 7 people, etc.

Edited by fraidycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree housing sizes and luxuries have increased, but a lot of this is due to the double-edged sword of zoning. We've legislated our way to better housing and sometimes larger housing, which is good in that people aren't living with no electricity and no indoor plumbing, but bad in that it puts more of a squeeze on the poor and working classes.

 

Yes, it is a double--edged sword.  If we see families living in a $500 per month apartment without AC and pass a law that the apartment must have AC, it does not ensure that there will be $500 per month apartments with AC.  What happens is the apartment now costs $550 per month with AC.  So, some renters are priced out of the market and are now homeless.  The answer then is to pass a law to increase the wages those people earn so that they can afford $550 per month.  But, then some of them can't find jobs.  So, then we pas a law that....    Each of those laws introduces a distortion n the market.  Whether or not we prefer a world where the market determines the price and characteristics of housing, jobs, etc. or we prefer a world where we add regulations to address the side effects after previous regulation and then additional regulations to address that is a matter of preferences and values.  If we want to regulate the market we must be willing to acknowledge these side effects; ignoring them or just saying they don't or shouldn't exist just makes the problems worse.  The laws of economics do not cause the side effects; they describe the side effects.  

Edited by jdahlquist
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m sticking hard with being pro electricity, indoor plumbing, and anti tenement housing. So if anyone else wants to go live like back in the good ol days like their grandma/pa, you go right ahead. IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m hoping the rest of society doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t agree with that though bc my grandparentsĂ¢â‚¬â„¢ lives were shiitake and I want better for future generations.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

I do not believe that deliberately creating an ignorant and marginalized underclass is advantageous to society as a whole.

 

Yes, I know that would be communism. That was kind of my point.

 

Yes, I know what happened with Stalin but that wasn't (pure theoretical idealistic) communism any more than what is happening to you/us right now is (pure theoretical idealistic) capitalism and this isn't working.

 

I think we're beyond "ism"s right now as far as culture/civil wars. I think it would be best for the thread if I state my opinions once and then let all y'all take what you find useful and ignore the rest. I think that when people are being slaughtered, the right thing to do is try to save the people instead of sitting around arguing about politics and idealistic visions of utopia.

 

I think a lot of people are hurting more than they're comfortable publicly discussing right now.

 

I think that the only purpose of a corporation is to make money for its stockholders and that therefore contributions to political campaigns should not be considered free speech or fall under the same jurisdiction that allows me to click on the "post" button when I finish typing this even if what I am saying IS communism.

 

I think I don't want that maid's job some of you may or may not be thinking about offering me if I promise to put ds in public school or foster care or with his father or whatever some of you might think I should do.

 

I think there needs to be more discussion about socioeconomic class in the United States.

 

I think that giving you an unpopular opinion post from a less-than-cool Hive member to pick apart (mock, flame, whatever) might be helpful and deflect some frustration and anger away from other posters who are in financial crises right now.

 

I think culture wars are dumb. I think we are better than that. I think my country has a chance, however slight, of turning this titanic instead of rerunning the same stupid culture war we already read about and/or watched on teevee in Tale of Two Cities, The Good Earth, and so many others.

 

I think I am very ignorant about Russian culture because I am a cold war baby. I think that is not something I need to be ashamed of. I think that Dmitry Orlov has some good insights into US culture and why societal collapse might be harder for us than it was for the "average joe"s of the USSR.

 

I think about what would, could, and will change in the next few years a lot.

Edited by Guest
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m sticking hard with being pro electricity, indoor plumbing, and anti tenement housing. So if anyone else wants to go live like back in the good ol days like their grandma/pa, you go right ahead. IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m hoping the rest of society doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t agree with that though bc my grandparentsĂ¢â‚¬â„¢ lives were shiitake and I want better for future generations.

Personally, I am pro electricity and indoor plumbing and I do not want to live like my grandparents did.  However, I think some people might prefer that.  Therefore, I am hesitant to support laws that do not allow them to do that if that is what they choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m sticking hard with being pro electricity, indoor plumbing, and anti tenement housing. So if anyone else wants to go live like back in the good ol days like their grandma/pa, you go right ahead. IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m hoping the rest of society doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t agree with that though bc my grandparentsĂ¢â‚¬â„¢ lives were shiitake and I want better for future generations.

 

But these laws do make it hard on people when they want to live cheaply.  Sometimes you do what you have to do.  One nice thing that those anti-tenement housing and renter protection laws did away with was boarding houses.  Those were nice things for both the renters and the landlords.  There have been many years in my life when I would have happily lived in one.   Some of the times when I really couldn't afford anything more (what I did was find an older boyfriend to live with.  Makes me cringe in hindsight), and some times when I could (like when I spent 180-ish days in hotels for work travel)     In college I knew some people that I was jealous of living in small yet illegal situations.   One was a guy renting/living-in a walk-in closet for $100/month.     Another was a girl living in an informal and very illegal boarding house.  Four girls to a room, each had a bed and a dresser and was going to the nearby college.  it had old-fashioned rules like no boys allowed, no smoking or alcohol, and one meal provided a day for $150/month.   I am not THAT old and those costs were amazing.  Compare that with college students paying, I think I read that 12K/year was the average.  

Don't get me wrong, I want more space and I'm grumpy with DH that he hasn't done more work on the addition.  But that doesn't mean that living in a space less than 600 sq.ft or less than 200/sq.ft. per person is squalor.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I know what happened with Stalin but that wasn't (pure theoretical idealistic) communism any more than what is happening to you/us right now is (pure theoretical idealistic) capitalism and this isn't working.

I think I am very ignorant about Russian culture because I am a cold war baby. I think that is not something I need to be ashamed of. I think that Dmitry Orlov has some good insights into US culture and why societal collapse might be harder for us than it was for the "average joe"s of the USSR.

 

Even without Stalin, the attempt to make a country communist would have caused bloodshed.

Why do you think they had to build the Berlin Wall? To force people to stay and endure the socialist/communist experiment at gun point.

Communism goes against human nature because it removes any incentive for people to work. Few would "work according to their abilities" if everybody is "given according to their needs".

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. I'm not willing to live next door to someone who wants to use an outhouse to avoid the cost of indoor plumbing. My grandmother didn't get indoor plumbing in the two room shack she raised 5 children in (and had 3 die before the age of 4 in) until I was in 7th grade. No to the hells no.

 

I'm as critical of government and laws as the next person, but many of the laws are good laws in that they made the public healthier and safer.

 

It is one thing to be critical of laws, it's another to throw the baby out with the bathwater under the guise of good economics.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier I read an article about a Burger Chain that is going Cashless in 3 places where the Minimum Wage is $15 (NY, CA and DC).  They say it is to improve service and that it will not reduce the number of employees they have working in those stores.  I would link to it, but I just tried to find it and I can't find it now. So that will eliminate human order takers and human cashiers, but there will still be people working there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m sticking hard with being pro electricity, indoor plumbing, and anti tenement housing. So if anyone else wants to go live like back in the good ol days like their grandma/pa, you go right ahead. IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m hoping the rest of society doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t agree with that though bc my grandparentsĂ¢â‚¬â„¢ lives were shiitake and I want better for future generations.

 

I completely agree. I talked about the "double edged sword" of legislation not because I think they were bad laws, but because some people have been priced out of housing. I think we need to work on bringing up wages or some sort of UBI or some sort of subsidized housing in order to make it that a indoor bathroom and electricity are an option for everyone.

 

 

Personally, I am pro electricity and indoor plumbing and I do not want to live like my grandparents did.  However, I think some people might prefer that.  Therefore, I am hesitant to support laws that do not allow them to do that if that is what they choose.

 

I'd venture to say this is a very small minority of people who don't want electricity and plumbing. Also, 99% of people are not going to want a shack with no electricity and plumbing plopped down next to their middle class residence. Hence, why we have laws outlawing such residences in a lot of the US.

 

Ack! I didn't mean to make it sound like I wanted to return to the days when my grandparents and parents had no indoor plumbing. I'm very pro-electricity and pro-plumbing. I was just building off of the idea that we all want so much these days, large houses, etc. Some of that is not just wants, but actual needs in order to be in compliance. No, no, no on the idea of bringing back the tenements...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Housing sizes are an issues. Our township (rural) has a 1200 sq ft. minimum. I so wish we could build/buy a smaller home for our kids with special needs.

Oof! That's so big!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oof! That's so big!

I don't think 1200sq ft is so big for a stand alone house. I think that's a good size for a family of 4-8 presuming it's a 3 bdrm/1.5-2bath. That's bigger than what we lived in until shortly after baby #8 was born. It was tight but manageable, though it did require spending a lot of time away from the house to make it more pleasant.

 

For anything smaller, I'd thing apartments and condos would be a more practical idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think 1200sq ft is so big for a stand alone house. I think that's a good size for a family of 4-8 presuming it's a 3 bdrm/1.5-2bath. That's bigger than what we lived in until shortly after baby #8 was born. It was tight but manageable, though it did require spending a lot of time away from the house to make it more pleasant.

 

For anything smaller, I'd thing apartments and condos would be a more practical idea?

I think it's so big for the minimum! Precisely because I have lived in so many apartments that we're perfectly sufficient at half or three quarters that amount of square ft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1200 square feet is large as a minimum.  A single person or young couple definitely doesn't need that much space to live quite comfortably.

 

We currently live in 750 square feet with 2 adults and 2 children (for many years we had an additional child/teen).   I don't particularly think it's comfortable, mostly due to lack of storage and only one bathroom, but it's doable.

 

I rented a 450 square foot house for a little while shortly after my divorce.   Dd was only with me 1/2 the time so again, it was doable if not completely comfortable.  

 

The apartment I rented was bigger than both of the houses, 900 something square feet.

 

ETA:  One of the advantages of the small house over a small apartment/condo was the outdoor space.  Private outdoor space can do a lot to make a small indoor space more comfortable.

Edited by Where's Toto?
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay this might be the dumbest question ever, but why would a single person or a couple with only one kid even want to buy a house? We never bought anything bigger until we needed it. It just costs more so why spend the money until we needed to seemed to make more sense. This was our policy for both homes and for vehicles. I don't really understand the mindset or the financial incentive to buying a house the size of an apartment. It sounds like a waste of raw materials and finance to me? I guess a community of tiny houses would be okay, but I really don't get the appeal other than some are cheaper if the person has an ideal situation going in their favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay this might be the dumbest question ever, but why would a single person or a couple with only one kid even want to buy a house? We never bought anything bigger until we needed it. It just costs more so why spend the money until we needed to seemed to make more sense. This was our policy for both homes and for vehicles. I don't really understand the mindset or the financial incentive to buying a house the size of an apartment. It sounds like a waste of raw materials and finance to me? I guess a community of tiny houses would be okay, but I really don't get the appeal other than some are cheaper if the person has an ideal situation going in their favor.

 

There are many reasons a single person or small family would want to buy a house instead of rent endlessly.

 

I purchased a house as a single person. One reason was that, instead of paying rent to build someone else's assets, I wanted that money to go toward building assets of my own. I also wanted to be in control of my living situation--paint rooms the colors I wanted when they needed it... have a garden... and not have to worry about someone deciding for me that I needed to move because they no longer wished to rent out the apartment. Those are just a few of the considerations behind my decision to buy.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well a lot of people who have only one kid or no kids or whose kids have moved out (and thus they're now a childless elderly couple) or a widow or widower or etc etc., still want a standalone piece of property.

 

Buying instead of renting is financially wiser, as you're not throwing your money away.

 

 

(that said, we rent).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay this might be the dumbest question ever, but why would a single person or a couple with only one kid even want to buy a house?

We live in an area with a very tight and high rental market. Often it is cheaper to buy than rent...even with taxes and insurance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay this might be the dumbest question ever, but why would a single person or a couple with only one kid even want to buy a house? We never bought anything bigger until we needed it. It just costs more so why spend the money until we needed to seemed to make more sense. This was our policy for both homes and for vehicles. I don't really understand the mindset or the financial incentive to buying a house the size of an apartment. It sounds like a waste of raw materials and finance to me? I guess a community of tiny houses would be okay, but I really don't get the appeal other than some are cheaper if the person has an ideal situation going in their favor.

 

If you buy a house, you create an asset. You pay your mortgage and after x years you own the house and have an asset that you can convert back into funds by selling. Also, in many locations real estate appreciates; so the house will be worth more than you paid for it.

If you rent an apartment, you pay the landlord. After x years you are out a lot of money and have built no asset.

 

Based on this alone, it can often make sense to buy.

Also, in some places, like our town, the mortgage for a small house is cheaper than the rent for an apartment. It makes financial sense to buy even for a single person.

 

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that I agree with the argument that buying is always the financially wiser move. And I have a mortgage.

 

Housing requires a lot of money and time for upkeep. It also makes it harder to move for family or employment needs. Though in some markets I do think it is far cheaper, in many I think once the cost of property care are taken into account, I think it usually comes out even. For example, this year I need to replace an Ac system. That's about 10k, give or take a grand. There went nearly all my equity and savings. Sure do wish I was renting.

 

And if I bought a property for financial reasons alone, I'd consider renting it instead of living in it to get the most from my investment.

 

That said, I understand wanting a stand alone property for other reasons. I like my garden well enough. And it was quite helpful to be able to literally saw 1/8 inch off the bottom of the mounding above my new refrigerator so that it would fit. I just don't know that I'd consider though reasons enough to buy. Obviously, that's just me though. Nothing new in that. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...