Minimum wage workers cannot afford rent in any U.S. state

It's not an underhanded trick. Please respond to the most charitable interpretation of my comment, as per HN guidelines.

> To meet with the comment head-on: You assert that nobody is supporting a family on minimum wage, so there's no reason to increase the minimum wage or have social welfare programs that help people on minimum wage.

That's not at all what I'm trying to insinuate. I even said that:

> I'm most interested in what percentage of those with dependents are working minimum wage jobs and what percentage of those that started out with minimum wage jobs have been unable to increase their earnings. MY guess is that these numbers are also terrible, but this is the thing to get down.

I literally said that I bet the numbers that I'm interested in will likely show that there are too many people with dependents working minimum wage jobs. That doesn't mean we shouldn't track the data. That is what shows us what will help.

Please respond in good faith.....

Well what percentage of these are non-breadwinners? Could it be stay at home parents who are making supplementary income?

> I think a better metric might be (minimum wage + (20% * minimum wage)). That snags all those people who work at "minimum wage jobs" but have stuck around for a few years and gotten a few small pay increases, but are still being paid a wage that is a function of minimum wage.

Yes, there needs to be better information.

> Just riffing here to be honest, but I do get a little uppity when people claim minimum wage jobs are just for teenagers or other "less important" wage earners. Part of this was from working in retail and food service when I was much younger and knowing a lot of adults, many single parents, working for close to minimum wage. Anecdotal, I know.

This is terrible, and just goes to show my point -- we need to be tracking the important number: how many people who need to afford rent for a separate unit (usually those with dependents but not always) cannot afford to do so.

EDIT: Here are some stats on low-wage workers by age. It does show a good distribution, but I think we need to make the tails thinner: https://www.statista.com/statistics/298866/percentage-of-low...

Having worked a lot in a rental market with a very active housing subsidy program, I agree that the administration of such programs is an actual nightmare, but you really are missing the point I think.

Start with the assumption that people need to be able to afford a place to live, and that a full time job should be able to achieve that. Do you agree?

Now, if we both agree that a housing subsidy program is an administrative nightmare, what's left? Simple: Regulating prices on the housing market.

A subsidy is a nightmare to administer; is subject to corruption, mis-targeting, abuse, and extreme wait lists; and drains public resources. So why do we do it? Simple: Because the real estate industry has lobbied the government to pursue this as a means to address housing inequality. Rather than being told that the earnings of their investment properties will be capped by regulation, the government is writing a check to make up the difference.

So now, after years of waiting, a single mother of two might get a 3/4 of her rent paid by a subsidy. The apartment needs to pass ridiculous inspections which are conducted historically by specialized contractors who benefit from failing due to re-inspection fees, and they will fail an inspection because a screw is missing from a light switch cover, blowing up a lease deal and elongating the timeline for a subsidized move-in by months. It sucks for the residents, and it sucks for the landlord from a administrative/management perspective (mainly dealt with by hired management), but at the end of the day, they have a government-guaranteed rent payment for a greatly inflated rent market. Coronavirus cut your tenant's hours?! No problem! At least 3/4 the rent will be paid, and the margins are still profitable.

And we wonder why wealth inequality is growing in the US! This literally inflates the rental market by creating more demand for overpriced housing than exists, by creating a class of people who can afford it only through a majority subsidy. It also encourages investment property purchases by doing so, in turn creating more competition in the buyers market and causing price inflation there as well. This also has the effect of keeping more people renting instead of being able to buy.

In conclusion, PEOPLE NEED HOUSING! Real estate industry doesn't need subsidies. Yes,that includes private landlords with investment properties. Someone else's housing or health care shouldn't be an unregulated investment opportunity if we care about the well being of the people.

Not all 40-hour-a-week jobs are valuable enough to support a high adult standard of living. If adults are still doing those jobs, it’s not a problem with the jobs.

> Is minimum wage workers affording an average 1-2 bedroom apartment with no other householders a goal we have set?

It's not a goal we set but it's one we mostly achieved none the less, depending on your specific area and minimum wage. A blue collar (minimum - low wage) worker used to be able buy a house and raise a family on a single income. People are poorer than they were decades ago, at least where it counts.