This shouldn't be news to anybody. If you know the Hispanic community there, it explains why multiple families share the same abode and all adults work their tails off just to survive.
I got this from Zero Hedge with a link to this @
28.25 the minimum wage D.C. would need to support a modest 2-bedroom - The Washington Post
Many problems with this.
One, if it is a two bedroom unit, you can assume two adults at least living in the unit. The data assumes only one adult is working, which is not a fair assumption.
Second, the data says the person may not spend more than 30% on housing. Yet the average American spends more than that on housing. Why limit it at 30%? Housing is a huge expense. If someone is making less money, they will be spending a larger portion of their income on housing, and will have less spending on other things that are not as necessary.
Third, it compares
minimum wage income to the ability to afford the
median rental price. How absurd is that? Those on minimum wage will be in the market for units
below the median price.
Let's look on Zillow for a cheaper home: I found a house for rent quickly in Stockton, CA, for $695 a month.
Houses for Rent in Stockton CA - 144 Homes - Zillow
That works out to $8,340 per year. In order for that to be 30% of income, that would require an income of 27800. A single person making minimum wage in CA at 40 hours per week would not make that amount, but could still afford the home. It would be roughly 45% of income however. If both household members were working full time minimum wage jobs at 40 hours per week, they would be making slightly more than required to meet the 30% threshold (which again I find rather arbitrary). Furthermore, after working at this wage for some time, they may receive a raise, or find better work.
The OP article over-exaggerates the problem.