LogFAQs > #881920087

EightySeven posted...

AverageBoss posted...

Increase it to an acceptable level, then tie it to inflation and be done with it.

Nope. It's stupid for rural Montana to have the same minimum wage as San Francisco. Index it to cost of living somehow.

Personally I would make min wage be variable (within a range by state/area) by zones, and depend on the average cost of renting a 1 bedroom in that area.

Min wage should = Average cost of a 1 bedroom per month/60

This is due to many min wage jobs not offering more then 30 hours a week to avoid benefits. So basically anyone can afford to rent a place to live by working 2 out of 4 weeks per month in that area. If your willing to commute from further away in order to get paid slightly more (due to higher cost of living in that area), you deserve the extra money for your effort.

So in areas where you can rent a 1 bedroom for $1200 a month, that would mean minimum wage would be $20 an hour.

If you can still get a 1 bedroom for $600 (possibly in my area or close by, not easy, and average would be higher even there), then min wage would be $10.

More then likely using such a method min wage in my area would be around $12 an hour.

Main problem of course is dealing with all the other jobs that currently get paid less then the new min wage in that area pays.

Honestly the fact that in many areas you make less per month then a 1 bedroom costs working full time, is crazy. You should not have to spend more then 50% of your net income just for somewhere to live (you still have utilities, transportation, food etc to pay for after all).

Gilroy, where I lived before now had an average of about $1500 a month for a 1 bedroom, and it was 30 minutes away from SJ. Teachers had to have roomates or rent a room themselves (up till recently new teachers started at $30k a year, with no raise for 5 years, that improved a bit last year at least).

A friend of mine, a mother of 2, has taught for over 10 years and had to rent a room. Cost of living in some places is insane compared to what you can make, even with a career!!

A $10/hr job in gilroy means $400 a week or $1600 a month (Before taxes). After taxes, even working 40 hours a week and getting $10 an hour (min wage I think was 8.75), you would not have enough money coming in just to rent your own place, let alone pay any other expenses. How is that fair? And just raising min wage just hurts all the other people making slightly more, making their sacrifices, time spent, skills, or bonus for doing a job nobody wants, worthless.

So yeah, it's time to get real here and start offering people jobs that will let them actually LIVE a life, pay for rent, eat fairly well (no steaks every day, but don't force them to eat crap either), have basic health insurance, a way to get around (Even if it's a bike or public transportation), and some money to spend to have fun and/or save every month.

Raising min wage to $15 an hour even isn't going to help much if rent prices just keep going up. If it's $1500 now, and after min wage goes up it jumps to $1800.....things are not going to improve.

Personally, I think we need to get some serious rent control and goverment rental properties with fixed low prices (to give competition and reduce the prices of other rental properties). Yes, I know this has not worked out that well in the past, but it's time to fix this issue and come up with a plan that really will work well. Same basic rules for all rental properties, with the ability to kick someone out if they break them (and a pretty decent waiting list to get one anyway...especially at first).

If the Gov starts renting small 1 bedroom/1 bath/kitchen properties for $600 a month, they could actually make a profit off them (instead of through taxes).
---

Proud member of the Arv The Great is great fan club!!! Join today by putting it in your sig.