man shut the fuck up you pompous, argumentative prick

holy shit

shut the fuck up

3/17/2012 5:33:46 PM

Quote :

"How isn't it nebulous? It says you have to work 75 hours a week in order to make enough money to pay Fair Market Rent. 1) What's FMR and how is it defined? 2) Is that a weekly rent number, or a monthly rent number?"

It's almost as if I hadn't already told you most of these things...

Quote :

"I'll comment on the surface facts, which is that this picture suggests that you need to make 500 bux a week to pay the rent in full in NC for a 2BR apartment."

Using your criteria of rent being about a 1/3 of income, are you now saying that $500 is too much? Not enough?

Or, are you just being

3/17/2012 5:37:54 PM

Quote :

"It's almost as if I hadn't already told you most of these things..."

yes. you told me them after I had originally asked the questions, stating that the questions meant the picture was poorly constructed. do you want a cookie now?

Quote :

"Using your criteria of rent being about a 1/3 of income, are you now saying that $500 is too much? Not enough?"

using new information, it's absurd to comment on questions raised by the lack of information, except to dismiss the original question. That still doesn't mean that it's not a reasonable statement to say that the graph, absent any background information, is suggesting that the rent is $500/week in NC


^^ what, are you mad that you got a worthless degree and now can't find a job with said worthless degree?

3/17/2012 5:46:43 PM

Does the government really get 25% of someone that pays minimum wage?

3/17/2012 5:59:24 PM

probably depends on how you calculate it.

3/17/2012 6:01:25 PM

this guy brings nothing to the table

3/17/2012 6:06:40 PM

Quote :

"That still doesn't mean that it's not a reasonable statement to say that the graph, absent any background information, is suggesting that the rent is $500/week in NC"

Except for the fact that you know $500/week is not reasonable.

3/17/2012 6:09:50 PM

Quote :

"If we follow the general guidance that rent be about 1/3 of income"

Yea, the graph doesn't say anything about this. It's a good guideline, but the infographic clearly states "In no state can a minimum wage worker afford a two-bedroom unit at Fair Market Rent, working a standard 40-hour work week."

3/17/2012 6:15:04 PM

i still want to know why this study was based on a single income earner, who is working for absolute minimum wage, apparently renting a 2-bedroom apartment completely on their own. To me it seems like they tried to kind of sneak in a scenario that shouldn't even be a consideration for someone in this job situation.

[Edited on March 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM. Reason : ]

3/17/2012 6:18:28 PM

^^ Things that take all of your income aren't typically referred to as affordable.

^ 75 = 1 * 75 = 2 * 37.5 = (1 * 40) + (1 * 35) = 3 * 25 = 4 * 18.75

3/17/2012 6:22:09 PM

^^it doesn't make sense. it's for liberal circle-jerk purposes only.

[Edited on March 17, 2012 at 6:22 PM. Reason : .]

3/17/2012 6:22:18 PM

^^All of your income!?!? You just said "The fair market rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in North Carolina is $709 a month" and I already showed someone makes $1250/month on minimum wage.

3/17/2012 6:31:51 PM

Quote :

"How isn't it nebulous? It says you have to work 75 hours a week in order to make enough money to pay Fair Market Rent. 1) What's FMR and how is it defined? 2) Is that a weekly rent number, or a monthly rent number?"

1. TO THE GOOGLE

2. Who the fuck pays weekly rent?

3/17/2012 6:32:53 PM

^^

Put your dick back in your pants for a minute.

$709 / $1250 = .57

Are you saying that 57% of income is affordable?

3/17/2012 6:36:28 PM

Quote :

"Except for the fact that you know $500/week is not reasonable."

Ergo, the picture is poorly constructed, which, incidentally, is my claim.

Quote :

"this guy brings nothing to the table"

much like your degrees.

Quote :

"Things that take all of your income aren't typically referred to as affordable."

Another assumption, not specified by the graph. Ergo, nebulous!

^^ continuing to prove the point that the picture in the OP is not clearly explaining itself. The only reason it makes sense to question if it's a weekly rent is because of the fact that the numbers they portray without any further information suggest that 500/week is not enough to pay the rent.

3/17/2012 6:39:48 PM

Quote :

"^^ continuing to prove the point that the picture in the OP is not clearly explaining itself. The only reason it makes sense to question if it's a weekly rent is because of the fact that the numbers they portray without any further information suggest that 500/week is not enough to pay the rent."

or it could prove that you should apply some logic to your problem solving skills.

3/17/2012 6:44:45 PM

i did. thus the reason my result was "this graph needs to give more information or else it is bogus on its own."

3/17/2012 6:50:18 PM

Quote :

"suggest that 500/week is not enough to pay the rent"

Afford is the word you're looking for, not pay. It's used twice in the graphic.

Quote :

"suggest that 500/week is not enough to pay afford the rent"

3/17/2012 6:50:28 PM

Can we all agree that despite actual problems with poor people and high rent that this info-graphic is a full of shit piece of propaganda?

3/17/2012 6:53:28 PM

which then requires clarification to decide what is "afford." ERGO, nebulous. it's like you can't admit that the picture doesn't provide enough info on its own. You say you have to consider a 1:3 rent to income ratio, which isn't stated on the graph. You then point out that the rent wouldn't be 7.25 times the hours for a respective state, which would be one rational assumption to make. so that's two things NOT STATED IN THE PICTURE that you need to know in order to make sense of it. what part of "not clear" or "deceptive" do you not understand at this point?

3/17/2012 6:54:30 PM

Quote :

"it's like you can't admit that the picture doesn't provide enough info on its own."

Why do you think I went and found the 200+ page report the graphic is part of?

----

Now that we know what the graphic is actually portraying, can we go back to discussing the affordability of housing, or are we going to continue to bitch about the graphic?

3/17/2012 7:03:02 PM

well, sure, let's talk more about how the graphic unfairly and incorrectly represents the realities of the working poor. you know, where less than 2% of the nation is working minimum wage to begin with, and even less of that number are the sole breadwinners paying the rent in a household. what more would you like to discuss?

3/17/2012 7:06:01 PM

I love how you recognize the graphic is a simplifying presentation taken out of context and then blame the graphic for being out of context.

We could discuss the fact that even at the average hourly income for renters, it requires more than 40 hours a week to afford a two bedroom home rental (for all states except Tennessee and Wyoming).

We could discuss affordable, though you've already mentioned the 1/3 of income.

3/17/2012 7:12:41 PM

so, in short, being poor sux. thank you for this shocking fact!

3/17/2012 7:17:05 PM

I hope your job in Charlotte lasts longer than the job before it.

3/17/2012 7:19:56 PM

me too, lol

3/17/2012 7:20:17 PM

WAGE 2012

3/17/2012 7:21:09 PM

Is someone making $25k a year in North Carolina poor?

3/17/2012 7:21:31 PM

i dunno. are they the sole breadwinner in their household?

3/17/2012 7:29:18 PM

You tell me.

3/17/2012 7:30:25 PM

well, you tell me what "poor" means.

3/17/2012 7:32:49 PM

I didn't realize that "Is someone making $25k a year in North Carolina poor?" was such a difficult question.

3/17/2012 7:35:44 PM

Quote :

"$709 / $1250 = .57 Are you saying that 57% of income is affordable?"

Well, you could mean two things by affordable:
1) Able to be purchased
2) Easily able to purchased

If by affordable you mean 1), then yes. Anything <= 100% is affordable. That's certainly the context in which the infographic uses the word "afford". It's giving exact numbers on how many hours it takes for someone to purchase something. If it was using the second definition, it would be completely fucking subjective when something becomes inexpensive, reasonably priced, easily managed, etc.

And if you were concerned with 2), you wouldn't be buying a 2 bedroom apartment at average prices. One bedrooms in my area can cost around $400, easily getting under 1/3 of $1250.

3/17/2012 8:01:42 PM

When I use the word affordable I normally use it as defined in dictionary.

Affordable: that can be afforded; believed to be within one's financial means
Afford: to be able to do, manage, or bear without serious consequence or adverse effect

'Without serious consequence' is certainly subjective, but 1/3 of income seems to be the standard with regard to housing (it was used in the original report and in this thread).

To answer your question, if I were single with no dependents and earning minimum wage, I would not choose to live in a two bedroom apartment by myself. I would find a single bedroom or find roommates. This, if I were to venture a guess, is what the majority of those in that situation do.

The point of the report is that housing prices are greater than what a full time worker making the average wage (not minimum wage) can afford, with housing affordability being defined as one third of income or less.

The graphic is there to convey housing prices as they relate to wages. One person working 75 hours a week at minimum wage is equivalent to two people working full time at minimum wage or one person working full time at 1.9 times the minimum wage, neither of which is an unusual or atypical situation. The problem (or not, depending on your view) is that 1.9 times minimum wage is greater than the average renter's hourly wage.

3/17/2012 8:22:42 PM

Gotcha
http://nlihc.org/oor/2012

3/17/2012 8:30:11 PM