• Carmakazi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      Your housing budget shouldn’t be 2/3 of your income.

      Many people have no choice in the matter.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Most people in America live in a house or apartment larger than they need

          The only one in a position to determine that are the people that live in those apartments. Additionally, I doubt that most people choose apartment size as a deciding factor. With the cost of rent, price of the apartment is the much bigger factor.

          saddled with credit card debt they chose

          Most people didn’t choose credit card debt. They were forced into it because they couldn’t afford basic needs.

          Most Americans complaining about the cost of living and housing could lower and share their expenses if they were serious about it

          That’s total bullshit. Over 60% of Americans can’t afford the cheapest house in the cheapest state to live in. The living wage in this country is at the very least $25/hr and the minimum wage hasn’t increased in over a decade, but we’ll discuss wages much more later.

          living here is easier than almost anywhere else in the world

          Tell that to homeless people. Did you forget about them, or do they not count?

          Even at the bottom incomes, the people complaining about earning $15/hr in the US should learn

          Newsflash, suffering elsewhere doesn’t minimize suffering for you. Now let’s talk wages. Everywhere, there’s a cost associated with basic living called a survival wage, and a cost to live a dignified life that can accommodate hardship and enjoyment in equal measure known as a living wage.

          The living wage for a given area has a lot of factors, but it’s relatively easy to calculate. Where I live, the living wage is $27/hr. I also happen to live in a state with a minimum wage larger than federal and tied to inflation, putting it at $11.13/hr. That’s an annual difference of $33k dollars between a living wage and the state minimum. I can’t tell you how I managed to conjure $3k to assist a single coworker once, let alone $30k on top of it every year for the foreseeable future.

          Don’t forget that there are millions of people working on the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr. In Memphis TN, the living wage is $20/hr and the minimum wage is federal. There are people working for minimum wage that can’t even afford to rent a broom closet. This all also assumes everyone has a job, so it totally excludes anyone who can’t work or can’t find a job. These people exist too and still deserve a dignified life, even without an income.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 days ago

          All of what you said is a bullshit non sequitur that has nothing to do with the actual problem. If you thought you were clever for “looking at the obvious”, you were wrong.

        • cygnus@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 days ago

          I urge you to revisit this take, because it seems based only on a cartoonish vision that exists in your head. Let’s take seniors for example, who live on a fixed income and are often the most vulnerable to rent increases. How does anything that you said address the very real problems they are facing?

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Landlords are an inherently monopolistic position over an incredibly inelastic good. That’s not good for a market economy.

      You don’t have to defend them.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          You’re right, there’s nothing inherently evil about renting, however it’s inherently unequal. Now your home is in the precarious situation of being at the whims of someone whose only motive is profit. You’re also assuming capitalism is a law of nature. It’s not, and trying to frame it as such is a tired trick. Why do your strawmen have control over how a human right is provided? Why did you pick an example of extreme systemic injustice as an argument against providing housing instead of the litany of successful housing-first programs?

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Not to mention, no one will lease to you if the rent is 2/3rds of your income.