Editorial

Most minimum-wage workers can't afford a one-bedroom apartment

Monday, June 1, 2015

Nebraska's minimum wage is going to $9, far below the $15 some activists are demanding, so it was interesting to see a study published by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition about the cost of living.

According to the study, the average Nebraskan would have to work 54 hours at a minimum wage to afford a one-bedroom apartment.

Of course, that average includes Lincoln and Omaha, where rents are higher, and sets the amount the average minimum-wage worker would spend on housing at 30 percent of income -- probably far less than most minimum-wage workers spend when they get out of their parents' homes.

On the other hand, minimum-wage jobs that allow workers to put in 54 hours are few and far between because of the benefits and overtime pay required.

Nebraska minimum-wage workers have it great compared to New Yorkers, who would have to put in 98 hours, the District of Columbia, Maryland and New Jersey, around 100 hours or more, or California, 92 hours -- or even worse, Hawaii, where one would have to work 125 hours for a one-bedroom apartment.

As we predicted, higher minimum wages push employers to install more automation, such as a fast-food restaurant that lets customers order through kiosks instead of through a counter attendant.

But is the answer to housing affordability higher minimum wages, or are lower housing costs and lower standards of living required?

Minimum wage workers probably will never be able to afford to buy one, but according to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2014, the average new single-family home sold for $345,800, costing $97.09 for each of its 2,506 square feet.

More and more people are finding ways to lower their cost of living.

Many are finding ways to reduce their cost of living, such as the "tiny house" proponents living in 400 square feet or less, or adopting European "net zero" standards calling for 500 square feet per person, although initial energy-saving costs are far from economical.

Of course, many resort to other methods -- finding a roommate, moving back in with parents or other relatives -- and does everyone need a $100 cell phone plan and a big-screen TV?

Yes, it's hard to live on minimum wage, but it was never designed to provide that level of income, and raising it can only result in more kiosks and robots on the job.

A better solution is upgrading personal skills, or even starting one's own business to bring in that living wage.


Check out the National Low-Income Housing Coalition's report here: http://bit.ly/1HHaeIq

Check out a Census Bureau 2014 single-family interactive report here: http://1.usa.gov/1HHawPo

Comments
View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I hate to be crude but a minimum wage is for folks with minimum skills and/or experience. Generally it is for a person just starting in the workforce that is still in high school. You are correct, getting an education will be a big help in getting a better paying job. For those stuck in a low paying job in adulthood, I am sorry. But go to MCC and get additional education. Raising the wage did raise the prices for all, including those on minimum wage. It did reduce the workforce and some lost hours or even their jobs. I did see the unions that picked to increase the wage now are asking that their organizations be exempt from paying it.

    -- Posted by dennis on Mon, Jun 1, 2015, at 5:22 PM
  • There's going to be a lot of government support for this type of thing. If you raise wages from 9.00 to 15.00 per hour across the board for everyone in the minimum wage category, you move them from 360.00 per week to 600.00 per week. This means , for the government, a greater intake of all the various taxes - s/s, medicaid, fed and state withholding. A lot of people not presently taxed would be taxed. People now taxed would move to higher tax brackets. Nothing is really gained in the long run by the worker - for the types of reasons Dennis states. But the coffers of the government would swell.

    -- Posted by bob s on Mon, Jun 1, 2015, at 7:21 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: