Let's Talk About Minimum Wage, Class Warfare, Wage Gaps, etc.

[V]

Originally Posted by _Q_

No it doesn't.

But the days of being able to find a good, reliable, used vehicle for $5000 ĺike 15 years ago are also over.

Most people are now financing 4 year old vehicles for $25,000 for 6 years just go get the payments low enough.

We're not in 2007 anymore.

Huh, I just bought a nice low mileage Yaris for $6K last year. Should last me more than a couple years.

I don't know if your posts are reflective of average people, but if they are, I'm completely out of touch with what the average person out there spends their money on. Seems outrageous to me.

[V]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Your child ends up with benefits, while the other child does not. Your child lives in a bigger home you helped pay for, got a solid education that helps with a higher paying job etc. Eventually it concentrates wealth, just like the landlords of old living in castles. Is that fair, just because of who they were born to?

I don't understand this concept of 'fair'. Maybe you can clarify what you think is fair? In my opinion, life would be fair if people are allowed to spend money on what they choose to spend money on. If that's my kid's education/house/leg-up, then it would be fair to allow me to spend money on that. It sounds like you disagree, but I don't really know what that looks like practically.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And I would argue that your perception of a consumerist society (daily coffee, new TVs, starter homes, new vehicles) is completely from a point of privilege. The problem isn't the consumerist society, it's... sadly... that large sections of the population no longer have the option to even participate in that consumerist society. I agree that what you mentioned is a problem, but it's a very middle-upper class problem. There are people who work 40+ hours a week and cannot afford any of what you've mentioned. That's the issue.

It also seems like a constant red herring. Older generations seem fixated on consumerism as a key problem holding young people and people with lower incomes back. "Stop buying the new phone every year! Stop with the avocado toast!" It's a sign to me that someone has no clue how people are actually living and the significance of the problems they face. The issue is not that people need to be paid more because they're wasting money on a new phone every year.

But a lot of consumer behaviours have increased dramatically across the board. Meals purchased outside the home have increased five-fold in the last 30 years. It isn’t just rich people going out to Earl’s, it’s 20-somethings who work in retail getting pho, schwarma, or pizza 5 days a week instead of bringing a bag lunch. Clothes used to be so expensive that people actually patched and mended them instead of picking up three new t-shirts for $20. Airplane vacations used to be an occasional indulgence of the affluent. I know some people still can’t afford them today, but a far broader segment of the population got on a plane to go somewhere hot for a vacation in 2018 than in 1982.

Most 30 year olds today would find the average standard of living in 1982 pretty dire. Everything except real estate and education was more expensive, less accessible, and came in far less variety. I’m not sure people really appreciate now dramatically discretionary consumer spending has increased in recent decades. The working class today eat at KFC and shop at Winner’s. 40 years ago they made tuna casserole last four days and most of their clothes were hand-me-downs.

[blankall]

I think the fact that people are recommending that upper middle class people in their 30s buy heavily used Yarises save small condos in bad neighborhoods, speaks a lot to what's going on.

Yes, the highly educated professional can still afford that. They can substantially decrease their standard of living and get by. What about the single moms? The receptionist and the custodian earning $40k/year?

So basically if you work your ass off to get ahead, you just get by. Everyone else..... Who knows?

[V]

Huh, I don't recall recommending it, just challenging the idea that the average person has to spend $600 a month on a vehicle. If you're making $40k per year, I assume you learn to get by without a vehicle at all. Is having a vehicle suddenly a basic human right?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by V

I don't understand this concept of 'fair'. Maybe you can clarify what you think is fair? In my opinion, life would be fair if people are allowed to spend money on what they choose to spend money on. If that's my kid's education/house/leg-up, then it would be fair to allow me to spend money on that. It sounds like you disagree, but I don't really know what that looks like practically.

Maybe fair isn't exactly the right word, but I feel like everyone should have the same opportunities. If education costs so much that children from poor families can't afford it, then they don't have the same opportunities to advance. Things like that.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think the fact that people are recommending that upper middle class people in their 30s buy heavily used Yarises save small condos in bad neighborhoods, speaks a lot to what's going on.

Yes, the highly educated professional can still afford that. They can substantially decrease their standard of living and get by. What about the single moms? The receptionist and the custodian earning $40k/year?

So basically if you work your ass off to get ahead, you just get by. Everyone else..... Who knows?

That is exactly it.

It's no longer about avocado toast and a new iPhone every year. It's about not being entitled, and living in a $200k townhouse (not even sure that exists anymore) for 10 years, buying a beaten up Yaris and sucking it up well into your 40s.

Saving $100k is easy when you cut out luxuries like childcare and a functioning vehicle. Not everybody needs to live in a "nice" neighborhood. By the time you're 48, you'll have enough saved up to purchase that $500k home. By that time, you'll be able to save up for another 8 years to purchase that 6 year old Mazda, just in time for your 55th birthday.

Millennial man.... so entitled.

[Fuzz]

A quick check of Kijiji Autos shows over 450 vehicles under $20,000 2018 and newer. When you are budget limited, leasing a new vehicle is not a great financial decision.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by SebC

Upzoning is necessary to fix the housing market.

To elaborate: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the...ouse-in-canada

[Monahammer]

Accept a lower quality of life than the 2 preceding generations you ingrates!

[opendoor]

LOL, yeah too much eating out is why people are barely scraping by.

If you want to compare to prior eras, sure some things are cheaper. Basically the cheaper, more discretionary stuff like clothing (not optional, but there's a range in what you can buy), entertainment, alcohol/tobacco, etc. is cheaper while the expensive things (housing, education, health care, etc.) are vastly more expensive. What shift do you think ends up having a bigger effect on someone's economic well being?

In 1973 the average US family spent 39.6% of their (often single) income on housing, transportation, health care, and education combined. In many places now people would struggle to cover just housing with 40% of their income. It is indisputable that people 40-50 years ago spent a higher portion of their income on discretionary consumer goods than people do today. That's just the reality when necessities have become so expensive.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

UBI is the best way to give people a "living wage". Upzoning is necessary to fix the housing market.

Upzoning alone isn't going to fix the housing market without greater restrictions on speculation. If you allow speculators to continue buying up supply without renting back to the local population, you're just exacerbating the problem.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

A quick check of Kijiji Autos shows over 450 vehicles under $20,000 2018 and newer. When you are budget limited, leasing a new vehicle is not a great financial decision.

So $20k, not $5k.

So a budget limited family can drop $20k on a vehicle without financing it?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think it can have a concrete answer.

What is the poverty line? Wages have to be above that.

Anybody working full time should be able to afford to rent an apartment, have a cell phone, eat, pay electricity/gas/water, live within a one-hour commute of work, afford a bus pass, basic wardrobe, etc. You don't need a car, plane vacations, brand name clothes, etc.; but you should be able to live a very basic and not-unhealthy life if you are working full time.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Alone? Without a partner or roommate?

I mean, I think so. I specified bus pass over owning a car. I specified renting over owning a home. Is it not reasonable to expect to be able to live and support yourself if you work full time?

Having a roommate doesn't sound like an unreasonable thing to expect a single, low-income earner to have to have, though.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is a horribly complex issue that I don't know the answer too. A few reforms I think could be helpful:

1. Increase the tax base by limiting small corporations. The point of lessening the tax rate for corporations was to help out small businesses and allow businesses to carry over funds year over year. It wasn't to have every CEO set up a personal corporation and avoid taxes.


3. Economic reforms to encourage local small businesses. These businesses are the lifeblood of any society and all that stands between a society and total corporate domination. We have a system where that seems to give more breaks to larger businesses, while punishing the smaller ones.

I'm not an economics guy but don't these two thing conflict? How do you encourage small business but at the same time limit them?

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If only there were some mechanism that addresses low wages, income inequality and class warfare that could be made more easily available to exploited workers.

Care to elaborate?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by _Q_

So $20k, not $5k.

So a budget limited family can drop $20k on a vehicle without financing it?

Well for a 10 year old vehicle under $5000 there are 229 choices in the Calgary area. It was one example. The point is, there are smart choices you can make that don't have you forking out $600 as month on an unnecessary vehicle cost.

I chose the newer vehicle initially to show for half the price you can get a safe, reliable choice. For much less than that you can get something that may not be as reliable, but even with repair costs you'd still be miles ahead of a new one.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

I've always been confused as to what constitutes "affordable housing".
Because to some that might mean a reasonable purchase price. or rent.
but reasonable is very relative to ones incomes and free cash flow.
free cash flow is tied to needs and choices.
some people don't think medications or treatments are choices, but are needs.
Is it reasonable to expect everyone to want to buy a place to live? are they capable of what that entails? does it meet their needs? are they picky about their neighbors, or does nobody want to be their neighbor?

So, to me, affordable housing means making some base assumptions on family needs (ie based on # of people and any medical issues), then setting the rental rate at something that's demographic/geographically acceptable, and then policing accordingly?? but does that lead towards socialism/communism again?

A place you can afford to live in.

I could give you a laundry-list of places I've lived. Its not always nice or fun and almost never luxurious. Its just a means to an end.

Originally Posted by V

Huh, I don't recall recommending it, just challenging the idea that the average person has to spend $600 a month on a vehicle. If you're making $40k per year, I assume you learn to get by without a vehicle at all. Is having a vehicle suddenly a basic human right?

At the risk of infuriating Pylon...this is insane.

I am self-employed, so monthly costs are a big concern for me because you never know whats coming in next month. Not that I'm living 'month-to-month' but I have a myriad of other, more important costs. Like tuition, mortgages and rent.

As I've said many times, Fiscal Conservatism in our time is dead.

So spend! Buy houses and cars and time-shares! Go for it! What could go wrong?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But a lot of consumer behaviours have increased dramatically across the board. Meals purchased outside the home have increased five-fold in the last 30 years. It isn’t just rich people going out to Earl’s, it’s 20-somethings who work in retail getting pho, schwarma, or pizza 5 days a week instead of bringing a bag lunch.

It can be pretty difficult to find the energy and time to grocery-shop and meal prep when you're working two jobs.

[GGG]

Isn’t part of the housing problem that people want an SFH and a short commute and everyone can’t have this anymore without incurring very high investments in car centric transportation infrastructure.

The second thing that people often miss is that since two earners are common yet the supply of housing doesn’t double the only logical outcome is higher cost of housing.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Care to elaborate?

Make it easier for exploited workers to unionize. If anyone can think of any other option that has historically had a bigger proven impact in addressing low wages, income inequality and class warfare, I’d like to hear it.