What you’d need to make in every county in the US to afford a decent one-bedroom(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
What you’d need to make in every county in the US to afford a decent one-bedroom
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/22/what-youd-need-to-make-in-every-county-in-america-to-afford-a-decent-one-bedroom/
10 comments
> The difference $7/hour is almost the same as the minimum wage in Dallas--that's a significant amount that the map disguises.
Agreed, but I'm not sure that makes it a bad chart. To me, one of the things the chart is saying is that 1BDR housing wages outside of the $10-13 range are uninteresting.
If this is something they checked and know to be true, then deliberately zooming in on that range is useful, because it highlights that variance. If they're hiding relevant information by ignoring things outside of that range, then it's a problem.
I mean, it's a choropleth. That already starts edging into "bad chart" territory.
Agreed, but I'm not sure that makes it a bad chart. To me, one of the things the chart is saying is that 1BDR housing wages outside of the $10-13 range are uninteresting.
If this is something they checked and know to be true, then deliberately zooming in on that range is useful, because it highlights that variance. If they're hiding relevant information by ignoring things outside of that range, then it's a problem.
I mean, it's a choropleth. That already starts edging into "bad chart" territory.
Low cost-of-living counties in states with high minimum wages meant for city dwellers, most likely. The cost of living difference between Seattle and eastern Washington is immense, but guess which one the state sets minimum wage based on.
This PDF is what the map is based on and has some additional data: http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf
Also: http://nlihc.org/oor/2014
Also: http://nlihc.org/oor/2014
County-level data is available on a per-state basis from the NLIHC website.
I went and downloaded all of the state data spreadsheets and merged them into one big spreadsheet. It took maybe 20 lines of python.
Here it is, for anyone interested: https://www.dropbox.com/s/40bg2um044vy82f/2014-OOR-ALL.xls
Here it is, for anyone interested: https://www.dropbox.com/s/40bg2um044vy82f/2014-OOR-ALL.xls
While that is good to have, a glance through the PDF actually says this data is different.
Namely, the PDF indicates 2-bedroom whereas the WaPo article indicates 1-bedroom. I should probably do a number-comparison on a per-county basis to see if the WaPo writers simply made a mistake, but I'm feeling pretty lazy.
Namely, the PDF indicates 2-bedroom whereas the WaPo article indicates 1-bedroom. I should probably do a number-comparison on a per-county basis to see if the WaPo writers simply made a mistake, but I'm feeling pretty lazy.
I avergaged the 1-bedroom numbers for all of the counties in Rhode Island (guess why I picked Rhode Island) and got ~$15.00, which is ~$3.00 less than the 2-bedroom on the PDF. So they probably calculated it correctly.
Two bedrooms are always surprisingly close in price to one bedrooms.
Two bedrooms are always surprisingly close in price to one bedrooms.
They probably just downloaded the states individually (http://nlihc.org/oor/2014/NY) to get the 1 bedroom numbers.
And to clarify, you have to pull the XLS in order to get the 1BDR numbers. The PDF is still just 2BDR.
But yes. dm2 is correct. This is probably the link that should have been shared to start: http://nlihc.org/oor/2014
But yes. dm2 is correct. This is probably the link that should have been shared to start: http://nlihc.org/oor/2014
Here is the Washington Post's datasource: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/county...
That's the data used to generate the map, I was linking to where they got those numbers from.
When I hear words like "decent" I check for my wallet. When I was at a start-up making very below-average wages (in the Boston area, in fact), I lived in a very below-average place.
Agreed. It isn't surprising that a minimum wage worker would have trouble affording 40th percentile housing (the basis for the pricing data).
Yes, but you had the expectation that things would get better (and I'm assuming you had the skills to make much more).
My friends who aren't involved in the tech industry have quite a long row to hoe when it comes to making more money. I had a friend (who loves cooking and is accomplished in restaurant work) struggle to find anything above $13-15 an hour in NYC (and that's hard work at a busy restaurant), and it doesn't often get better than that.
For some, living in below average accommodations isn't a necessary stop along the way but the destination, and that stinks.
My friends who aren't involved in the tech industry have quite a long row to hoe when it comes to making more money. I had a friend (who loves cooking and is accomplished in restaurant work) struggle to find anything above $13-15 an hour in NYC (and that's hard work at a busy restaurant), and it doesn't often get better than that.
For some, living in below average accommodations isn't a necessary stop along the way but the destination, and that stinks.
Your first paragraph is something important, but not what I was talking about, and not related to the rest of your comment.
First, as long as money has any meaning, people with more of it are going to live better than people with less of it. Maybe it would be more fair if all young people lived below average and all older people lived above average, but it's a huge reconstruction of society.
Second, NYC is the fifth most expensive city in the world[1]. I presume your friend is there because he's getting something besides money for his work -- adulation of customers, or a chance to make it really big.
Or, it's a deliberate consumption choice. He wants to live in walking distance of Broadway and great restaurants. Well, that's a choice in how he spends his money. I could live in a mansion in my city and complain about how expensive it is, but I shouldn't expect any sympathy because I choose to live someplace expensive. I could deliberately have 8 kids and then complain about how much times my kids require, or I could be a Olympic gymnast and complain about how much training I have to do, or I could keep a cluster of 40 PCs in my living room to play 40 simultaneous WoW games and then complain about how much it all costs.
There's nothing magical about consumption choices because they go into "housing" versus "free time" or "computers" or "nights at the opera." If someone was renting the most expensive cars in the US and complaining about how he can't afford something, the answer would be very similar to another person who was renting the most expensive real estate in the US.
Living on top of Mount Everest is expensive, even if you were born there.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/internationalproperty/10... NYC is the most expensive in the US. Of course rankings change over time.
First, as long as money has any meaning, people with more of it are going to live better than people with less of it. Maybe it would be more fair if all young people lived below average and all older people lived above average, but it's a huge reconstruction of society.
Second, NYC is the fifth most expensive city in the world[1]. I presume your friend is there because he's getting something besides money for his work -- adulation of customers, or a chance to make it really big.
Or, it's a deliberate consumption choice. He wants to live in walking distance of Broadway and great restaurants. Well, that's a choice in how he spends his money. I could live in a mansion in my city and complain about how expensive it is, but I shouldn't expect any sympathy because I choose to live someplace expensive. I could deliberately have 8 kids and then complain about how much times my kids require, or I could be a Olympic gymnast and complain about how much training I have to do, or I could keep a cluster of 40 PCs in my living room to play 40 simultaneous WoW games and then complain about how much it all costs.
There's nothing magical about consumption choices because they go into "housing" versus "free time" or "computers" or "nights at the opera." If someone was renting the most expensive cars in the US and complaining about how he can't afford something, the answer would be very similar to another person who was renting the most expensive real estate in the US.
Living on top of Mount Everest is expensive, even if you were born there.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/internationalproperty/10... NYC is the most expensive in the US. Of course rankings change over time.
But you would not want to send your children to school in a very below average school ... which may or may not be the point.
It just means that they don't include buildings that are falling apart, nor do they include penthouse flats. Texas and Louisiana both have lots of dark purple and have the very worst public schools in the nation.
It's really just a pretty good indication of where the jobs are.
Nearly by definition, someone has to go to very below average schools, and someone has to live in the very below average housing.
The first situation is more scary than the second, of course. Being young and single and in good health with no kids it was fine living below average.
The first situation is more scary than the second, of course. Being young and single and in good health with no kids it was fine living below average.
Hmmm, I'm not sure if I'm understanding the methodology... am I missing something?
According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 1-bedroom rent+utilities cost (or FMR) is $750 for Schenectady County, NY. [1]
At minimum wage, and 40 hours each week, you make $7.25404 = $1160 each month.
How is $1160 < $750?
[1]: http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr/fmrs/FY2014_code/...
According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 1-bedroom rent+utilities cost (or FMR) is $750 for Schenectady County, NY. [1]
At minimum wage, and 40 hours each week, you make $7.25404 = $1160 each month.
How is $1160 < $750?
[1]: http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr/fmrs/FY2014_code/...
$750/$1160 is ~64%. The common definition for affordable rent is ~30% of monthly wage[1] (based on some quick google-fu).
[1] http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/special-topics/files/...
[1] http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/special-topics/files/...
Presumably it's based on the fact that you can "afford" to live there if you don't spend more than x % of your income on housing, where x < 100.
Allowing for food, transport, etc?
actually you make about 960 after federal withholding, oasdi and a couple other things (mandatory longterm disability at 4.50 a month)
so food, transport, clothes, cleaning supplies, laundromat, insurance etc. would have to fit into ~200 a month.
so food, transport, clothes, cleaning supplies, laundromat, insurance etc. would have to fit into ~200 a month.
They are assuming that you spend 30% of your income on housing, leaving you money for food, transportation, taxes, etc.
I wonder if that assumption is fair. Also, do you know where it says that in the article?
This mentions the 30%, they should have mentioned it in the article, it's the standard amount they use every year I think: http://nlihc.org/oor/2014
Also, many places won't let you rent without meeting the 30% of income amount.
Also, many places won't let you rent without meeting the 30% of income amount.
In some dense cities, the bulk of the transportation costs are rolled into your housing costs, because you are buying walking distance to a subway.
Yes, it really seems like a variable approach would work better. There's a big difference between spending 30% of your income on housing while living in a rural area and doing so in the middle of Manhattan. I imagine that percentage could go considerably higher in big cities.
It doesn't say that in the article...
It is an important point that would provide context to a lot of numbers.
It is an important point that would provide context to a lot of numbers.
Click "wrote about a report", then in that article click "new report", and you'll find this:
"The signature finding of Out of Reach is the annual Housing Wage - the hourly wage a full-time worker must earn to afford a decent two-bedroom rental home at HUD-estimated Fair Market Rent (FMR) while spending no more than 30% of income on housing costs."
It is not at all obvious. I really wish that news articles like this would set aside a section where they explicitly name and link to their sources rather than burying them as hyperlinks in the text.
"The signature finding of Out of Reach is the annual Housing Wage - the hourly wage a full-time worker must earn to afford a decent two-bedroom rental home at HUD-estimated Fair Market Rent (FMR) while spending no more than 30% of income on housing costs."
It is not at all obvious. I really wish that news articles like this would set aside a section where they explicitly name and link to their sources rather than burying them as hyperlinks in the text.
My dad just bought a down town storefront with a killer apt above for 25k. I can't believe that telecommuting programmers aren't owning small towns all throughout America.
There's a lot more that goes into enjoying one's surroundings than just the price paid to own a home there. For those who enjoy small towns, you're absolutely right; what an amazing opportunity.
The wage data that drives the document is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/county...
What's up with expensive counties in north central N. Dakota?
Oil boom. All the various workers are making triple digit salaries, and like any good boom, people offering food and housing are adjusting their prices upwards to match.
From the article: "A dark swathe of North Dakota that appears to cover the geography of the oil and gas boom stands out as well."
Natural gas boom.
Pardon the expression.
Pardon the expression.
I'm guessing it's areas where demand is high, but supply is low, due to increased oil & gas activity.
Would probably be a bit higher if some of the oil companies didn't buy local hotels.
Fracking and oil.
[deleted](2)
Is it an Americanism to use the word every in this fashion?
I looked at the title and wondered why you would want the sum total of all the housing costs. I would rather know what each county's costs are. Clicking on the link it is each, however given the prestige of the website made me wonder if this is another subtle example of British verses American usage?
I looked at the title and wondered why you would want the sum total of all the housing costs. I would rather know what each county's costs are. Clicking on the link it is each, however given the prestige of the website made me wonder if this is another subtle example of British verses American usage?
As an American, it does seem like a slightly ambiguous or odd usage.
I don't see manhattan in the list. Average here is around 2500 for a 1br, I thought that was high.
Manhattan is New York County, $23.37.
Brooklyn is the same however I'd like to see this broken down further by neighborhoods of Brooklyn (or all boroughs) because prices can vary significantly by neighborhood
There are a couple of real estate firms that do regular reporting on pricing trends:
http://www.mns.com/pdf/manhattan_market_report_mar_14.pdf
http://www.mns.com/pdf/brooklyn_market_report_mar_14.pdf
http://www.mns.com/pdf/manhattan_market_report_mar_14.pdf
http://www.mns.com/pdf/brooklyn_market_report_mar_14.pdf
Manhattan isn't a county. Look for New York County. It is $23.27
Texas, where I live, is notable in the map for the diversity of costs, in particular the frequent juxtaposition of the highest and lowest cost counties.
The rich live in cities, and landlords set rents according to the ability to pay.
The rich live in cities, and landlords set rents according to the ability to pay.
Speaking of minimum wages, what's up with the five Washington and 3 Oregon counties with minimum wages above the "what you's need to make" mark?
Columbia County Pend Oreille County Stevens County Wahkiakum County Lincoln County Harney County Morrow County Wheeler County