http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/the-barriers-stopping-poor-people-from-moving-to-better-jobs/ar-AAtkQfI?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

So I read this article from The Atlantic on why the poor can't move to better jobs. I was actually excited to be proven wrong and learn why the poor can't go work somewhere that pays them more or move out of their shitty situation. I was disappointed.

The article essentially says that someone living in bumfuck nowhere earns less than someone living in New York or San Francisco and because rents are rising in those high-job demand areas, it makes it so the poor are priced out of the market so they have to settle for low paying jobs in low rent area.

1. Cost is relative. Making $30k in an area where the average rent is $700 is only slightly worse than making $60k in an area where the average rent is $1400. Obviously I know the $60k job is better because there are more expenses than just rent, but you follow.
2. Just because the "average rent is X" doesn't mean that's what it costs to live there. I have worked in the DC area for almost a decade now, but until very recently, I lived over 30 miles away. For example, if you work in DC, you can live in a city like Frederick where the cost of living is far cheaper, and still make it work. You'll just have an hour long commute. You could say the same thing about pretty much every city except maybe San Francisco. I have friends who work in DC and live in Hagerstown MD or Falling Waters WV where the commute really sucks, but you can buy a house in a decent area for $120k.

So yeah, I don't buy this argument that because rents are rising because cities are becoming more high paying and high demand for jobs that require degrees and thus it makes it impossible for the poor to get by.

I welcome all. Tell me why I'm wrong.

The real problem is the lack of regulation. Large and powerful entities develop massive housing complexes and developments, they create monopolies, they collude and price fix. They have massive reserves of funds so they charge artificially high prices and don't care how long it stays empty before someone rents it. Average americans have no ability to negotiate as an individual against these entities. Really what it comes down to is that the free market is a godforsaken system of misery for the masses and wealth accumulation for the few.

@ OP

Making $30k where rent averages $700 is significantly worse than $60k with a $1,400 average, I don't follow. Quality of housing is worse for starters. You have a lot less negotiating power looking for another job that low on the rung. You also aren't placing a value on the persons time. My first time job was a 30 minute commute each way with traffic, not too bad. Now I live 2 minutes away from work, and I won't go back to commuting unless I am forced with no alternative. That is an extra 5 hours a week, people can do a lot with that time.

shit.. mortgage over here in tacoma is $1378 and currently only at 32k/yr... rip

Well, you kinda already refuted your own objection by pointing out, it's not JUST the cost of the rent. Obviously the article focuses mainly on housing, but in reality you also have things like heating, electric, water, sewer/garbage, cable, and internet for example to consider. And of course you can expect an overall increase in the cost of restaurants and various shopping areas. Plus, you need to keep in mind tax brackets - A single person making 30k per year is in the 15% tax bracket, while a single person making 60k is in the 25% bracket, so that right there means you're not actually doubling your income while the cost of your rent IS being doubled (as per your example). The overarching point here is that when you are looking at your net income on your budget after factoring all these things in, these people are finding that they're netting LESS money overall which makes uprooting their lives seem like a stupid decision. And let's also not forget that moving isn't exactly a cheap endeavor on its own, so it's not an easy thing for people to instantly jump on either.



Again, you just refuted your own point by pointing out the travel involved. If you're giving up a job that's 15 minutes away for one that's 45 minutes away, that's now an extra 5 hours of your life per week you are losing and not getting paid for. And of course there's the extra cost in gas for your vehicle as well as the significantly increased wear and tear you're putting on your car, which means more maintenance and over time means you'll need a new car sooner than if you had stayed at the last job. These costs add up.




Glad to help.

This post was edited by Magicman657 on Oct 12 2017 12:09pm

Theres a real difference when working IN Paris vs people working in others town.

I remember years ago, when i was young and beautifull (like today), i had to pay 900E each months for like 30-50m2 in Paris center and all my contacts in external neighborhoods and others towns were going mad when i was telling them the rent.

Then with years i realized a real social difference appeared, and it's not only the pay (if you are employed)... You will start to consider people from smaller towns as "inferior" workers it's clear.

- You are "in"
- You are close
- You can cumulate experiences in banks or various groups headquarters

That is not possible for those living in woods or fields.


No need to make a topic for that anyway, it's the same everywhere i guess.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Oct 12 2017 12:23pm

The point that i'm making is, you can always move. There are absolutely low cost cities that are a bit outside the standard suburbs. For DC, where I'm from, yeah Potomac, Bethesda, Mclean, are all insanely expensive. Reston, Rockville, Alexandria, are all pretty expensive. Gaithersburg, Germantown, Clarksburg, Sterling, Fairfax are all moderately affordable, but then you get to Frederick, Sterling, Leesburg, etc., and those are all pretty fuckin easy to afford especially with the way DC pays even low-end work.

Meaning, yeah your commute might suck, but you can definitely live in a place that pays high wages. Or, you can go live in a place that costs nothing and pays nothing and still get by, like post 2 in Oklahoma.

It isn't impossible, isn't even hard, just have to be willing to move to a place that makes sense for you. I make tons of money and I still would struggle to get by in San Francisco, so that's why I don't live there. Before I made tons of money, I lived in Frederick because I wanted to save up my money. It's about life decisions.

70% of Americans live pay-check to pay-check.
8 in 10 Americans are in debt.

I don't entirely disagree with your point but it's not as simply as just do it for a lot of people, when you take the two above statistics into consideration.