The Rent Really Is Too Damn High

Well, when Jimmy McMillan is right, he's right.

One of the biggest questions in poverty is 'what do you do when full employment (full-time, above minimum wage, regular hours, etc.) isn't enough?'

This is something addressed in a recent Poverty Insights article, and I think it presents an interesting response.

The article, entitled "Will Work for Homelessness" chronicles a thought-experiment on what it would take for a homeless man on the streets of L.A. to earn enough to a) pay rent in the expensive city of Los Angeles and b) have housing costs take up less than the 30% benchmark that is most often cited for 'stable, sustainable' living costs.

According to the article, in order for someone to pay the average rent cost in Los Angeles--$1,315 per month--they would need to earn, working full-time, $22.76 per hour to make their housing costs approximately 1/3 of their income.

The problem is that the minimum wage--what we'll commonly accept as "decent" pay for non-skilled workers, is only $8 per hour in Los Angeles.

Now, the decline of available affordable housing aside, we have to ask ourselves--does this math make any sense?

Now, I'll agree that there may be some discrepancy in the numbers: the availability of food stamps to low-income earners, the bevy of other public assistance programs to the lowest-income bracket, etc. all complicate what people who earn minimum actually have access to in value. But the question remains:

Does a system that sets a base (minimum wage) WELL below an actual living wage that then relies on public assistance seem sustainable?

My answer: I don't see how!

If we want to dignify work, and build the integrity of our system, we need to reevaluate how low-skilled workers are valued in our economy--either on the compensation or access side--or both.

Here's the rhetoric used to describe why the poor "don't deserve" public assistance: They are lazy, they don't have adequate skills to compete, they haven't and still don't try hard enough in school or work, and why should someone have to pay them more than they are worth?

Here's the answer: People that work 2-3 jobs, more than full-time, can't get off work to go to classes on improving their skills, nor can they afford them. People in poverty oftentimes have never been encouraged or allowed to express themselves creatively or in enterprise because they've had to work all their lives, and no bank will lend to them. Students in poverty can't compete with more well-off students because the unpaid internships and study abroad opportunities that employers are looking for cost too much--either financially or in opportunity cost in contrast to a summer job or taking care of family members. And finally, people in poverty are PEOPLE first and foremost, not animals, or machines, or tools.

"People-centered," to me, means putting humanity in front of a profit end. We don't have to give up profits or capitalism, but rather, we have to make the system work better. We have to reward responsible companies for good behavior, and punish bad ones. We have to give the benefit of the doubt to people (& the planet), not just profit margins. If we're not called to do that by nature, by our religion, by our conviction to our fellow man, or by conscience, then we truly lose our grip on true justice.