The St. Paul Pioneer Press does a good job looking at how a serious lack of affordable housing and the poor economy is increasing the ranks of the almost-homeless among renters. And that’s despite the housing crash.
The number of people making more than half of their income for housing “spiked to 14 percent in 2009, after decades of hovering near 8 percent,” according to the Pioneer Press. That stat is at the heart of this story, and I suspect it’s one that you’d see nationwide.
It’s even worse for Minnesota renters, nearly a quarter of whom pay more than half of their income in rent. Bob Shaw finds some good anecdotes to illustrate the story:
His monthly income is $795, and he pays $600 rent for himself, his 1-year-old daughter and a roommate.
“I eat a lot of pasta and rice,” he said….
Robinson pays about 80 percent of his income - $543 a month - to rent a studio apartment on Seventh Street in St. Paul.
After paying utilities, he said, he has about $20 left each month.
“Money is tight,” said Robinson, 54.
And the paper has some good quotes getting at the bigger picture:
“The bottom line is that our economy requires a percentage of people in jobs that can’t afford market-rate housing, and there are not enough subsidies to make up the difference,” said Ramsey County’s Anderson.
And backs that up with some data:
For a typical two-bedroom apartment, a person would have to work year-round, with no vacations, earning $16 per hour. The typical Minnesota renter makes $11.61 an hour.
Unfortunately, we’re not told how any of the renters interviewed here get their meager incomes. Is it government checks or paychecks? Even full-time minimum wage work would gross more than $1,200 a month. Their work status should have been included here. And finding a higher-earning person to interview would have made this story even better.
But the Pioneer Press is good in explaining the dearth of affordable housing. Government subsidies aren’t enough to make affordable housing construction worth the time of private developers and zoning makes it hard to build even if you want to.
The biggest reason is the slump in working-class and poor people’s income. The paper reports that while real rents in Minnesota are up 7 percent since 2000, real income for Minnesota renters has plunged a shocking 21 percent.
Meantime, Minnesota’s jobs situation is far better than the nation as a whole. Its unemployment rate is at 6.6 percent compared to 9.1 percent nationally.
Which is why it would be great to see other papers replicate this good story in their own states.
(h/t Kat Aaron)
This article sounds like a lot of BS. I'm sure this guy could find a cheaper place to stay, he just seems obsessed with having his own studio. Like you say, any kind of job would get him much more than he's making now, so he must not be working. Obviously times are tough right now, but that's why you cut back. I'm sure he could get a much cheaper room by sharing a house with roommates. As for the $16/hour calculation, it seems made up out of whole cloth. $16/hour works out to almost $2.6k/month. If you're working-class and paying that much for a two-bedroom apt in Minnesota, you must be high.
#1 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 03:15 AM
What would also have been nice is for the article to make mention of what is driving increased rent rates while house prices are falling.
When you have a massive amount of foreclosures because people sitting in time bomb / sub prime mortgages saw their rates blow up, these people have to move. They can't get new loans to buy new property so they have to rent. This drives up the price of rental properties even as the value of real estate tumbles.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a107bd9c-9841-11e0-ae45-00144feab49a.html#axzz1QgGCQ9y4
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 11:55 AM
@Ajay, it's good to see that Americans and their social sadism never get in the way of reading for comprehension. Because one-year-old daughters and roommates clearly don't count as roommates, and it is apparently a sign of good character to sign your entire paycheck over to your landlord.
For those of us living in the real world, the traditional and customary definition of "affordable housing" (and one that is occasionally enforced by landlords as an eligibility requirement) is no more than one-third of one's gross income. One-third of $2600 is a little under $875. One-third of $795 is about $275.
#3 Posted by Jonathan, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 12:19 PM
Jonathan, it's "social sadism" to suggest one cut costs and get some roommates? I know who needs to get back to the real world and it isn't me. As for reading comprehension, I think the real problem here is your inability to do math. A roommate who doesn't pay rent obviously isn't a roommate in the sense I was talking about. How about a lesson in logic? My suggestion that he cut his rental costs is the opposite of saying he should turn his entire paycheck over to his landlord. Perhaps your ratio of one-third was employed by the author of the article, but since he never states that, that's merely an assumption. If in fact he was using some fraction like that, it would have helped clarify his ludicrous numbers if he had actually stated that, though it still wouldn't have justified that ridiculous ratio. btw, if us Americans are social sadists, where're you from, Europe? I'd call the high unemployment and shitty GDP per capita in Europe, all because of their social experiment that has long since failed, a much more blatant form of social sadism than anything we see in the US.
#4 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 04:52 PM
Ryan: 2nd graf, change "making" to "paying," I think.
You write: "Unfortunately, we’re not told how any of the renters interviewed here get their meager incomes. Is it government checks or paychecks?"
Probably SSI. But right; t should be made clear. In fact, I think every reporter on every story ought to ask, and get an answer to, the questions: what do you do for a living? About how much is your monthly income?
Even asking it can create an uncomfortable silence (ask me how I know). In places like Baltimore, there are enough drug-dealing families that you come across them on social service type stories as well as prisoner abuse type stories. The answers these folks give to the question are helpful in many ways. Not truthful, but helpful.
Non-drug dealers, in most cases, 'fess up. Especially poor people. Then you get to have a discussion, usually off the record, about how they acquire enough money on the QT to actually eat meals. And/or which soup kitchens they frequent.
The better-off folks usually demur, or maybe give a range. Again, not always truthful, but helpful. The really wealthy act like you just asked them to unzip their junk. It's totally funny, which is why asking this question should be made mandatory by all editors.
The story of America's "shadow economy," how it is growing and evolving, how the under-the-table workers at the bottom create and support the tax-dodging millionaires and billionaires at the top, is one of the great untold economic tales of our time. It'll never get got as long as reporters forget to ask the key questions.
#5 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 04:56 PM
"Affordable housing" = slums.
The liberals want the poor to stay poor and to live in slums with complete dependency upon the government. This is the goal of commie/liberalism.
The fix to this mess is simple.. If you need an apartment... Get a job (or two jobs, if necessary) and pay your damned bills.
If you are truly incapacitated and lack resources, then become a ward of the state and live in an institution.
Otherwise, get off your whiny, lazy ass and get to work.
There! Problem solved. See how easy?
As for this typically fact-deficient, whiny, liberal nonsensical drivel from the Pioneer Press, it's time once again to toll the Reality Bell with a little investigative reporting...
From the first 2 BR listing on the Minneapolis Craigslist:
$685 / 2br - Two BR. Bath Apartment (minneapolis / st paul)
"Magnificently furnished 2 bedrooms 2 bathrooms rental. I do have this excellent furnished two Bedroom unit available for lease . The actual benefits consist of, gym, jacuzzi, tennis court, dish washer, disposal, home equipment, and also car parking centrally located in the establishment."
http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/hnp/apa/2468709057.html
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 07:42 PM
That craigslist ad has been flagged for removal so I doubt it was real. Typical rent for a 2BR apartment in the Twin Cities is about $800. And that is no bells and whistles. Just an apartment with a parking lot. Looks like Craigslist has studios in the $500-$600 range. Do any of you commenting here even live in Minnesota and know the market?
#7 Posted by Jen, CJR on Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 07:07 PM
Jen: please do not bother twaddlespewer with facts while he is tolling his "reality bell." It confuses and disorients him, and prompts him to accuse you, once again, of libbycommunism.
#8 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 10:16 PM
So say a 2BR averages $800 a month.
Minimum wage = $7.25 per hour. 40 hours a week = $290 a week times 4.333 weeks per months = $1256 per month...
This screwy Pioneer Press article is nothing but lying, liberal drivel.
REPEAT. If you want an apartment... DO WORK!
It ain't complicated, people!
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 08:02 AM
Minimum wage job in this ideal world gives 40hrs/week. In this ideal world there is no depressed economy and companies can afford to extend full time hours.
Healthcare and insurance in this ideal world doesn't cost between 300 to 600 a
month.
In this ideal world there are no children.
And transportation is free.
So are phones.
And the "low-calorie, nutritious foods" padi says the poor should buy:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_bloomberg_investigation_expo.php#comment-46761
are also low cost. People have all the time in the world to cook and the materials to cook that food can be plucked from trees.
And in this ideal world, if you want an apartment... DO WORK.
But not everybody lives in padi's ideal world.
The world they live in is less forgiving:
http://www.bookjive.com/wiki/Book:Nickel_and_Dimed:_On_(Not)_Getting_By_in_America
It takes a bitter fricken' person to look down from their world with contempt on others without knowing their circumstances.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 11:31 AM
The only people contemptuous of the poor are the liberals..
I am only contemptuous of able-bodied adults who mooch of the government and expect "somebody else" to take care of them.
The liberals want to keep the "poor" under wraps in a permanent underclass.. Segregated in government-funded concentration camps on the other side of town. Unemployed, uneducated, unmotivated and utterly dependent upon the government for the essentials of life. Crappy housing. Crappy schools. For others, that is.
Conservatives, on the other hand, want to see the condition of the poor improve - they want to see accomplishment, achievement and independence.n They want to see the American dream restored - wherein a poor kid with energy, aptitude or inspiration has an incentive to work instead of mooch and wherein the system rewards him for effort.
As for the "plight" of the Minneapolis tenants... It's not a complicated situation, rent-wise - If you want an apartment, get a job (or two, or three) and pay your damned rent! Nobody owes you a roof over your head. Nobody owes you a cheeseburger. Nobody owes you band-aids.
Take some damned personal responsibility, stop whining, get off your lazy ass, get a damned job and take care of yourself and your family!
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 04:18 PM
See, Thimbles? No contempt there!
#12 Posted by edward ericson jr, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 10:26 PM