Neither the title nor the article use the word "median" - they appear to be using the concept of "Fair Market Rents" (FMR), which is a 40th percentile[1] of non-sub-standard units.

The article calls out that even the _average_ wage earner can't afford an FMR unit in many states:

> For a two-bedroom rental, the Housing Wage is $22.96—a figure that’s higher than average renters’ wages everywhere, and at least $5.00 higher than the average wage for renters in 16 states. For a one-bedroom rental, the Housing Wage is $18.65.

[1] https://www.huduser.gov/Periodicals/ushmc/winter98/summary-2...

There are multiple points where averaging is employed.

FMR is a close to median value. From the linked definition: "The FMR is the 40th percentile of gross rents for typical, non-substandard rental units occupied by recent movers in a local housing market"

Additionally, FMR is itself statewide average, covering both high and low cost of living areas. Low cost of living counties have units available for far below FMR values.

Low end housing in low cost of living areas can be found for under $377/mo - their estimate of affordable minimum wage rent.

Valid points. Unfortunately, there are also people earning minimum wage in high cost of living areas...

The article mentioned the 30th percentile, which is an unrealistic percentage of income to expect minimum wage earners to spend for housing by themselves without a roommate or family situation.

Is that what the article is saying? Their reference to 'median' is saying that's what other people are reporting and they want to look at something else.

They don't seem to qualify it - they simply say 'there is not one U.S. state, metropolitan area, or county in which a minimum wage worker who clocks 40 hours a week can afford a two-bedroom apartment'. They don't use the term 'median' anywhere apart from talking about other articles. The report they link to talks about 'fair market rate' - not sure who decides what's fair and what isn't.

Not "median," but they do use "average":

> In 2019, the affordability crisis has plunged to new depths. Last year, the average worker making the federal wage minimum of $7.25 per hour had to work 122 hours a week, every single week, to afford an average two-bedroom apartment.

The point being made earlier in the thread is the comparison is between the middle and the tail, not the tail earners and the tail quality 2-bed room apartment.

Yes, it's what they're saying. They quote $377/mo as the maximum affordable rent for a minimum wage earner.

There are many counties across America where a low-end two bedroom can be found for substantially less than that $377. These claims only make sense if they refer to median prices.

For example:

https://joplin.craigslist.org/apa/d/joplin-2br-1bath-apartme...

https://seks.craigslist.org/apa/d/pittsburg-1913-elm-complex...

The claim 'there is not one U.S. state, metropolitan area, or county in which a minimum wage worker who clocks 40 hours a week can afford a two-bedroom apartment' is simply incorrect.

But what makes you think they're using the median instead?

People making the minimum wage can hardly get by anywhere in the US and have almost no social mobility because they can't buy homes and rent leaves little or no room for savings, particularly if they have families. Moreover the disparity between top and lowest quartiles is growing. Whatever the flaws of the article, it's a problem. It's a shame the article has those flaws (https://reports.nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2019.p... is the original source for a lot of the article's and is worth reading instead) and everyone is focused on bikeshedding the analysis instead of getting the greater point.

The article starts out talking about median rents, but the data they use is based on something called Fair Market Rent. There’s a link in there explain it.

FMR is a close to median value. From the linked definition:

"The FMR is the 40th percentile of gross rents for typical, non-substandard rental units occupied by recent movers in a local housing market"

Minimum wage is not a 40th percentile income.

They aren't saying that --they state the minimum wage worker would have to work 122 hours to afford that. Which is three jobs.

I have first hand experience with this crisis. I live in a reasonably priced area and make (with my spouse) about three times the minimum wage and I can barely afford to live anywhere. Basically one large unexpected cost could sink us into homelessness.

You know this for certain, that the minimum wage earner can, and that there is a large enough supply of housing available for them?

Whether or not they can afford a bottom quartile home is a different question than whether it's reasonable to expect them to afford a median home (and I don't think we have any evidence regarding that question here). They certainly aren't expected to be able to afford a top quartile home, for example, so I agree that the headline is a bit fishy.

The whole situation is being drastically oversimplified, though. Whether or not we expect minimum wage to support a family depends on whether there are other alternatives, like higher (and adequate) wage jobs that individuals can reasonably obtain when they do have to support a family. Is that happening? My sense is no -- we have a big step function where you're either mostly screwed (working several jobs, driving Uber, etc. barely making it if at all), or you're making 6 figures after getting a 4 year degree in some technical or professional field.

This leaves out all the trade professions (plumber, electrician, etc) which I keep hearing are doing quite well.

While that doesn't require the big 4 year commitment, that still requires education or an in to working with a skilled tradesperson, and their wages aren't great starting out.

If you read the report, they define the rent prices for housing wages as 40th percentile of standard quality homes. Not bottom of the barrel but definitely lower than median across all homes. I think it’s a fair measure.

they also exaggerate by omission the number of people earning these wages, their ages, and the income of other family members.

the housing cost problem is wholly created by government and instead of working to fix it too many cities keep doubling down on making it harder to create new housing, affordable or not. combine the housing cost with the high costs of government services, licensing fees, and other regulatory fees, and the lower class is further in the hole.

one issue is there is no reason for politicians to fix this issue, it is too hot button to have a true remedy and worse is a fantastic source of income for patrons and relatives through various special interest groups which exist to absorb funding from programs supposedly working to solve the issue. instead end up raising legal challenges in exchange for pay outs either in direct settlement or advisement roles all of which end up pushing costs of solutions too high to implement.

Seattle only recently upzoned many areas of the city to permit building denser housing however they may end up sabotaging it through rent controls which have been shown to be another method of limiting new housing

Don't forget most people looking for two+ bedroom homes have kids.

> Minimum wage earners can often afford two bedroom homes priced at the lower end.

[citation needed]

Looking around the bay they appear to simply become homeless, especially if there's any interruption in work, and if they're lucky they're able to move away before this happens.

Obviously not in the Bay Area. People making six figures can't afford homes in the Bay Area.

But homes are cheaper almost everywhere else in the US.

...and that's the economy working, where you can be run out of the city because a rich person wants your house?

No, that's NIMBYist government regulation preventing the economy from working by building high density housing in a city that needs it.

YIMBY pro-developer stances like Weiner's SB-50 aren’t going to help working class families and individuals either. I am very pro-development but we need high allocations of affordable and social housing to make the development work for the existing community.

Yes?

Supply and demand is basically the fundamental law of economics.

No, it’s not. It’s the foundation of market economies, which are not the only way to distribute goods and services. There are many alternatives to this.

Like Venezuela, Cuba, and the Soviet Union? Those alternatives aren't better.

Look at singapore for an alternative that isn’t associated with anti-socialized scare tactics. Soviets had a lot of issues but lack of housing wasn’t one of them. Same for cuba, although the sanctions have crippled the economy to make quality housing difficult. I can’t speak for venezuela housing as i have not researched it, and it seems weird to clump a country with a mostly private economy in with self-proclaimed communist countries.

A somewhat ironic example given the subject at hand

https://www.propertyguru.com.sg/property-management-news/201...

"House prices in Singapore are considered “seriously unaffordable”, with a median multiple of 4.6, which means that the median house price is 4.6 times the city-state’s median household income, according to an annual survey."

I was referring to the public housing, not the market housing. If you’re a citizen it’s not terribly difficult to get your own unit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

This is how you preserve existing communities--it should be harder to move into a city than to stay there.

Why should existing folks be given preferential access to urban job markets? No one born outside a city chose to be born there.

Because without community, what value do job markets have? Life is more than working until you die. Only the rich have the luxury of something more the way cities are headed. This is worth fighting for. If you don’t start with values, you have nothing.

Anyway it’s somewhat of a moot point because you can preserve communities and still build—just not with market-driven rents and landlord-owned cities. And not everyone can have what they want and live where they want. It’s worth it.

Location location location. Try looking around some city not well known for insane housing prices.

Try moving cities without a home or a job, looking to survive on the street.

The hard part about moving is leaving family, friends, and stuff behind. Once you are willing to do that a bus ticket across the US is cheap.

> The hard part about moving is leaving family, friends, and stuff behind

Tell that to the homeless, I dare you. It's certainly the attitude of a sheltered existence.

The homeless have problems mostly unrelated to minimum wage.

This claim is based on... what? Your wandering around the tenderloin and judging people?

Try visiting shelters, especially in the south bay. There are plenty of families without the problems you mentioned.

This attitude is intentional neglect of reality, and its prevalence is literally killing people.

California's problems are the result of years of zoning codes not allowing needed building. (prop 13 doesn't help either) This is simple supply and demand, when you don't allow supply to change (building more suburbs on the outskirts does not count - distance becomes a factor)

(Note, between the time I wrote the earlier comment and this I discovered new information on California's homeless situation - shelters near me the homeless are either mentally ill or victims of domestic violence - the first are forever a problem and the latter will be out in a couple weeks)

the bay is not lower end is it

Every market has a working class. You can’t just pretend supply and demand will provide labor with perfect elasticity. Part of why development is so difficult is the labor pool in the bay area is massively outstripped by demand for labor driving up costs and slowing down development.