|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
On May 2, TVNPA hosted an in-depth presentation on the “State of Housing for Vulnerable Populations in the Tri-Valley.” While the presentation received good media coverage, more can be said. With this issue, unfortunately, more can always be said. So here’s some context for California.
The minimum wage in California is $15.50/hour. At 40 hours/week, working for 50 weeks/year (which, given how minimum wage jobs actually play out, is a strained assumption), an individual will earn $31,000 in a year.
The Fair Market Rate to rent a two-bedroom apartment in California is around $2,200/month or $26,000/year. Which is almost all of one minimum wage yearly income. A living wage assumes that 30% of a household’s income will be allocated for housing and utilities. Household’s monthly income must be around $46.25/hour or over $7,000/month. That translates to 2.7 full-time minimum wage jobs per household.
In fact, most renters earn around double minimum wage — still not enough to fall under that 30% for housing and utilities rubric, but enough to manage. So why worry about those at the bottom? Can’t they simply live elsewhere and commute farther? The reality is that lack of housing is not only an individual problem.
When households need to juggle many salaries to survive, the odds of falling into homelessness increase. That impacts not only the individuals involved, but the resources that must be directed to those individuals.
It’s cheaper and better for everyone to ensure housing for all. When those in minimum wage jobs have to commute long distances, it impacts roads, air quality, and the ability to build thriving communities. It’s better for communities and the environment to ensure cities have a full range of housing options. That’s the context. Stay tuned…
