Are American workers who feel entitled to live off their unskilled wage ruining the economy?
Given that this “economy” is almost entirely dependent on the insatiable consumption of newer and shinier things that are designed to quickly become obsolete it seems rather counterproductive to want any segment of the labor force, that does all of the buying, to not only have no disposable income to prop up consumer demand but to not even have enough to afford a roof over their head. And where do you suppose the “unskilled”, however you decide to define it, should live if they aren’t supposed to be able to afford the cost of living? In overcrowded shelters? Tents on the sidewalk? Under bridges? Anywhere out in public where they can create a health hazard to themselves and everyone else by not having access to running water and sewage that comes with you know modern housing? If you want shanty towns on the edges of your urban hellscapes like Rio de Janeiro that attitude will get you there. Saying that unskilled labor is too entitled is a complete misdirection because your stereotypical burger flipper, bus boy or grocery stocker aren’t the only workers who cannot live off their wage. As I mentioned in a prior answer to a question about housing inflation and a prior post about it last year (The Truth About The Labor Shortage) 11 of the 20 largest occupations pay a lower median wage than what is needed to afford an apartment, at the HUD threshold, at the national average rent. These include “skilled” jobs such as administrative assistants, financial clerks, record clerks, warehouse workers, and pest control workers. Workers who cannot afford the average national rent for a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment constitute a full 36% of the U.S. labor force excluding agricultural workers and including millions of new teachers in all but one of the 50 largest metro areas (note this particular study was conducted before the pandemic speculation frenzy). And saying that skilled labor who cannot afford to live off their wage should just have a particular skill set or training you think guarantees being able to live off your wage is also a misdirection. As I explained in It’s The Rent Stupid higher education or skills can only ever increase real wages individually in so far as it gives some labor force participants a competitive edge over others. The more common any skill, trade, or knowledge becomes the lower its returns become, in being able to demand higher wages, to those who possess them. Earning a higher income itself is also only ever an individual advantages in so far as it gives some labor force participants more purchasing power relative to others. Whenever area median income or the general rate of wages rises for everyone so does the rent and housing prices at least proportionally to the rise in income levels but as I noted in several prior answers and posts it has actually exceeded median renter and median household incomes this century.
Answer: What Are Some Potential Implications of the Low Housing Inventory on the U.S. Housing Market
Rackrents in the U.S. Since 1960