But we offer local and federal subsidized housing, and a negative federal income tax via the earned income tax credit.
Whether that’s a better deal for society than a higher wage, I don’t know.
Since 1972, I think capital has managed to scoop up too large a share of the wealth yielded by efficiency gains. So I agree that for the bottom 20% or so at the very least, wages are artificially and unfairly low due to externalities.
That said, with respect to this particular factoid, I am asking sincerely if the prevalent view is that this is a “blow your mind” fact or even inappropriate? Do we expect a single income at nominal work hours should pay for a two-bedroom apartment?
Living alone and depending on my own income, I didn’t have a two-bedroom apartment until I was in my late 30s. The largest space I lived for the twenty years after age 16 was 680 square feet, and 450 square feet was the largest for the first eight years or so.
And I considered myself fairly well off. I wouldn’t have expected folks earning minimum wage to have a more spacious home.
Urban are exurban areas are full of studio apartments and one-bedroom units. If the smallest wage anyone can earn were deemed by social expectations to merit a two-bedroom apartment, who are all these units intended for?