Looking at the statistics, according to the Housing and Vacancy Survey (HVS), “a third (33.5%) of rental households pay more than 50% of their household income in gross rent (up from 33.1% in 2011).” I found this statistic somewhat shocking as these were suppose to be rent-controlled units! However, it’s baffling to see that over 1/3 of each rent-controlled apartment will see the tenants paying more than half of their income for the gross rent. I think this also highlights the distinction between gross net (which includes utilities) vs. just simply the rent price. Ultimately, just solely the rent price is an inaccurate measure of how much a tenant is paying for his/her household. I think it would be better to measure the gross rent as this is a better indicator of how much a tenant’s salary is going into their living conditions.

 

In the end, this just creates a poverty loop. If half of one’s salary is going for gross rent, then the other half has to be spent of necessary items such as food, clothing, and other essential living items. It will be near impossible for a family paying a ratio that high to save up money and either try to invest it and create a higher economic status for themselves.

An interesting statistics I think would be to look at different rent ratios for different cities across the US. NYC, along with other heavily-populated areas like San Francisco, are known to charge outrageous rent prices. But, what about other cities like Boston, Washington DC or Chicago?