Two bedrooms does not imply two residents, and certainly not "at least two." Perhaps the title could be improved (by stating "to afford a two-bedroom apartment").
One cool thing about putting it in $/hour like this is that we can easily say what two people would have to make to afford the same apartment. They would each need to make about $16/hour. It's feasible, but there are a lot of careers that don't pay that or that would cut it close.
The only reason to live in San Francisco on minimum wage is if you want to break into some line of work that only exist in SF and pays minimum wage for entry level position with significant increase expected in near future. In this case you can live 2 person per room and consider it extension of college experience. Really nothing bad about it and minimum wage can pay for it.
Otherwise you are insane to continue living in one of the most expensive cities on minimum wage. Complaining about it is like complaining that minimum wage does not pay for black caviar.
That's true to a degree. That said, I think its fair to recognize that there are factors other than economic opportunity that prevent people from moving e.g. family in the area, networking, school etc. We also need to acknowledge that there will always be a need for a certain number of low-wage jobs and those people have to be somewhere accessible. Finally, there is a reasonable argument for cultural diversity and continuity. For all of those reasons, it does behoove us to think about what can be done to improve the housing situation.
It does seem like the market is responding though. Anecdotally, I'm seeing lots of new development in San Jose and they're all high-rise style buildings that should add significantly to the overall housing supply.
What's your plan when all the minimum wage workers leave SF, because nobody in their right mind should live there for minimum wage? Who will clean your office building's bathrooms? Who will wash dishes at the restaurants? Seems to get those workers back...you'll have to pay more?
