ATTACKERMAN » Just got paid and we still was broke:So live in an efficiency, like your humble narrator. Or get a roommate. Half of a two bedroom rent is cheaper than one bedroom all to yourself.
There is not a single city or county in the US where a full time worker earning the minimum wage could afford even a 1 bedroom apartment.
Note also that the study in question arbitrarily assumes that you spend no more than 30% of wages on rent. I spend closer to 50% and still manage to keep the pantry stocked, my dog cared for, and take frequent, though short, vacations.
Also, consider that 21.6% of minimum wage earners are 19 and under, and often don't need to rent an apartment anyway. Another 25.5% are between 20 and 24 (inclusive). Americans in that age range routinely stuff themselves into conditions far more cramped than studio apartments and come out none the worse for wear. We call them college students in dorms. The world does not owe you your very own one bedroom apartment, especially if you're under 25.
Finally, I must point out the provenance of the study, which was generated by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which is dedicated to lobbying for more lower cost housing. Make of that what you will.
Appendix: The NLIHC numbers state you need 3.4 minimum wage earners, working 40 hours a week, and each spending 30% of their income on housing, to rent a two bedroom in Maryland, where I live. (Or this is what their conclusions say; I didn't check their figures.) Call this 3.4*.30 = 1.02 minimum wage incomes. If you put one occupant in each of the two bedrooms, each would need to spend 51% of their wages on rent. As I said, I spend about 50% of my wages on rent, and could spend much less if I did not have a dog or choose to live exceedingly close to work. Conclusion: nothing is wrong with this situation.