Whether you do or not, people have to because that's where the jobs are. And they can't afford to. And that's the real problem.
Learn to plumb or be an electrician. Both are very in demand and pay well.
While i support trades, specifically those that have unions, even a journeyman plumber would have problems affording rent at $37.80 per hour. The average rent in San Francisco is $3276. Not including taxes, medical, retirement, food, Union dues, or anything else, a plumber would have to work 100 hours to cover rent. Using round numbers, that far exceeds the target of rent being 30% or less of someone's income.
That would also involve moving to less expensive areas where the pay is good and cost of living is lower. Not everyone that lives in the bay area should live in the bay area.
What solution would you like to see that resolves the pay to rent gap? I'm pretty sure cities need the trades people, we're just haggling over "how" now.
Poor people cannot afford the city, if wages rise so will rents and other products in turn, leading to overregulation and strangles on the market until landlords would rather have empty homes than deal with tenants.
Landlords are already leaving housing empty rather than lower rents. Perhaps heavy handed regulations are needed because unfettered capitalism isn't offering any solutions.
Houses are going empty precisely because people are still submitting applications and attempting to live in them. The landlords are waiting for the perfect tennant instead of accepting the ten substandard ones rn. The market will either adjust or these landlords will lose out on revenue streams.
So wait, is anyone supposed to be left there other than the few well off people who can already afford it comfortably??
How do you expect that not to immediately collapse?
That’s the point, the people doing the work move away, the market falls to a level people can live in the city, everything balances out again. The only issue would be making sure the people stay away and the issue doesn’t happen again.
But that’s not what would happen because the people who can’t afford to live there are mostly the people who make society function.
You can’t have a working city without the people at the bottom. So what you are proposing is that the city should collapse.
Rather than, you know… just making sure people can afford to live there instead..
The person you are replying to, refers to the working class as "leftovers". I'm not sure they are worth debating.
The city won’t collapse, the rich that want to live in the bay will see to it. The whole point is there’s an overabundance of people that want to live in the same area, if the leftovers move to cheaper areas away from the bay than the housing crisis will be less impacted as a whole and prices will begin to fall.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you think everyone in San Francisco can be a plumber or an electrician?
People need to do things like work the espresso machine at Starbucks because, at least for now, we don't have robots to do it. And they can't afford to live in the city.
No, not everyone in San Fransisco can be an electrician or plumber, but the many that are complaining about high prices of rent can learn a trade and move to lower cost areas where the pay is good. The people working Starbucks espresso machines are in the same boat. If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
Fine. Who is going to make the coffee? Or flip the burgers? Or wash the dishes? Or deliver pizza?
Should San Francisco not have any low-cost food options?
Because you sure don't sound like you think service industry workers deserve more pay.
If you cannot afford to live in San Fransisco you shouldn’t live in San Fransisco. If all of these people left, the market would fall to the point where the city becomes affordable again. The rich hate being inconvenienced more than anything, and if all these workers moved to cheaper areas they would feel it.
You think only rich people drink coffee and expect to eat off of clean dishes? Really?
Also, what cheaper areas would those be? And why should they have to endure even longer commutes than they already endure?
All of this sounds like you want to punish poor people because they're poor.
If you’re poor you shouldn’t be getting Starbucks regularly, make your own coffee for cheaper. Cheaper areas are all around, smaller cities across America where your wages stretch farther. Not everyone needs to live in the bay area.
I see, so because people "shouldn't be" getting Starbucks "regularly," poor people should commute two hours to get to the job from the apartment they share with five people because that's all they can afford on the sort of low-wages all such establishments pay. Also, most people can't make things like caramel macchiatos at home. Because that requires an expensive machine rather than spending a few bucks on coffee, something many people who are not rich can afford.
So this still sounds pretty anti-poor to me. Poor people who work there have to suffer, poor people who want to drink or eat there don't get to do it.
What kind of world do you live in where Starbucks only have rich clientele who get coffee there every day or every week?
Also, what kind of world do you live in where there also aren't privately-owned coffee shops?
Good job completely ignoring the point where I said they should move to small cities where they can get a job in the local community and have their wages go farther. I go to college and pay my bills working at a car wash for 15 an hour plus tips. By no means great money but I live within my means and don’t expect to buy overpriced mid coffee. Starbucks works by making poor people think it’s rich people coffee and charging too much for mid drinks, the whole company should go under. Poor people don’t get to do everything they want to do like go out and eat and drink every night, that’s the nature of being poor. Americans need an attitude adjustment and a realization they don’t need to cluster into overpriced cities.
I didn't ignore it. Expecting the entire service industry of San Francisco to just up and leave is silly, impractical, and they probably can't afford to since moving is expensive and moving somewhere that you have no guarantee of a job is a good way to end up homeless.
I mean really, you expect a city to function without a service industry? That's ridiculous.
That’s the point, the people doing the jobs leave, the market fall in turn, and then new people or others return to the lower rates. The only problem is keeping people away the second time around to ensure the process doesn’t need to be repeated. You can move on the cheap, there are ways to do things cheap if you know how.
Why on Earth do you think "every service worker in San Francisco should just move away and find another job and another home somewhere else" is even feasible?
You are talking about at minimum hundreds of thousands of people. Many of the ones who aren't homeless (and many of them are homeless) don't have any form of transportation other than public transportation because they're too poor to afford a car. Are they supposed to walk to another place to get a job?
Do you think maybe there's a solution that isn't cruel to pretty much everyone in San Francisco at any income level, but especially the poor? Is there any solution you can possibly come up with that doesn't involve making poor people walk out of San Francisco until they get to another place and hope they find a job there?
I hate that you're being downvoted. I don't agree with everything you say but you are the only one offering solutions. Everyone else is just doing the "oh I see so people should just..." Followed by taking what you said out of context completely. For what it's worth I think you're right about people not being able to afford shit like Starbucks should just make their own, fuck that's what I do. I don't do shit I can't afford because I can't afford it.
So the Starbucks employee should like in eternal squalor and be grateful to barely make ends meet. But hey, those more fortunate needs their expensive coffee too, that money will trickle down any day now.
Starbucks employees shouldn’t be rich, it’s an entry level food service job. People that make a decent living work better jobs, or are good enough at their starbucks jobs that they become manager and move up the chain to the point they can make a decent living.
Yet they still need the ability to pay their rent to work where they're needed.
Yes, like in a less expensive area, where the wages they get would go a lot farther.
Ok, where do you live. I want a town name. You tell us where the cheap housing is, and I guarantee that Californians will fuck up your housing market because we have the money to do so. Ask literally anyone in rural America about Californians and the housing prices.
And both destroy your body. People who say what you just did neglect to explain that they can’t walk stairs without pain and their shoulder aches painfully when it gets cold.
Weak, my grandfather was a master plumber, lived his whole 92 years completely fine until he caught the black lung after 9/11. The people’s whose bodys are destroyed are the ones who don’t take care of them in the first place, take care of your body, prioritize yourself, and you’ll be fine.
Blah blah you have an anecdote. George burns worked until nearly 100 and lived a terribly unhealthy lifestyle. Don’t copy him.
And? People work these kinds of jobs and are fine for all their life, but because some don’t take care of themselves it vilifies the job as being hard on your knees and you’ll never be able to walk again.
Because the people who do this sort of work know that they are destroying their bodies so they fashion themselves into some sort of folk hero warrior that are some of the few people who live an authentic life compared to all the idiots around them. All of what you said is really something that exists within your own brain.
Whether you do or not, people have to because that's where the jobs are. And they can't afford to. And that's the real problem.
Learn to plumb or be an electrician. Both are very in demand and pay well.
While i support trades, specifically those that have unions, even a journeyman plumber would have problems affording rent at $37.80 per hour. The average rent in San Francisco is $3276. Not including taxes, medical, retirement, food, Union dues, or anything else, a plumber would have to work 100 hours to cover rent. Using round numbers, that far exceeds the target of rent being 30% or less of someone's income.
That would also involve moving to less expensive areas where the pay is good and cost of living is lower. Not everyone that lives in the bay area should live in the bay area.
What solution would you like to see that resolves the pay to rent gap? I'm pretty sure cities need the trades people, we're just haggling over "how" now.
Poor people cannot afford the city, if wages rise so will rents and other products in turn, leading to overregulation and strangles on the market until landlords would rather have empty homes than deal with tenants.
Landlords are already leaving housing empty rather than lower rents. Perhaps heavy handed regulations are needed because unfettered capitalism isn't offering any solutions.
Houses are going empty precisely because people are still submitting applications and attempting to live in them. The landlords are waiting for the perfect tennant instead of accepting the ten substandard ones rn. The market will either adjust or these landlords will lose out on revenue streams.
So wait, is anyone supposed to be left there other than the few well off people who can already afford it comfortably??
How do you expect that not to immediately collapse?
That’s the point, the people doing the work move away, the market falls to a level people can live in the city, everything balances out again. The only issue would be making sure the people stay away and the issue doesn’t happen again.
But that’s not what would happen because the people who can’t afford to live there are mostly the people who make society function.
You can’t have a working city without the people at the bottom. So what you are proposing is that the city should collapse.
Rather than, you know… just making sure people can afford to live there instead..
The person you are replying to, refers to the working class as "leftovers". I'm not sure they are worth debating.
The city won’t collapse, the rich that want to live in the bay will see to it. The whole point is there’s an overabundance of people that want to live in the same area, if the leftovers move to cheaper areas away from the bay than the housing crisis will be less impacted as a whole and prices will begin to fall.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you think everyone in San Francisco can be a plumber or an electrician?
People need to do things like work the espresso machine at Starbucks because, at least for now, we don't have robots to do it. And they can't afford to live in the city.
No, not everyone in San Fransisco can be an electrician or plumber, but the many that are complaining about high prices of rent can learn a trade and move to lower cost areas where the pay is good. The people working Starbucks espresso machines are in the same boat. If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
Fine. Who is going to make the coffee? Or flip the burgers? Or wash the dishes? Or deliver pizza?
Should San Francisco not have any low-cost food options?
Because you sure don't sound like you think service industry workers deserve more pay.
If you cannot afford to live in San Fransisco you shouldn’t live in San Fransisco. If all of these people left, the market would fall to the point where the city becomes affordable again. The rich hate being inconvenienced more than anything, and if all these workers moved to cheaper areas they would feel it.
You think only rich people drink coffee and expect to eat off of clean dishes? Really?
Also, what cheaper areas would those be? And why should they have to endure even longer commutes than they already endure?
All of this sounds like you want to punish poor people because they're poor.
If you’re poor you shouldn’t be getting Starbucks regularly, make your own coffee for cheaper. Cheaper areas are all around, smaller cities across America where your wages stretch farther. Not everyone needs to live in the bay area.
I see, so because people "shouldn't be" getting Starbucks "regularly," poor people should commute two hours to get to the job from the apartment they share with five people because that's all they can afford on the sort of low-wages all such establishments pay. Also, most people can't make things like caramel macchiatos at home. Because that requires an expensive machine rather than spending a few bucks on coffee, something many people who are not rich can afford.
So this still sounds pretty anti-poor to me. Poor people who work there have to suffer, poor people who want to drink or eat there don't get to do it.
What kind of world do you live in where Starbucks only have rich clientele who get coffee there every day or every week?
Also, what kind of world do you live in where there also aren't privately-owned coffee shops?
Good job completely ignoring the point where I said they should move to small cities where they can get a job in the local community and have their wages go farther. I go to college and pay my bills working at a car wash for 15 an hour plus tips. By no means great money but I live within my means and don’t expect to buy overpriced mid coffee. Starbucks works by making poor people think it’s rich people coffee and charging too much for mid drinks, the whole company should go under. Poor people don’t get to do everything they want to do like go out and eat and drink every night, that’s the nature of being poor. Americans need an attitude adjustment and a realization they don’t need to cluster into overpriced cities.
I didn't ignore it. Expecting the entire service industry of San Francisco to just up and leave is silly, impractical, and they probably can't afford to since moving is expensive and moving somewhere that you have no guarantee of a job is a good way to end up homeless.
I mean really, you expect a city to function without a service industry? That's ridiculous.
That’s the point, the people doing the jobs leave, the market fall in turn, and then new people or others return to the lower rates. The only problem is keeping people away the second time around to ensure the process doesn’t need to be repeated. You can move on the cheap, there are ways to do things cheap if you know how.
Why on Earth do you think "every service worker in San Francisco should just move away and find another job and another home somewhere else" is even feasible?
You are talking about at minimum hundreds of thousands of people. Many of the ones who aren't homeless (and many of them are homeless) don't have any form of transportation other than public transportation because they're too poor to afford a car. Are they supposed to walk to another place to get a job?
Do you think maybe there's a solution that isn't cruel to pretty much everyone in San Francisco at any income level, but especially the poor? Is there any solution you can possibly come up with that doesn't involve making poor people walk out of San Francisco until they get to another place and hope they find a job there?
I hate that you're being downvoted. I don't agree with everything you say but you are the only one offering solutions. Everyone else is just doing the "oh I see so people should just..." Followed by taking what you said out of context completely. For what it's worth I think you're right about people not being able to afford shit like Starbucks should just make their own, fuck that's what I do. I don't do shit I can't afford because I can't afford it.
So the Starbucks employee should like in eternal squalor and be grateful to barely make ends meet. But hey, those more fortunate needs their expensive coffee too, that money will trickle down any day now.
Starbucks employees shouldn’t be rich, it’s an entry level food service job. People that make a decent living work better jobs, or are good enough at their starbucks jobs that they become manager and move up the chain to the point they can make a decent living.
Yet they still need the ability to pay their rent to work where they're needed.
Yes, like in a less expensive area, where the wages they get would go a lot farther.
So you end up with no Starbuck in LA.
Ok, where do you live. I want a town name. You tell us where the cheap housing is, and I guarantee that Californians will fuck up your housing market because we have the money to do so. Ask literally anyone in rural America about Californians and the housing prices.
And both destroy your body. People who say what you just did neglect to explain that they can’t walk stairs without pain and their shoulder aches painfully when it gets cold.
Weak, my grandfather was a master plumber, lived his whole 92 years completely fine until he caught the black lung after 9/11. The people’s whose bodys are destroyed are the ones who don’t take care of them in the first place, take care of your body, prioritize yourself, and you’ll be fine.
Blah blah you have an anecdote. George burns worked until nearly 100 and lived a terribly unhealthy lifestyle. Don’t copy him.
And? People work these kinds of jobs and are fine for all their life, but because some don’t take care of themselves it vilifies the job as being hard on your knees and you’ll never be able to walk again.
Because the people who do this sort of work know that they are destroying their bodies so they fashion themselves into some sort of folk hero warrior that are some of the few people who live an authentic life compared to all the idiots around them. All of what you said is really something that exists within your own brain.