View Full Version : Backlash by the Bay: Tech Riches Alter a City
pinkytoe
11-25-13, 12:04pm
This is the title of a column in the NY times today about how San Francisco and certain other cities are becoming available only to those who can afford to live there and the whole flavor of the city changes to accommodate the newly arrived rich. Simple bungalows get torn down to be replaced by glass condo towers. In my own city and I suppose in others that are thriving, city government gives huge tax abatements to new and existing tech companies and to large corporations to come here. That huge loss of tax revenue and an exploding influx of people causes our own property taxes to be ridiculously high for fewer services. Rent and home prices continue to spiral upward. People with low and middle incomes are forced to find housing in the surrounding burbs and travel great distances to get to work. The homeless population grows larger and more visible. I guess it is inevitable that cultures and societies change but I find this disturbing - a gated community mindset where only those with advanced degrees and high paid income are able to populate these "great" cities. It is laughable to me that all these folks pretend to create affordable housing schemes as long as it doesn't happen to be where they live. Because we are older now and of middle income, it will become very hard to maintain our current standard of living in this "great" city...so this article hit a nerve.
Housing for profit is a bad design. Housing is a basic human need. It needs to be removed from the commodities market, along with food, medical care, education, and transportation.
sweetana3
11-25-13, 1:07pm
China tried it and now housing, education, transportation, medical care were removed from government entitlement programs. They did it dramatically and over a short period of time.
Is it any wonder their saving rate skyrocketed.
A NY Times article about SF and real estate is actually funny. NY followed by Boston and SF with maybe Seattle and some others have trended this way for decades but none longer than NY. Anyone remember rent control in NY?
We're shifting to be a lot more like other nations where the wealthy live in the cities and the countryside is for the peasants. As that happens I expect distribution of state and federal tax revenues will become more disparate between urban and nonurban areas as well.
I know of at least one young San Franciscan who's co-housing--one way to get around high mortgage payments.
Housing for profit is a bad design. Housing is a basic human need. It needs to be removed from the commodities market, along with food, medical care, education, and transportation.
Here's a picture of the grocery stores in Zimbabwe, shortly after that model was adopted:
http://www.marketplace.org/sites/default/files/styles/primary-image-900x500/public/WWW/data/images/repository/2007/10/24/20071024_zimbabwe_empty_shelves_23.jpg?itok=tuFqGc 2x
Producers stopped producing, distributors stopped distributing, stores stopped ordering goods.
Gardenarian
11-25-13, 3:43pm
San Francisco has always been expensive. The gentrification seems to move around - in the 90s it was the SOMA area. Now it's the Mission area, which has convenient access to the freeways and is adjacent to some classy older areas (Noe Valley, St. Francis Wood.) It's not so much that there is absolutely nowhere else in The City (as we call it) for people to move, it is that a large, established, primarily Mexican, community is being broken apart. It's like clear-cutting a forest; you can't just re-plant the trees. There is a whole ecosystem there that took many years and lives to build.
And most of these tech companies are NOT in SF - they are in Silicon Valley (hence the shuttle buses) so SF gains no business tax from them. Frankly, it's a mystery to me why anyone would live in SF when they could afford to live in Palo Alto, Los Altos, or many of the other delightful smaller cities that are much closer to where they work.
As for the guy who complains about SF - honestly, the weather?? Because you have to carry a sweater? Be thankful you're not chipping your car out of a block of ice, or sweltering in 100 degree plus mosquito-ridden summers.
I'm not crazy about SF myself, which is why I choose to live outside of it, and take advantage of the culture in small doses.
Housing for profit is a bad design. Housing is a basic human need. It needs to be removed from the commodities market, along with food, medical care, education, and transportation.
great, put me in for a beach house. I also really need a new plane. And can I also get a rebate for the education and medical care I already paid for? And instead of food can I just get someone to refresh my drinks at the beach house?
i also really need to play golf at high end clubs, is it really fair that I can't play at Augusta national.
ApatheticNoMore
11-25-13, 4:57pm
It's a problem, and with SF the problem is probably just is as said: nowhere else to build out. But yea extreme wealth driving people entirely out of cities is a problem. A problem exacerbated by extreme wealth inequality, plus exacerbated in California by things like Prop 13 (it's eliminated any break on housing prices going crazy, even though that handbreak by itself may not have stopped the car going over the cliff), and nationwide by a conviction that the housing bubble must be reinflated (but all this has lead to many places is speculators, not individuals looking for a place to live, buying up all the housing). Removing housing from the commodities market is a very heavy handed solution, even though yea the problem is already a problem some places and will probably get worse when it becomes more widespread.
But yea extreme wealth driving people entirely out of cities is a problem. A problem exacerbated by extreme wealth inequality...
Plenty of inexpensive housing is available in Detroit. I think they'll even *pay you* to move into some of it.
http://texaslynn.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/detroit-abandoned-neighborhood.jpg
San Francisco is about 47 square miles, with ~825,000 people living there. How many people get to live there? How do we decide who gets the golden ticket?
The island I live on is 56 square miles, with ~3500 year round residents, and many of them think *this* place is far too crowded...
flowerseverywhere
11-25-13, 8:24pm
Housing for profit is a bad design. Housing is a basic human need. It needs to be removed from the commodities market, along with food, medical care, education, and transportation.. Who will pay for it? The government a.k.a. working people?
I don't understand. If you could have basic needs provided why would anyone work? I would surely have thought twice about working as a nurse every other holiday, being mandated to nights etc. if I was not doing it to afford a good standard of living.
iris lilies
11-25-13, 11:44pm
Housing for profit is a bad design. Housing is a basic human need. It needs to be removed from the commodities market, along with food, medical care, education, and transportation.
There is not an eye roll image on the internet big enough to express my feelings about this statement. So I will make do with this tiny guy here:>8)
Housing for profit is a bad design. Housing is a basic human need. It needs to be removed from the commodities market, along with food, medical care, education, and transportation.
You forgot clothing.
pinkytoe
11-26-13, 10:14am
My intent was not to suggest that we should "provide" housing for everyone - just level the playing field a bit through policy. I don't see the value in kicking people out of their long-term homes because someone else wants to make money.
iris lilies
11-26-13, 11:32am
I don't care who makes money or where people live, but I do care that fabulous old houses are saved. Surely SF has historic district codes that protect wanton destruction of their old Victorians. It's hard for me to believe that these are torn down to build new junk. But whatever, maybe so. I suppose it depends on the district of SF.
My friends sold their SF house and moved here to the midwest, FI for some years. I guess in the scenario put forth by many here, they should not have been able to do that.
sweetana3
11-26-13, 2:34pm
SF must have strict regulations since they still retain the wood buildings of a certain height and have to "fit in" new construction. One of the reasons for high cost.
One reasonable approach to non-profit, affordable housing is the community land trust.
Generally some long-lived organization purchases and owns the land, and leases out the ground to homeowners to site their homes on. There are usually restrictions on the price the home can be resold for, and who can qualify to purchase it. This removes the high priced land from the equation in areas with expensive real estate, and removes the long-term profit from the home itself, turning it into housing instead of an investment.
Land trusts tend to have the highest retention of capital of the various competing affordable housing solutions - dollars raised from the community to purchase the land tend to stay in the trust, instead of being turned over time into private profits.
Not a solution for everyone, but it has done a great job in my county here:
http://www.opalclt.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust
Spartana
11-28-13, 12:02am
. Who will pay for it? The government a.k.a. working people?
I don't understand. If you could have basic needs provided why would anyone work? I would surely have thought twice about working as a nurse every other holiday, being mandated to nights etc. if I was not doing it to afford a good standard of living. I guess it would be something like Soviet Russia when they built huge apt blocks to house their citizens - assigning who lives where and with whom based on some social structure (can't remember exactly how it was done now). Many people in these communial housing apts lived in very small shared spaces with several family members - and often other families - and I don't believe they were able to move freely into a new place unless the communist government allowed it. And I believe they could be forced to move elsewhere if the government wanted that. And of course we do already have public government housing options for the poor - unfortunately they are often in city housing projects that are rife with crime.
From an article on communal living in the USSR:
" From the 1920s into the 1950s, a significant number of Soviet families lived in communal apartments, while many lived in worse conditions in barracks or "dormitories" (mass housing for workers). For many families, gaining a room in a communal apartment represented a step up in their housing, especially if they found themselves in the most desirable cities of Moscow or Leningrad. Like Iraida Yakovlevna from "A Room for Her Daughter," many people without housing, especially people from the rural areas, tried to get work as janitors so as to gain a room in the city.
In the Soviet Union, housing in cities belonged to the government. It was distributed by municipal authorities or by government departments based on an established number of square meters per person. As a rule, tenants had no choice in the housing they were offered. Rent and payment for communal services like water and electricity did not form a significant part of a family's budget. They did not cover the real costs, and were subsidized by the government.
People's access to housing was like their access to consumer goods in that it depended on their position in society and their place of work. Often, housing (the so-called "department housing") was provided by the workplace. Administrative control over housing and the movement of citizens was carried out by means of the residency permit.
In cities right up to the 1970s, most families lived in a single room in a communal apartment, where they suffered from overcrowding and had little hope of improving their situation. A comparative minority of people lived in "private" apartments or still lived in dormitories and barracks."
Well, misery must be shared among the entire populace if it's to be equitable.
flowerseverywhere
11-28-13, 1:32pm
Spartana, for excellent descriptions of what life was like during the Soviet Union Ken Follett wrote The Century Trilogy. It outlines many families, including one in the US and one in Russia and how they progress in the different societies. For all it's faults, I'll take the US anyday.
HappyHiker
11-29-13, 12:47pm
Interesting discussion. We left SF after 33 years due to over-crowding and COL. SF was affordable when we moved there in 1971. Our first apartment cost $120 month to rent in the Haight--and it was a nifty Victorian place with lots of character. Jobs were easy to come by.
Beauty was everywhere--the ocean, Golden Gate Park, the Russian River, nearby Redwoods, Tahoe, Yosemite. And walking the golden streets of the city, the Golden Gate spread at your feet. Sailing on the Bay. What a wonderland.
But increasing population (not just SF but globally) put huge demand on a small geographic area (they're only making so much ocean front property). With well-paying jobs in the City and nearby, rents and housing costs soon sky-rocketed. As Bae noted: supply and demand.
For us, the joy of living in "everyone's favorite city" evaporated. The relaxed attitude that we so loved morphed into another "dog eat dog" big city attitude. It was a constant battle for parking, jobs, rentals, desirable housing. Even recreation.
Getting away for a weekend meant sitting in traffic jams coming and going. Too many people competing for a slice of a small pie meant many were left with crumbs.
It's not just SF...this song could be sung about any desirable city with a vibrant job scene...and look at how our global population has grown since 1971:
1971: 3,766,754,345
2013: 7,162,119,434
Almost double the global population competing for shrinking resources. And only so much beach-front property--they're not making it anymore.
Well, misery must be shared among the entire populace if it's to be equitable. And I'm sure the communist leaders of that era lived exactly like "The People" :-)!
Spartana, for excellent descriptions of what life was like during the Soviet Union Ken Follett wrote The Century Trilogy. It outlines many families, including one in the US and one in Russia and how they progress in the different societies. For all it's faults, I'll take the US anyday. Thanks for the book recommendation. Love Ken Follett stuff but never read this. I have a big fascination with Russia and the USSR in general since my Mom was born and raised in a north German city that was given to the USSR after WWII. She was able to go back there after the Berlin Wall fell and was very shocked to see how things were for the Russians that lived there. So I got interested myself and find Soviet and Russian history and social/economic stuff is fascinating.
As to the OP - yep same thing happens pretty much everywhere. Here in SoCal it is just as evident as it is in SF but we have room to sprawl out into the deserts. SF, like Portland, Or and probably part of Seattle, are limited from sprawl not only by city ordinances but by geology (mountains, rivers, etc...). If course that limit on sprawl makes those places much more expensive housing-wise.
And I'm sure the communist leaders of that era lived exactly like "The People" :-)!
Sure, in any economic system there will be a few who rise above the limits placed on the collective. But, simply ensuring that everyone else is limited to the whims of the few and that no one else is able to use innate talents, drive and hard work to rise above their neighbor is the bonus associated with removing profit from everyday life.
Sure, in any economic system there will be a few who rise above the limits placed on the collective. But, simply ensuring that everyone else is limited to the whims of the few and that no one else is able to use innate talents, drive and hard work to rise above their neighbor is the bonus associated with removing profit from everyday life.
And, here in DogEatDogistan, those who by misfortune are not smart enough, healthy enough, young enough, or mentally strong enough fall by the wayside with barely a backward glance from their "superiors." There are countries where this isn't the case, and--surprise!--they regularly outperform us on those silly happiness indices.
And, here in DogEatDogistan, those who by misfortune are not smart enough, healthy enough, young enough, or mentally strong enough fall by the wayside with barely a backward glance from their "superiors." There are countries where this isn't the case, and--surprise!--they regularly outperform us on those silly happiness indices.
That correlates well with my initial response. If we take fortune, smarts, health, age and mental strength out of the equation, all can be equally miserable together.
And, here in DogEatDogistan, those who by misfortune are not smart enough, healthy enough, young enough, or mentally strong enough fall by the wayside with barely a backward glance from their "superiors." There are countries where this isn't the case, and--surprise!--they regularly outperform us on those silly happiness indices.
That correlates well with my initial response. If we take fortune, smarts, health, age and mental strength out of the equation, all can be equally miserable together.
Where do you get that? Surely a country as rich as ours can afford a stout safety net without unduly burdening elites who benefit from the labor of the hoi polloi. Even in Eisenhower's time (top tax rate 91%) there were plenty of fat cats lighting their Cuban cigars with five-dollar bills. Or maybe you'd rather the unfortunate, unhealthy, unyouthful, and mentally unwell would just suffer in silence and out of your sight.
Sure, in any economic system there will be a few who rise above the limits placed on the collective. But, simply ensuring that everyone else is limited to the whims of the few and that no one else is able to use innate talents, drive and hard work to rise above their neighbor is the bonus associated with removing profit from everyday life.Resistance is futile!! Or so I've heard :-)! Well I'm in the "teach a man to fish" camp rather than "give a man a fish" so don't agree with the collective version of economic equality either. I think it hinders rather than helps on oh so many levels. I do however believe that we, as a society, should provide those less fortunate the tools and resources so that they can learn to provide themselves at least a working class lifestyle. And I believe that in order to receive that training, help and resources that the person accepting them must give back in some way in exchange for that leg up. Military or some other sort of service would fit that bill. What you choose to do with that training and education to better your life should be up to you, not a social collectives dictates.
Where do you get that? Surely a country as rich as ours can afford a stout safety net without unduly burdening elites who benefit from the labor of the hoi polloi. Even in Eisenhower's time (top tax rate 91%) there were plenty of fat cats lighting their Cuban cigars with five-dollar bills. Or maybe you'd rather the unfortunate, unhealthy, unyouthful, and mentally unwell would just suffer in silence and out of your sight.
To be serious for a change, I believe we do have a pretty good safety net. The less fortunate among us have the advantage of subsidized housing, record numbers of people receiving food and income assistance and the middle and upper classes subsidizing medical insurance for the less fortunate. The only thing that's missing is an entirely managed society where no one is allowed to exceed the means of their neighbors. A good way to reach that goal would be to remove monetary incentives, beyond basic necessities, which might elevate the less fortunate through the application of their natural abilities. That takes time and a concerted effort to fundamentally transform the country.
We're getting there.
The only thing that's missing is an entirely managed society where no one is allowed to exceed the means of their neighbors. ... We're getting there.
Indeed!
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/about/press/asas-02388-010.jpg
Never mind...I will stick to other topics.
...
We're getting there.
From the looks of the huge gap between the have-mores and the have-nots, we seem to be moving quickly toward a banana-republic style plutocracy. I hope I'm wrong.
If the have-mores had less, what would ensure that the have-nots have more? If wealth were static, I guess whatever was taken away has to go somewhere, but if wealth is dynamic, what happens to it when it's taken away?
If the have-mores had less, what would ensure that the have-nots have more? If wealth were static, I guess whatever was taken away has to go somewhere, but if wealth is dynamic, what happens to it when it's taken away?
I'd just be happy to return to a situation where profit wasn't the only consideration, where there wasn't a race to overseas manufacture that deprived US workers of jobs, where unions and management worked together for the mutual good and betterment of society as a whole. Quaint idea, i know. There's more than enough money to go around.
I'd just be happy to return to a situation where profit wasn't the only consideration.....
When was that?
gimmethesimplelife
11-29-13, 9:53pm
I spent two weeks once in San Francisco in 1996, staying at hostels scattered around town. I think I am the only gay man I know that does not like San Francisco. Aside from the famous tolerance there - I even then saw a city that was overly expensive, full of struggling service industry workers, with many obviously homeless people in the mix. I saw pollution, rents that seemed astronomical, and a job market that did not seem to match the cost of living. I also felt tension in the air - maybe it's in my head but usually when I visit high cost cities it's almost like I can channel other people's stress as SF to me is the classic hamster on the treadmill kind of town. And this was back in 1996 - it's only become more this way since then.
True, as a tourist there are things to see and do there and it's not all bad. I just can't seem to get beyond feeling like what it must be for the average person to live in any place I ever visit. Lol - this is a big reason I tend to avoid large expensive cities like a plague. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
11-29-13, 9:55pm
I'd just be happy to return to a situation where profit wasn't the only consideration, where there wasn't a race to overseas manufacture that deprived US workers of jobs, where unions and management worked together for the mutual good and betterment of society as a whole. Quaint idea, i know. There's more than enough money to go around.+ an astronomical number on this one. Couldn't have said this any better myself. Rob
flowerseverywhere
11-29-13, 11:09pm
I'd just be happy to return to a situation where profit wasn't the only consideration, where there wasn't a race to overseas manufacture that deprived US workers of jobs, where unions and management worked together for the mutual good and betterment of society as a whole. Quaint idea, i know. There's more than enough money to go around.
Our country was founded on greed and suppression of the weak. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison were all slave owners. When the plague swept through Europe in the early 1800's if parents died children were turned out on the street. Ever see "les miserables" and how the poor we're treated? The way the poor are treated in the US is such a far cry from the past. What time were you referring to where the point of society was to better society as a whole?
ApatheticNoMore
11-30-13, 3:31am
There was some time where it was better for your average white employee, maybe not so good for minorities. And it was better for many, the working class had manufacturing jobs, now manufacturing jobs were sometimes pretty awful, however the pay and job security were better than being precariat. A college degree meant entrance to the middle class. So it was better for many members of society but likely never all.
It sure seems in retrospect: that unions and management working together was a bargain made that unions ultimately lost, so that cooperation may have been nothing more than the prelude to their defeat. Unions should have played a much harder game.
What time were you referring to where the point of society was to better society as a whole?
tomorrow, of course
I'd just be happy to return to a situation where profit wasn't the only consideration, where there wasn't a race to overseas manufacture that deprived US workers of jobs, where unions and management worked together for the mutual good and betterment of society as a whole.
One very simple solution to reach that desire is to start your own company then you can align the ends and the means to get there in whatever direction you like. It doesn't change the whole world, but it would change a little corner of it.
where there wasn't a race to overseas manufacture that deprived US workers of jobs, where unions and management worked together for the mutual good and betterment of society as a whole. Quaint idea, i know.
Not quaint. Consigning millions of people to destitute poverty through economic collusion merely because they aren't lucky enough to live next to you is shameful.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/little-notice-globalization-reduced-poverty
With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty
UN millennium goal to halve poverty may have been achieved
Laurence Chandy, Geoffrey Gertz
YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011
WASHINGTON: It is customary to bemoan the intractability of global poverty and the lack of progress against the Millennium Development Goals. But the stunning fact is that, gone unnoticed, the goal to halve global poverty was probably reached three years ago.
We are in the midst of the fastest period of poverty reduction the world has ever seen. The global poverty rate, which stood at 25 percent in 2005, is ticking downwards at one to two percentage points a year, lifting around 70 million people – the population of Turkey or Thailand – out of destitution annually. Advances in human progress on such a scale are unprecedented, yet remain almost universally unacknowledged.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/sites/default/files/images/2011/06/PoorSM.jpg
flowerseverywhere
12-1-13, 11:28pm
Yossarian, thanks for posting that perspective. Sobering and makes you really think about what is important.
flowerseverywhere
12-1-13, 11:29pm
tried to add to the last post: I guess I have to stop singing "oh lord, won't you buy me, a Mercedes benz...."
gimmethesimplelife
12-1-13, 11:54pm
Not quaint. Consigning millions of people to destitute poverty through economic collusion merely because they aren't lucky enough to live next to you is shameful.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/little-notice-globalization-reduced-poverty
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/sites/default/files/images/2011/06/PoorSM.jpgI would agree you have a major point here. One nice thing about America's standard of living going down is that the standard of living is rising in other countries now and I have a hard time begrudging other humans that.
One thing I can say is that I have seen this increase in the standard of living firsthand over the years during my trips to Mexico. My first time setting foot in Nogales, Mexico was in 1980 and it was an awful place then - dirty, smelly, slummy, run down and chaotic. If you go now, and people are starting to go again as the cartel gore has been absent for over a year now and the prices of medical and dental there are just too enticing to be ignored - you will see a much cleaner and less slummy looking city - less chaotic and the everyday people much better dressed than years ago. Also - cars, tons of cars, and with Mexican plates, too - this was markedly absent in 1980. I like to see Mexico doing better as Mexico has been so good to me over the years (and to many other people I have known) - and the idea of other countries rising up some makes me smile, too. Rob
Well that's a relief. So many struggling to keep their heads above water should just look at the big picture and realize that the decline of our standard of living is a sacrifice that serves to enrich the rest of the world--they should quit complaining, and just drown.
I thought a rising tide was supposed to lift all boats, but I guess that only applies to yachts.
I thought a rising tide was supposed to lift all boats, but I guess that only applies to yachts.
The question is, how do you raise the tide in a specific country? If I remember correctly, we were told in 2009 that this was the time that the oceans stopped rising, and it seems to be figuratively true.
We're not a business friendly country so we shouldn't be surprised that other countries welcome our industries with open arms.
And yet according to this, the U.S. is a Very business-friendly country:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.BUS.EASE.XQ
And yet according to this, the U.S. is a Very business-friendly country:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.BUS.EASE.XQ
The US is easy to do business in (the actual title of the World Bank study) in a lot of ways. We are politically stable and have a strong enough military to insure we stay that way. We have mature infrastructure for transportation, communication, etc. We have relatively high scores for education, healthcare, various opportunity indices, etc. Remember, the key is "relatively" high as in well above the average of the 189 countries that were ranked, not first in everything. One reason more companies aren't beating our doors down is taxation. That doesn't make it easier or harder to do business here, but it does make it harder to profit from the venture. Some of the higher scoring nations have taken a different approach to taxes with some very positive results. Different strokes...
I spent two weeks once in San Francisco in 1996, staying at hostels scattered around town. I think I am the only gay man I know that does not like San Francisco. Aside from the famous tolerance there - I even then saw a city that was overly expensive, full of struggling service industry workers, with many obviously homeless people in the mix. I saw pollution, rents that seemed astronomical, and a job market that did not seem to match the cost of living. I also felt tension in the air - maybe it's in my head but usually when I visit high cost cities it's almost like I can channel other people's stress as SF to me is the classic hamster on the treadmill kind of town. And this was back in 1996 - it's only become more this way since then.
True, as a tourist there are things to see and do there and it's not all bad. I just can't seem to get beyond feeling like what it must be for the average person to live in any place I ever visit. Lol - this is a big reason I tend to avoid large expensive cities like a plague. RobOh yes, SF is a very high cost city to be sure. SF (Yerba Buena Island) was my first duty station right after I got out of CG boot camp and was earning less than minimum wage. I lived at my duty station in barracks type housing so didn't have to pay those high housing costs - which was high to even to rent a room with a bunch of people. However, and this is something I don't really understand, I knew that I would earn the same pay if I was stationed in SF or in Padugah, Kentucky (yes, there is a CG station there :-)!). So, if housing and COL were my primary concerns and I knew I couldn't "make it" on my pay living in SF then I would have choosen to live somewhere less expensive. So why don't those in SF with minimum wage service industry jobs (which in $8/hour in Calif) choose to live in a less expensive city in Calif and have a higher standard of living? Obviously $8/hour is going to go further in a city where you can get an apt for 1/4 of the price of one in SF. Or any expensive city. So people are in effect making a financial choice to be more impoverished by choosing to stay in an expensive place because of their love for that city, family near by, or whatever when maybe relocating would be a better option. And if enough low income service people left, then employers would more likely raise wages to attract them back.
Minimum wage in San Francisco is $10 hour. I would assume that service job people stay for various reasons, among them family being here, more job availability, etc. probably key, though, is lack of money to afford moving costs/inability to move without new job in hand but unable to find new job without first moving. After all, if moving to the jobs was so easy everyone would be moving to Williston ND where service jobs pay really well due to shortage of workers.
The problem in Williston is there's no place to live. You don't want to be in a tent in ND right now.
The problem in Williston is there's no place to live. You don't want to be in a tent in ND right now.
Back in 1980, when I got out of school, the work was in Wyoming. Many were living in RV's. There was a bar out by the coal mines that must have had 20 rv's with electric cords running to the bar. Those guys wanted to make as much as they could, while they could.
Up until 2008 we were partners in a hotel in NW Colorado. The boom there and in SW Wyoming was from oil shale and natural gas. The companies set up "man camps" where the law would allow. Basically shipping containers with bunk beds and a "mess hall" in larger containers or even tents. We had a five year run in the hotel without a single vacancy. In fact, I put lockers in several rooms so the guys could rent a room for 12 hours, put their things in a locker and leave when the '2nd shift' came in. Worked great. Our occupancy rate once that project was running was 142% so we were pretty pleased. The guys staying there were all very happy just to have a place with a real bed and a hot shower. That is what its like in ND now.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.