3 ms·
> imagine SF or Manhattan with no low-wage workers. There would be no restaurants, no road repair crews, no public transport drivers, etc. etc. Who would pick u
by a3n 9y ago
> imagine SF or Manhattan with no low-wage workers. There would be no restaurants, no road repair crews, no public transport drivers, etc. etc. Who would pick up your trash?
Rather than subsidizing rich lives with low paid waiters, or somehow taking low-wage workers out of the mix, imagine paying those functions a locally livable wage. Yes, there would be fewer of them, and probably fewer and more expensive restaurants.
But low wage exploitation is not the only way.
Or, if you don't like seeing human tragedy on the streets, you could leave the area. That would tend to depress rent costs, and other costs would follow.
- vinceguidry 9y agoI don't see why you gloss over the "there would be fewer of them" problem with your reasoning. How is this line of thought supposed to move the needle on homelessness in SF? You're expecting them to just go away because they can't find jobs?
- a3n 9y agoI wasn't clear. I'm suggesting that one possible change among many is for the elite to move away, creating less competition for housing, and moving the area back to a livable environment for the average person. Bonus, the departed elite likely won't have to step over sleeping bags wherever they end up. For awhile.
- vinceguidry 9y agoYou're basically asking for no new cities to arise. A working theory in this discussion is that SF is NYC 50 years ago. Cities arise through concentration of industry, is that something you just not want to see happening?
- a3n 9y agoIt's not binary. This is one possibility among many for someone who doesn't want to experience this.
- vinceguidry 9y agoTo me that reads like you're not so much interested in fixing homelessness.