6 ms·

And where are we going to find teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagemen, plumbers, etc. to service the wealthy homeowners when none of these professions pay anywh

by cgy1 7y ago

And where are we going to find teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagemen, plumbers, etc. to service the wealthy homeowners when none of these professions pay anywhere enough for people to live on in places like the Bay Area? Soon places like this will be a mix of billionaires, FAANG workers, the retired, and nobody else.

gph 7y ago
Probably find them living in tiny capsules and/or shipping containers down by the docks or maybe on top of that superfund site that rich people are starting to get weary about living on/near.
- kazinator 7y ago
  Not much room for "servant's quarters", when your multi-million-dollar condo is like 1200 sq. ft.
nomnomnom01 7y ago
First of all, plumbers make good money. Second, expensive new developments that are unaffordable won't work. Ever seen the prices on them? Here in Los Angeles which isnt nearly as expensive, its about $3000+ but usually even more for new developments because they are high end. Please do some basic research beforehand.
magduf 7y ago
I honestly don't see the problem here. It's simple: teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagement, plumbers, etc. won't be able to live there. Nor do they need to. These people can live somewhere else, far away, and commute in. To entice them to make this ridiculous commute, their pay will have to be extremely high, and they'll probably want shorter hours too (so they can spend half their work-time commuting), so they'll have to hire twice as many people. So if some wealthy homeowner needs a plumber, it's no problem. Remember, plumbers are usually contractors. They can call up the plumbing company, who will send a plumber who will drive 2-4 hours to get there, and the same amount to go home. This will result in an enormous charge just for fixing a leaking pipe. But that's OK, because the homeowner is wealthy, remember? They can afford $3k for a service call. If they can't, well maybe they need to rethink where they're living, and sell and move someplace cheaper. Some jobs just don't even need to be done. Baristas, for instance, aren't really needed. They can be paid a fortune to drive 3 hours each way every day, and this can be reflected in the coffee prices, but will wealthy people pay $30 for a latte? If they do, fine: baristas can commute. If they don't, oh well, the coffee shop can go out of business (or maybe have self-serve lattes), and the wealthy homeowners can go without. The same goes for teachers. If the wealthy people aren't willing to pay enough taxes for teachers to have $250k salaries to live there, then they don't really need to have teachers, and their kids can go without an education. Maybe they can send their kids to boarding school somewhere cheaper. Seriously, I think that if people stop fretting about these lower-paid people, and just let the chips fall where they will, the problem will resolve itself one way or another. Either the wealthy people will cave in and get local government to approve more affordable housing construction, or the local real estate market will collapse because people don't really want to live in a place where there's no garbage collection.
- u10 7y ago
  Viewing individual preferences in a utilitarian fashion... sure I guess you can argue there exists some wage-distance premium at a given price to make sure that a given job is filled. That being said non-pecuniary have strong effects, which is why individuals will pay out the nose to live in the city with amenities rather than commuting 2 hours a day. I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements.
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    >> It's simple: teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagement, plumbers, etc. won't be able to live there. Nor do they need to. > I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements. To the extent that there are no people who will do the jobs (i.e. they won't pay $ + time to live close enough), those jobs will need to offer more money, or go unfilled.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements. I don't think this is hard at all: I'm not suggesting that people spend 3 hours commuting each way, plus 8 hours working. I'm suggesting they spend 6 hours commuting (both ways), and 2 hours working, and get paid for 8 hours, and the business hire 4x as many people to get the job done because of this. I'm sure they can find plenty of people willing to spend much of their workday commuting, and only having to do 2-4 hours of actual work, provided they're paid for it all. This will, of course, result in much higher prices for local goods and services, but the locals can afford it; they're wealthy landowners, after all.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  I agree with you: the angle of "helping lower income people" is weak and moralistic. That said, the unfairness of single family house subsidies will have tremendous impact on the long term suitability of the state. CA does have a high homelessness and house poverty problem. San Francisco is already a dump: literal human poop on every street in front of million dollar condos built in the 70's. Once tech diversifies away from CA they are toast.
mochomocha 7y ago
Don't worry! San Francisco has thought about the problem of course. They're building housing dedicated to teachers. Mountain View is thinking about doing the same. One step closer to feudalism (or when people working in mines used to live in housing owned by the mining company). The ineptitude of local politicians catering to NIMBY is boundless.

by cgy1 7y ago

gph 7y ago

Probably find them living in tiny capsules and/or shipping containers down by the docks or maybe on top of that superfund site that rich people are starting to get weary about living on/near.

kazinator 7y ago
Not much room for "servant's quarters", when your multi-million-dollar condo is like 1200 sq. ft.

nomnomnom01 7y ago

First of all, plumbers make good money. Second, expensive new developments that are unaffordable won't work. Ever seen the prices on them? Here in Los Angeles which isnt nearly as expensive, its about $3000+ but usually even more for new developments because they are high end. Please do some basic research beforehand.

magduf 7y ago

I honestly don't see the problem here. It's simple: teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagement, plumbers, etc. won't be able to live there. Nor do they need to. These people can live somewhere else, far away, and commute in. To entice them to make this ridiculous commute, their pay will have to be extremely high, and they'll probably want shorter hours too (so they can spend half their work-time commuting), so they'll have to hire twice as many people. So if some wealthy homeowner needs a plumber, it's no problem. Remember, plumbers are usually contractors. They can call up the plumbing company, who will send a plumber who will drive 2-4 hours to get there, and the same amount to go home. This will result in an enormous charge just for fixing a leaking pipe. But that's OK, because the homeowner is wealthy, remember? They can afford $3k for a service call. If they can't, well maybe they need to rethink where they're living, and sell and move someplace cheaper. Some jobs just don't even need to be done. Baristas, for instance, aren't really needed. They can be paid a fortune to drive 3 hours each way every day, and this can be reflected in the coffee prices, but will wealthy people pay $30 for a latte? If they do, fine: baristas can commute. If they don't, oh well, the coffee shop can go out of business (or maybe have self-serve lattes), and the wealthy homeowners can go without. The same goes for teachers. If the wealthy people aren't willing to pay enough taxes for teachers to have $250k salaries to live there, then they don't really need to have teachers, and their kids can go without an education. Maybe they can send their kids to boarding school somewhere cheaper. Seriously, I think that if people stop fretting about these lower-paid people, and just let the chips fall where they will, the problem will resolve itself one way or another. Either the wealthy people will cave in and get local government to approve more affordable housing construction, or the local real estate market will collapse because people don't really want to live in a place where there's no garbage collection.

u10 7y ago
Viewing individual preferences in a utilitarian fashion... sure I guess you can argue there exists some wage-distance premium at a given price to make sure that a given job is filled. That being said non-pecuniary have strong effects, which is why individuals will pay out the nose to live in the city with amenities rather than commuting 2 hours a day. I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements.
- nordsieck 7y ago
  >> It's simple: teachers, nurses, baristas, garbagement, plumbers, etc. won't be able to live there. Nor do they need to. > I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements. To the extent that there are no people who will do the jobs (i.e. they won't pay $ + time to live close enough), those jobs will need to offer more money, or go unfilled.
- magduf 7y ago
  >I think you will be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to spend 25% of their adult life commuting too and from work. Certainly, not enough will be willing to satisfy labour requirements. I don't think this is hard at all: I'm not suggesting that people spend 3 hours commuting each way, plus 8 hours working. I'm suggesting they spend 6 hours commuting (both ways), and 2 hours working, and get paid for 8 hours, and the business hire 4x as many people to get the job done because of this. I'm sure they can find plenty of people willing to spend much of their workday commuting, and only having to do 2-4 hours of actual work, provided they're paid for it all. This will, of course, result in much higher prices for local goods and services, but the locals can afford it; they're wealthy landowners, after all.
conanbatt 7y ago
I agree with you: the angle of "helping lower income people" is weak and moralistic. That said, the unfairness of single family house subsidies will have tremendous impact on the long term suitability of the state. CA does have a high homelessness and house poverty problem. San Francisco is already a dump: literal human poop on every street in front of million dollar condos built in the 70's. Once tech diversifies away from CA they are toast.

mochomocha 7y ago

Don't worry! San Francisco has thought about the problem of course. They're building housing dedicated to teachers. Mountain View is thinking about doing the same. One step closer to feudalism (or when people working in mines used to live in housing owned by the mining company). The ineptitude of local politicians catering to NIMBY is boundless.