3 ms·

Right, except they don't. It's higher than rural areas, but that doesn't mean it's in line with the general cost of living in the area. I promise you, if you g

by moate 7y ago

Right, except they don't. It's higher than rural areas, but that doesn't mean it's in line with the general cost of living in the area. I promise you, if you go to any major world city there are people living there who are poor and barely scraping by.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
That is the trade-off they are making in exchange for things such as access to more employers. At some point though, they will demand more money or move out, assuming their quality of life relative to other places they can live drops to a sufficiently low level. There are people who are poor and scraping by everywhere, not just cities. Low paying jobs are low paying because the demand is not high enough relative to the supply.
- moate 7y ago
  Also this cute "demand more more or move out" idea isn't even close to reality. You just said there's poor people everywhere. Why move out of a city to be poor when you're just going to be poor somewhere else? To be away from what support network you might have? Because you feel like incurring all the costs associated with moving? Also, your original post implied that the city doesn't "need" these jobs. People need janitors and food service workers for their companies. Why these people aren't paid wages where they can afford to exist is a whole rats nest of economic theory that we don't really need to get into. I'm just pointing out, that the idea that a single individual will be able to demand more money if their job is "important" runs contrary to what we've seen historically.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    >Why these people aren't paid wages where they can afford to exist is a whole rats nest of economic theory that we don't really need to get into. It's not a rat's nest of economic theory. People are paid what it costs to replace them, aka opportunity cost. Obviously the very existence of businesses and workers means someone is willing to work for those wages, which means they can afford to exist...since they exist. Whether or not it's a quality of life worth having is a political problem that needs political solution (i.e. basic income). Based on the experiences of my businesses and people I know who have businesses in cities experiencing rising rent, wages are going up significantly for blue collar work, but at the end of the day, there will always be someone at the lowest end of the pay scale, and that will be the person who is doing work that many others are willing and able to do, which is usually food service/janitorial/security/etc.

by moate 7y ago

lotsofpulp 7y ago

That is the trade-off they are making in exchange for things such as access to more employers. At some point though, they will demand more money or move out, assuming their quality of life relative to other places they can live drops to a sufficiently low level. There are people who are poor and scraping by everywhere, not just cities. Low paying jobs are low paying because the demand is not high enough relative to the supply.

moate 7y ago
Also this cute "demand more more or move out" idea isn't even close to reality. You just said there's poor people everywhere. Why move out of a city to be poor when you're just going to be poor somewhere else? To be away from what support network you might have? Because you feel like incurring all the costs associated with moving? Also, your original post implied that the city doesn't "need" these jobs. People need janitors and food service workers for their companies. Why these people aren't paid wages where they can afford to exist is a whole rats nest of economic theory that we don't really need to get into. I'm just pointing out, that the idea that a single individual will be able to demand more money if their job is "important" runs contrary to what we've seen historically.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  >Why these people aren't paid wages where they can afford to exist is a whole rats nest of economic theory that we don't really need to get into. It's not a rat's nest of economic theory. People are paid what it costs to replace them, aka opportunity cost. Obviously the very existence of businesses and workers means someone is willing to work for those wages, which means they can afford to exist...since they exist. Whether or not it's a quality of life worth having is a political problem that needs political solution (i.e. basic income). Based on the experiences of my businesses and people I know who have businesses in cities experiencing rising rent, wages are going up significantly for blue collar work, but at the end of the day, there will always be someone at the lowest end of the pay scale, and that will be the person who is doing work that many others are willing and able to do, which is usually food service/janitorial/security/etc.