4 ms·
Doesn't that dilemma also have an econ 101 answer though? The teachers, janitors, baristas, etc will move to the location that gives them a better quality of l
by ahepp 5y ago
Doesn't that dilemma also have an econ 101 answer though?
The teachers, janitors, baristas, etc will move to the location that gives them a better quality of life. If they decide that's not San Francisco, they can move to a better city. If SF wants them back, SF can sweeten the deal for them.
I guess it's kinda sad that not everyone who wants to live in SF gets to, but I'm not sure how "closing the door" is any more fair.
- 8note 5y agoI don't think they actually have a choice though. In person jobs are available in specific locations
- ahepp 5y agoI think that's an important issue. If there isn't a real choice about where to live, it's a much bigger problem. I guess I'm under the impression that the labor market is pretty tight across the country right now. I was under the impression that people had pretty good opportunities if they moved out of SF/Seattle/whatever, but I guess I haven't seen real data to back that up.
- evnc 5y agoI think that "SF can sweeten the deal for them", while true in theory, does a lot of work in glossing over exactly how it could sweeten the deal for them. By offering higher pay? Or perhaps by somehow providing more affordable housing? Which (as I understand it) is kind of the topic of this whole sub-discussion: it is not easy to find a solution which will sweeten the deal for them (aka: make it economically feasible and attractive for low/middle income people to live and work in a city with a housing shortage and high housing costs). Rent control is one such proposed solution. It has its benefits and drawbacks, of course, as evidenced by all the debate about it here.