4 ms·

> In other words, should a summer job for a teenager pay a livable wage? Yes. Many teenagers of working age are head of household and shouldn’t have their wage

> In other words, should a summer job for a teenager pay a livable wage? Yes. Many teenagers of working age are head of household and shouldn’t have their wages undercut by the dependent children of others. > I don't see why working multiple jobs, each of which takes a part of the day, should be considered bad Because it makes life unnecessarily stressful. Transportation costs, typically borne by the worker, increase dramatically. It’s more efficient to work a single job, if possible.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
If you want a 17 year-old lifeguard in San Francisco to be able to afford a mortgage San Francisco, you end up with no pools in San Francisco and unemployed teens.
- thebooktocome 4y ago
  It may be hard to believe, especially for the typical Californian, but there are other kinds of housing than single-family homes. It wasn’t so long ago that a single 17-year-old making minimum wage could afford to house themselves outside of a family unit.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I believe it. I think zoning and building codes are most of the problem. Allow 200 sqft apartments like you find in NYC and you will see a stark reduction in the working homeless.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      But aren't 200 sq ft apartments banned because they are unlivably small? The guys who enacted that should take a look at Tokyo and Seoul, and maybe actually listen to the reasons of people who rent tiny apartments there.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        They are objectively livable in a literal sense. But, yes I agree that some policy makers decided that they would rather have people homeless than in unpleasant living accommodations.
      - marvin 4y ago
        Studio apartments of that size (sometimes even smaller) are bought by university students in Norway all the time, sometimes for as much as $200.000. They can be quite comfortable. Not sure how they’d be priced in SF, but to my intuition that seems out of working homelesss range. In cheaper cities though, definitely.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        These places are illegal to offer in sf. There is a minimum allowance for size

s1artibartfast 4y ago

If you want a 17 year-old lifeguard in San Francisco to be able to afford a mortgage San Francisco, you end up with no pools in San Francisco and unemployed teens.

thebooktocome 4y ago
It may be hard to believe, especially for the typical Californian, but there are other kinds of housing than single-family homes. It wasn’t so long ago that a single 17-year-old making minimum wage could afford to house themselves outside of a family unit.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I believe it. I think zoning and building codes are most of the problem. Allow 200 sqft apartments like you find in NYC and you will see a stark reduction in the working homeless.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    But aren't 200 sq ft apartments banned because they are unlivably small? The guys who enacted that should take a look at Tokyo and Seoul, and maybe actually listen to the reasons of people who rent tiny apartments there.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      They are objectively livable in a literal sense. But, yes I agree that some policy makers decided that they would rather have people homeless than in unpleasant living accommodations.
    - marvin 4y ago
      Studio apartments of that size (sometimes even smaller) are bought by university students in Norway all the time, sometimes for as much as $200.000. They can be quite comfortable. Not sure how they’d be priced in SF, but to my intuition that seems out of working homelesss range. In cheaper cities though, definitely.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        These places are illegal to offer in sf. There is a minimum allowance for size