3 ms·

> The problem here is that workers now want to be "paid properly" (what ever that means) and still get tips. One sensible metric is that you should be able to

> The problem here is that workers now want to be "paid properly" (what ever that means) and still get tips. One sensible metric is that you should be able to support yourself while living in the area you work (or an area nearby such that it isn't a significant financial hardship or timesink to commute to work). Service jobs largely fail on that metric, effectively using government money and family support structures to cover the gap.

CamperBob2 4y ago
So, nice areas shouldn't have restaurants? Paying waiters and busboys enough money to live in downtown SF while their counterparts in the suburbs are paid what they're getting now will distort the labor market in ways that break the whole thing.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > So, nice areas shouldn't have restaurants? I don't know how you got to that, other than by assuming that nice areas have to be expensive. The fact that SF is unable to achieve both is an indicator of broken local markets and politics, not an ironclad rule for every other locality. Edit: Another framing is that "nice" and "fancy" are different things, as much as extremely unequal markets like SF distort the distinction.
  - jen20 4y ago
    > other than by assuming that nice areas have to be expensive This is generally the case. I can’t think of a single counter example.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      What's your qualification for "nice"? For me, it's decent public infrastructure, convenient access to both basic goods (groceries) and "light" luxuries (restaurants, bars), and a broad lack of concern that I'm going to be victimized by a crime. Most of the US satisfies these constraints, especially if you own and don't mind driving a car.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  That’s a distortion that is what the property owners in California want. Y’all get your million dollar studio apartments with $1000 property taxes and tent cities on the curb outside. San Francisco can be a playground for the rich until they get sick of paying for $30 lattes or whatever and flee to low cost locales like Manhattan that have affordable housing and transit. It won’t be “fixed” until we’re all backed into an economic corner where it becomes politically acceptable for the property owners to lose bazillions of dollars.
phpisthebest 4y ago
I am not sure how that is a "sensible metric", how would you even begin to create a wage around that? What is "supporting yourself" even mean? Does a teenager need to make the same wage as a mother of 3? if there are 2 20yo waitstaff one is a single mother living alone, and the other is guy living in his parents basement should one be paid differently due to their life situation? This is problem with basing wages on an individual needs, in reality the wage you are paid should have, and does have nothing to do with the amount of money you "need" to support yourself.
- standardUser 4y ago
  The concept of a living wage is not new and it is calculated and used by many governments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    the problem here is none of that is actually connected to what a person needs. "Living Wage" Laws are just a different way to implement minimum wages, none of the laws shown on that page are connected to any kind of structure or process by which things needed to "live" like food, housing etc are tabulated where by a wage is set. it is just a arbitrary wage picked by legislatures exactly like a "minimum wage" law only the "living wage" seems to apply to older people, where "minimum wage" laws apply to everyone. For example a 20yo in the UK can make "minimum wage" but a 24yo will need to make "living wage" both of which are just numbers pulled out of thin air, not connected to "the amount of money you need to support yourself. "
    - standardUser 4y ago
      The numbers are in fact calculated, not pulled out of thin air. You seem to be cynically assuming they are not with no proof and no interest in proof one way or the other.
    - tomalpha 4y ago
      > both of which are just numbers pulled out of thin air The living wage is not in the UK. Dispute the method all you want of course, but there is a method: https://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation https://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation
kova12 4y ago
In many places low wage workers commute into HCOL areas. Being able to live in Manhattan on waiter's earnings is wishful thinking. Waiters are dime a dozen, and it's ridiculous to suggest they could possibly be making enough to live with mega high earners
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Read the statement more closely: you can either tackle this problem by raising wages, or by reducing the financial and logistical burden of commuting (or both!). Manhattan isn't a good example for your case: millions of people (like myself) commute cheaply and easily into the borough each day to work.
- standardUser 4y ago
  > Being able to live in Manhattan on waiter's earnings is wishful thinking. That's factually untrue and kind of an absurd statement. Of course people live in Manhattan working as servers.
  - kova12 4y ago
    Solely on the salary of a server?
    - standardUser 4y ago
      A server can make $100-$500 per shift in tips, 4-5 shifts per week. On the low end, that's probably not enough even for a roommate situation. But in the medium-to-high end, that can easily cover a studio apartment.
troupe 4y ago
Support yourself living in a large house with a nice car and a family? Or support yourself as a single person living in a 2 bedroom apartment with 3 other roommates? Or support yourself with enough money to have some spending cash as you work your way through high-school and live with your parents? The idea that a job shouldn't exist if it is only something that would interest a high-school student or uneducated young adult who is willing to live with lots of roommates creates fewer opportunities at the low end--not more.

CamperBob2 4y ago

So, nice areas shouldn't have restaurants? Paying waiters and busboys enough money to live in downtown SF while their counterparts in the suburbs are paid what they're getting now will distort the labor market in ways that break the whole thing.

woodruffw 4y ago
> So, nice areas shouldn't have restaurants? I don't know how you got to that, other than by assuming that nice areas have to be expensive. The fact that SF is unable to achieve both is an indicator of broken local markets and politics, not an ironclad rule for every other locality. Edit: Another framing is that "nice" and "fancy" are different things, as much as extremely unequal markets like SF distort the distinction.
- jen20 4y ago
  > other than by assuming that nice areas have to be expensive This is generally the case. I can’t think of a single counter example.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    What's your qualification for "nice"? For me, it's decent public infrastructure, convenient access to both basic goods (groceries) and "light" luxuries (restaurants, bars), and a broad lack of concern that I'm going to be victimized by a crime. Most of the US satisfies these constraints, especially if you own and don't mind driving a car.
Spooky23 4y ago
That’s a distortion that is what the property owners in California want. Y’all get your million dollar studio apartments with $1000 property taxes and tent cities on the curb outside. San Francisco can be a playground for the rich until they get sick of paying for $30 lattes or whatever and flee to low cost locales like Manhattan that have affordable housing and transit. It won’t be “fixed” until we’re all backed into an economic corner where it becomes politically acceptable for the property owners to lose bazillions of dollars.

phpisthebest 4y ago

I am not sure how that is a "sensible metric", how would you even begin to create a wage around that? What is "supporting yourself" even mean? Does a teenager need to make the same wage as a mother of 3? if there are 2 20yo waitstaff one is a single mother living alone, and the other is guy living in his parents basement should one be paid differently due to their life situation? This is problem with basing wages on an individual needs, in reality the wage you are paid should have, and does have nothing to do with the amount of money you "need" to support yourself.

standardUser 4y ago
The concept of a living wage is not new and it is calculated and used by many governments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  the problem here is none of that is actually connected to what a person needs. "Living Wage" Laws are just a different way to implement minimum wages, none of the laws shown on that page are connected to any kind of structure or process by which things needed to "live" like food, housing etc are tabulated where by a wage is set. it is just a arbitrary wage picked by legislatures exactly like a "minimum wage" law only the "living wage" seems to apply to older people, where "minimum wage" laws apply to everyone. For example a 20yo in the UK can make "minimum wage" but a 24yo will need to make "living wage" both of which are just numbers pulled out of thin air, not connected to "the amount of money you need to support yourself. "
  - standardUser 4y ago
    The numbers are in fact calculated, not pulled out of thin air. You seem to be cynically assuming they are not with no proof and no interest in proof one way or the other.
  - tomalpha 4y ago
    > both of which are just numbers pulled out of thin air The living wage is not in the UK. Dispute the method all you want of course, but there is a method: https://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation https://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation

kova12 4y ago

In many places low wage workers commute into HCOL areas. Being able to live in Manhattan on waiter's earnings is wishful thinking. Waiters are dime a dozen, and it's ridiculous to suggest they could possibly be making enough to live with mega high earners

woodruffw 4y ago
Read the statement more closely: you can either tackle this problem by raising wages, or by reducing the financial and logistical burden of commuting (or both!). Manhattan isn't a good example for your case: millions of people (like myself) commute cheaply and easily into the borough each day to work.
standardUser 4y ago
> Being able to live in Manhattan on waiter's earnings is wishful thinking. That's factually untrue and kind of an absurd statement. Of course people live in Manhattan working as servers.
- kova12 4y ago
  Solely on the salary of a server?
  - standardUser 4y ago
    A server can make $100-$500 per shift in tips, 4-5 shifts per week. On the low end, that's probably not enough even for a roommate situation. But in the medium-to-high end, that can easily cover a studio apartment.

troupe 4y ago

Support yourself living in a large house with a nice car and a family? Or support yourself as a single person living in a 2 bedroom apartment with 3 other roommates? Or support yourself with enough money to have some spending cash as you work your way through high-school and live with your parents? The idea that a job shouldn't exist if it is only something that would interest a high-school student or uneducated young adult who is willing to live with lots of roommates creates fewer opportunities at the low end--not more.