5 ms·

Looking through this thread, it is surprising that there are actually people who consider this "acceptable". Like it is not something out of a dystopian hellsca

Looking through this thread, it is surprising that there are actually people who consider this "acceptable". Like it is not something out of a dystopian hellscape. Amazing how much a person can be conditioned into accepting a terrible situation. And no, there are ways to fix this, there is just no will to do so, partly because of the people who see nothing wrong with it.

azinman2 3y ago
I think we need more options like this which reduce prices for people in expensive areas everywhere. Would you rather people be priced out? I’d rather have a bigger mix of people in any one metropolis.
- tomohelix 3y ago
  I would rather have a tumor be cut open and removed than having a band aid put on it and left to fester. If the housing situation in a place got so bad that a person has to pay nearly 1/3 of their monthly income just to get a closet to sleep in, it is not a livable place. A slum has a big mix of people but would you really consider it a great "metropolis" where you can have a life and raise a family? Again, this is 1/3 of minimum wage for as much space as a closet. It is basically priced as high as it could to best exploit the poorest among us. Maybe it is a different in value between me and those who grew up in SF but I consider it inhumane to treat someone who is working full time like this. If you don't think so, let me ask you this: would you let your family, your spouse and your children, to live like this? In a box? Or would you do all you could to get them something better? Not everyone can do better than minimum wage, but it doesn't mean they deserve to live like this. That is what I mean. There are solutions to the housing problem that is not this band aid on a festering wound. But it seems this kind of situation is perfectly fine to SF people. To which I have nothing else to say but amazement at how can a city priding itself on economic abundance and human right progress can also be utterly indifferent to the suffering of its fellows and even justifying it.
gamepsys 3y ago
I'm honestly confused about which part specifically you find unacceptable. Do you think it should be illegal to sell housing smaller than a certain minimum size? Do you think the price is too high? Do you think the location is awful?
- tomohelix 3y ago
  Someone working full time should at least be compensated enough to have a proper living condition. A box is not a proper living condition. For a minimum wage worker, $700/month is basically at the limit of what they can afford for rent. And yet this is all they can get? And people are cheering for it?
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    You skipped the core of the question though. Define "proper living situation." There was a time when travelers would sleep in a big bed piled on with other people in the back of a tavern, without giving it a second thought. Not too long ago whole nations of people native to north america lived in tents made of animal skin from cradle to grave, and were perfectly satisfied. Someone has a backpack full of belongings and that's all they need, many of these people don't even need a kitchen because they never cook. They're social, they want their days spent in shared spaces. How is this worse than a hostel? I think the idea of "proper living condition" is as varied as the number of people you ask. I wouldn't live in one of these shared spaces, but I do live an equally unorthodox lifestyle and my housing situation would be considered inadequate by many, and I love it. I can understand why someone would want the minimum private space to sleep and a shared space bustling with activity and full of like minded people. As long as people have sanitation and aren't sharing diseases and bedbugs and what not I don't see a problem with any mode of living and sheltering, and that's what it really is all about, shelter.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Ok but the current reality is even worse than this. Yes, I am cheering for options that make housing more affordable, it's better than doing nothing.
mixmastamyk 3y ago
Scrappy people solving problems is the only way problems are gonna get solved. Also living in a dorm is not the hardship you seem to think it is. It’s better accommodations than 90% of people in history have ever lived. Watch Les Miserables for a reality check. Better to direct anger at the landed gentry who made this possible.
- tomohelix 3y ago
  The apathy is what I am angry about. The sentiment that "this is fine" is what allowed this to happen. Laws and regulations need to be adjusted to enable better housing for more people. But they get blocked because those who hold the means don't see any problem with people below them living in squalid conditions like this. Make no mistake, I see this as a terrible living situation. Just because some war time refugees 100 years ago lived worse doesn't mean one of the richest cities in the world should have the same. It is a terrible and dishonest comparison.
  - tim333 3y ago
    Well, long term. However there will always be young people willing to crash on a couch or equivalent to go somewhere interesting. I've done a fair bit of backpacking with maybe even more annoying sleeping arrangements and it's great fun at times.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    As far as I can see you are the apathetic one here. Complaining about NIMBYs won't actually solve the problem. We need realistic solutions, especially short term ones, and these rooms are absolutely part of that. When the alternative is homelessness these units are unequivocally good.
  - mixmastamyk 3y ago
    Reiterating your point that capsule hotels are “squalid” is not compelling. And we don’t have to go 100 years, still probably better than 50% of people living in the world today.
avocabros 3y ago
No one is forced to live there? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others don't.
- kyawzazaw 3y ago
  there is a reason we regulate things like no window-less aparments, no selling of organ transplants
skybrian 3y ago
As temporary housing, it beats a tent. Maybe even a van. Are you against camping?
- tomohelix 3y ago
  Why do you think it is temporary? You don't seem to understand how much is $700 to a minimum wage worker. Even in SF, that is nearly 1/3 of their income. If we take the common requirement of 3x the rent then this is basically the most a minimum wage worker can afford. Sometimes, people can't do any better than that. Are you saying that even if a person work full time, they don't deserve a better living condition than a box? This is eye opening to me how the housing situation is viewed by the SF upper class. I have always considered it a dystopian nightmare when the workers have to sleep in a coffin and work full time. It seems not many people in SF share my view.
  - skybrian 3y ago
    I think it's temporary because in the article, he is quoted as saying he's "living in a $700/mo pod at Mint Plaza for the next 30 days." That seems pretty temporary to me? As to what he deserves, I think he deserves to decide for himself without other people second-guessing it, and also to be able to change his mind and do something else if it gets old. It seems like you're going off-topic, since the article isn't about minimum wage workers in general. But to address that, yes, rents are very high in San Francisco and it's no place to try to live solely on a minimum wage.
    - tomohelix 3y ago
      The article to me is about the cost of a box to sleep in SF. The person they interviewed was just one of the renters. There are all sorts of people living in that place. Most I would wager are the people who cannot afford anything better. Why do you think minimum wage workers should not be allowed to live in SF? If everyone is writing code, who would make the food? Who would deliver the packages? Who would clean the workspace in your office? They don't deserve a place to live near you even though they are providing you with all kind of services? Genuinely asking here because I can't fathom what you were saying when you said SF is not for minimum wage workers.
carlosjobim 3y ago
Poverty is the most profitable investment that man has ever conceived. Decades of dehumanization has erased all empathy and turned people into cold and calculating machines.
freitzkriesler2 3y ago
You are 100% correct. There's plenty of land in San Francisco for new builds and high density housing can also fix the issue. Entrenched property owners and landlords have an incentive to not se see this fixed for a reason and it will be San Francisco's downfall.

azinman2 3y ago

I think we need more options like this which reduce prices for people in expensive areas everywhere. Would you rather people be priced out? I’d rather have a bigger mix of people in any one metropolis.

tomohelix 3y ago
I would rather have a tumor be cut open and removed than having a band aid put on it and left to fester. If the housing situation in a place got so bad that a person has to pay nearly 1/3 of their monthly income just to get a closet to sleep in, it is not a livable place. A slum has a big mix of people but would you really consider it a great "metropolis" where you can have a life and raise a family? Again, this is 1/3 of minimum wage for as much space as a closet. It is basically priced as high as it could to best exploit the poorest among us. Maybe it is a different in value between me and those who grew up in SF but I consider it inhumane to treat someone who is working full time like this. If you don't think so, let me ask you this: would you let your family, your spouse and your children, to live like this? In a box? Or would you do all you could to get them something better? Not everyone can do better than minimum wage, but it doesn't mean they deserve to live like this. That is what I mean. There are solutions to the housing problem that is not this band aid on a festering wound. But it seems this kind of situation is perfectly fine to SF people. To which I have nothing else to say but amazement at how can a city priding itself on economic abundance and human right progress can also be utterly indifferent to the suffering of its fellows and even justifying it.

gamepsys 3y ago

I'm honestly confused about which part specifically you find unacceptable. Do you think it should be illegal to sell housing smaller than a certain minimum size? Do you think the price is too high? Do you think the location is awful?

tomohelix 3y ago
Someone working full time should at least be compensated enough to have a proper living condition. A box is not a proper living condition. For a minimum wage worker, $700/month is basically at the limit of what they can afford for rent. And yet this is all they can get? And people are cheering for it?
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  You skipped the core of the question though. Define "proper living situation." There was a time when travelers would sleep in a big bed piled on with other people in the back of a tavern, without giving it a second thought. Not too long ago whole nations of people native to north america lived in tents made of animal skin from cradle to grave, and were perfectly satisfied. Someone has a backpack full of belongings and that's all they need, many of these people don't even need a kitchen because they never cook. They're social, they want their days spent in shared spaces. How is this worse than a hostel? I think the idea of "proper living condition" is as varied as the number of people you ask. I wouldn't live in one of these shared spaces, but I do live an equally unorthodox lifestyle and my housing situation would be considered inadequate by many, and I love it. I can understand why someone would want the minimum private space to sleep and a shared space bustling with activity and full of like minded people. As long as people have sanitation and aren't sharing diseases and bedbugs and what not I don't see a problem with any mode of living and sheltering, and that's what it really is all about, shelter.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Ok but the current reality is even worse than this. Yes, I am cheering for options that make housing more affordable, it's better than doing nothing.

mixmastamyk 3y ago

Scrappy people solving problems is the only way problems are gonna get solved. Also living in a dorm is not the hardship you seem to think it is. It’s better accommodations than 90% of people in history have ever lived. Watch Les Miserables for a reality check. Better to direct anger at the landed gentry who made this possible.

tomohelix 3y ago
The apathy is what I am angry about. The sentiment that "this is fine" is what allowed this to happen. Laws and regulations need to be adjusted to enable better housing for more people. But they get blocked because those who hold the means don't see any problem with people below them living in squalid conditions like this. Make no mistake, I see this as a terrible living situation. Just because some war time refugees 100 years ago lived worse doesn't mean one of the richest cities in the world should have the same. It is a terrible and dishonest comparison.
- tim333 3y ago
  Well, long term. However there will always be young people willing to crash on a couch or equivalent to go somewhere interesting. I've done a fair bit of backpacking with maybe even more annoying sleeping arrangements and it's great fun at times.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  As far as I can see you are the apathetic one here. Complaining about NIMBYs won't actually solve the problem. We need realistic solutions, especially short term ones, and these rooms are absolutely part of that. When the alternative is homelessness these units are unequivocally good.
- mixmastamyk 3y ago
  Reiterating your point that capsule hotels are “squalid” is not compelling. And we don’t have to go 100 years, still probably better than 50% of people living in the world today.

avocabros 3y ago

No one is forced to live there? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others don't.

kyawzazaw 3y ago
there is a reason we regulate things like no window-less aparments, no selling of organ transplants

skybrian 3y ago

As temporary housing, it beats a tent. Maybe even a van. Are you against camping?

tomohelix 3y ago
Why do you think it is temporary? You don't seem to understand how much is $700 to a minimum wage worker. Even in SF, that is nearly 1/3 of their income. If we take the common requirement of 3x the rent then this is basically the most a minimum wage worker can afford. Sometimes, people can't do any better than that. Are you saying that even if a person work full time, they don't deserve a better living condition than a box? This is eye opening to me how the housing situation is viewed by the SF upper class. I have always considered it a dystopian nightmare when the workers have to sleep in a coffin and work full time. It seems not many people in SF share my view.
- skybrian 3y ago
  I think it's temporary because in the article, he is quoted as saying he's "living in a $700/mo pod at Mint Plaza for the next 30 days." That seems pretty temporary to me? As to what he deserves, I think he deserves to decide for himself without other people second-guessing it, and also to be able to change his mind and do something else if it gets old. It seems like you're going off-topic, since the article isn't about minimum wage workers in general. But to address that, yes, rents are very high in San Francisco and it's no place to try to live solely on a minimum wage.
  - tomohelix 3y ago
    The article to me is about the cost of a box to sleep in SF. The person they interviewed was just one of the renters. There are all sorts of people living in that place. Most I would wager are the people who cannot afford anything better. Why do you think minimum wage workers should not be allowed to live in SF? If everyone is writing code, who would make the food? Who would deliver the packages? Who would clean the workspace in your office? They don't deserve a place to live near you even though they are providing you with all kind of services? Genuinely asking here because I can't fathom what you were saying when you said SF is not for minimum wage workers.

carlosjobim 3y ago

Poverty is the most profitable investment that man has ever conceived. Decades of dehumanization has erased all empathy and turned people into cold and calculating machines.

freitzkriesler2 3y ago

You are 100% correct. There's plenty of land in San Francisco for new builds and high density housing can also fix the issue. Entrenched property owners and landlords have an incentive to not se see this fixed for a reason and it will be San Francisco's downfall.