5 ms·
This isn't worsening living conditions though. 50 years ago, in most places in the US, people shit into pits in the ground covered by a shed with a crescent ca
by friend_and_foe 3y ago
This isn't worsening living conditions though.
50 years ago, in most places in the US, people shit into pits in the ground covered by a shed with a crescent carved into the door. They had lots of land, and they lived in drafty wooden shacks with, at best, a wood stove to keep them warm. 100 years ago in cities like new York most new immigrants lived in rickety stick buildings and took a shit in shared privies. The fact that it is considered the norm today for every individual to have their own toilet and closet full of clothes is a borderline miracle. A sanitary bed to sleep in, air conditioned, and a living area, that's not good enough for a single person because the bunk isn't queen sized and the living area is shared? I'm not convinced that this is some travesty.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoApples and oranges? Thread is about SF. Having known someone who lived there ~50 years ago, not to mention the parent poster, they described better living conditions for less money.
- friend_and_foe 3y agoOK... If this had been an option 50 years ago, and proportionally cheaper, would people have taken this cheaper route? I think probably. It's not any different than a hostel except that it's monthly instead of nightly, and cheaper. The issue here then is the cost of living in SF, not the particulars of this arrangement.