3 ms·

I think that's the wrong angle to look at this from. People do live in LA, and they expect to be able to do things like shop at a grocery store and buy their c

I think that's the wrong angle to look at this from. People do live in LA, and they expect to be able to do things like shop at a grocery store and buy their coffee at a Starbucks. Therefore, there's a need for people to work at such jobs. If those jobs don't pay enough to afford to live in LA, that means there's a structural problem that needs to be solved, one way or another, and individual choices (like "I will move away from LA") will never be enough to fix it.

insane_dreamer 1y ago
> If those jobs don't pay enough to afford to live in LA, that means there's a structural problem that needs to be solved, one way or another This is one of the key underlying problems that doesn't get enough attention. And the current Admin's policies are only making it worse.
edude03 1y ago
> If those jobs don't pay enough to afford to live in LA There's a huge gap between "I can't afford to buy a $700,000 house" and "I live on the streets" though. Renting is an option, renting (or buying) and having room mates is an option. Not living in Beverly Hills is an option etc. > I will move away from LA") will never be enough to fix it. I disagree - people generally go towards where the money is. People want to be a hair stylist in LA instead of North Dakota because of the high population density and general wealthiness of the population. During covid, we saw an exodus of people out of the HCoL areas *because* the "non essential" jobs they relied on also moved out (not clear which came first, but the point remains). So generally yeah, if you can't get your hair cut in LA because all the stylists moved out of the city, you'll either commute, or move where everyone else did (which I guess is gentrification in a nutshell) Either way. I don't think the author is talking about the average starbucks employee here
- danaris 1y ago
  > There's a huge gap between "I can't afford to buy a $700,000 house" and "I live on the streets" though. Sure. But that's not what I was talking about. I'm saying if it is very difficult or impossible for an average grocery store clerk to find an apartment in LA where they can live what most people would consider a fairly normal life—ie, living alone or with a small number of roommates, each with their own bedroom or sharing one with an actual partner—then that's a systemic failure, not an individual one. > I disagree - people generally go towards where the money is. Right. That's part of the system that we're working within. What I'm saying is that individual choices, like "LA is too expensive; I'll move somewhere else" do not solve the problem. As in, yes, that individual is no longer dealing with the unaffordability of housing in LA, but housing in LA is still unaffordable. > I don't think the author is talking about the average starbucks employee here I mean, the author is clearly satirizing the position of an upper-middle-class person, but the problem they're highlighting is absolutely one that Starbucks workers in high-cost-of-living areas face.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

> If those jobs don't pay enough to afford to live in LA, that means there's a structural problem that needs to be solved, one way or another This is one of the key underlying problems that doesn't get enough attention. And the current Admin's policies are only making it worse.

edude03 1y ago

> If those jobs don't pay enough to afford to live in LA There's a huge gap between "I can't afford to buy a $700,000 house" and "I live on the streets" though. Renting is an option, renting (or buying) and having room mates is an option. Not living in Beverly Hills is an option etc. > I will move away from LA") will never be enough to fix it. I disagree - people generally go towards where the money is. People want to be a hair stylist in LA instead of North Dakota because of the high population density and general wealthiness of the population. During covid, we saw an exodus of people out of the HCoL areas *because* the "non essential" jobs they relied on also moved out (not clear which came first, but the point remains). So generally yeah, if you can't get your hair cut in LA because all the stylists moved out of the city, you'll either commute, or move where everyone else did (which I guess is gentrification in a nutshell) Either way. I don't think the author is talking about the average starbucks employee here

danaris 1y ago
> There's a huge gap between "I can't afford to buy a $700,000 house" and "I live on the streets" though. Sure. But that's not what I was talking about. I'm saying if it is very difficult or impossible for an average grocery store clerk to find an apartment in LA where they can live what most people would consider a fairly normal life—ie, living alone or with a small number of roommates, each with their own bedroom or sharing one with an actual partner—then that's a systemic failure, not an individual one. > I disagree - people generally go towards where the money is. Right. That's part of the system that we're working within. What I'm saying is that individual choices, like "LA is too expensive; I'll move somewhere else" do not solve the problem. As in, yes, that individual is no longer dealing with the unaffordability of housing in LA, but housing in LA is still unaffordable. > I don't think the author is talking about the average starbucks employee here I mean, the author is clearly satirizing the position of an upper-middle-class person, but the problem they're highlighting is absolutely one that Starbucks workers in high-cost-of-living areas face.