4 ms·

I thought it would be much higher. I'm a socialist. I believe in Universal Housing (that is every one should be guaranteed/given shelter (also healthcare, educ

I thought it would be much higher. I'm a socialist. I believe in Universal Housing (that is every one should be guaranteed/given shelter (also healthcare, education, and sustenance)). But, I definitely don't believe in Universal Housing for whereever you want to live. I'm thoroughly unconcerned that it requires 4-8x times minimum wage to live in of the best / most popular cities in the world. Around 1991 my self and 3 other 20-21 yr old college dropouts moved to SF, rented a two bedroom. Can't remember wages, doubt minimum wage cause most jobs pay more than that in SF. I did temp work, two waitresses, and I don't remember what 4th did. There were trade-offs. But we wanted to live in the city even when everyone else our income bracket was being forced out to Oakland. I lived all over SF for 14 years with increasing income and decreasing roomates. It'd doable, if you want it bad enough.

twoodfin 13y ago
But, I definitely don't believe in Universal Housing for whereever you want to live. Interesting. How do you think such a system of Universal Housing should work? One alternative is to build high density public housing which, IMHO, has been shown to be an utter disaster from which many poor communities are still suffering. Another alternative is to incentivize the poor to leave high cost areas and spread out to where they could be housed more affordably/safely/sanely. I'm not sure that's as terrible an idea, but it certainly has downsides, including potentially sacrificing whatever culture and community already exists in poorer areas. I am not a socialist; my currently preferred form of welfare is simply to give people cash (and more cash, rather than less, if they obtain a job). But I'm definitely curious to hear the other side.
- dkokelley 13y ago
  > Another alternative is to incentivize the poor to leave high cost areas and spread out to where they could be housed more affordably/safely/sanely. That incentive exists in the form of cost-of-living savings.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Sure, but is that enough? How do you create "Universal Housing" if some poor person living in San Francisco stubbornly refuses to buy a bus ticket to Montana?
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
I'm thoroughly unconcerned that it requires 4-8x times minimum wage to live in of the best / most popular cities in the world. Then why do we require paying minimum wage to people working in one of the most popular cities in the world? Capitalists can answer this easily: exploiting workers by paying them less than a living wage raises the rate of profit. But how can you answer it?
- mseebach 13y ago
  > Capitalists can answer this easily: exploiting workers by paying them less than a living wage raises the rate of profit. Yes, nothing increases profits like dead workers. Mwahahaha. adjusts monocle. Anyway, the answer you're looking for is that when workers can't afford to live in a commutable distance to a given job, the supply-pool of workers for that jobs goes down. When the supply goes down, the price goes up (or other measures to increase the supply kick in).
  - Iftheshoefits 13y ago
    Your sarcasm betrays an ignorance of the history of the relationship between Capitalists and labor, especially during the Industrial Revolution (European and American) and the several decades thereafter. They literally did not care if their workers died. So workers were employed in deplorable conditions for less-than-livable wages, in order to maintain high profits, simply because the Capitalists could get away with it. I don't know what makes you think the Capitalists of today are significantly different from those of yesterday in this regard. The key difference that separates them, as I see it, is that today Capitalists may (notice the "may"--it isn't guaranteed) be prosecuted or, worse (to them) fined, if they violate labor laws. And do you have actual evidence to support your second assertion? Especially in the case of the Bay Area in general, or San Francisco in specific?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - rtpg 13y ago
    Except they won't be dead, they'll just be living very badly, and end up costing more to society due to using services (some study showed that a homeless person in new york costs around $40k extra in services compared to "median" people... why not just hand the guy $40k?). People living on the edge end up costing more to society, it's an externality not taken enough into account in the labor market.

twoodfin 13y ago

But, I definitely don't believe in Universal Housing for whereever you want to live. Interesting. How do you think such a system of Universal Housing should work? One alternative is to build high density public housing which, IMHO, has been shown to be an utter disaster from which many poor communities are still suffering. Another alternative is to incentivize the poor to leave high cost areas and spread out to where they could be housed more affordably/safely/sanely. I'm not sure that's as terrible an idea, but it certainly has downsides, including potentially sacrificing whatever culture and community already exists in poorer areas. I am not a socialist; my currently preferred form of welfare is simply to give people cash (and more cash, rather than less, if they obtain a job). But I'm definitely curious to hear the other side.

dkokelley 13y ago
> Another alternative is to incentivize the poor to leave high cost areas and spread out to where they could be housed more affordably/safely/sanely. That incentive exists in the form of cost-of-living savings.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Sure, but is that enough? How do you create "Universal Housing" if some poor person living in San Francisco stubbornly refuses to buy a bus ticket to Montana?

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

I'm thoroughly unconcerned that it requires 4-8x times minimum wage to live in of the best / most popular cities in the world. Then why do we require paying minimum wage to people working in one of the most popular cities in the world? Capitalists can answer this easily: exploiting workers by paying them less than a living wage raises the rate of profit. But how can you answer it?

mseebach 13y ago
> Capitalists can answer this easily: exploiting workers by paying them less than a living wage raises the rate of profit. Yes, nothing increases profits like dead workers. Mwahahaha. adjusts monocle. Anyway, the answer you're looking for is that when workers can't afford to live in a commutable distance to a given job, the supply-pool of workers for that jobs goes down. When the supply goes down, the price goes up (or other measures to increase the supply kick in).
- Iftheshoefits 13y ago
  Your sarcasm betrays an ignorance of the history of the relationship between Capitalists and labor, especially during the Industrial Revolution (European and American) and the several decades thereafter. They literally did not care if their workers died. So workers were employed in deplorable conditions for less-than-livable wages, in order to maintain high profits, simply because the Capitalists could get away with it. I don't know what makes you think the Capitalists of today are significantly different from those of yesterday in this regard. The key difference that separates them, as I see it, is that today Capitalists may (notice the "may"--it isn't guaranteed) be prosecuted or, worse (to them) fined, if they violate labor laws. And do you have actual evidence to support your second assertion? Especially in the case of the Bay Area in general, or San Francisco in specific?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- rtpg 13y ago
  Except they won't be dead, they'll just be living very badly, and end up costing more to society due to using services (some study showed that a homeless person in new york costs around $40k extra in services compared to "median" people... why not just hand the guy $40k?). People living on the edge end up costing more to society, it's an externality not taken enough into account in the labor market.