9 ms·

Any thriving city needs a mix of people. If for no other reason, then think out support staff. What about waitresses, cooks, cleaning staff, janitors, bus drive

by mbreese 13y ago

Any thriving city needs a mix of people. If for no other reason, then think out support staff. What about waitresses, cooks, cleaning staff, janitors, bus drivers or any number of low-paying/skill but absolutely needed workers. Where should they live? Why can't they live close to work? And if they need to commute into the city to work, how far out can they get pushed before it's not worth it any more? Thinking that an entire city could consist of highly paid tech workers is a fantasy. And what about families? It's next to impossible to afford to have a family in the city. What will those tech workers do when they want to start a family? Do you really want them all moving to the east bay instead of helping to grow the city?

jayd 13y ago
SF is doing just fine with regards to waitresses, cooks, cleaning staff, janitors, bus drivers, etc. Have you heard anything otherwise? Of course, many of these people do not choose to live in SF, or cannot afford to live in SF ,so they end up having long commutes. This does not seem to keep them from taking jobs in SF. If enough of them decide it is not worth it to commute, their employers will entice them to do so with higher wages. You know, the free market and all...
- encoderer 13y ago
  You know many lower income people who are commuting long distances into the city? Really? Sure, many come from Oakland. Which was the point of the article. And when I was still in school and knew a lot of people in these types of jobs, many worked two (or more, if part time). And still couldn't really make rent. This is why I never tip below 20% unless the server didn't do their job very well. It's expensive to live here and they have a tough situation. Also, Bus Drivers don't belong on that list. They are certainly paid more than wait staff, etc.
gigawhat 13y ago
I'm no libertarian, but how about market forces? As fewer blue-collar workers can afford to live in or close to SF, the labor pool will shrink and wages will go up.
- ganeumann 13y ago
  Part of the argument here is that if government regulation has created artificial scarcity: if market forces were at work then more living spaces would be built. On the other hand, the market isn't everything, especially in the near-term. The market, for instance, won't create diversity in the city; it will create a monoculture of whatever is working that decade. So, right now, in SF, it will create a monoculture of tech workers as, in Manhattan, it almost created a monoculture of finance workers in the '80s/'90s. Monocultures lack resilience and if NYC hadn't traded its finance economy for a tourist-driven one, it could have been hard times. Booms and busts may be okay from a Liberal philosophy point of view, but it's hell on the people caught in it. The other thing about diversity is it's part of the reason people move somewhere in the first place. One of the reasons tech has moved from the Valley up into SF is that SF has more diversity, so it's not all tech all the time. It would make sense to try to preserve what it was you wanted in the first place (even if, a la any gentrifying neighborhood, it may be a bit of a lost cause.)
  - rosser 13y ago
    Part of the argument here is that if government regulation has created artificial scarcity... Is NIMBY-ism "government regulation"?
    - kd0amg 13y ago
      I would expect government regulation to be a common strategy for people who want to keep certain things from being built near them.
  - tomkarlo 13y ago
    NYC traded finance for tourism? Something like 1/3 of the cit is still employed in jobs tied to the financial industry (and it pays over half the wages in Manhattan). I literally can't remember knowing a single person working in tourism when I lived there.
- mbreese 13y ago
  Market forces will definitely apply, but my concern is that the market will react too slowly. That by the time the market can react and raise wages the labor pool will be shrunk too much and either services won't be available, or they will be too expensive for even those who could otherwise afford to live in the city. You can't just get a labor force to move back to an area overnight (just like these problems aren't going to appear overnight). So, in order to compensate, the market will swing wildly until it can stabilize. That's what I'm worried about. Populations shift, people move, cities grow. But, if you're running a city, you want growth to be stable and predictable. If you drive out all of your lower-income workers to other cities and "import" your labor, you are setting yourself up for an unstable labor market in the future. These things need to be planned for, and it doesn't seem like there is a lot of thought being put into it.
crazygringo 13y ago
> waitresses, cooks, cleaning staff, janitors, bus drivers... Where should they live? Why can't they live close to work? Why should they? Of course they can commute, just like many highly-paid professionals choose to commute too. Nobody considers a short commute a fundamental human right. > how far out can they get pushed before it's not worth it any more? They won't, that's the magic of a free market. Wages/salaries will go up in the city so that it's always still "worth it". > Do you really want them all [families] moving to the east bay instead of helping to grow the city? I mean, why not? I live in NYC. Plenty of people I know leave NYC when they want to start a family. Or at a minimum, they leave Manhattan to move out to Brooklyn or Queens. You can see how ridiculous the argument is, by the fact that its polar opposite sounds the same: "do you really want all the families who would be helping to grow the east bay, moving into downtown SF?" Look, there are certainly coordination, transit, etc. problems with the Bay Area. And there are income-disparity problems nationwide. But people seem to confuse those with just being afraid of change/gentrification, and that doesn't help.
- rtpg 13y ago
  >Why should they? Of course they can commute, just like many highly-paid professionals choose to commute too. Nobody considers a short commute a fundamental human right. A car is extremely expensive. Unless you're planning on making the public transportation system usable (which would be a herculean task).
  - Apocryphon 13y ago
    Honestly, I think that's what the Bay Area needs to aim at. But of course it's probably more impossible a problem to solve, even more so housing issues.
    - mbreese 13y ago
      I think this was one of the points of the article - that this isn't a SF specific problem. The entire region needs to get together to start to plan better for growth. Lack of housing isn't a SF problem, it's a problem for the entire Peninsula. (I'm not as familiar with the Easy Bay). With decent urban planning, the region could maximize its growth potential. Without it, we'll have major issues in the near future.
gdubs 13y ago
This has more to do with income inequality than housing. The middle-class has largely evaporated (tech workers are probably the closest thing to it now). And, even when there was a thriving middle-class in this country, they didn't really live in places like Manhattan anyway -- they commuted in from suburbs. Building low-income housing is fraught with difficulty. Even if you were to pour money into it, you'd still risk manufacturing slums anyway.
jlgreco 13y ago
Does this only apply to SF, or should we also subsidize housing for poor people in Malibu? How can I get in on that? I'd love to live somewhere I cannot afford on other people's dime...
- look_lookatme 13y ago
  This applies to any city that seeks some form of income and social diversity and it only applies to you if you choose to live in that city. If you lived in SF and this happened, your options would be pretty simple, contribute to the subsidies via your tax dollars or move out of the city.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > This applies to any city that seeks some form of income and social diversity This seems like a tautology. "A city that seeks income diversity should seek income diversity"... the point is that I and crazygringo do not think that the city needs to seek that; it is a-okay in my book if a city becomes gentrified. > and it only applies to you if you choose to live in that city. Okay, I choose to live in Malibu. Sadly I cannot afford it. Who is going to think of poor jlgreco, unable to afford living in the beach community of his choice? Is my desire to live in Malibu less valid than anyone else's desire to live in San Francisco?
    - bane 13y ago
      I'd personally love some subsidized beach front property with a private beach.
    - mbreese 13y ago
      Just to be clear, "income diversity" in this case could/should mean income for the city, as in a diverse tax-base. This is definitely a desirable thing for a city, so that when the inevitable tech crash happens, the city's financial base won't collapse.
- ulfw 13y ago
  Not Malibu, but right next door in Santa Monica they have a crapload of subsidized housing in the most expensive part of town close to 3rd St Promenade and the Ocean/Pier.
eweise 13y ago
Just to give you some perspective, I grew up in Concord which is about 25 miles east of San Francisco. My dad bought our house in the late 60's because that was the closest place to SF that he could afford for our family. He commuted for decades to SF and Oakland by car and bart. I never heard him complain about the commute or how the bay area should do something for his family.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Spooky23 13y ago
The world is different and has been for years. Nobody gives a shit about your family or community... That's a quaint notions hat died with ethnic/religious neighborhood blocs. NYC is a great example -- millions of people fled the high costs and hassles of living in the city to Long Island, New Jersey and upstate. Companies did too -- there were 10,000 factories in NYC in 1969 and something like 500 in 1999. My family moved from Queens to a town 100 miles north in the bad old days (late 80s) when the principal of the middle school that I was heading to had his car firebombed. San Francisco's situation is more nimby than NYC. People discover it and love it, but want to close the door for the next guy. As long as times are good, it's a winning strategy. When times turn bad, it will get really bad, just as it did in the 80s in NYC.

by mbreese 13y ago

jayd 13y ago

SF is doing just fine with regards to waitresses, cooks, cleaning staff, janitors, bus drivers, etc. Have you heard anything otherwise? Of course, many of these people do not choose to live in SF, or cannot afford to live in SF ,so they end up having long commutes. This does not seem to keep them from taking jobs in SF. If enough of them decide it is not worth it to commute, their employers will entice them to do so with higher wages. You know, the free market and all...

encoderer 13y ago
You know many lower income people who are commuting long distances into the city? Really? Sure, many come from Oakland. Which was the point of the article. And when I was still in school and knew a lot of people in these types of jobs, many worked two (or more, if part time). And still couldn't really make rent. This is why I never tip below 20% unless the server didn't do their job very well. It's expensive to live here and they have a tough situation. Also, Bus Drivers don't belong on that list. They are certainly paid more than wait staff, etc.

gigawhat 13y ago

I'm no libertarian, but how about market forces? As fewer blue-collar workers can afford to live in or close to SF, the labor pool will shrink and wages will go up.

ganeumann 13y ago
Part of the argument here is that if government regulation has created artificial scarcity: if market forces were at work then more living spaces would be built. On the other hand, the market isn't everything, especially in the near-term. The market, for instance, won't create diversity in the city; it will create a monoculture of whatever is working that decade. So, right now, in SF, it will create a monoculture of tech workers as, in Manhattan, it almost created a monoculture of finance workers in the '80s/'90s. Monocultures lack resilience and if NYC hadn't traded its finance economy for a tourist-driven one, it could have been hard times. Booms and busts may be okay from a Liberal philosophy point of view, but it's hell on the people caught in it. The other thing about diversity is it's part of the reason people move somewhere in the first place. One of the reasons tech has moved from the Valley up into SF is that SF has more diversity, so it's not all tech all the time. It would make sense to try to preserve what it was you wanted in the first place (even if, a la any gentrifying neighborhood, it may be a bit of a lost cause.)
- rosser 13y ago
  Part of the argument here is that if government regulation has created artificial scarcity... Is NIMBY-ism "government regulation"?
  - kd0amg 13y ago
    I would expect government regulation to be a common strategy for people who want to keep certain things from being built near them.
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  NYC traded finance for tourism? Something like 1/3 of the cit is still employed in jobs tied to the financial industry (and it pays over half the wages in Manhattan). I literally can't remember knowing a single person working in tourism when I lived there.
mbreese 13y ago
Market forces will definitely apply, but my concern is that the market will react too slowly. That by the time the market can react and raise wages the labor pool will be shrunk too much and either services won't be available, or they will be too expensive for even those who could otherwise afford to live in the city. You can't just get a labor force to move back to an area overnight (just like these problems aren't going to appear overnight). So, in order to compensate, the market will swing wildly until it can stabilize. That's what I'm worried about. Populations shift, people move, cities grow. But, if you're running a city, you want growth to be stable and predictable. If you drive out all of your lower-income workers to other cities and "import" your labor, you are setting yourself up for an unstable labor market in the future. These things need to be planned for, and it doesn't seem like there is a lot of thought being put into it.

crazygringo 13y ago

> waitresses, cooks, cleaning staff, janitors, bus drivers... Where should they live? Why can't they live close to work? Why should they? Of course they can commute, just like many highly-paid professionals choose to commute too. Nobody considers a short commute a fundamental human right. > how far out can they get pushed before it's not worth it any more? They won't, that's the magic of a free market. Wages/salaries will go up in the city so that it's always still "worth it". > Do you really want them all [families] moving to the east bay instead of helping to grow the city? I mean, why not? I live in NYC. Plenty of people I know leave NYC when they want to start a family. Or at a minimum, they leave Manhattan to move out to Brooklyn or Queens. You can see how ridiculous the argument is, by the fact that its polar opposite sounds the same: "do you really want all the families who would be helping to grow the east bay, moving into downtown SF?" Look, there are certainly coordination, transit, etc. problems with the Bay Area. And there are income-disparity problems nationwide. But people seem to confuse those with just being afraid of change/gentrification, and that doesn't help.

rtpg 13y ago
>Why should they? Of course they can commute, just like many highly-paid professionals choose to commute too. Nobody considers a short commute a fundamental human right. A car is extremely expensive. Unless you're planning on making the public transportation system usable (which would be a herculean task).
- Apocryphon 13y ago
  Honestly, I think that's what the Bay Area needs to aim at. But of course it's probably more impossible a problem to solve, even more so housing issues.
  - mbreese 13y ago
    I think this was one of the points of the article - that this isn't a SF specific problem. The entire region needs to get together to start to plan better for growth. Lack of housing isn't a SF problem, it's a problem for the entire Peninsula. (I'm not as familiar with the Easy Bay). With decent urban planning, the region could maximize its growth potential. Without it, we'll have major issues in the near future.

gdubs 13y ago

This has more to do with income inequality than housing. The middle-class has largely evaporated (tech workers are probably the closest thing to it now). And, even when there was a thriving middle-class in this country, they didn't really live in places like Manhattan anyway -- they commuted in from suburbs. Building low-income housing is fraught with difficulty. Even if you were to pour money into it, you'd still risk manufacturing slums anyway.

jlgreco 13y ago

Does this only apply to SF, or should we also subsidize housing for poor people in Malibu? How can I get in on that? I'd love to live somewhere I cannot afford on other people's dime...

look_lookatme 13y ago
This applies to any city that seeks some form of income and social diversity and it only applies to you if you choose to live in that city. If you lived in SF and this happened, your options would be pretty simple, contribute to the subsidies via your tax dollars or move out of the city.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > This applies to any city that seeks some form of income and social diversity This seems like a tautology. "A city that seeks income diversity should seek income diversity"... the point is that I and crazygringo do not think that the city needs to seek that; it is a-okay in my book if a city becomes gentrified. > and it only applies to you if you choose to live in that city. Okay, I choose to live in Malibu. Sadly I cannot afford it. Who is going to think of poor jlgreco, unable to afford living in the beach community of his choice? Is my desire to live in Malibu less valid than anyone else's desire to live in San Francisco?
  - bane 13y ago
    I'd personally love some subsidized beach front property with a private beach.
  - mbreese 13y ago
    Just to be clear, "income diversity" in this case could/should mean income for the city, as in a diverse tax-base. This is definitely a desirable thing for a city, so that when the inevitable tech crash happens, the city's financial base won't collapse.
ulfw 13y ago
Not Malibu, but right next door in Santa Monica they have a crapload of subsidized housing in the most expensive part of town close to 3rd St Promenade and the Ocean/Pier.

eweise 13y ago

Just to give you some perspective, I grew up in Concord which is about 25 miles east of San Francisco. My dad bought our house in the late 60's because that was the closest place to SF that he could afford for our family. He commuted for decades to SF and Oakland by car and bart. I never heard him complain about the commute or how the bay area should do something for his family.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Spooky23 13y ago

The world is different and has been for years. Nobody gives a shit about your family or community... That's a quaint notions hat died with ethnic/religious neighborhood blocs. NYC is a great example -- millions of people fled the high costs and hassles of living in the city to Long Island, New Jersey and upstate. Companies did too -- there were 10,000 factories in NYC in 1969 and something like 500 in 1999. My family moved from Queens to a town 100 miles north in the bad old days (late 80s) when the principal of the middle school that I was heading to had his car firebombed. San Francisco's situation is more nimby than NYC. People discover it and love it, but want to close the door for the next guy. As long as times are good, it's a winning strategy. When times turn bad, it will get really bad, just as it did in the 80s in NYC.