6 ms·

I'd like to point out that this story takes place in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. $10 / hour goes a lot further in Kansas than it doe

by mox1 13y ago

I'd like to point out that this story takes place in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. $10 / hour goes a lot further in Kansas than it does D.C. I think a lot of people could live OK in the Midwest on $10 / hour. I wish more people would move away from the super high cost of living areas (California, New England, ...etc) and "vote with their feet" so to speak. If 10% of the populations of Cali and Massachusetts moved inward, I think that would drive house prices down and wages up. All the rich people are still around to buy stuff and no poor people left to work retail.

w1ntermute 13y ago
> I wish more people would move away from the super high cost of living areas (California, New England, ...etc) and "vote with their feet" so to speak. This is (and has been) happening for years now. Poorer people are reverse-migrating from the denser parts of the country to the Sun Belt. And it's a problem. The high cost of living in many of the "desirable" parts of the country is artificially created by government regulation of housing (as well as other markets, thanks to the propensity of densely populated municipalities to be run by liberals). But with the services sector growing, it makes more sense for poorer people to live near the wealthy people (who are going to be in the desirable parts of the country), since those are the people who can and will buy services. It's very different from, say, manufacturing, which is far more location-independent. I firmly believe the problem of high cost of living can be solved through more sensible housing policies and efficient public transit (among other things). See this (quite short, at 64 pages) book for more details: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078X... It's the services sector that is and will continue to be the most difficult to replace with outsourcing and automation (see Moravec's paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox). It only makes sense that we try to create as many jobs as possible in this area. By lowering housing and transportation (and other) costs for people in the service industry, they can offer their services at a lower cost, allowing more people to purchase those services, which will drive down unemployment.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  The crux of your argument is unconvincing. Service jobs have to be near the wealthy? What kind of myopia is that? Un-wealthy people go out to eat and get their car repaired just as much as Richie Rich. Yes, if nobody but tech workers come to San Francisco, the city will collapse. But that doesn't mean everybody else has to live there too. It's also awful presumptuous to say, "Well I'm wealthy, this is where I want to live. You are poor, you don't get a choice, live near me"
  - rfrank 13y ago
    That situation also means that the lowest wage workers have to commute the furthest, often (as the author of the article experiences) spending most of their daily pay just getting to and from work. "Move further from your job" is rarely an option.
    - w1ntermute 13y ago
      This can be solved with denser housing and more efficient public transit.
      - rfrank 13y ago
        Which will likely not happen for a number of reasons, see the current Bay Area fight over tech/gentrification.
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    > The crux of your argument is unconvincing. Service jobs have to be near the wealthy? What kind of myopia is that? Actually, what's myopic is this: > Un-wealthy people go out to eat and get their car repaired just as much as Richie Rich. People who aren't wealthy don't eat out as much and don't spend nearly as much when they go out to eat. They buy food that has smaller margins and expect less in the way of service, meaning lower wages for the workers. And of course service jobs have to be near the wealthy. When it doesn't matter where a worker is located, that job gets outsourced. Location-dependent jobs are the ones that are least likely to disappear in the future (or to have disappeared already). > It's also awful presumptuous to say, "Well I'm wealthy, this is where I want to live. You are poor, you don't get a choice, live near me" It's no more presumptuous than Henry Ford was when he expected workers to move to Detroit to work in the booming automotive industry, rather than setting up a bunch of small factories all across America so he could accommodate them. Moreover, in this case, such a policy would help to keep workers from having to move (to the Sun Belt, or another low-cost-of-living locale) away from their families and communities in the first place. You can dream all you want of a utopia where people can live in the middle of nowhere and have their ideal job. But that isn't going to make it a reality.
jackmaney 13y ago
> $10 / hour goes a lot further in Kansas than it does D.C. True. > I think a lot of people could live OK in the Midwest on $10 / hour. Ridiculously false. Yes, the cost of living is cheaper in the Midwest, but a lot of people seem to have the idea that it's this land lost in time where a loaf of bread still costs a nickel and where gas is 25 cents a gallon.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Actually, the (foolish) idea that I have in my head is that when the median house price is NOT one million dollars (I'm looking at you, San Francisco), people who make $10 / hour won't have to devote nearly as much of their income to housing, dramatically increasing their spending power.
  - derekp7 13y ago
    Apartment prices in the Midwest (I'm north of Chicago, but same goes for further south) are 600 - 1000 per month. 10 bucks an hour is 1750 a month before taxes -- fed, fica, and state taxes get you down to less than 1400. There is no public transportation to speak of (outside of big cities such as Chicago and Atlanta, etc), so kill another $175 for gas, plus $150 for a car payment (cheap used car, high interest). Not much left for food, heat, and lights. Now it gets a bit better when two people are living together. But then that usually means a family (kids) eventually, so it then starts to get much worse.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      600 - 1000 per month. 10 bucks an hour is 1750 a month before taxes Well that certainly sounds a lot more attainable than 10 bucks an hour with the 2200 - 2600 rental rates in San Francisco. (Last I heard, at least)
    - jasomill 13y ago
      True. This is why people living on $10/hour tend to work more than 40 hours / week. Unfortunately, this increasingly means one or more part time jobs, because service industry jobs don't generally offer overtime. Speaking of couples living together with kids, I personally wish Americans, rich and poor, were vastly more open to adult living arrangements other than the "traditional nuclear family". Not that there's anything wrong with it, I just think the world would be a better place if there were a larger variety of equally "acceptable" living arrangements with no obvious default, to make people more comfortable seeking out the particular set of circumstances that work well for them. Some people might be happier living as an extended family, say, or communally, or alone or with platonic room-mates, even when in a committed relationship, if it weren't for strong societal pressures to conform. I'm not at all "dogmatically anti-dogmatic" about this, it's just a train of thought I've had on many occasions.
krstck 13y ago
It's hard for people to move away from their kids. In many if not most of these cases, you'll find that that's a major reason why people don't move.
GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
OK, you go first. Those areas are empty and emptying out because people don't want to live there.
ahoy 13y ago
I live in a fairly low-cost area(a mid-sized town in the coastal southeast). $10/hr would be a stretch.

by mox1 13y ago

w1ntermute 13y ago

> I wish more people would move away from the super high cost of living areas (California, New England, ...etc) and "vote with their feet" so to speak. This is (and has been) happening for years now. Poorer people are reverse-migrating from the denser parts of the country to the Sun Belt. And it's a problem. The high cost of living in many of the "desirable" parts of the country is artificially created by government regulation of housing (as well as other markets, thanks to the propensity of densely populated municipalities to be run by liberals). But with the services sector growing, it makes more sense for poorer people to live near the wealthy people (who are going to be in the desirable parts of the country), since those are the people who can and will buy services. It's very different from, say, manufacturing, which is far more location-independent. I firmly believe the problem of high cost of living can be solved through more sensible housing policies and efficient public transit (among other things). See this (quite short, at 64 pages) book for more details: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078X... It's the services sector that is and will continue to be the most difficult to replace with outsourcing and automation (see Moravec's paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox). It only makes sense that we try to create as many jobs as possible in this area. By lowering housing and transportation (and other) costs for people in the service industry, they can offer their services at a lower cost, allowing more people to purchase those services, which will drive down unemployment.

sliverstorm 13y ago
The crux of your argument is unconvincing. Service jobs have to be near the wealthy? What kind of myopia is that? Un-wealthy people go out to eat and get their car repaired just as much as Richie Rich. Yes, if nobody but tech workers come to San Francisco, the city will collapse. But that doesn't mean everybody else has to live there too. It's also awful presumptuous to say, "Well I'm wealthy, this is where I want to live. You are poor, you don't get a choice, live near me"
- rfrank 13y ago
  That situation also means that the lowest wage workers have to commute the furthest, often (as the author of the article experiences) spending most of their daily pay just getting to and from work. "Move further from your job" is rarely an option.
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    This can be solved with denser housing and more efficient public transit.
    - rfrank 13y ago
      Which will likely not happen for a number of reasons, see the current Bay Area fight over tech/gentrification.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  > The crux of your argument is unconvincing. Service jobs have to be near the wealthy? What kind of myopia is that? Actually, what's myopic is this: > Un-wealthy people go out to eat and get their car repaired just as much as Richie Rich. People who aren't wealthy don't eat out as much and don't spend nearly as much when they go out to eat. They buy food that has smaller margins and expect less in the way of service, meaning lower wages for the workers. And of course service jobs have to be near the wealthy. When it doesn't matter where a worker is located, that job gets outsourced. Location-dependent jobs are the ones that are least likely to disappear in the future (or to have disappeared already). > It's also awful presumptuous to say, "Well I'm wealthy, this is where I want to live. You are poor, you don't get a choice, live near me" It's no more presumptuous than Henry Ford was when he expected workers to move to Detroit to work in the booming automotive industry, rather than setting up a bunch of small factories all across America so he could accommodate them. Moreover, in this case, such a policy would help to keep workers from having to move (to the Sun Belt, or another low-cost-of-living locale) away from their families and communities in the first place. You can dream all you want of a utopia where people can live in the middle of nowhere and have their ideal job. But that isn't going to make it a reality.

jackmaney 13y ago

> $10 / hour goes a lot further in Kansas than it does D.C. True. > I think a lot of people could live OK in the Midwest on $10 / hour. Ridiculously false. Yes, the cost of living is cheaper in the Midwest, but a lot of people seem to have the idea that it's this land lost in time where a loaf of bread still costs a nickel and where gas is 25 cents a gallon.

sliverstorm 13y ago
Actually, the (foolish) idea that I have in my head is that when the median house price is NOT one million dollars (I'm looking at you, San Francisco), people who make $10 / hour won't have to devote nearly as much of their income to housing, dramatically increasing their spending power.
- derekp7 13y ago
  Apartment prices in the Midwest (I'm north of Chicago, but same goes for further south) are 600 - 1000 per month. 10 bucks an hour is 1750 a month before taxes -- fed, fica, and state taxes get you down to less than 1400. There is no public transportation to speak of (outside of big cities such as Chicago and Atlanta, etc), so kill another $175 for gas, plus $150 for a car payment (cheap used car, high interest). Not much left for food, heat, and lights. Now it gets a bit better when two people are living together. But then that usually means a family (kids) eventually, so it then starts to get much worse.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    600 - 1000 per month. 10 bucks an hour is 1750 a month before taxes Well that certainly sounds a lot more attainable than 10 bucks an hour with the 2200 - 2600 rental rates in San Francisco. (Last I heard, at least)
  - jasomill 13y ago
    True. This is why people living on $10/hour tend to work more than 40 hours / week. Unfortunately, this increasingly means one or more part time jobs, because service industry jobs don't generally offer overtime. Speaking of couples living together with kids, I personally wish Americans, rich and poor, were vastly more open to adult living arrangements other than the "traditional nuclear family". Not that there's anything wrong with it, I just think the world would be a better place if there were a larger variety of equally "acceptable" living arrangements with no obvious default, to make people more comfortable seeking out the particular set of circumstances that work well for them. Some people might be happier living as an extended family, say, or communally, or alone or with platonic room-mates, even when in a committed relationship, if it weren't for strong societal pressures to conform. I'm not at all "dogmatically anti-dogmatic" about this, it's just a train of thought I've had on many occasions.

krstck 13y ago

It's hard for people to move away from their kids. In many if not most of these cases, you'll find that that's a major reason why people don't move.

GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago

OK, you go first. Those areas are empty and emptying out because people don't want to live there.

ahoy 13y ago

I live in a fairly low-cost area(a mid-sized town in the coastal southeast). $10/hr would be a stretch.