5 ms·

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

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.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  People who aren't wealthy don't eat out as much and don't spend nearly as much when they go out to eat. My apologies, I didn't mean they spend the exact same $$$. Poor choice in wording on my part. My point is being poor doesn't mean your car never needs a mechanic. 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. Non sequitur. Plenty of un-outsourceable jobs exist serving people who are not wealthy. 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. Where do I speak of dream jobs? I'm just saying it's awfully self-centered to think that the poor exist to serve the wealthy.
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    > My point is being poor doesn't mean your car never needs a mechanic. I know poor people who are decent at basic car maintenance (once again, the sorts of things where you get high margins). I also know wealthy people who are car enthusiasts, but they wouldn't want to get their hands dirty, so they'd rather pay someone to do it for them. You're speaking in absolutes when the market relies on relative differences. This particular point isn't too significant though, since ideally, most poor people wouldn't need to own a car (they would use public transit instead). > Non sequitur. Plenty of un-outsourceable jobs exist serving people who are not wealthy. Non sequitur. The goal is to optimize new job creation. The service industry is one of the fastest growing in America, so it makes sense to harness that. > Where do I speak of dream jobs? I'm just saying it's awfully self-centered to think that the poor exist to serve the wealthy. And I'm just saying that worrying about whether the poor can have their dream job (where they don't have to serve the wealthy) is something you can worry about when chronic unemployment hasn't been dragging down the economy for the last several years.
HCIdivision17 13y ago
It could merely be the people I've known, but I think the un-wealthy actually do spend far less going out to eat and repairing their cars. To whit, I think it's more likely to say I've been duped by Poe's Law. I mean, one of the defining characteristics of being poor-ish to me is what a person is willing to put up with when driving junk cars. Cars which - when it inevitably gave up the ghost - would be replaced by another junker. Now, I was raised lower middle class, but for a brief period my parents got out of it; the defining turning point was managing to get financing on a new Ford Escort. It wasn't nearly as expensive to own as feared, partly due to incredibly better gas mileage, but also it drank less oil (two quarts every two days, and not a drop on the pavement... Well maybe one or two for good measure.) Anecdata, to be sure, but I've met quite a few people with similar stories.

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.

sliverstorm 13y ago
People who aren't wealthy don't eat out as much and don't spend nearly as much when they go out to eat. My apologies, I didn't mean they spend the exact same $$$. Poor choice in wording on my part. My point is being poor doesn't mean your car never needs a mechanic. 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. Non sequitur. Plenty of un-outsourceable jobs exist serving people who are not wealthy. 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. Where do I speak of dream jobs? I'm just saying it's awfully self-centered to think that the poor exist to serve the wealthy.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  > My point is being poor doesn't mean your car never needs a mechanic. I know poor people who are decent at basic car maintenance (once again, the sorts of things where you get high margins). I also know wealthy people who are car enthusiasts, but they wouldn't want to get their hands dirty, so they'd rather pay someone to do it for them. You're speaking in absolutes when the market relies on relative differences. This particular point isn't too significant though, since ideally, most poor people wouldn't need to own a car (they would use public transit instead). > Non sequitur. Plenty of un-outsourceable jobs exist serving people who are not wealthy. Non sequitur. The goal is to optimize new job creation. The service industry is one of the fastest growing in America, so it makes sense to harness that. > Where do I speak of dream jobs? I'm just saying it's awfully self-centered to think that the poor exist to serve the wealthy. And I'm just saying that worrying about whether the poor can have their dream job (where they don't have to serve the wealthy) is something you can worry about when chronic unemployment hasn't been dragging down the economy for the last several years.

HCIdivision17 13y ago

It could merely be the people I've known, but I think the un-wealthy actually do spend far less going out to eat and repairing their cars. To whit, I think it's more likely to say I've been duped by Poe's Law. I mean, one of the defining characteristics of being poor-ish to me is what a person is willing to put up with when driving junk cars. Cars which - when it inevitably gave up the ghost - would be replaced by another junker. Now, I was raised lower middle class, but for a brief period my parents got out of it; the defining turning point was managing to get financing on a new Ford Escort. It wasn't nearly as expensive to own as feared, partly due to incredibly better gas mileage, but also it drank less oil (two quarts every two days, and not a drop on the pavement... Well maybe one or two for good measure.) Anecdata, to be sure, but I've met quite a few people with similar stories.