4 ms·

I think the crux of the issue is that $20 an hour is not enough to live anywhere near SF in those areas. Combined with the split shift, this means that basicall

by rtpg 12y ago

I think the crux of the issue is that $20 an hour is not enough to live anywhere near SF in those areas. Combined with the split shift, this means that basically 16 hours a day of these people's lives are booked. So even if these people were willing to work 2 fulltime jobs to cover this issue (an idea so absurd anywhere outside of America we should be ashamed), they can't because of the hours. 1 solution is to hire two sets of drivers (allowing these people to find another part- or full-time job to compensate). Another is to pay them more for the split shift issue (not to mention the large quality of life impact from the schedule). This is _not_ an ideal job for anybody.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 12y ago
"I think the crux of the issue is that $20 an hour is not enough to live anywhere near SF in those areas. Combined with the split shift, this means that basically 16 hours a day of these people's lives are booked." So don't live there! It's not like there isn't a huge country here. If people go take jobs elsewhere, the price people are willing to pay to get people to take these jobs here will go up. If not there is a glut of people willing to take these jobs at almost any price, in which case, honestly, you can't solve this problem (and it is likely we will, in the not too distant future, soon have too many people for all possible jobs that people are needed for) This idea that people have a magical right to simultaneously live wherever they want, and get paid enough to live comfortably there is somewhat ridiculous and impossible to fulfill. There will always be places that are more expensive due to demand. It's not like this is the first time in history (even of the US!) this has ever happened. What happens is people go instead where they can afford to live. Then either pay goes up to attract people to the high demand area, or it becomes less in demand. If i could not afford to live in the bay area with what the bay area was willing to pay me, i would move somewhere cheaper. There are plenty of jobs in the US that are ready for the taking, pay reasonable rates, and are in places that are affordable. People often just consider themselves too good to take them.
- jmckib 12y ago
  I see you're getting downvoted, but you are absolutely right. If the wages for job X in location Y are too low to be affordable, people will either relocate or find a new job, causing the wages for job X in location Y to increase. I don't see a good reason to interfere with this process.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    There is a simple reason: human beings are not fungible. The economy should serve people, not the other way around.
    - jmckib 12y ago
      I think you missed the point. I am arguing that a union would benefit bus drivers at the expense of all other people.
    - DannyBee 12y ago
      And your proposed solution is what? let's replace "Bay Area" with something else with limited land: "Hawaii". Imagine Hawaii is the next place everyone wants to live. A billion people want to live there in fact (choose any number that makes you comfortable believing it's not simply a "build more housing units" problem), some who have already been there a long time, some who haven't. This drives the cost of living up. Some people now can't afford to live there. Some of these folks have been there a long time. Some of them have not. What solution is there to this problem other than "somebody doesn't get to live in Hawaii"?
  - QuantumChaos 12y ago
    I appreciate you and DannyBee's comments. It is disheartening to me that basic economics is treated here as right wing propaganda. Mainstream economics won against all other theories academically. Yet many otherwise educated people are unaware of fundamentals such as the welfare theorems (or dismiss them out of hands with "muh frictions").
    - 12y ago

by rtpg 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

DannyBee 12y ago

"I think the crux of the issue is that $20 an hour is not enough to live anywhere near SF in those areas. Combined with the split shift, this means that basically 16 hours a day of these people's lives are booked." So don't live there! It's not like there isn't a huge country here. If people go take jobs elsewhere, the price people are willing to pay to get people to take these jobs here will go up. If not there is a glut of people willing to take these jobs at almost any price, in which case, honestly, you can't solve this problem (and it is likely we will, in the not too distant future, soon have too many people for all possible jobs that people are needed for) This idea that people have a magical right to simultaneously live wherever they want, and get paid enough to live comfortably there is somewhat ridiculous and impossible to fulfill. There will always be places that are more expensive due to demand. It's not like this is the first time in history (even of the US!) this has ever happened. What happens is people go instead where they can afford to live. Then either pay goes up to attract people to the high demand area, or it becomes less in demand. If i could not afford to live in the bay area with what the bay area was willing to pay me, i would move somewhere cheaper. There are plenty of jobs in the US that are ready for the taking, pay reasonable rates, and are in places that are affordable. People often just consider themselves too good to take them.

jmckib 12y ago
I see you're getting downvoted, but you are absolutely right. If the wages for job X in location Y are too low to be affordable, people will either relocate or find a new job, causing the wages for job X in location Y to increase. I don't see a good reason to interfere with this process.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  There is a simple reason: human beings are not fungible. The economy should serve people, not the other way around.
  - jmckib 12y ago
    I think you missed the point. I am arguing that a union would benefit bus drivers at the expense of all other people.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    And your proposed solution is what? let's replace "Bay Area" with something else with limited land: "Hawaii". Imagine Hawaii is the next place everyone wants to live. A billion people want to live there in fact (choose any number that makes you comfortable believing it's not simply a "build more housing units" problem), some who have already been there a long time, some who haven't. This drives the cost of living up. Some people now can't afford to live there. Some of these folks have been there a long time. Some of them have not. What solution is there to this problem other than "somebody doesn't get to live in Hawaii"?
- QuantumChaos 12y ago
  I appreciate you and DannyBee's comments. It is disheartening to me that basic economics is treated here as right wing propaganda. Mainstream economics won against all other theories academically. Yet many otherwise educated people are unaware of fundamentals such as the welfare theorems (or dismiss them out of hands with "muh frictions").
  - 12y ago