Sirpopopop
Member
Bullshit.
Most other states given the same situation and abundance of high paying jobs would also be full of NIMBYs protecting their real estate for a future sale and fucking over the poor.
It's American nature.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
FB worker living in garage to Zuckerberg: challenges are right outside your door
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
Bullshit.
Most other states given the same situation and abundance of high paying jobs would also be full of NIMBYs protecting their real estate for a future sale and fucking over the poor.
It's American nature.
Actually occasionally the employer insurance is more expensive because they have higher cost plans.
If I was Zuck? I would probably move the HQ out of San Francisco and bring the employees with me. However that would require them to employee these service workers themselves.
KissDaRing
Banned
How would you fix their current issue? just curious...
Frozenprince
Banned
They are nine, eight and four. They have school.
At this point, it's obvious you're just trolling.
Zoe
Member
The employer gets fined though if the employee chooses the exchange over what the employer is offering.
Pesmerga00
Member
This thread is depressing. How dare a family want baseline living conditions. Them bootstraps tho.
KissDaRing
Banned
The kids are currently in school. They can figure out an option until the parents get home if the grandparents aren't available
KissDaRing
Banned
How is that trolling? Seriously get someone to drop the kids to the grandparents till they get home from work
In the South East US, that's career pay. That's a $150,000-$200,000 house with 3-4 bedrooms, and enough left to go on a couple vacations. 🤔
Frozenprince
Banned
You have no earthly idea how expensive child care is.
Because you're suggest three small children endure a six hour daily commute while also not factoring that they have school, activities, doctors appointments, dental appointments, etc etc.
cpp_is_king
Member
In Palo Alto? Yea, it is. She could be buying her own house in Oakley, Vallejo, or Richmond on that salary. But she wants a short commute. Yes, it's entitled to think you should be able to live anywhere you want, in any neighborhood, at $20/hr
Pesmerga00
Member
Where is this Magical "someone" coming from?
Some work places over there have really shitty insurance plans. High deductibles and offer HSAs to deduct from taxes.
Some people don't see doctors still because cost is really high. Employer only decides to cover after individual exceeds deductible.
Overseas interns always ask, "What is a deductible?"
KissDaRing
Banned
They might not need it if the grandparents can help out after school. There are also cheap nannies that can pass that timeframe as well. I have 3 kids myself. I definitely know how much it costs in general. I still don't see you providing any solution to their problem. Just you criticizing my posts.
So a couple hundred bucks at most between water and electricity then? With no A/C (or need for it because of the Bay's paradise-tier weather) or anything the bill can't be that high. Again, how are they struggling to make ends meet with such seemingly reasonable housing costs. If they were struggling to make ends meet living in a tiny ass hole in the wall that they would still pay a ridiculous amount for, this is all classic Bay area and exemplifies the whole issue with gentrification/tech invasion. But they can't be paying that much to live there. Their kids are all old enough to be in school, so there's no day care costs either. Something doesn't add up.
If I had to guess, it's probably debt of some sort with a crazy interest rate.
"well why don't they just..."
yes, because having to live their lives 24/7 they have not thought of possible solutions to their problems. Thank you internet commenter for suggesting what seems like an obvious solution to their problems. Sometimes poor people are just so dumb that they simply meander through poverty without taking time to stop and think of solutions.
yes, because having to live their lives 24/7 they have not thought of possible solutions to their problems. Thank you internet commenter for suggesting what seems like an obvious solution to their problems. Sometimes poor people are just so dumb that they simply meander through poverty without taking time to stop and think of solutions.
Frozenprince
Banned
The grandparents who, if they moved, are hours and hours away.
So you either need to take the kids on a multi-hour commute every single day, hope you get lucky and find a cheap nanny that's qualified (good luck with that one), or just "fuck it they'll figure it out" essentially.
The solution is fucking simple, pay them a livable wage. That's the answer, that's the solution, that's how you fix it.
Gully State
Member
Right because suburbs near Silicon Valley are cheap...the suburbs around Silicon Valley were unaffordable before San Francisco became that way
your solutions are dumb and devoid of any necessary proximity or context of their problems.
why not just trust them when they say they don't make enough?
ShironRedshift
Member
On top of barely any time to see their kids, that would also leave them with barely any time to do basic chores or maintenance of the housing, meaning it would be an absolute wreck most of the time and thus not a great spot to raise kids. Like seriously. Assuming an 8 hour workday, a 3 hour transit one-way to work means they spend 14 hours each day outside of the house. Assuming they actually try to get 8 hours of sleep, that leaves them with 2 hours to not only hang out with their kids but somehow make sure that all the chores and basic maintenance of the house/apartment gets done. That obviously doesn't work that well.
Plus, that aside, it's such a short-sighted, completely unsustainable answer. Even if that worked for these parents, Facebook itself isn't going anywhere. Their HQ/buildings will remain exactly where they are, all while property values continue to go up and up and up around them. Thus, even if that works for now, for these particular parents, that will inevitably become unsustainable in the future for others. All "moving" suggestions really are is just kicking the ball down the road into the future. They don't actually fix or change anything whatsoever and just let the core problems get worse, and worse, and worse.
That so many people keep proposing them over and over again as if they do and absolutely refuse to apply even the slightest amount of thought or scrutiny to the actual core problems and just shrug their shoulders at them is baffling. No matter how many times people say "move, move, move," those problems aren't going away. All you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears as they continue to get worse. I understand if someone doesn't have the answers and has no clue what they are--that's perfectly understandable. But that's no excuse to point out short-sighted, unsustainable answers that don't fix anything and to act like they do.
Pesmerga00
Member
This thread has me seething. Growing up poor, they don't think we thought of any of theses things?
There is nothing I can do because Im not their employer.
When youre an employer, wherever you choose to headquarter yourself you need to expect to pay your employees a livable wage for that area.
You keep giving suggestions on what the family should do, why arent you holding their employer to the same standard of sacrifice?
cpp_is_king
Member
Oh yea, it's so simple to pay cafeteria workers $200k/year (a liveable wage in Palo Alto), when they could instead just not live in a city that even highly paid tech workers can't afford
xDUMPWEEDx
Banned
This article came off as a hitpiece on Facebook in a lot of ways. The bring your kids to work day, as an example. These cafe workers are NOT Facebook employees. You are nothing more than contracted work.
As someone who has worked contracted work embedded in for a corporation, this is how it is. The employees of that corporation are not going to include you. They are not going to care about you. You are not one of them. It sucks that these people have to experience what contracted work being embedded into a corporation is like, but this is just how it is everywhere. Their anger is simply misdirected; they need to go after their actual employer, Flagship Facility Services, (who is more than likely making humongous profits from this Facebook contract) and demand higher wages.
As someone who has worked contracted work embedded in for a corporation, this is how it is. The employees of that corporation are not going to include you. They are not going to care about you. You are not one of them. It sucks that these people have to experience what contracted work being embedded into a corporation is like, but this is just how it is everywhere. Their anger is simply misdirected; they need to go after their actual employer, Flagship Facility Services, (who is more than likely making humongous profits from this Facebook contract) and demand higher wages.
KissDaRing
Banned
I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I'm the only one trying to provide a solution in this thread while getting bashed for it. I'll leave this as is and let you experts discuss a better solution than anything that I've provided in the thread.
Frozenprince
Banned
Every employee at every business should be paid a livable wage.
"They could just not live there" is not a fucking answer. That's blaming somebody for having the audacity to not make enough money to live within a reasonable distance of their place of employment.
And this is why you're trolling.
No, you're not the only one that's proposed any kind of answer. Because the answer is easy.
Pay people so that they can afford to live where you hire them to work.
Theonik
Member
I know friends that work in San Francisco that rent bedrooms for $2.5k
Zoe
Member
"Livable" is not a standard that can be satisfied solely by their employer. There's no reason they should earn more than a worker who has no children.
cpp_is_king
Member
I'm going to assume you have no clue about the geography of the sf bay area. There are over 200 independent cities in the area, each home to just a few thousand people. Saying "don't live in Palo Alto" is like saying "don't live in Beverly Hills". With a 45 minute commute she could be buying a house.
$40/hr between the two of them is perfectly livable in the area, just not in the neighborhood she chooses to live in. I can't live in that neighborhood either, and I make way more than her. Instead of complaining that I don't make a liveable wage for this 5sq mile neighborhood, I just live somewhere else
n00bsauce87
Member
I don't understand why people just think getting paid above the federal or state minimum wage is good enough.
What one SHOULD be asking is what the livable wage for that area. I don't think it's wrong to give an hourly wage that supports living in the area you are working in or in a place where one can reasonably go to and from work.
Asking to receive a wage that allows a family to not live in a garage should not be the exception, but the rule.
What one SHOULD be asking is what the livable wage for that area. I don't think it's wrong to give an hourly wage that supports living in the area you are working in or in a place where one can reasonably go to and from work.
Asking to receive a wage that allows a family to not live in a garage should not be the exception, but the rule.
m_shortpants
Member
Yeah. I work in SF, but my commute is one and a half to two hours one way. My wife and I make quite a lot more than her combined but the commute is just a sacrifice we have to make to be able to afford a condo
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
That's a pretty decent wage for what they do, honestly... a good 50% better than a lot of areas would pay the same.
It's a point where how much can employer afford to pay and still operate in the area.
If they had to pay everyone from the bottom up a wage that would pay rent equivalent to other areas, they'd have to move the company.
It's not entirely FB's fault that the bay is fucking insane with rent and housing prices.
But what this does show is that the impact of higher wages on the bottom end don't always equal benefits for the employees. Just as they are paid more for what they do than in other areas, it's enough to kick them off housing or medical assistance programs.
Ask how much they'd really need to make to cut it in that area... twice what they make? Is that feasible to pay it?
The entire Bay area is do for a huge market correction, and the area is so huge with so much outside investment it's going to be felt nationwide.
It's a point where how much can employer afford to pay and still operate in the area.
If they had to pay everyone from the bottom up a wage that would pay rent equivalent to other areas, they'd have to move the company.
It's not entirely FB's fault that the bay is fucking insane with rent and housing prices.
But what this does show is that the impact of higher wages on the bottom end don't always equal benefits for the employees. Just as they are paid more for what they do than in other areas, it's enough to kick them off housing or medical assistance programs.
Ask how much they'd really need to make to cut it in that area... twice what they make? Is that feasible to pay it?
The entire Bay area is do for a huge market correction, and the area is so huge with so much outside investment it's going to be felt nationwide.
cpp_is_king
Member
What happens when there's 5 million people that all want to live in the same 20 sq mile area? If all of them made a "livable wage" for that area, prices just go up until they're not making a livable wage anymore. There literally is not enough housing for 5 million people. It simply doesn't exist. So instead you have to expand the search area and redefine "living wage" in terms of the expanded area. And she makes plenty to live in some parts of the Bay Area, I know multiple people who have bought their own houses on less
witchedwiz
Member
To his defense..
Those works earn very little anywhere, the fact that they work in Facebook cafeteria does not imply anything..
Your work does not allow to live where you work?
Commute..
Commute is hell?
Change job..
Maybe when all the people working there will NOT be willing to work there things will change, but any other action is unlikely to have effects..
xDUMPWEEDx
Banned
I agree, but San Francisco and the Bay area is an extreme case of this. That place is simply broken right now.
KissDaRing
Banned
Nothing I stated was meant as trolling.
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
Every week weeks I lay awake at night wondering how nice it must be to have so much money that you never have to worry about a goddamn thing and can just enjoy life to its fullest.
Theonik
Member
The minimum wage is meant to solve this.
Or. You know, Facebook could bring them back in house
ShironRedshift
Member
Paying them more simply because they have children isn't a great answer. However, I'm definitely not comfortable with the implication coming from a lot of posts in this thread and thread just like this one, where you apparently should only be able to have children if you're upper-middle class or upper class. No one's directly saying that, but it's implicit in all the posts that call such actions "irresponsible," which, while not directly saying that, only make says with the implication that their current income is insufficient and if it were higher it would be fine or responsible. It's basically just semantics and another way of saying only the upper classes who are fortunate enough to be rolling in the big bucks should be able to have large families, or even one child. It's not directly being said, but it's the logical end point of that train of thought.
I myself don't know what the answer is. It probably isn't something like having employers pay their employees more simply because they have more children. Some form of basic income or the like, from the government, that takes into account not just one's own situation but one's number of children would probably be better. But regardless, I'm definitely not comfortable with the status quo and the train of thoughts that either directly or implicitly carry the connotation that children should be some type of luxury that only the (upper-)middle and upper classes should have access to, and people should be shamed if they make the decision to have children while existing outside of those groups.
That's obviously inherently wrong on its face and while I don't know what the actual answer to that should be, the current status quo/train of thoughts of thought around that are absolutely not acceptable to me and another problem we should be working our hardest to tackle and solve. But alas, that's tremendously difficult, with no easy answers coming, and people would rather just bitch and moan and point fingers at "irresponsible" parents instead of putting in the work to fix difficult problems like that, if for no other reason than that is the right and moral thing to do. But alas.. *Sigh.*
cpp_is_king
Member
I think anyone who actually lives here and has a functioning brain knows that the answer is to build an imperial fuckton of houses, but it'll never happen because "nimby motherfucker!" So instead it will just continue to be a broken system where the rich get richer despite the solution being completely obvious
It doesn't. The minimum wage is an incredibly bad anti-poverty tool.
m_shortpants
Member
I actually think the article is a little silly. Even along the peninsula if you really needed to, there are Mobile homes available around 150-250k. And that's not far from FB HQ.
On that note, FB is right next to the Dumbarton bridge. You can live in Pleasanton, Concord, even Livermore which are within an hour commute.
Obviously that doesn't address the fact that it's broken here in the SF Bay area due to nimbyism and broken ass pricing. That is of course a giant issue.
But my point is that here in the Silicon Valley, unless you are making metric shit tons of cash you better expect a commute. Mine is 1-2hrs one way and my wife and I make 6 figures. So unless you're making 250k+, you don't really have that luxury.
On that note, FB is right next to the Dumbarton bridge. You can live in Pleasanton, Concord, even Livermore which are within an hour commute.
Obviously that doesn't address the fact that it's broken here in the SF Bay area due to nimbyism and broken ass pricing. That is of course a giant issue.
But my point is that here in the Silicon Valley, unless you are making metric shit tons of cash you better expect a commute. Mine is 1-2hrs one way and my wife and I make 6 figures. So unless you're making 250k+, you don't really have that luxury.
When using political power to protect your personal wealth is contributing to and benefited from a tool of institutional racist, as well as creating homelessness, sure!
I know as I became rich, I pulled the ladder up behind me!
Red States are better at this particular aspect than blue states.
Also people arguing "livable wage" more money will not solve this issue. Just create more money chasing after the same finite amount of bedrooms.
Theonik
Member
It's not a poverty suppression tool. It's an anti race to the bottom tool.
Jmanunknown
Member
Ok tell yourself whatever you have to to so you can feel superior to these people. This bootstrap mentality is toxic and you seem far to gone.
Similar threads
- Poll