-
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
Why? Because they can pay then a decent wage
Is it on companies to pay a living wage, or is it on governments to enforce livable wages, or both?
Companies that are publicly owned have 1 duty: maximize value for shareholders. It's highly doubtful FB or any Fortune 500 company is going to raise wages on contract workers performing non-skilled work because it simply doesn't generate greater value for their shareholders. <emphasis>Capitalist system; don't conflate it with my personal beliefs on the matter.</emphasis>
Hoho for breakfast
Member
$37 an hour and they live in a garage. That's crazy to me. Cost of living in some places is nuts. I'm in IL on $23 an hour and I get by with a big family. Not very comfortably, but I'm not living in a garage yet.
Theonik
Member
They are expanding outside SV too. These are not mutually exclusive moves though. There is benefit to having one functional team under one roof which is why they even bother with all that office space in the first place. They are trying to build 1500 houses around their HQ to house their workers for that reason.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I mean, Zuckerberg gave a commencement speech recently and if he is considering a run for president, his platform seems to be a whole-hearted endorsement of universal basic income based on the content of that speech. He spelled out his support for it very clearly. So I don't think it's terribly accurate to suggest Zuckerberg doesn't give a shit because he's out touring the country. I have trouble even understanding the logic of that. It reminds me of people who demand we stop providing foreign aid because there are homeless veterans. We can put effort toward both at once.
As far as I can tell, he's the only (potential) 2020 candidate who wants to talk about an economy without jobs rather than how he can provide more of them. Even Bernie, the closest thing we have to a far-left in America, doesn't dare utter "universal basic income". Zuckerberg seems to be basing his (again, potential) presidential run around the concept.
As far as I can tell, he's the only (potential) 2020 candidate who wants to talk about an economy without jobs rather than how he can provide more of them. Even Bernie, the closest thing we have to a far-left in America, doesn't dare utter "universal basic income". Zuckerberg seems to be basing his (again, potential) presidential run around the concept.
I wonder if they'll have facebook houses one day. a friend of mine lives in a building fully owned by her employer. only employees live there. it's like 50 flats and some flats are also shared..she's single, so she lives in a shared flat with 4 other women and everyone got their own room.
cpp_is_king
Member
They already do pay a decent wage. Sorry, if you choose to live in one of the richest neighborhoods in the entire country next door to billionaires and shit, it's probably gonna be hard to make ends meet, even on a "good" salary
Bernie is for UBI, though.
The catch of course is he has only endorsed it when he's made trips outside of America, and say it's too early. A raising of the minimum wage is more of a priority, but this ignores the economy without jobs reality we are slowly entering.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
how much they work.
Like...let's say they work 30 hours a week, and make $800 off those 30 hours. 3200 a month.
That's about over on getting state funded medicare.(Maybe, for example.).
For employer healthcare? They either require you to work full time(30 not being), or to have it stated on your contract if you're salaried(Which these people are most likely not.) So it's a catch 22. Employers don't like to give full time. They may pay well, but not enough to live off of.
paradise_circus
Member
There are still powerful unions in europe where the person like in op's story would have got a bonus of 9110 at Porsche. That would be like three rents for a very decent apartment.
In which case is it not right that people are paid a livable wage to actually live in said area?
How can companies expect the backbone of their company, the employment to travel for 2-3 hours a day each way just to be paid a pittance to be able to afford somewhere further away to live?
As much as I dislike Facebook, how is it their fault? If they can't afford to live there, they should get a better job. If they can't get one, they should move elsewhere. But why should they do that? Well, it's certainly not Facebook who dictates the high living costs in that area.
So they currently have three children, despite apparently not really being able to afford it and I should feel sorry for them? Nah.
They aren't Facebook employees though.
Theonik
Member
Two points about that actually. One, of course rich businesses setting shop in an area also increase the cost of living in those areas by inflating the cost of land in making it desirable.
The second and one that is kind of an existing beef I have with these discussions is that you keep hearing about the falling demographics in modern societies and how that affects the need for migrant labour. Yet when you have cases like this people complain they can't afford to have children so they shouldn't have them. Maybe at some point people might make the connection.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
You have no fucking idea. It's far beyond fucking insane.
I used to love the city where I was born.
Love it.
Now, it's either full of rich techies or homeless.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Yes, I've heard him talk about it when questioned, but it was not at all part of his platform in 2016. Understandably so because it's not a terribly popular idea, but nonetheless I think we need someone who's willing to take an unpopular stance to address a looming problem. I'd imagine you of all people agree with that ;p
They're not, but they work at Facebook. I'm not saying give them housing for free, but if you're gonna have staff that is likely poorly paid, at least set up some apartments they can live in while working there (through a lease) that's somewhat affordable for them.
FB gets great PR, and the employees all (contractors or not) have a decent place to live.
Absolutely. At the very least, Hawaii is taking the charge. They've actually listened to people concerned, so they're studying the risks of displacement and consider a UBI pilot.
You need the government to be involved in trials, for it's quick to ignore private money as something "the government can't do." How quick will the GOP call this nonsense even when Y Combinator and the Economic Security Project are putting serious money into this? The latter is throwing $10,000,000 into their project, and that may be the largest money to date regarding UBI efforts.
I do worry Zuckerberg has the image of being "pure money" in a pretentious way, because some might put him in a category of celebrity who think they can run for office seeing as the orange con man got away with it. Of course, this ignores how Chris Hughes, Facebook co-founder, agrees with the need of UBI and is a key supporter of the Economic Security Project. Zuckerberg actually knows important people to current pilots and grants being distributed within America, and I personally know people who have benefitted from these UBI pilots via grants, so I am deeply aware of what's unfolding here.
But ultimately, it's not the companies who set those costs. It's the businesses around them that do that (especially the real estate market).
Overpopulation is a thing though...and I trust you have seen the graphs. So, less children = good. Furthermore, technology will replace a lot of work currently done by humans. Less workers will be required, so again, having less children is fine.
I know what you are saying and I agree that it's generally a good idea (still, employees of contractors are a headache in that regard).
Theonik
Member
That doesn't mean businesses don't have a social responsibility to the communities that host them. Quite the opposite in fact.
As for population, the problem isn't in the size it is in demographics. You need younger people to care for the old that's what Japan is facing right now.
That's what I just said. Unless you are referring to _all_ businesses which obviously can't be done as it isn't so simple.
Japan isn't the only country that is facing it. I work in the health care sector, so I'm very aware of it. Still, technology will provide answers for that problem and we will have to accept those answers, one way or another. Currently, "we" are also trying to import geriatric nurses to alleviate the problem but who knows how that will ultimately turn out.
UK is the same, you see people living in council flats in London paying £900 a month rent whilst you could rent a 4 or 5 bed house for that much in most places. Someone I work with said their son just bought a flat in London for £500k. My friend just bought a bigger flat for £80k where I live.
WeirdoStalkerJr
Member
Also they could commute to work and live in a area that is cheaper. No reason to have your kids live in a garage.
Grimm Fandango
Member
Yeah paying higher wages is not doing anything about the root of the problem here. Makes it worse in fact.
Have there been any recent developments regarding the mayor or city council trying to fix the housing crisis? It sounds like it keeps getting worse and worse.
And like is there barely any subsidized housing? What the fuck is going on?
Have there been any recent developments regarding the mayor or city council trying to fix the housing crisis? It sounds like it keeps getting worse and worse.
And like is there barely any subsidized housing? What the fuck is going on?
Zoe
Member
The government--there are statewide limits which would be near impossible to be under if you live in the Bay area because of the drastic difference in cost of living.
their most likely way to move up is to move out of the bay area tbh. the odds of seeing their pay raised to levels that'll support their hopes and dreams are beyond unlikely.....or they could try and start something like a cleaning business or lawn cutting..? the neighbourhood has a lot of disposable income that would likely pay decent cash for such services. how is the subsidized housing in the bay area?
excelsiorlef
Member
They're not 12 year olds looking to supplement their allowance
Tech companies have been trying to build more housing, as well as encourage more to be built. But existing homeowners have been against, because they don't want their low density suburbs becoming high density cities.
In SF, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Mountain View, yes.
But there are still plenty of places in the Bay Area to get housing that is cheaper than that. Richmond, Fremont, San Jose, etc. Things do get more challenging with multiple kids and school systems.
It's impossible to tell say why they are in the situation they are in without a look at this family's finances, but that income level is livable in the Bay Area as long as you're not trying to live in the most expensive parts of it.
Theonik
Member
Facebook themselves are trying to build 1,500 more houses. It takes time.
Companies like Facebook should be expected to pay back to the local communities. Building more housing is a good way of doing just that. Obviously, the bigger your business is the more responsible you need to be.
Japan isn't the only country facing this issue re: demographics but their problems are more pronounced because they don't want to take in the necessary immigrant labour to fill their demographic holes and are more resistant to the needed social changes to address weakening family units.
These people aren't Facebook employees so would they even have access to those homes or are they for their engineers?
Theonik
Member
Arguably, 1500 new homes are 1500 new homes. It adds to the housing stock in that area.
PeterLegend
Member
No offense but who the fuck would work at Facebook for less than $20 an hour living in that area?
Quit your job and relocate, sorry but if you're not happy with your pay then youre free to leave.
Quit your job and relocate, sorry but if you're not happy with your pay then youre free to leave.
Theonik
Member
They work for a contractor running the cafeteria. They also have 3 kids. They aren't horribly mobile.
Sirpopopop
Member
Sure FB can do that.
Then Google & Apple follow suit.
So now menial labor at those three companies are set.
Everyone else can't afford it so they just get rid of all their contract labor.
Their wages should be a "livable" wage in their area. It's the cost of goods that's the problem, not the wages paid.
$72,000ish a year combined income for a family of 4 is actually pretty far above the poverty level. My dad averaged between 60-80,000 a year (construction, yearly pay depended a lot on overtime) growing up and we lived a decent lower middle class lifestyle in NY (and thats with my parents being really bad w/ money and my mom not working).
Im all for these people unionizing and trying to get better wages, but $19 and $17 an hour are well above what a lot of families living in poverty make. I understand where they live cost of living is higher, and for housing especially somewhat close to FB, Im sure is ridiculous, but for them to be paying (Im assuming, very little) for rent to his parents and having to take out payday loans to make ends meet, there might be other financial management issues going on.
Also have to consider long commutes. My dad commuted 3 hours round trip every day to NYC because they couldnt afford a house any closer, sometimes you gotta make sacrifices like that to make it work.
Theonik
Member
It's the cost of housing. That Silicon Valley is largely responsible for.
So what's the deal with Silicon Valley? I know obviously house costs and rental costs are now extortionate, but do these cost of living increases expand into other areas? Are regular household bills more expensive than the national average? Food prices (outside of the overpriced places I presume must be there), surely there's still big brand shops that charge the same as anywhere else to get groceries from?
I'm just curious if this is everything across the board or just hitting in the main areas like rent.
I'm just curious if this is everything across the board or just hitting in the main areas like rent.
StanleyStutters
Member
Man, what is the cost of living out there? Combined her and husband are making a gross income of near $80K (assuming they both work 40 hour weeks). Not a fortune, but still enough for a young family of 5 in most parts of the country.
I recently interviewed for a job in the heart of SF and aside from the relatively high salary to explicitly account for housing being expensive, they offered either 18 months of housing in a 3/2 home or 3 months plus 150k towards a down payment if we buy something. On top of the regular benefits bonuses and such.
Being a family of 4, and coming from TN where housing is ample and far more affordable, they spent an inordinate amount of time of the interview "selling" me on the housing benefits and "preparing" me that a 3/2 basic starter home is 1.5-2 million.
Theonik
Member
Land value is one of the main costs of most economic activity at least the cost of any variation. It follows that groceries would also cost more because the store pays that much more rent, etc.
Of course people can move further and further, but that means spending more time and money in your commute so it all evens out in the end.
The main issue is lack of housing which is also the reason your dad had to commute 3 hours round trip. If these states/cities actually had a decent housing master plan (none of them do) then this wouldn't be an issue.
Straight Edge
Member
It says they could previously afford an apartment before Facebook moved in. I thought rent control was supposed to stop the landlord from jacking up prices when the market changes?
Well, they are paying back by giving the people work and such. Like I said before, for me, the problem lies with the local businesses and real estate market who want to profit off of those companies. As employees of those companies are paid more, those local businesses want to make more money. Because why go for low prices when you can catch bigger fish instead? Underlying that is the real estate market which is somewhat based on supply/demand (but also speculation). If that model would change to something like "first-come, first-serve", it would be vastly different. But then again, that wouldn't make much money now, would it? If they really expand the cities to keep costs down, we will definitely end up with mega-cities (like what is happening in China).
Yep. But they have the advantage that they are way less adverse to robots. So if they can create useful ones in time, it will work out for them. Here, refusal in such matters will definitely lead to problems. But then again, old people need social connections anyway, so who knows how all that will end.
But one major point, rural depopulation, isn't addressed by any country with these problems (as far as I know). Part of the reason for that will probably be solved by technology but that won't be enough and it will probably be too late by then anyway. (Also, it ties in nicely with the issue of space in a city.)
Theonik
Member
That's not how markets work. It's supply and demand. Facebook increases demand for property but the supply of housing doesn't automatically increase so prices go up that's because land is finite so its supply and its supply is more or less constant. Silicon Valley also increases wages in that area so people are willing to pay more for the land.
Similar threads
- Poll