Support NeoGAF

[lawnchair]

This thread is depressing. How dare a family want baseline living conditions. Them bootstraps tho.

yep.

really disappointing to see how many people have no compassion for others. we deserve better, but with so many people holding the bootstraps as the holiest thing above all else including people, we're a long way from anything getting better. it's pitiful.

 

[cpp_is_king]

yep.

really disappointing to see how many people have no compassion for others. we deserve better, but with so many people holding the bootstraps as the holiest thing above all else including people, we're a long way from anything getting better. it's pitiful.

What's your proposed solution? Do we pay them $250k (a livable wage in Palo Alto)?

Sometimes you just have to face the reality that the world is just complicated

 

[apieceofstrange]

I have a six figure paying job and even I can't afford to live in Palo Alto or Menlo Park. Move further away and spend hours in traffic like the rest of us plebs. The no health care part is disappointing though.

 

[NervousXtian]

yep.

really disappointing to see how many people have no compassion for others. we deserve better, but with so many people holding the bootstraps as the holiest thing above all else including people, we're a long way from anything getting better. it's pitiful.

This isn't boot straps at all.

Blaming FB for this is the equivalent of blaming McDonalds for why Americans are fat.

It's misguided to say the least.

The problem is housing, not FB. The problem is lack of affordable housing due to consumer demand. Paying everyone more doesn't solve for the lack of housing, it would just increase the prices people could pay and you'd still have people priced out.

 

[Neith]

Strongly disagree. That's more than most people I know make.

Yeah here in the midwest that is decently comfortable living for one person. You could fit a child in there and make it pretty easily if you are smart.

 

[lawnchair]

This isn't boot straps at all.

Blaming FB for this is the equivalent of blaming McDonalds for why Americans are fat.

It's misguided to say the least.

The problem is housing, not FB. The problem is lack of affordable housing due to consumer demand. Paying everyone more doesn't solve for the lack of housing, it would just increase the prices people could pay and you'd still have people priced out.

i'm not necessarily upset with facebook. what i'm upset with is that so many people's instant reaction is to blame this worker. the system we live in is shitty and it's making life very difficult for the majority of our citizens. it isn't this persons fault. i'm upset by the fact that instead of showing any ounce of compassion and saying "this person working a full time job should have decent housing and healthcare" it's "what is this person doing wrong, why is this person complaining". that's not how we're going to move our society forward.

 

[Linkark07]

17 dollars an hour is not a salary. Shit is too low to live on with a family. Regardless if both parents make it.

I wonder what would you say if you saw the salaries of people in Latin America. Many only make like $600 or $500 (and that's without taking taxes) per month where I live. And life is getting more and more expensive each day.

 

[kirblar]

So many people don't understand cost of living variance and what factors cause extreme cases like CA. Its not giant corporations holding local people down, its your neighbors!

 

[Lucumo]

That's now 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.

That's what I said...but if you think speculation doesn't play a role, then you are fooling yourself (or maybe you book it under "artificial demand").
Land is semi-finite, as mentioned. Look towards China for that example. If you "really expand", you can manage things decently well. Of course, if only one city does it, the balance won't be there.

 

[Goodlife]

Also have to consider long commutes. My dad commuted 3 hours round trip every day to NYC because they couldn't afford a house any closer, sometimes you gotta make sacrifices like that to make it work.

He was (presumably) able to do that because your mum stayed at home so didn't need to worry about childcare?

EDIT: From my POV, I work away, A LOT. And we live in a cheap ass part of the country (Bought our 3 bed house for <£80k)
Current commute is about 3.5 hours, door to door, so I have to stay away most of the time.
There is little work local to where I live, would likely get a "dead end" job with not nearly as much as I earn now.

We, as a family, are able to make that sacrifice, in order to have more money and pay less for housing (and live in an area more suitable for us) because I don't have to, as a rule, worry about childcare. I can be selfish, to a certain degree, when it comes to work, if I get a call in the afternoon, I can travel pretty much anywhere in the country the next day because I know my wife is there to drop the kids to school, pick them up, feed them, bath them, put them to bed.

If my wife was working as well, I'd have had to find something closer to home.

 

[Theonik]

That's what I said...but if you think speculation doesn't play a role, then you are fooling yourself (or maybe you book it under "artificial demand").
Land is semi-finite, as mentioned. Look towards China for that example. If you "really expand", you can manage things decently well. Of course, if only one city does it, the balance won't be there.

Speculation is a result to the fact that land is finite. Tax systems currently don't encourage efficient use of land. Switching to a LVT system helps a lot in that regard. Land speculation works in that you buy a piece of land in the hopes someone else will do improvements near it. You are thereby restricting supply too.

 

[Lucumo]

Speculation is a result to the fact that land is finite. Tax systems currently don't encourage efficient use of land. Switching to a LVT system helps a lot in that regard. Land speculation works in that you buy a piece of land in the hopes someone else will do improvements near it. You are thereby restricting supply too.

That's a given and the reason why I mentioned rapidly-expanding city borders (China) which would keep speculation somewhat down (after all, it does matter whether the city has one airport or five...but in the end, they are just transforming the countryside into more city - people living spread out would still be the better choice). Definitely agree with LVT. As for restricting supply...not necessarily, as it always depends on what you do with it.

 

[Theonik]

That's a given and the reason why I mentioned rapidly-expanding city borders (China) which would keep speculation somewhat down (after all, it does matter whether the city has one airport or five...but in the end, they are just transforming the countryside into more city - people living spread out would still be the better choice). Definitely agree with LVT. As for restricting supply...not necessarily, as it always depends on what you do with it.

People living more spread out is the worst solution imaginable and doesn't solve speculation. Infrastructure costs skyrocket the further out you build and the most valuable land will always be the urban centres regardless of building out. What you actually want is higher density urban developments. LVT incentivizes using the most valuable land as efficiently as possibly. It differs from normal property tax in that it's charged on the owner of the land and doesn't account for improvements (i.e what's built on the land) so it punishes speculators more than home-owners and so can be rated higher than property tax.

 

[Marty Chinn]

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.

It's expensive. It's why I would laugh at people thinking if you made 6 figures, you're rich when they never factored in the cost of living varies from place to place. 6 figures isn't rich here

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?

Rent control doesn't work exactly like that. Rent control limits rent increases from someone already renting, but it doesn't stop them from raising the rent on a new tenant. In fact, rent control is part of the problem with rising rent prices because people feel locked in and don't want to move. That decrease availability which makes pricing go up faster. Great if you got in early, but terrible if you need to move. In the end it limits mobility and raises prices quicker.

 

[Lucumo]

People living more spread out is the worst solution imaginable and doesn't solve speculation. Infrastructure costs skyrocket the further out you build and the most valuable land will always be the urban centres regardless of building out. What you actually want is higher density urban developments. LVT incentivizes using the most valuable land as efficiently as possibly. It differs from normal property tax in that it's charged on the owner of the land and doesn't account for improvements (i.e what's built on the land) so it punishes speculators more than home-owners and so can be rated higher than property tax.

People living spread out takes mostly care of the demand part. And with "spread out" I was talking about lots and lots of smaller towns (as said in some earlier post, technology definitely makes that more viable). Also, there are other reasons for living like that. You are probably a city-dweller (that would be my guess at least). I come from the countryside and moved to a pretty "green" city (lots of trees, gardens, a river, lakes) but it's actually nothing in comparison. The air is worse, the people are pretty stressed out (and look definitely older) and it's rather noisy. It wouldn't surprise me at all if those are reasons for the rise of burn-outs, depression and the like.
As for urban centers...if we are talking about megacities, there wouldn't really be one. If you have several airports, tons of train stations, malls etc, where would that "center" be?

 

[Earthanoid]

The bay area is a commuter area. It's kind of like NYC but with crappier public transit, where most jobs are concentrated in one area, the peninsula, but most people actually living outside that area. Very few people actually live near their jobs around here; almost everyone has a long commute. Mine is about an hour each way.

Yes, it sucks, and it would be great if these FB workers could live near their job, but this is a problem most people in the bay area face. But this is a problem with the region and not particularly unique problem. A lot of large urban centers have similar problems, Silicon Valley just had the problem grow faster and more suddenly.

It's expensive. It's why I would laugh at people thinking if you made 6 figures, you're rich when they never factored in the cost of living varies from place to place. 6 figures isn't rich here

Rent control doesn't work exactly like that. Rent control limits rent increases from someone already renting, but it doesn't stop them from raising the rent on a new tenant. In fact, rent control is part of the problem with rising rent prices because people feel locked in and don't want to move. That decrease availability which makes pricing go up faster. Great if you got in early, but terrible if you need to move. In the end it limits mobility and raises prices quicker.

Another thing happening is land lords finding excuses to evict people in rent controlled apartments, so they can jack up the rent for the next tenant. This screws up people's finances because most of the time evicted tenants can't find similarly priced housing. Rent control is also relatively limited, there are typically very few rent controlled places in most cities around here.

 

[Reneledarker]

I wonder what would you say if you saw the salaries of people in Latin America. Many only make like $600 or $500 (and that's without taking taxes) per month where I live. And life is getting more and more expensive each day.

Yeah, and it is worst if you live in a border town like Tijuana. A lot of people from San Diego started living in Tijuana since the crisis of 2008 and thanks to that, rent prices went up and landlords started to ask to pay rent in dollars. Add the devaluation of the peso in the last years and living in the centric places of Tijuana became just impossible if you do not get payed in dollars. This also started a gentrification process where the cheap rent places or old houses started to be bought and became modern apartments.

 

[spelen]

They're not 12 year olds looking to supplement their allowance

I know many ppl who have made a more than decent living off lawn cutting/ lawn care/window cleaning/business cleaning. for example, one of my friends chargers 30 bucks for an average lawn (aprox. 30 min) he typically has more work than he can handle. Considering this is the bay area you could likely charge more money. don't underestimate basic labour and what rich ppl are willing to pay for it.

 

[RoninChaos]

Oh how do I hate that... he can do both just fine. How entitled is she? He's already paying your salary.

No, she's working for her salary.

 

[KissDaRing]

What's your proposed solution? Do we pay them $250k (a livable wage in Palo Alto)?

Sometimes you just have to face the reality that the world is just complicated

Thank you. Some people just don't get it. Especially when they say the system should change and that the government should fix it. Like how are they suppose to do that? It's like people think this is the movies or something. Even if they were to change it, which it would take years and years to get past the legislative hurdles behind it and actually start to be implemented. This thing would open up a new set of issues that everyone will complain about.

 

[Theonik]

People living spread out takes mostly care of the demand part. And with "spread out" I was talking about lots and lots of smaller towns (as said in some earlier post, technology definitely makes that more viable). Also, there are other reasons for living like that. You are probably a city-dweller (that would be my guess at least). I come from the countryside and moved to a pretty "green" city (lots of trees, gardens, a river, lakes) but it's actually nothing in comparison. The air is worse, the people are pretty stressed out (and look definitely older) and it's rather noisy. It wouldn't surprise me at all if those are reasons for the rise of burn-outs, depression and the like.
As for urban centers...if we are talking about megacities, there wouldn't really be one. If you have several airports, tons of train stations, malls etc, where would that "center" be?

People don't live spread out because that's not where the opportunity is. These are not issues the rural parts of a country face, purely because no-one wants to live there, then when companies like Facebook open up shop in a suburb they drive costs up simply by being there.

 

[Syriel]

People don't live spread out because that's not where the opportunity is. These are not issues the rural parts of a country face purely because no-one wants to live there, then when companies like facebook open up shop in a suburb they drive costs up simply by being there.

So your solution is to ban all small businesses because they might hit it big? Or do you think that when one large company closes offices, another large company can't move in?

When Facebook established operations in Palo Alto, it didn't even own Facebook.com. No one had yet invested in the company.

When it moved from Palo Alto to Menlo Park (basically down the road), it moved into Sun's old campus. Sun wasn't exactly a small startup.

 

[Theonik]

So your solution is to ban all small businesses because they might hit it big? Or do you think that when one large company closes offices, another large company can't move in?

When Facebook established operations in Palo Alto, it didn't even own Facebook.com. No one had yet invested in the company.

When it moved from Palo Alto to Menlo Park (basically down the road), it moved into Sun's old campus. Sun wasn't exactly a small startup.

No. You can make it so when they have say more than 200 employees they have to build housing accounting for 20% of their additional workforce. Say you have 300, you have to build 20 homes and so on. If they can't afford to do that in their original location yes they should move and open up the space for someone more valuable.

 

[leroidys]

What's your proposed solution? Do we pay them $250k (a livable wage in Palo Alto)?

Sometimes you just have to face the reality that the world is just complicated

Thank you. Some people just don't get it. Especially when they say the system should change and that the government should fix it. Like how are they suppose to do that? It's like people think this is the movies or something. Even if they were to change it, which it would take years and years to get past the legislative hurdles behind it and actually start to be implemented. This thing would open up a new set of issues that everyone will complain about.

You guys are completely missing the point. The point is not that this lady needs to be paid 10x what she's making now, the point is that there are numerous crises non-tech bros are facing in our cities and in his own back yard, created specifically by the same forces that made Zuck a billionaire. The point is that he's done fuck all to fix them, and now he's gallavanting around politically significant parts of the country spewing bs about how he's for the working man because he thinks that's the way to power.

 

[Cornbread78]

Funny they should bring this up because a few months ago, they closed the cafeteria in my office and opened up a "venda café" with all automated vending machines. The company just comes in every other morning and stocks premade food, frozen/canned foods and drinks into the monitored fridges. This avoided paying the outlandish prices that Aramark wanted to charge to continue providing food services.....

 

[cpp_is_king]

You guys are completely missing the point. The point is not that this lady needs to be paid 10x what she's making now, the point is that there are numerous crises non-tech bros are facing in our cities and in his own back yard, created specifically by the same forces that made Zuck a billionaire. The point is that he's done fuck all to fix them, and now he's gallavanting around politically significant parts of the country spewing bs about how he's for the working man because he thinks that's the way to power.

Are we really missing the point? There are tons of posts in this thread saying basically "everyone deserves a livable wage, fuck zuck for not paying a livable wage". So I'm just asking, how much? Give me a number. How much should these people be paid?

And anyway, what can he do to fix it? Every housing proposal ever just gets shot down by nimbys, whom ironically are often the same people being priced out because they just want it to be like it was 30 years ago with the "small town victorian charm" while still being affordable.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

You guys are completely missing the point. The point is not that this lady needs to be paid 10x what she's making now, the point is that there are numerous crises non-tech bros are facing in our cities and in his own back yard, created specifically by the same forces that made Zuck a billionaire. The point is that he's done fuck all to fix them, and now he's gallavanting around politically significant parts of the country spewing bs about how he's for the working man because he thinks that's the way to power.

Are we really missing the point? There are tons of posts in this thread saying basically "everyone deserves a livable wage, fuck zuck for not paying a livable wage". So I'm just asking, how much? Give me a number. How much should these people be paid?

And anyway, what can he do to fix it? Every housing proposal ever just gets shot down by nimbys, whom ironically are often the same people being priced out because they just want it to be like it was 30 years ago with the "small town victorian charm" while still being affordable.

These employees are not Zuck's problem. They are NOT Facebook employees. They work for a company called Flagship Facilities Services. Zuck has nothing to do with what these employees are being paid, or their living conditions, or any issues they may have. They need to take these issues up with their actual employer, Flagship Facilities Services.

I am quite certain that Zuck is paying Flagship Facilities Services a large amount of money per the contract. Wage issues with employees of Flagship Facilities Services is squarely on upper management of that company keeping the profits for themselves instead of trickling it down to their cafe workers.

Once again, because about 90% of this thread is confused about this, THESE CAFE WORKERS ARE NOT FACEBOOK EMPLOYEES.

 

[border]

What is Zuckerberg supposed to do in this instance? This couple is already presumably paying nothing in rent. Establishing some kind of affordable housing for them is only going to increase their monthly expenses. Offering them health insurance seems like a viable course of action, though at this point it's kind of a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

It's unreasonable to expect to be able to raise 3 kids as a low-skill worker in the San Francisco. They'd probably be way better off making less money in a cheaper town. Take a 30% paycut to live in a place that's 50% less expensive.

 

[Nipo]

You guys are completely missing the point. The point is not that this lady needs to be paid 10x what she's making now, the point is that there are numerous crises non-tech bros are facing in our cities and in his own back yard, created specifically by the same forces that made Zuck a billionaire. The point is that he's done fuck all to fix them, and now he's gallavanting around politically significant parts of the country spewing bs about how he's for the working man because he thinks that's the way to power.

No, he is doing it because he needs to figure out how a technology he assumed would bring people together has actually isolated and pushed us further apart. If that keeps up it poses a threat to his company so he needs to figure out why his assumptions were wrong and what to do to fix them.

Dude isn't running for president at 35.

 

[Kurdel]

The Zuckerberg presidential campaign will be fascinating

 

[Prototype Viktor]

I checked out when they blame the company they work at (not for) for the rise in prices for homes. The rise is mostly due to the city housing approval committee and greed

 

[leroidys]

These employees are not Zuck's problem. They are NOT Facebook employees. They work for a company called Flagship Facilities Services. Zuck has nothing to do with what these employees are being paid, or their living conditions, or any issues they may have. They need to take these issues up with their actual employer, Flagship Facilities Services.

I am quite certain that Zuck is paying Flagship Facilities Services a large amount of money per the contract. Wage issues with employees of Flagship Facilities Services is squarely on upper management of that company keeping the profits for themselves instead of trickling it down to their cafe workers.

Once again, because about 90% of this thread is confused about this, THESE CAFE WORKERS ARE NOT FACEBOOK EMPLOYEES.

Again, you're totally missing the point. They could be serving Oracle or Google, it would still be the same issue.

No, he is doing it because he needs to figure out how a technology he assumed would bring people together has actually isolated and pushed us further apart. If that keeps up it poses a threat to his company so he needs to figure out why his assumptions were wrong and what to do to fix them.

Dude isn't running for president at 35.

He's at the very, very least considering it.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

Again, you're totally missing the point. They could be serving Oracle or Google, it would still be the same issue.

I am not missing any point. This article covers many separate issues. The narrative however that Zuck or Facebook are in any way directly responsible for the issues this family is facing in the article is bogus.

If you want to argue that Facebook along with the greater tech industry as a whole is responsible for the Bay area housing shenanigans, then one could certainly make a case for that, although there are many additional factors that go into the Bay area housing debacle.

However the narrative that Zuck is responsible for these cafe worker's wages or them not getting to participate in bring their children to work day is bullshit. If you break the contract down and determine exactly how much Zuck is paying for each cafe worker, Zuck is probably playing somewhere around $35-$50 per hour, per the contract with Flagship Facilities Services, for each of these cafe workers. Flagship Financial Services is pocketing that money, and paying the cafe workers $17-$20 of that amount.

 

[leroidys]

I am not missing any point. This article covers many separate issues. The narrative however that Zuck or Facebook are in any way directly responsible for the issues this family is facing in the article is bogus.

If you want to argue that Facebook along with the greater tech industry as a whole is responsible for the Bay area housing shenanigans, then one could certainly make a case for that, although there are many additional factors that go into the Bay area housing debacle.

However the narrative that Zuck is responsible for these cafe worker's wages or them not getting to participate in bring their children to work day is bullshit. If you break the contract down and determine exactly how much Zuck is paying for each cafe worker, Zuck is probably playing somewhere around $35-$50 per hour, per the contract with Flagship Facilities Services, for each of these cafe workers. Flagship Financial Services is pocketing that money, and paying the cafe workers $17-$20 of that amount.

Highly debatable, but again, whether Zuck is to blame or not is not the point. The point is that he's not doing anything to fix his own community while he's out on a political optics tour to pretend he cares.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

Highly debatable, but again, whether Zuck is to blame or not is not the point

Could have fooled me. The way the article was written, along with many posts here on this thread, prove otherwise.

 

[CLEEK]

Facebook's minimum pay is double the national minimum wage. And the two parents in question earn above this. If both parents work a full week, they're on the equivalent annual salary of $39k and $37k, so $76k a year household income, excluding any welfare benefits or subsidies they could get in addition to their wages.

The average US household income is $56k, so they are well above the national average.

The issue they face is housing prices, not salary or their household income. And if you live in an area with huge growth or a rising housing bubble, wages for the vast majority will never match the rising cost of property. The woeful US health system is another issue, but not something they can hold against Facebook or any other corporation.

In this instance, I don't know what they want from Facebook, who already pay well above the national average across the board. They're unskilled workers, who live in one of the most expensive area in the US. They face a reality that millions of families living in expensive cities around the world also have to face. Whether their income and skills allow them to live in areas that grow in desirability and price year-on-year.

I live in one of the most expensive cities in the world, and even though I have a decent salary, my family and I had to move way out into the suburbs for us to afford property. I have a big commute each day, a trade off I was willing to make to continue living in the this city. A 10%, 20% or whatever pay increase for me wouldn't make a dent in the ever increasing house prices if I wanted to buy somewhere closer to the city. That's the reality.

 

[leroidys]

Could have fooled me. The way the article was written, along with many posts here on this thread, prove otherwise.

It's typical Guardian framing, but look at what the worker is asking-

”He doesn't have to go around the world," said Nicole. ”He should learn what's happening in this city."

Note, she said "in this city", not "at his own company" or "at facebook".

They earn too much to qualify for state healthcare, but not enough to afford the health insurance offered by their employer. They frequently struggle to find enough money for basics like food and clothes for their children.

”Our motivation is not to bash either company," said Nicole. ”It's for our families. Why do we have to live like this, when the company we work for has the resources to make it better?"

”We're not asking for millions," added Victor. ”I just want to not be afraid if I need to go to the doctor. That's the reason we're uniting."

There's lots of framing to make the sexy story about facebook specifically, but it is a problem across the region, and increasingly across all of our urban hubs.

And I'll push back a little harder on the people saying "they're just contractors, its completely out of facebooks hands". Facebook sets the standards for who they do contract work with. They could decide to only contract with places that give their employees healthcare, for example. Nobody said "oh, it's out of Nike's hands" when it came to light that factories they contracted with were operating sweatshops.