In Disney's shadow, homeless families struggle

[realibrad]

It's called planing, and it's not simply for image. When a city grows the demands on infrastructure grow as well. Public transit, parking, roads, electrical grid, sewer system and water supply all play into those decisions. Parts of SF's sewer system are nearing a hundred years old. The trucks that deliver everything a city needs to survive are very hard on streets, many of which were never built with eighty thousand pound trucks in mind. It's not as simple as "build more sky scrapers".
All that said, most city's do have rules to control how much of anything gets built, if SF doesn't want to become a sprawling metropolis they get to make that decision. It's not "running it for everyone" it's protecting the interests of those that already live there. As well as limiting growth, they also do things like preventing slaughter houses from being built within city limits and controlling garbage dumps.

We all have the right to live where we choose, as long as we can afford it.

All of the things you listed can be upgraded.

Second, who do you think is being benefited by the policies that limit housing supply? Right now SF has the most expensive $/sqft prices in the country. Only the very rich can own homes, and its causing huge inequality. They city is not protecting the interests of its people, its protecting the interests of a very few elite at the top at the expense of everyone else under them.

Also, you started out by saying that you knew of no such policies that limited supply that was driving up prices. You sure seem to know about them, so I'm going to assume that you were flat out lying.

 

[K1052]

All of the things you listed can be upgraded.

Second, who do you think is being benefited by the policies that limit housing supply? Right now SF has the most expensive $/sqft prices in the country. Only the very rich can own homes, and its causing huge inequality. They city is not protecting the interests of its people, its protecting the interests of a very few elite at the top at the expense of everyone else under them.

Also, you started out by saying that you knew of no such policies that limited supply that was driving up prices. You sure seem to know about them, so I'm going to assume that you were flat out lying.

His list of reasons why SF can't accommodate more density is, frankly, total bullshit. Density can be pushed up without building skyscrapers anyway. The city needs to move away from prioritizing car ownership and car commuter traffic. These things are easily possible since other (much older) American, Canadian, and European cities are actually doing them to varying degrees.

Also if SF wanted to limit growth they wouldn't have permitted so much office space to be built. The state should require cities and counties to zone properties for increased residential density commensurate with the office square footage they want to build. No more approving millions of sq ft of workspace and telling other towns they should be the ones to build housing.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

People aren't trees, they can leave.

Why stay and kill yourself for a company making profits bigger than most nations?

It's interesting that people come to this country with nothing and do what it takes to support their family. Sometimes they do rather well for themselves.

Very valid point. Why is it that immigrants (that the left claim to love so much) can pick themselves up by the bootstraps - and move COUNTRIES (not a nearby state/city) with jack shit, no money, and no food, and somehow prosper their way up to the middle class?

 

[fleshconsumed]

I’ve waited tables damn near 10 years it sucks but pays. My wife and I alternated working shifts (she worked the bulk though because I was in school) so one of us was constantly working. Received food stamps at the time because that was the only way to put food on the table. I’d bring my youngest up to the restaurant to breastfeed on her breaks, then go back home and put her in an electronic rocker while I did accounting homework etc. constantly, constantly finding daycares or parents or friends to help watch kids if we couldn’t (I’m definitely for government helping with the daycare bill). I drove a crappy grandma car that kept breaking. It was challenging to be sure but we made by. I graduated and she found a management job so both our incomes increased a good bit, so had that ahhh we made it feeling.

Frick you you whiny POS. And yes every job can be automated. Lawyers and docs felt no way we're safe, lol nope.

So despite all of your moving around and all of your best efforts you still couldn't make ends meet at times and had to rely on government help to feed yourself and the kids?

How is that possible? Isn't your entire argument based on the premise that one can always make it on their own? That if you're not being paid enough, just move somewhere that will? How come you didn't do just that? How come somebody had to help you?

 

[mect]

Very valid point. Why is it that immigrants (that the left claim to love so much) can pick themselves up by the bootstraps - and move COUNTRIES (not a nearby state/city) with jack shit, no money, and no food, and somehow prosper their way up to the middle class?

Because those that do this are the most competent. There is no doubt that for someone with an IQ of 130, someone from the lower class can and often will "pick themselves up by their own bootstraps". The problem is, half the population has an IQ of 100 or less. What do you propose for the people with IQs of 70? This problem is particularly challenging as a result of automation. So long as the majority of the jobs available can be completed by the majority of the population, ie require skills that pretty much anyone is capable of obtaining, and such jobs pay a liveable wage, there's no problem. Most cart drivers were probably able to adapt just fine to driving a truck. The problem today is that while yes, new jobs are created as technology removes old jobs, what portion of the population is capable of performing the new jobs. What percentage of truck drivers are going to be capable of becoming computer programmers? Even with the white collar jobs that are being displaced, the routine, easier tasks are the ones being automated. We aren't going to drive the best and brightest lawyers out of a job, but the lawyers that handled routine issues. We need to face the problem that automation is going to drive a lot of people from jobs that required low to moderate skills to jobs that require almost no skills other than a personal interaction. Is the plan then going to be to have a huge homeless population because these people aren't picking themselves up by their own bootstraps? Or do we start thinking about creating a social safety net so that these people can still live with dignity even if they are doing a job that requires no real skills.

 

[Jhhnn]

What percentage of truck drivers are going to be capable of becoming computer programmers? Even with the white collar jobs that are being displaced, the routine, easier tasks are the ones being automated.

When we do more than scratch the surface we should realize that the Jerb Creators don't need nearly as may programmers as workers that their efforts displace whether those people can program or not.

 

[glenn1]

Because those that do this are the most competent. There is no doubt that for someone with an IQ of 130, someone from the lower class can and often will "pick themselves up by their own bootstraps". The problem is, half the population has an IQ of 100 or less. What do you propose for the people with IQs of 70? This problem is particularly challenging as a result of automation. So long as the majority of the jobs available can be completed by the majority of the population, ie require skills that pretty much anyone is capable of obtaining, and such jobs pay a liveable wage, there's no problem. Most cart drivers were probably able to adapt just fine to driving a truck. The problem today is that while yes, new jobs are created as technology removes old jobs, what portion of the population is capable of performing the new jobs. What percentage of truck drivers are going to be capable of becoming computer programmers? Even with the white collar jobs that are being displaced, the routine, easier tasks are the ones being automated. We aren't going to drive the best and brightest lawyers out of a job, but the lawyers that handled routine issues. We need to face the problem that automation is going to drive a lot of people from jobs that required low to moderate skills to jobs that require almost no skills other than a personal interaction. Is the plan then going to be to have a huge homeless population because these people aren't picking themselves up by their own bootstraps? Or do we start thinking about creating a social safety net so that these people can still live with dignity even if they are doing a job that requires no real skills.

That's an entirely different conversation and problem to be solved, problems at national scale require different solutions than ones at the individual scale. Just because automation means some truck driver will someday lose his job to self-driving cars, does not mean you're entitled to Walt Disney company paying you $N an hour today after you drop out of junior high school and fail your drug test. Guess which bucket is going to fill faster.

 

[UglyCasanova]

So despite all of your moving around and all of your best efforts you still couldn't make ends meet at times and had to rely on government help to feed yourself and the kids?

How is that possible? Isn't your entire argument based on the premise that one can always make it on their own? That if you're not being paid enough, just move somewhere that will? How come you didn't do just that? How come somebody had to help you?

I’ve never said I didn’t have to use food stamps and I’ve never once argued food stamps aren’t a valuable service. They should be used to help get yourself to a position where you can support yourself, not be this thing that last in perpetuity. How come I didn’t just move? Because I was busy making my life better. I don’t live in a high rent area so moving wouldn’t have helped me there. If I wasn’t going to college I would have certainly pursued getting a higher paying job and starting a career (not working a job for students), and that may have entailed moving - again.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's an entirely different conversation and problem to be solved, problems at national scale require different solutions than ones at the individual scale. Just because automation means some truck driver will someday lose his job to self-driving cars, does not mean you're entitled to Walt Disney company paying you $N an hour today after you drop out of junior high school and fail your drug test. Guess which bucket is going to fill faster.

Ridiculous attributions of unworthiness to huge numbers of Americans.

"Some truck driver"? You mean nearly all truck drivers, right? It's the same for most occupations other than collecting economic rents via ownership.

 

[Vic]

That's an entirely different conversation and problem to be solved, problems at national scale require different solutions than ones at the individual scale. Just because automation means some truck driver will someday lose his job to self-driving cars, does not mean you're entitled to Walt Disney company paying you $N an hour today after you drop out of junior high school and fail your drug test. Guess which bucket is going to fill faster.

What exactly makes the former more deserving than the latter, except for the recency that their skills are no longer needed in the workplace?

 

[hal2kilo]

The U.S. has become a third world country right before our eyes.

All by design by the rich.

As supported by those you see post in here.

Disgusting.

Been a long time.

 

[UglyCasanova]

You quoted that and I thought Dave posted 😀

 

[mect]

That's an entirely different conversation and problem to be solved, problems at national scale require different solutions than ones at the individual scale. Just because automation means some truck driver will someday lose his job to self-driving cars, does not mean you're entitled to Walt Disney company paying you $N an hour today after you drop out of junior high school and fail your drug test. Guess which bucket is going to fill faster.

Its not an entirely different conversation. Its a very important component of the conversation. If you are going to look at people working at Disney World, you have to take into consideration their aptitudes. You are simply looking at outcomes instead of considering root causes. It isn't just about truck drivers that will one day lose their jobs. Its about jobs in farming, carpentry, construction, logging, factory work, etc that are already gone, and instead individuals are working at McDonalds, Walmart, or maybe Disney World.

Who gets to determine what an individual is entitled to? At the end of the day, society does. In my opinion, anyone working full time should be entitled to basic housing, food, health care, and educational opportunities. I'm open to discussions about how we achieve that. One option setting minimum wage based on what is required to meet these needs. Another option is to let companies pay what they want, but then offer supplemental income to low income workers funded through taxation. We need to figure out ways to change zoning so that affordable housing can be built in high retail cities. I'm sure there are many other possibilities as well. I'd say our current President is evidence that there are perhaps just as many undeserving rich as there are undeserving poor.

 

[glenn1]

Its not an entirely different conversation. Its a very important component of the conversation. If you are going to look at people working at Disney World, you have to take into consideration their aptitudes. You are simply looking at outcomes instead of considering root causes. It isn't just about truck drivers that will one day lose their jobs. Its about jobs in farming, carpentry, construction, logging, factory work, etc that are already gone, and instead individuals are working at McDonalds, Walmart, or maybe Disney World.

Who gets to determine what an individual is entitled to? At the end of the day, society does. In my opinion, anyone working full time should be entitled to basic housing, food, health care, and educational opportunities. I'm open to discussions about how we achieve that. One option setting minimum wage based on what is required to meet these needs. Another option is to let companies pay what they want, but then offer supplemental income to low income workers funded through taxation. We need to figure out ways to change zoning so that affordable housing can be built in high retail cities. I'm sure there are many other possibilities as well. I'd say our current President is evidence that there are perhaps just as many undeserving rich as there are undeserving poor.

Or the third and most probable option to add to your two - they won’t be hired at all because you’ve raised the price of their labor above the value they provide to their employer. Good luck with implementing your “entitlements” in a works where many or most jobs are automated, I have no doubt those with jobs will gladly work that much harder for the benefit of others.

 

[mect]

Or the third and most probable option to add to your two - they won’t be hired at all because you’ve raised the price of their labor above the value they provide to their employer. Good luck with implementing your “entitlements” in a works where many or most jobs are automated, I have no doubt those with jobs will gladly work that much harder for the benefit of others.

You think a third option for ensuring people's basic necessities are met is for government to pass legislation preventing these people from being hired? And to ensure people's basic necessities are met, no one needs to work any harder, resources already there just need to be more evenly distributed.

 

[glenn1]

You think a third option for ensuring people's basic necessities are met is for government to pass legislation preventing these people from being hired? And to ensure people's basic necessities are met, no one needs to work any harder, resources already there just need to be more evenly distributed.

"Just more evenly distributed." Funny how only the resources are being distributed and not the work, the resources don't create themselves. And government won't pass legislation which expressly prevents them from being hired, just from effectively being hired - think of the reasons why most people don't have maids, it's probably due to cost. If maid service were cheaper then you might hire one, but it isn't so you don't because you value that $100 more than the hour of time you gain by cleaning the toilet yourself. Corporations typically have more money than individual people but the same principle holds, if the value you assign to what that worker would produce is lower than what their total compensation you would need to pay them is, then you won't hire them.

What that means is you can legislate all you want that corporations have to pay a wage that "ensures people's basic necessities are met," you can't force them to hire people for that wage. Eventually in some future state you could theoretically have a few hundred people left "working" and expected to fulfill the basic necessities are met for several billion other people, do you think they'll go bust their ass all day when they are essentially working only to feed/clothe/house those other folks instead of themselves? Altruism has its limits and they're far lower than that, hell today's progressives won't even provide the "basic necessities" for the homeless in their cities and they're the ones who claim to care about that shit. How much harder do you think "collective action problems" will be to solve when the majority of the population is part of the "collective action problem" those who are economically productive/still employed are expected to solve? Would you work for free so that 10 other people didn't need to?

 

[realibrad]

You think a third option for ensuring people's basic necessities are met is for government to pass legislation preventing these people from being hired? And to ensure people's basic necessities are met, no one needs to work any harder, resources already there just need to be more evenly distributed.

But what do you do about the fact that in Net those people are not contributing as much as they are consuming in productivity? As that group grows due to automation and other factors, there will come a point when you cannot "spread out" enough. If you think its right to take what others have made and give it away to other people, then you have to come up against the problem of what happens when not enough is produced.

 

[Jhhnn]

But what do you do about the fact that in Net those people are not contributing as much as they are consuming in productivity?

For a second there I thought you were talking about the uber Wealthy.

 

[mect]

"Just more evenly distributed." Funny how only the resources are being distributed and not the work, the resources don't create themselves. And government won't pass legislation which expressly prevents them from being hired, just from effectively being hired - think of the reasons why most people don't have maids, it's probably due to cost. If maid service were cheaper then you might hire one, but it isn't so you don't because you value that $100 more than the hour of time you gain by cleaning the toilet yourself. Corporations typically have more money than individual people but the same principle holds, if the value you assign to what that worker would produce is lower than what their total compensation you would need to pay them is, then you won't hire them.

What that means is you can legislate all you want that corporations have to pay a wage that "ensures people's basic necessities are met," you can't force them to hire people for that wage. Eventually in some future state you could theoretically have a few hundred people left "working" and expected to fulfill the basic necessities are met for several billion other people, do you think they'll go bust their ass all day when they are essentially working only to feed/clothe/house those other folks instead of themselves? Altruism has its limits and they're far lower than that, hell today's progressives won't even provide the "basic necessities" for the homeless in their cities and they're the ones who claim to care about that shit. How much harder do you think "collective action problems" will be to solve when the majority of the population is part of the "collective action problem" those who are economically productive/still employed are expected to solve? Would you work for free so that 10 other people didn't need to?

The work is already being distributed. Do you think CEOs really work 1000x the hours of the other employees. And no, I'm not suggesting everyone should be paid the same for their time, but a better balance can certainly be achieved. And many other nations already have effectively provided legislation which provides basic necessities for their populations without the outcomes you predict. You always take things to absurd extremes and forecast these dire outcomes with no real world data to support your claims. Its asinine to assume that the wealthiest nation in the history of the world can't take measures to ensure its citizens, particularly its working citizens, have their basic necessities met.

 

[mect]

But what do you do about the fact that in Net those people are not contributing as much as they are consuming in productivity? As that group grows due to automation and other factors, there will come a point when you cannot "spread out" enough. If you think its right to take what others have made and give it away to other people, then you have to come up against the problem of what happens when not enough is produced.

How do you measure productivity? I'd say that on average those people are Net contributing far more in terms of productivity compared to what they are consuming. Have you not seen that productivity has not tracked with salary for quite a long time?

 

[realibrad]

For a second there I thought you were talking about the uber Wealthy.

Zing! Wanna take a crack at the point though?

 

[realibrad]

How do you measure productivity? I'd say that on average those people are Net contributing far more in terms of productivity compared to what they are consuming. Have you not seen that productivity has not tracked with salary for quite a long time?

There are some people that simply are not worth minimum wage to an employer. What do you do with those people? Regardless of how you measure productivity, there comes a point when hiring someone to do job x is not worth $15/hr. As people compete more against machines, that group of people increases. What do you do then?

 

[UglyCasanova]

There are some people that simply are not worth minimum wage to an employer. What do you do with those people? Regardless of how you measure productivity, there comes a point when hiring someone to do job x is not worth $15/hr. As people compete more against machines, that group of people increases. What do you do then?

The $15/hr it has to be remembered isn’t anywhere close to being that persons full compensation. Insurance, workers comp insurance, $401k matching, social security, etc. That worker has to justify $15 every hour plus who knows what on top for it to make economic sense to keep them employed.

 

[Jhhnn]

There are some people that simply are not worth minimum wage to an employer. What do you do with those people? Regardless of how you measure productivity, there comes a point when hiring someone to do job x is not worth $15/hr. As people compete more against machines, that group of people increases. What do you do then?

That's bullshit. Automation displaces millions of entirely competent people. So do the vagaries of the Capitalist business cycle. No job for you!

When you own, you don't need a job. You can just be a rentier. When you own enough, other people & machines do all the work for you. And you don't owe them a damned thing, either, not within the realm of Capitalist thinking.

 

[mect]

There are some people that simply are not worth minimum wage to an employer. What do you do with those people? Regardless of how you measure productivity, there comes a point when hiring someone to do job x is not worth $15/hr. As people compete more against machines, that group of people increases. What do you do then?

Now that is a great question worth considering. On the extreme end of the spectrum you have for example the mentally disabled. We as a nation decide what we do with these people, although this is typically handled on a more local scale. One option is to let them starve in the gutter unless they are fortunate enough to have family capable of supporting them throughout their lives. Another option is to simply provide their basic necessities and let them stare at a television set all day. I prefer the option of helping them find something to do that they can find meaning in if possible. Often, this is done at a loss currently, particularly when compared to just automating the process. But it greatly improves their quality of life. As you point out, as automation increases, the number of people in the pool that provide a net loss to society compared to machines is just going to increase. Maybe it would be better to do away with a minimum wage and just provide a living stipend to working individuals in order to encourage people to work and still be able to afford to live. Maybe it would be better to set the minimum wage at a level that affords a livable income in order to continue to drive automation forward and free people to pursue other endeavors they find rewarding. Maybe we need to decrease the full time work week to 35 hours.

The important thing to remember is that as people compete more against machines, this doesn't decrease the resources available to society. In fact, in general it increases them. The problem is that it concentrates wealth with those that own the resources, not those that perform the labor. I think this (along with globalization) is one of the main driving forces behind the decline of wages coupled with the increase in productivity. This is one reason I think government is going to have to play a roll addressing this issue. No one has provided me with a convincing argument for how capitalism can address this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to capitalism as an economic system. I just think it needs some checks and balances.