Live data from Hacker News

Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

theguardian.com

531–540 of 546 posts

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#531
post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Few Californians or transplants to California want to live anywhere but near the coastline. California's climate is not as pleasant once you go further inland. That's so untrue. If some of the large open areas in the South Bay or east bay were turned into suburbs people would happily move in

More suburbs is probably a bad solution to lengthy commutes.

Not if you have high speed transport. If you can commute at 200mph, living as far as 100 miles from work you could commute faster than people who live closer and go by car.

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"willing to work" This pretends there is actual choice for most folks, when the truth is most folks are just choosing between jobs that pay around the same. The alternative is to not have food, shelter, and such things. That is hardly a choice - of course folks will be willing to work for that amount. Theoretically one can go to college or work their way up, but all those take time. College takes money. I don't know…

Student loans?

They generally won't cover housing and food costs to make up for the lost wages while going to school, especially if you have a family to feed. One might make it working part-time so long as you have a spouse to help you out. But hey, folks get lucky. Others don't, though, and still wind up paying for some books and fees on top of taking out loans. Not to mention buying things like a current computer, making sure to have internet access (lets face it, with a job, kids, and school, you probably aren't making it to the library), and so on.

Afterwards, you'll need to pay that student loan back. You get 6 months before you start paying it back. You might not even find a decent job at all.

There are income-based payment plans. They require not falling behind on your loans most times, and even if they don't the private company collecting might make you think that way. If you can't pay and stupid things happen, they'll garnish your wages. 25% (ish), but they'll make sure to leave you a salary equal to 30 hours work at minimum wage. They'll take your tax returns too.

And as an odd fact: It really ins't possible to take out loans for part-time schooling if you want to get a bachelors degree: Federal student loan funding stops after 6 years, at which point you must pay off the first year's loan to get another year. (I think full time does 5 years). You might be able to get an associates or professional certificate at the local community college, though, if you are lucky enough to have one in your area (many do not).

I know this isn't everyone's story, but this stuff is common enough to consider as a risk factor. It might have been a way to financial stability at one time, but it isn't such a sure thing anymore.

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#533
post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this sarcasm, or are you suggesting that the same institution which set up these perverse rules has done such a great job that it should be given control over the funding of health care for 99% of the population?

It's not like private enterprise is doing such a great job.

People are legally mandated to buy third party health care payment plans. How could you possibly expect that to go well?

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

B should just respond with "those aren't my wife's parents, don't know who they are".

Asserting counterfactuals is the short track to a loss. I encourage you to think through the ramifications of a situation or consult some case histories rather than just documenting your reflexive response.

joke [johk] : noun : something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#535
post #11

“Back in the day, [the wage] would have been a great number,” said Victor, “but because of Facebook moving in, everything is so expensive. I have to get payday loans sometimes. We barely make it.” They make a combined (rounded) $75,000/year. The real tragedy is that you can't afford to make it in the Bay Area on $75k/yr. I don't think that's something you can blame solely on Facebook.

Where is their $75k/year going? I totally get that the bay is ridiculously expensive, but they're living in his parents' garage. Are his parents charging him that much rent? I'd think someone living in their parents' garage and earning $75k would be doing pretty well in terms of money. (Setting aside the fact that living with your family in a 2-car garage would definitely suck.)

The Economic Policy Institute's Family Budget calculator, which is a better estimate of area-adjusted living costs than the federal poverty line "measures the income a family needs in order to attain a modest yet adequate standard of living"[1].

For the San Francisco, CA metro area (which in their model includes Menlo Park, where the family lives), they estimate that this "modest yet adequate" standard of living would cost ~$116K per year, inclusive of housing, food, child care, transportation, health care, other necessities and taxes. Even removing housing from the equation ($32K), that leaves about $85K to meet a basic family budget. So I think that their experience that their income is a real stretch to meet basic needs is not so far from reality as you might conjecture.

[1] http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's unjust, as these 'nice, exclusive areas' are the ones with the best access to employment and educational opportunities. And it creates an urban form that induces long, high-emission solo driver commutes and fewer residents in a part of the country that requires very little HVAC— both of which lead to a lot of climate change. And it maintains a segregated society, racially and otherwise, where the wealthy…

I believe that zoning is a proper matter for local governments. If it's not a local matter, it seems that governmental zoning has to either not exist or become a state or federal matter. I sure don't want the feds zoning my city, nor do I want the state doing it. I also don't want to live in a world of no zoning. It's a pain that I'd have to appear before the zoning board to get a variance for a larger garage on my p…

In much of the world, zoning is enacted at a regional or national level, and serves wider social interests rather than a small group's desire to decide what their neighbors look like. These areas generally have significantly more reasonable housing prices than the Bay Area, as well as higher mass-transit usage. http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html https://www.gtai.de/GTAI/Navigation/EN/Invest/Investment-gui... Why don't you want the federal or state government making decisions on zoning law?

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's unjust, as these 'nice, exclusive areas' are the ones with the best access to employment and educational opportunities. And it creates an urban form that induces long, high-emission solo driver commutes and fewer residents in a part of the country that requires very little HVAC— both of which lead to a lot of climate change. And it maintains a segregated society, racially and otherwise, where the wealthy…

Until everyone has perfectly identical IQs, attractiveness, charisma, strength, agility and luck, some things will be perceived as economically unjust. In other words, it will always be this way. Life is a competition for resources and genetic legacy, there are always going to be winners and losers. >wealthy may ignore social problems Yes, that's one of the best parts of being wealthy. Being able to enjoy life withou…

Land use law is, under American constitutional law, permitted to local governments under the 'Police Power': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_co... In my opinion, using land use law to ban apartment buildings is a misuse of this power.

I think that we should be able to build miles and miles of apartment buildings that meet fire-safety codes, rather than laws that mandate vast swathes of a region's land are only usable for single-family homes, leading to sprawl and long car commutes.

Just because a society will never be perfectly just doesn't mean the status quo is particularly just— that's the is-ought fallacy. Do you think the state should use its power to ban things you dislike or find aesthetically distasteful, no matter its effects on others, when you're already wealthy and able to build yourself a pleasant life? Because that's the current usage of zoning law in the US.

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#538
post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Few Californians or transplants to California want to live anywhere but near the coastline. California's climate is not as pleasant once you go further inland. That's so untrue. If some of the large open areas in the South Bay or east bay were turned into suburbs people would happily move in

More suburbs is probably a bad solution to lengthy commutes.

[deleted]

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#539
post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Few Californians or transplants to California want to live anywhere but near the coastline. California's climate is not as pleasant once you go further inland. That's so untrue. If some of the large open areas in the South Bay or east bay were turned into suburbs people would happily move in

More suburbs is probably a bad solution to lengthy commutes.

[deleted]

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then there's, you know, "capitalism in actual practice". Which is what the Dude above was referring to.

As long as we don't confuse what we have right now (corrupt cronyism, corporatism, blatant vertical monopolies, blatant government-backed monopsonies, etc.) with an actual free market.

Aren't those the natural consequences and evolutions of a truly free market?
Post reply on HN