Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 115 posts

Re: What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty

#81

Post by thatswrong0 »

cmiles74 wrote: post #52
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people always reference hard work? Ditch diggers work hard. Migrant farm laborers work hard. So what?

Hard work should have value and should be rewarded with a wage that one can live on. While the person in this article is living, they are still not earning enough to support themselves and their family without supplementing from a food pantry. Because this is a contract position they are not allowed to work more than thirty hours a week. I would argue that this shows that this is not a living wage.

> Hard work should have value

No it shouldn't, at least not because the work is hard. I could spend 16 hours a day 7 days a week digging holes in the Sahara desert which are of no use to anybody. I would be working incredibly hard, but I would be producing no value, so I do not see why I should be rewarded anything. I only will and should be 'rewarded', in the sense that someone else is willing to pay me for my work, if my labor produces something of value for someone else.

Re: What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty

#82

Post by laudenum »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #39
ThomPete wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's luck because plenty of people do exactly the same thing as you and me. Work hard, take what they can get, have ambition and yet still don't make it. If you want to see this in it's purest form look at music and art. Plenty of amazing hardworking musicians that will never make a dime. Plenty of hacks who will.

Why do people always reference hard work? Ditch diggers work hard. Migrant farm laborers work hard. So what?

Ditches need to be dug. Farms need to be tended to. People need to eat.

The laborers should be paid for the value of the work instead of receiving the slimmest of margins from the fruit of their labor.

Re: What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty

#83

Post by jedmeyers »

cmiles74 wrote: post #52
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people always reference hard work? Ditch diggers work hard. Migrant farm laborers work hard. So what?

Hard work should have value and should be rewarded with a wage that one can live on. While the person in this article is living, they are still not earning enough to support themselves and their family without supplementing from a food pantry. Because this is a contract position they are not allowed to work more than thirty hours a week. I would argue that this shows that this is not a living wage.

What should have value is how much "service" you render to other people. It should not matter whether providing this service comes hard to you or not - it's all up to you.

Re: What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty

#85

Post by jedmeyers »

selmnoo wrote: post #46
ericabiz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started out doing desktop support for $15/hour. (I actually think I started out making less, but I'm not sure how much "less" was--perhaps $12/hour? so I quoted the higher number.) $49,500/year was after I spent over a year learning development, and our startup got bought out by a huge company, and I interviewed into a role at the big company as a developer. I also started out working for a subcontractor, much like…

Implicit in your reasoning is the suggestion that a security guard doesn't deserve a dignified living wage. I disagree with that -- I think in a civilized society he should be able to afford his own place, provide for his daughter, give her rides as needed without sacrificing job security, etc. As the other poster mentioned, we /need/ such people... we need people who mow the lawns, people who flip burgers, people wh…

"In a civilized society one should be able to afford his own place, provide for his daughter, give her rides as needed without sacrificing job security, etc" - should society provide a place for a person in a location of its choosing?

Re: What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty

#86

Post by jonknee »

blhack wrote: post #36

/s Does anybody see a link to this guys github profile? I wonder how far along he is on any side projects that he's working on. Surely he must hang out at any of the many coworking spaces in SF on the weekend, right? I don't mean to be crass here, but...there are SO MANY programs available for this guy to learn to code, and then get the employee benefit of taking home free food from his employer (seriously? He's upse…

> Furthermore, move out of the bay area, man! That's one of the most expensive places to live in the country! Go move to Iowa, or North Dakota. Those places have high qualities of life, good wages, and low costs of living.

Yea, he should probably abandon his daughter.

Not everyone is a programmer and even if everyone could program well, there wouldn't be a market large enough to support it. Communities need to be able to support people in different occupations and income ranges.

Re: What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty

#87

Post by jedmeyers »

dragonwriter wrote: post #73
WildUtah wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, move out of the bay area, man! That's one of the most expensive places to live in the country! Whenever I see these articles, I think about what makes the Bay Area expensive. The key factor is housing prices. There's a limited amount of land available near the centers of SV because of mountains and natural areas. Supply is strictly constrained and demand is very strong because of industry growth. The res…

> The Bay Area has chosen to be unlivable and unpleasant by its choice of public officials. You seem to confuse "high density" with "livable" or "pleasant". I don't think that makes a lot of sense. > Those city officials have prohibited the practices that make city living affordable. San Francisco -- whose development policies you suggest would make San Jose more affordable -- is more expensive to live in than San Jo…

I, for one, think that "low density" is exactly what makes Silicon Valley so nice and pleasant to live in.

Re: What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty

#88

Post by altoz »

runako wrote: post #20
altoz wrote: post #6

It's interesting to note that this guy NEVER gets more than 30 hours. This is most likely to make sure the employee can't be considered full-time. I'm sure Google would rather hire 15 guys at 40-60 hours instead of 40 guys at 20 hours, but the sad reality is that the costs of compliance for a full-time employee are just not worth it.

>> costs of compliance for a full-time employee I'm not sure this is the driver. Instead, the primary factor is likely the fact that hourly employees cost a 50% more the moment they cross 40 hours in a week. >> Google would rather hire 15 guys at 40-60 hours instead of 40 guys at 20 hours Not if they are paid hourly, they wouldn't. It would just be throwing money away. In my way-back days working hourly jobs in retai…

Overtime laws definitely affect the cliff at 40 hours. That said, there's something to be said for reliable and consistent employees. I know that a lot of small business owners I know would rather have a few trusted employees than many not-as-trustworthy ones. There's a trust cost to adding each additional employee that may or may not offset the overtime costs.

Re: What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty

#89

Post by WildUtah »

dragonwriter wrote: post #73
WildUtah wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, move out of the bay area, man! That's one of the most expensive places to live in the country! Whenever I see these articles, I think about what makes the Bay Area expensive. The key factor is housing prices. There's a limited amount of land available near the centers of SV because of mountains and natural areas. Supply is strictly constrained and demand is very strong because of industry growth. The res…

> The Bay Area has chosen to be unlivable and unpleasant by its choice of public officials. You seem to confuse "high density" with "livable" or "pleasant". I don't think that makes a lot of sense. > Those city officials have prohibited the practices that make city living affordable. San Francisco -- whose development policies you suggest would make San Jose more affordable -- is more expensive to live in than San Jo…

I've seen dense pleasant and unpleasant and rural pleasant and unpleasant and most possibilities in between. I don't mean to equate the one axis with the other. It is very challenging to build mid-density pleasant surroundings without making car traffic impossibly nasty, though. The DPZ architecture firm in Miami has proven that heroic effort can answer even that challenge.

San Francisco is more expensive than San Jose because more people want to live in a city built like SF than one like SJ. Building more SF and less SJ style will make people happier and produce more housing per acre.

Tokyo and New York City ... aren't exactly bastions of affordability

Correlation isn't causation.

The laws of supply and demand show that more supply will lower prices and less supply forces prices up. Building more quality higher density neighborhoods will make housing more affordable.

Historically very desirable areas became expensive which led to denser construction so more people could afford them. Now the denser areas that were so desirable are often still desirable and still expensive. It wasn't the density that led to the expense, though; the density is mitigating the expense.

There is a limit to what you can do with density to mitigate expense before things get unpleasant and Manhattan is near the limit. Tokyo is not. San Jose is nowhere near the limit.

Re: What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty

#90

Post by WildUtah »

grecy wrote: post #61
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #2

Is it better to have """low pay""" in San Jose or low pay in Tijuana?

It's interesting you choose to compare a developed country to a developing country. You're comparing a team that is supposedly in the A league to a team in the B league, then saying the former is good because it beats the latter. That's nonsensical. For a real comparison, you must compare A teams to A teams. The question should be: Is it better to have "low pay" in San Jose or low pay in Australia/NZ/UK/Japan/Germany…

Mexico is an OECD country, a member of the 'first world club.' It has a high level of literacy and education and economic output and public infrastructure. Comparing Mexico to the USA is an A-league to A-league comparison.

Sure, it's a St. Louis Rams to Seattle Seahawks comparison, but it's not so unfair as you suggest.

Post reply on HN