If you cannot afford to live in San Fransisco you shouldn’t live in San Fransisco. If all of these people left, the market would fall to the point where the city becomes affordable again. The rich hate being inconvenienced more than anything, and if all these workers moved to cheaper areas they would feel it.
If you’re poor you shouldn’t be getting Starbucks regularly, make your own coffee for cheaper. Cheaper areas are all around, smaller cities across America where your wages stretch farther. Not everyone needs to live in the bay area.
I see, so because people “shouldn’t be” getting Starbucks “regularly,” poor people should commute two hours to get to the job from the apartment they share with five people because that’s all they can afford on the sort of low-wages all such establishments pay. Also, most people can’t make things like caramel macchiatos at home. Because that requires an expensive machine rather than spending a few bucks on coffee, something many people who are not rich can afford.
So this still sounds pretty anti-poor to me. Poor people who work there have to suffer, poor people who want to drink or eat there don’t get to do it.
What kind of world do you live in where Starbucks only have rich clientele who get coffee there every day or every week?
Also, what kind of world do you live in where there also aren’t privately-owned coffee shops?
Good job completely ignoring the point where I said they should move to small cities where they can get a job in the local community and have their wages go farther. I go to college and pay my bills working at a car wash for 15 an hour plus tips. By no means great money but I live within my means and don’t expect to buy overpriced mid coffee. Starbucks works by making poor people think it’s rich people coffee and charging too much for mid drinks, the whole company should go under. Poor people don’t get to do everything they want to do like go out and eat and drink every night, that’s the nature of being poor. Americans need an attitude adjustment and a realization they don’t need to cluster into overpriced cities.
I didn’t ignore it. Expecting the entire service industry of San Francisco to just up and leave is silly, impractical, and they probably can’t afford to since moving is expensive and moving somewhere that you have no guarantee of a job is a good way to end up homeless.
I mean really, you expect a city to function without a service industry? That’s ridiculous.
That’s the point, the people doing the jobs leave, the market fall in turn, and then new people or others return to the lower rates. The only problem is keeping people away the second time around to ensure the process doesn’t need to be repeated. You can move on the cheap, there are ways to do things cheap if you know how.
Why on Earth do you think “every service worker in San Francisco should just move away and find another job and another home somewhere else” is even feasible?
You are talking about at minimum hundreds of thousands of people. Many of the ones who aren’t homeless (and many of them are homeless) don’t have any form of transportation other than public transportation because they’re too poor to afford a car. Are they supposed to walk to another place to get a job?
Do you think maybe there’s a solution that isn’t cruel to pretty much everyone in San Francisco at any income level, but especially the poor? Is there any solution you can possibly come up with that doesn’t involve making poor people walk out of San Francisco until they get to another place and hope they find a job there?
I hate that you’re being downvoted. I don’t agree with everything you say but you are the only one offering solutions. Everyone else is just doing the “oh I see so people should just…” Followed by taking what you said out of context completely. For what it’s worth I think you’re right about people not being able to afford shit like Starbucks should just make their own, fuck that’s what I do. I don’t do shit I can’t afford because I can’t afford it.
So the Starbucks employee should like in eternal squalor and be grateful to barely make ends meet. But hey, those more fortunate needs their expensive coffee too, that money will trickle down any day now.
Starbucks employees shouldn’t be rich, it’s an entry level food service job. People that make a decent living work better jobs, or are good enough at their starbucks jobs that they become manager and move up the chain to the point they can make a decent living.
Ok, where do you live. I want a town name. You tell us where the cheap housing is, and I guarantee that Californians will fuck up your housing market because we have the money to do so. Ask literally anyone in rural America about Californians and the housing prices.
Fine. Who is going to make the coffee? Or flip the burgers? Or wash the dishes? Or deliver pizza?
Should San Francisco not have any low-cost food options?
Because you sure don’t sound like you think service industry workers deserve more pay.
If you cannot afford to live in San Fransisco you shouldn’t live in San Fransisco. If all of these people left, the market would fall to the point where the city becomes affordable again. The rich hate being inconvenienced more than anything, and if all these workers moved to cheaper areas they would feel it.
You think only rich people drink coffee and expect to eat off of clean dishes? Really?
Also, what cheaper areas would those be? And why should they have to endure even longer commutes than they already endure?
All of this sounds like you want to punish poor people because they’re poor.
If you’re poor you shouldn’t be getting Starbucks regularly, make your own coffee for cheaper. Cheaper areas are all around, smaller cities across America where your wages stretch farther. Not everyone needs to live in the bay area.
I see, so because people “shouldn’t be” getting Starbucks “regularly,” poor people should commute two hours to get to the job from the apartment they share with five people because that’s all they can afford on the sort of low-wages all such establishments pay. Also, most people can’t make things like caramel macchiatos at home. Because that requires an expensive machine rather than spending a few bucks on coffee, something many people who are not rich can afford.
So this still sounds pretty anti-poor to me. Poor people who work there have to suffer, poor people who want to drink or eat there don’t get to do it.
What kind of world do you live in where Starbucks only have rich clientele who get coffee there every day or every week?
Also, what kind of world do you live in where there also aren’t privately-owned coffee shops?
Good job completely ignoring the point where I said they should move to small cities where they can get a job in the local community and have their wages go farther. I go to college and pay my bills working at a car wash for 15 an hour plus tips. By no means great money but I live within my means and don’t expect to buy overpriced mid coffee. Starbucks works by making poor people think it’s rich people coffee and charging too much for mid drinks, the whole company should go under. Poor people don’t get to do everything they want to do like go out and eat and drink every night, that’s the nature of being poor. Americans need an attitude adjustment and a realization they don’t need to cluster into overpriced cities.
I didn’t ignore it. Expecting the entire service industry of San Francisco to just up and leave is silly, impractical, and they probably can’t afford to since moving is expensive and moving somewhere that you have no guarantee of a job is a good way to end up homeless.
I mean really, you expect a city to function without a service industry? That’s ridiculous.
That’s the point, the people doing the jobs leave, the market fall in turn, and then new people or others return to the lower rates. The only problem is keeping people away the second time around to ensure the process doesn’t need to be repeated. You can move on the cheap, there are ways to do things cheap if you know how.
Why on Earth do you think “every service worker in San Francisco should just move away and find another job and another home somewhere else” is even feasible?
You are talking about at minimum hundreds of thousands of people. Many of the ones who aren’t homeless (and many of them are homeless) don’t have any form of transportation other than public transportation because they’re too poor to afford a car. Are they supposed to walk to another place to get a job?
Do you think maybe there’s a solution that isn’t cruel to pretty much everyone in San Francisco at any income level, but especially the poor? Is there any solution you can possibly come up with that doesn’t involve making poor people walk out of San Francisco until they get to another place and hope they find a job there?
I hate that you’re being downvoted. I don’t agree with everything you say but you are the only one offering solutions. Everyone else is just doing the “oh I see so people should just…” Followed by taking what you said out of context completely. For what it’s worth I think you’re right about people not being able to afford shit like Starbucks should just make their own, fuck that’s what I do. I don’t do shit I can’t afford because I can’t afford it.
So the Starbucks employee should like in eternal squalor and be grateful to barely make ends meet. But hey, those more fortunate needs their expensive coffee too, that money will trickle down any day now.
Starbucks employees shouldn’t be rich, it’s an entry level food service job. People that make a decent living work better jobs, or are good enough at their starbucks jobs that they become manager and move up the chain to the point they can make a decent living.
Yet they still need the ability to pay their rent to work where they’re needed.
Yes, like in a less expensive area, where the wages they get would go a lot farther.
So you end up with no Starbuck in LA.
Ok, where do you live. I want a town name. You tell us where the cheap housing is, and I guarantee that Californians will fuck up your housing market because we have the money to do so. Ask literally anyone in rural America about Californians and the housing prices.