return2ozmaCalifornia Bill Would Require Landlords to Accept Pets
Yeather“Goolsby now has four dogs, seven cats, a fish and a bird.”
The woman in the article has over 10 animals. This isn’t a renters vs landlords thing this is an irresponsible pet owner.
Flying SquidTo be fair, right after that, the article says:
Haney said his legislation would likely limit the number of pets landlords must accept and allow landlords to require pet liability insurance. Details on how many pets would be covered under the bill are still being worked out.
But I also don’t think this bill is worth giving a shit about when people without pets can’t even afford to rent.
That’s true, I think it’s disengenuous of the article to try and play both sides here. Luckily I don’t live in the hell hole that is San Fransisco.
Whether you do or not, people have to because that’s where the jobs are. And they can’t afford to. And that’s the real problem.
Learn to plumb or be an electrician. Both are very in demand and pay well.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Do you think everyone in San Francisco can be a plumber or an electrician?
People need to do things like work the espresso machine at Starbucks because, at least for now, we don’t have robots to do it. And they can’t afford to live in the city.
No, not everyone in San Fransisco can be an electrician or plumber, but the many that are complaining about high prices of rent can learn a trade and move to lower cost areas where the pay is good. The people working Starbucks espresso machines are in the same boat. If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
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.
KingJalopy 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.
It’s fine. Lemmy is mostly a commie safehaven, i dont really care abt the downvotes it’s just nice watching them seethe.
Nobodies seething talking to the dumb college kid who gets all his political views from daddy.
LOL nobody is as angry as a conservative. Nobody on the planet is so full of hate as a conservative.
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 highly implore you reread my posts. To clarify again, people who currently cannot afford to live in San Fransisco should not live there. If that includes every Starbucks barista than so be it, but many make ends meet snd live within their means. The extras, or leftovers, who cannot rent a place, and are not making enough to cover rent in the bay area, should move away to places where their wages go farther and they can afford.
people who currently cannot afford to live in San Fransisco should not live there.
Again, how do you expect someone who can’t afford a bus ticket, let alone a car, because their income is really low, to move somewhere else? Because it sill sounds like you expect poor people to walk to another place and hope they can find a job there.
m-p{3}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.
This person lives in the middle of nowhere to the extent that it’s surprising that they have internet access. This person has never been near a city of more than 100,000 people and just watches TV nonstop while complaining about how horrible people are who live in different places and in different ways.
Currently in a city of ~330,000. Sitting comfortably and watching youtube.
City lol
You’re not a city until you hit 1m. Until then you’re a large town with an inflated ego.
“You’re not a city until you hit 1m.” So what you’re saying is there are only 9 cities in the entire United States? I think you have your definitions wrong, or you live in New York / Los Angeles and have no clue what most of the US is like.
Worse: there are really only three cities in the US: NYC, San Fran, and Chicago. They are the only ones that meet the definition that people around the world accept as being a city. The rest of the US is just large towns unless you’re going to argue that Omaha is like Paris somehow.
There is in fact no generally agreed uppon definition of a city. Most people would call Boston a city, but it only has 675k people. Most people wouldn’t call Wells a city, but the British do. Most people would call London a city, but not the British. Generally, a city is a defined area with more density than surrounding areas over 100,000 people, and a significant other factor, be it cultural, administrative, or historical.
On your second point, the US has nine cities over the 1 million mark according to the 2020 census. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, and Dallas. Boston is number 25 with 675k.
Good riddance
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.