“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.

To 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.

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.