How do you find a job, when you have literally 0-day you can spend without working?
Are there really than many jobs for people who flip burgers in Lincoln, Nebraska?
And are people who flip burgers in Nebraska so much better?
EDIT: (Because the preceding was hatsher than it had to be without explicit statement of the upside) The point is, if their skill set and ability to advance is little beyond flipping burgers, their cost of living will leave them far better off economically long term in middle American heartland than being forever at the margin of poverty, propped up by municipal welfare in high cost coastal cities.
If it's anything like the mentally ill streaming into SF in some parts of recent history, they are shipped there by outside localities (lots of that's happened with one-way bus tickets for homeless in various directions on the west coast, too, aside from Nevada shipping mentally ill to SF.)
> But let's be charitable: we can fund a one-way ticket back, first class, to their state of residence at a vastly cheaper cost than for housing them on expensive land they will never be productive enough to work their way out of
Which is a good way to collapse wages and overwhelm infrastructure, both physical and social, in the place they get shipped (which won't be their “state of residence” in most cases, since that's where they are now), but I don't see how that solves any problem.
NYC has 10% of the entire USA's homeless population. Significantly more if you count the (probably large) percentage of the 635,000 or so in public housing who will almost never be able to afford even rent-stabilized apartments, and it is estimated that another 50% of that number live in that public housing off-lease.
About 10% - 15% of NYC homeless are formally listed as last address "outside NYC". But that likely vastly undercounts, because people might have had a relative or friend where they crashed for a few months, weeks... just long enough to get addresses for a few ids/bills to be switched over.
There simply isn't any more cheap land with good public transit infrastructure for new low cost housing, a huge low-skilled (often illegal) immigrant population, and no one wants to face reality.
A train or bus from the Bay Area to Nebraska will run around $100. That’s around the same amount as Bay Area rent costs for just the time spent on the train/bus during the trip.
> How do you find a job?
To start, “Help Wanted” signs and odd jobs in the usual places (e.g. Home Depot). Then, network or use free internet at public libraries to search for something better.
> Are there really many jobs for burger flippers?
There are fewer jobs, but also fewer people attempting to get them.
> Are people who flip burgers in Nebraska so much better?
Of course not. But they live in a place where population has held steady (graying) instead of growing wildly, where there’s plenty of land, and plenty of housing stock on that land, so housing takes 25% of the burger flipping paycheck instead of 75% (don’t forget commuting time in the cost of housing). As a result, their standard of living is higher.
The Bay Area, or any high cost area for that matter, is a great place in which to save 20% of one’s income and a terrible one in which to live paycheck-to-paycheck 0%.
Children and family/friends who are around to support you and also sometimes watch your children are often a reason. Could someone move themselves and their two children? Yes, it would cost $300 (to start). Then you'd need to find a place where all three of you could live before you've actually even found a job. This short-term place to live would likely be a motel, meaning you'd likely be unable to cook and spending more on food to feed yourself and your family. Then you need to figure out child care because you've lost the support network of family (and friends) who were living near you.
Physical mobility, moving from state to state, in this country is often much harder than the simplistic viewpoint people seem to give it.
If your perspective is that of a single individual with no dependents (even if you're poor) then you're going to think that physical mobility is relatively easy and everyone should be able to do it.
If your perspective is that of an individual with dependents then you're going to think that physical mobility could quickly become a challenge if you can't afford the upfront costs and short to mid term costs after you've moved and need to "settle" yourself.
There are a lot of, "Sure, but..." responses that usually come about with this type of discussion. "Sure, but why couldn't they temporarily go into debt? Their long-term earnings would put them in a better place eventually." and "Sure, but why aren't they applying for food and/or housing assistance or other programs at the location they're planning to move to." or "Sure, but why couldn't they have family watch their kids while they go to the new place and get setup."
The reality is those perspectives are from someone educated enough to understand economics, government programs and how the system works, and someone with a supportive well functioning family. All of which someone working a food-service job is unlikely to have.
Don't make assumptions.
They can move. My reality is of a first-generation immigrant. My parents did not have degrees and worked minimum wage jobs. They moved multiple times when it became financially unfeasible to live somewhere.
It wasn't fun, it sucked a lot actually, but we did what we had to do, not what we wanted to do.
He's not handwaving anything. He's not promising anything, either. If someone wants guarantees, they've got the wrong mindset. It's all about managing probabilities.
>It's totally reasonable to think that a family with kids who moves to Nebraska is still going to be food insecure.
And it's totally reasonable to think that low income people who stay in SV will remain food insecure.
>If I'm an unskilled worker and I can live in the bay area near my family, where I'm comfortable, where I have friends and I'm food insecure or I can go move out to the Midwest where I have none of that and I'm still food insecure because now I have the added costs of childcare, less public transportation options, etc. AND I have none of the support network I had around SV then there's no way I'm moving.
Thank you for phrasing it as a choice. Just please own the outcomes of your choices!
Don't treat staying as a "default". Think of it as two choices (many, in reality, of course), and you are actively choosing one. So own the difficulties you will have while food insecure.
Advice often given to me in life, that I'm sure you've heard: If you're in a bad state, things are not going to change unless you do something about it. Granted, that something may make your life worse, but not doing much about it is usually a guarantee that things won't improve.
I'm not understanding some of this thread. Are people seriously looking for some kind of guaranteed solution? Most serious decisions - the major you pick, the school you go to, the city you live in, the job you decide to take - have attached to them a risk that your life may be worse if you follow through. When I was quitting my first job because of poor management and the work conditions, almost everyone tried to discourage me with your type of question: "Well what if you take that other job and it turns out even worse?" I just couldn't understand the question: So if your job sucks you will just sit and hope for better management?
It sounds like you're saying that something there is important to them, so they choose to stay. We all make choices and live with consequences.
> but moving would only make those circumstances worse
How can anyone be sure of that? But let's say it's true that moving anywhere else would make their situation worse. Then what are they upset about? They're already in the best place, aren't they?
Yes, I guess that's basically my point. Many in this thread are talking about "options" and "choices" but really what we're talking about is an option that's better for these families than the status quo. No one cares that there's a million things that could make these families worse off, we're here figuring out what could make their lives better. What I'm saying is that for most of these families the option: "moving to Nebraska" belongs in the million pointless worse off options bucket and not in the life-improving options bucket. Even when you speak of "consequences" you mean the negative effects of their decision not to move to Nebraska, but I'm saying that not moving to Nebraska doesn't have that many negative consequences because moving to Nebraska is a totally shit option for most people.
>How can anyone be sure of that? But let's say it's true that moving anywhere else would make their situation worse. Then what are they upset about? They're already in the best place, aren't they?
You don't understand why someone trapped in the cycle of poverty would be upset? Why someone who has to go to a food bank every week to get by would look at the incredibly wealthy citizens of the city they inhabit and be a bit peeved? Are you familiar with poverty? Are you human?
OK, this is interesting. One source of fundamental disagreement between people in this thread seems to be that some people are looking at options that are currently available, and some people want better options. I'm more in the first group because life is short and I don't want to wait in a bad situation for years in the hopes that someone somewhere will provide some totally new option that I'm really pleased with. Of course it goes without saying I want better options to be available for everyone. But that takes time.
> You don't understand why someone trapped in the cycle of poverty would be upset?
Yes, of course I do. I'm sorry if I made my point badly. It's just that you say moving anywhere else would make their situation worse. I don't accept that at all, but if it's true, then they're already in the best place for them to be. What do you want? Instant worldwide elimination of poverty no matter what choices people make?
They're upset because they're food-insecure. Did... did you forget how this whole conversation started?
My family had strong ties to Yugoslavia, until NATO bombed it, so we moved to Germany. We had strong ties to Germany, until it seemed likely that our temporary refugee visas weren't going to get extended, so we moved to the USA. We had strong ties to Washington DC, but it was too expensive. We ended up in Roanoke, VA.
You do what you need to do for your family. Life is about making choices and sacrifices. It's not anyone's responsibility to improve your life, you need to do that. These people cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive regions in the world, so they need to move.
You repeatedly phrase your family as being different from these people, your family knew what to do and made temporary sacrifices for a better long term success right? And these families just lack the grit or determination or smarts or whatever of your family right? Have you considered these families are doing the same thing as your parents? That they're making the same calculations your parents made but that the Bay area is still a better scenario for them? That your family isn't really that different from these families?
Moving from a SV Chipotle to a Lincoln Chipotle is great until I try to figure out what to do with my 2 year old son and realize all the gains I've made and more will be eaten up by childcare bills that my mom/grandma in SV could have done for free.
Moving isn't some inherent good that magically makes you better off, it's a calculation: just because your parent's calculation came up with "Move" doesn't mean these people doing the exact same calculation are going to come up with "Move."
Can I borrow that crystal ball of yours?
You're acting as if you/they have complete information about what life in Lincoln/elsewhere will entail.
A lot of your comments are simply loss aversion. Focusing on what you may lose, not on what you may gain.
Congratulations, you're now broke, homeless, jobless, with weak creditworthiness, no connections to local private and public support in Nebraska, needing to somehow acquire food, shelter, and some mechanism of paying for it.
You scrounge and save up or work odd jobs and get enough to move.
> How do you find a job, when you have literally 0-day you can spend without working?
There are plenty of jobs. They're not very good jobs, or jobs that most people want to do, but life isn't always about doing what you want. If you cannot afford to live somewhere, you need to move.
> And are people who flip burgers in Nebraska so much better?
My parents worked jobs equivalent to that in Washington D.C. It became impossible, so they moved to southern Virginia. You can live in southern Virginia on minimum wage jobs. There was food on the table every night, and a roof above our heads.
It sucked, don't get me wrong, but we managed.
Who takes care of her child while she does this? Does the kid go to child care? How does the single parent pay for the child care? Does she need to get a third job to pay for the expense of her second job? What happens when the car she takes to work breaks down, and wipes out her savings? What about when she gets sick because she's working two or three jobs, and is exhausted?
I dunno, I think your plan of "everybody who's poor should just move to an area where minimum wage jobs are sufficient to live" is a little poorly thought out.
"Change what they're doing" is far more effective than the vast majority of any government policy position. If you continue to subsidize these people by taxing those on the upper-income brackets and redistributing the wealth, you will simply prolong the problem.
The issue is that SV is far too expensive to live in unless you work in tech, law, finance, etc. If you don't, you need to move to somewhere where you can actually lead at least a semi-comfortable life, and where you can put yourself and your family in a position to succeed.
My proposal is that they do everything they can possibly do to better their position in life. If it means taking a second job, then they should take a second job. Are you asking me for specifics?
Here is how my parents did it when they couldn't afford daycare: My father worked 3rd shift (through the night) and my mother worked 2nd shift (afternoon-evening). This meant that I was alone with my sister in the morning/afternoon - i.e. the hours during which we were at school.
As I understand it, this woman is single, so even less income, which means an even greater reason to GTFO one of the most expensive places in the world.
>"everybody who's poor should just move to an area where minimum wage jobs are sufficient to live"
As opposed to your solution? You realize that California is one of the most liberal states in the US, right? You've been throwing policy at the wall for years now, yet you still have not managed to fix this problem, and it fact it continues to get worse each year.
Yes, because there's a specific example in the article that your solution doesn't do anything to address, and when I brought up that your solution doesn't do anything to address that example all you did was show me more examples that are irrelevant. So yes, I am asking you for specifics.
How could anyone here answer that question? It's not specific enough to answer. Could it be difficult to do? Yes. Are you trying to claim it's impossible, that people are actually truly trapped? It's not impossible, they are not truly trapped.