Hacker News Reader

Per hour rate seems somewhat misleading given the split shift. There's 15 hours between the start of their work and the end of their work, and the gap in their day is short enough that they often can't make great use of their break. If you were to consider all of that hard-to-use time as time on the job (since the job is the reason it's being underutilized), it would cut their effective rate almost in half.

Imagine someone hired you for a job where they wanted you 10 minutes out of every 20--10 minutes working, 10 minutes off, repeat. You might have a day where you clock 6 hours, but it would essentially be a 12-hour day at a job with a lot of stops and starts. Whatever rate they claimed to pay you would be inflated by two because they were only paying you for half of your time.

I'm guessing something that granular is illegal, but the split shift acts similarly; there's a big difference between working a 9-hour day straight (say with one 45-min meal break) than working a 9-hour day with a 6-hour gap in the middle, so the latter should be more highly compensated.

And so it's not necessarily an economic conundrum. There's no magical market law that says there is no bus-driving labor that could be worth more than $20 per active hour driving. Bus drivers want better compensation (or at least accommodations that make the gaps more useful to them, such as bunk beds). Facebook is surely willing to pay some amount more than they are now to continue the bus service (evidence: increased costs such as SF's new pickup fee have not stopped bus service from growing). So Facebook could pay more due to increased driver compensation or accommodation cost, the drivers could in turn be paid more or be better accommodated, and everyone would be getting more out of the economic deal than they're putting in.

The union would do what unions always do--shift some of the economic surplus that the company is currently enjoying (paying less for the bus service than the value it provides) to the workers.

> The union would do what unions always do--shift some of the economic surplus that the company is currently enjoying (paying less for the bus service than the value it provides) to the workers.

One thing worth mentioning here: if prices are determined by the free market they can serve as a valuable signal to increase or decrease supply in response to demand. It may well be that in the future these bus drivers could serve a more useful purpose elsewhere in society, but the signal to do that would be dampened by artificially high wages to bus drivers. Price signals are the reason our society is relatively efficient compared to, say, the Soviet Union.

In conclusion, I think OP is right, if these bus drivers don't like the compensation they're getting they should look for work somewhere else, just like the rest of us.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/InformationandPrices.html

> In conclusion, I think OP is right, if these bus drivers don't like the compensation they're getting they should look for work somewhere else, just like the rest of us.

Well, Facebook can go and relocate their workers and facilities to places with a lower standard of living and less necessity for private transportation services, right?

It works both ways.

No, it doesn't. You ignored the part about price signals and how valuable they are.

the labor market is not a free market (mainly for the high cost of switching, lack of information, and lack of jobs). Treating it like such is dangerous.

Of course the labor market isn't perfectly free, but it is approximately free, especially in the long run. Price signals do exist. A silly example but it demonstrates the point: if everybody suddenly decided they wanted a massage every day, don't you think the wages for masseuses would go up, ultimately attracting more people to pursue that career? Isn't that a good thing?

> Of course the labor market isn't perfectly free, but it is approximately free

Bullshit, try going to economies that have suffered periods of extended unemployed labor to see how that impacts 5 and 10 years down the line.

Employment is most certainly a social issue and as such is well within the bounds of reasonable regulations, much more so than any commodity.

> Well, Facebook can go and relocate their workers and facilities to places with a lower standard of living and less necessity for private transportation services, right?

They already do.

Facebook has offices in London, New York, Tel-Aviv and (I would assume) other cities as well; it is not because they like the accents - it is because they exhausted their available CA talent pool AT THE PRICE THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY, and therefore have to tap other pools.

I don't understand your argument.

If Facebook locates offices in areas with a high cost of living they need to factor that high cost of living across all their employees - including cleaners, security guards, admin clerks, and other low pay workers. Facebook can't just use national average wage for the type of job for those jobs, Facebook needs to pay for the increased cost of living for all those people.

That is built in to how the world works: They cannot pay middle-of-nowhere-china salaries of $5/day to cleaners and security guards, even though those middle-of-nowhere-china residents are willing to take it because they cannot commute there to do the work (for transportation, legal and other reasons).

If facebook is paying wages that are too low, they will not find employees.

While I definitely agree with the sentiment that jobs should provide a living wage, and I suspect that driving a bus for facebook might not provide that - I think singling out companies that are doing well financially (like Facebook and Google) and asking them to increase pay is hypocritical. If the pay needs to be higher, that should be codified by law.

I would oppose a protest asking Bill Gates (whom I do not particularly like, btw) to pay more at the grocery store for same services as anyone else just because he can, regardless of whether the person at the register is making a living wage or not. And facebook paying drivers more is similar.

But if Bill Gates wnted to empty the grocery store of other customers before he went shopping you would charge him more.

Facebook don't want Muni buses and Muni uus drivers, they want exclusive buses and that creates extra costs which they need to pay for. Here the extra costs come from exclusivity and split shifts.

I don't understand the relevance. They are not monopolizing muni busses and muni drivers. On the contrary, they are creating more venues (Bill Gates would pay someone to run his own private grocery in this awfully-stretched-and-no-longer-fitting analogy).

They are happy to pay for the extra costs - but not more than they need to. Now, the question is "how much do they need to pay for that" - and historically, this answer is reached by matching supply and demand subject to regulations.

The bus drivers might want to increase the price (by reducing supply - that is, in fact, a union's leverage). Facebook might counter by hiring a different bus company.

If the wage is not livable, they will not find drivers because those drivers need to eat. If the wage is livable and there are willing employees - why should they pay more? "Because they can" is an answer I personally find unacceptable.

Anything hinting at free association that isn't a direct propaganda line of statism will get you hellbanned on HN. Beware.

A Union Rep. Its something, I imagine, people who have never been in a Union have no real concept off. As an employee you have onsite representation. All the grey area nonsense that people in many industries deal with fades away when you have a clear, detailed and most importantly enforceable contractual agreement of what your employment does and does not include.

When your boss tells you that you have to do something, you can text your Rep and ask them. It sounds simple but it is really incredible peace of mind to have. They might say "I know it stinks but you do", but at least you have that peace of mind knowing that you are working within the bounds of the contract you and your fellow workers agreed to.

I think the crux of the issue is that $20 an hour is not enough to live anywhere near SF in those areas. Combined with the split shift, this means that basically 16 hours a day of these people's lives are booked.

So even if these people were willing to work 2 fulltime jobs to cover this issue (an idea so absurd anywhere outside of America we should be ashamed), they can't because of the hours.

1 solution is to hire two sets of drivers (allowing these people to find another part- or full-time job to compensate). Another is to pay them more for the split shift issue (not to mention the large quality of life impact from the schedule).

This is _not_ an ideal job for anybody.

"I think the crux of the issue is that $20 an hour is not enough to live anywhere near SF in those areas. Combined with the split shift, this means that basically 16 hours a day of these people's lives are booked."

So don't live there!

It's not like there isn't a huge country here.

If people go take jobs elsewhere, the price people are willing to pay to get people to take these jobs here will go up.

If not there is a glut of people willing to take these jobs at almost any price, in which case, honestly, you can't solve this problem (and it is likely we will, in the not too distant future, soon have too many people for all possible jobs that people are needed for)

This idea that people have a magical right to simultaneously live wherever they want, and get paid enough to live comfortably there is somewhat ridiculous and impossible to fulfill. There will always be places that are more expensive due to demand. It's not like this is the first time in history (even of the US!) this has ever happened. What happens is people go instead where they can afford to live. Then either pay goes up to attract people to the high demand area, or it becomes less in demand.

If i could not afford to live in the bay area with what the bay area was willing to pay me, i would move somewhere cheaper.

There are plenty of jobs in the US that are ready for the taking, pay reasonable rates, and are in places that are affordable. People often just consider themselves too good to take them.

I see you're getting downvoted, but you are absolutely right. If the wages for job X in location Y are too low to be affordable, people will either relocate or find a new job, causing the wages for job X in location Y to increase. I don't see a good reason to interfere with this process.

There is a simple reason: human beings are not fungible. The economy should serve people, not the other way around.

I think you missed the point. I am arguing that a union would benefit bus drivers at the expense of all other people.

And your proposed solution is what?

let's replace "Bay Area" with something else with limited land: "Hawaii".

Imagine Hawaii is the next place everyone wants to live.

A billion people want to live there in fact (choose any number that makes you comfortable believing it's not simply a "build more housing units" problem), some who have already been there a long time, some who haven't.

This drives the cost of living up. Some people now can't afford to live there. Some of these folks have been there a long time. Some of them have not.

What solution is there to this problem other than "somebody doesn't get to live in Hawaii"?

I appreciate you and DannyBee's comments. It is disheartening to me that basic economics is treated here as right wing propaganda. Mainstream economics won against all other theories academically. Yet many otherwise educated people are unaware of fundamentals such as the welfare theorems (or dismiss them out of hands with "muh frictions").

Thanks! Here's my economic explanation for why people don't understand economics or have intelligent political opinions in general: there's just no incentive to. Understanding economics is hard, and for the individual there's really no penalty for not understanding it. This is why you have otherwise brilliant people who just don't seem to understand basic supply and demand. Not saying this is true in every case, some people just have a different opinion of the tradeoffs involved, e.g. they're willing to accept slower economic growth in exchange for less creative destruction.

My hope is that this becomes less and less true as people become more mobile. Imagine if you could just teleport to a political jurisdiction that is more aligned with your opinions. Suddenly, the penalty for not understanding economics could be very high.

Have to disagree with you there. Educated people tend to be well informed and hold sensible opinions on global warming, vaccination, and education (and often hold silly opinions on nutrition, even though there is a very strong incentive). Economics is unique as something where people disdain the mainstream.

One notable difference (you can see it in this thread) is that people assume economists are somehow different from other academics. That academics in general can be trusted, but economists are sellouts. What they miss is that there is no significant difference between Economics as a field, and other fields. They get paid slightly more, but otherwise the journals, professional organizations, tenure committees, etc. are exactly the same. There is literally no point where the capitalist comes along with bags of money for his obedient intellectual servants.

The real reason people don't accept the mainstream is that it is very dismal. It says that your revealed preference proves that you value a cup of coffee in every morning over the life of an African (since you could donate that money to life saving charities). It says that inequality can't be fully ironed out because some people are more productive than others. It says that there is no way to shuffle around interest rates, bank accounts, etc. and make everyone better off. It says that there is no easy way to make the world better, because the free market has already maxed out the easy gains.

Personally, I think that the best way to encourage people to be more open to the mainstream, is to tell the other side of the store. Economics is also uplifting. It says that when you work for a company, you are creating value, and that that value can and does help people other than yourself (through the tax system). I also believe that tech has very large positive externalities (especially once you understand that taking people's jobs isn't an externality). Finally, it enables people to embrace the positive, self-affirming aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, without going to extremes. I do feel guilty that I don't do more for the people who are worst off. But at least I can enjoy my money, and my life, without feeling guilty that I'm driving some artist out of the current trendy area.

I think that given the right incentives, people will learn something even if it is dismal and boring, like economics is for a lot of people. I'm sure you can think of some examples. However, as I said in the post above, there is no incentive to understand economics, because there is no penalty for having a stupid political opinion, and really no reward for having a well-informed opinion.

Except that "Basic economics" has a series of prerequisites that people like DannyBee are ignoring.

Free Markets are only efficient with perfect information, fluidity, and lots of jobs (Necessary but not sufficient). Labor markets are almost never as fluid or with enough supply to make them efficient in the way people seem to imply.

Misapplying economic theories has led to so much misinformed political thought in the past century I almost wish we stop talking about supply and demand in schools (joking, but only slightly).

Labor markets are inefficient, that's the primary reason the field of "Labor Econoimcs" exists.

However, these inefficiencies do not explain why Facebook bus drivers make so little. Classical economics is sufficient for that.

You cannot simply point to frictions as a get-out-of-jail-free card from classical economics.

Likewise, you cannot simply hand wave away prerequisites if they're big enough. The friction here is enormous (the cost to move to another city can be extremely large).

"the cost to move to another city can be extremely large"

In what sense? Monetarily, i don't believe you. Emotionally, sure.

The argument was that people should move to a cheaper city if being a Facebook bus driver can't support them.

But that doesn't imply that Facebook is forcing people to move cities. Facebook isn't altering the labor market by employing drivers at market rates.

I hope you'll agree that the frictions from moving arise from changes in cost of living (or in the labor market, which doesn't appear to be changing). If the change in the housing market is gradual enough, the frictions need not be very significant, since they are amortized over a longer period of time.

"Except that "Basic economics" has a series of prerequisites that people like DannyBee are ignoring. "

I actually don't believe free markets are particularly efficient, and labor markets certainly aren't.

But I also don't believe you can magically provide a way to make it feasible for everyone to stay exactly where they are, for as long as they like, regardless of job market, housing, etc.

At a base level, as you can see in a lot of the replies, it comes down to "people believe that if they've been somewhere long enough, they now have a right to stay there as long as they like, and anything else is harsh and mean".

Even if i thought this was right, I doubt you can find an economic model that allows this to happen, and can survive long term (and as evidence i offer that, in the history of civilization, nobody has accomplished this).

If you can, great! I'd love for it to be the case that people can always afford to live where they like, no matter what.

>At a base level, as you can see in a lot of the replies, it comes down to "people believe that if they've been somewhere long enough, they now have a right to stay there as long as they like, and anything else is harsh and mean".

>Even if i thought this was right, I doubt you can find an economic model that allows this to happen, and can survive long term (and as evidence i offer that, in the history of civilization, nobody has accomplished this).

Insurance against changes in housing prices might let people avoid the effects of gentrification much longer. Imagine a bond that pays the difference between the current average rental rate and some "strike price" $X (when this difference is positive).

So basically you're saying that if a family has lived in an area for many years (possibly several generations), and are gradually being priced out of the ability to exist and work, they should just move on somewhere else, breaking long established ties with friends and family?

That's pretty harsh and selfish outlook about the lives and welfare of working families who will never see anywhere near the six figure salaries being earned by FB, Google et al engineers.

You're right, something like this could cause friends and family to have to separate. Creative destruction sucks, but I would argue that the benefits to society are worth it. I can't fault you for having a different opinion on the tradeoff though.

Possible alternative to unionizing every low-wage job: lobby the city to remove barriers to building additional housing, so fewer people will need to move.

It's a common refrain from right wing commentators. It has always seemed to me a very anti-human position though. When people move they lose the support network of their friends and family and community. That network can be crucial to them in all sorts of ways - helping to find a job if they become unemployed, helping out in times of financial hardship, helping them during periods of illness or depression. In many ways it's just about the worst thing a person can do for their economic future.

"It's a common refrain from right wing commentators."

FWIW: I'm as left wing as they come. Really.

I think you mistake my opinion that "folks should move to where they can afford to live" with a lack of empathy. I actually have very strong empathy for folks in this kind of situation (having had family members in it myself!)

I just don't see a viable alternative here that actually works long term.

Also

"When people move they lose the support network of their friends and family and community."

This is complete and utter bullshit in most cases. It's simply rhetoric with no support. Especially in this day and age of easily available instant communication and social media.

(For reference: I have had severely depressed people in my family who i have supported through their depression, so i actually have some experience in this area. )

"In many ways it's just about the worst thing a person can do for their economic future."

Really? You should probably tell this to all the people who don't end up living near their parents after college ...

Seriously though, you do not offer any evidence of this assertion at all, and all available data i've seen points to the opposite. My ex-wife was the first of her many-generation family to leave the area they lived in. First to go to college. Family pushed her very hard to relocate back to the same area after college. But if she had, that would have been the worst thing she could have done for economic future. Instead she moved somewhere with a better job market for her skill set, and saved money.

Meanwhile, other folks in her family who stayed behind where they couldn't afford to, and where good-paying jobs are hard to get, are now having serious trouble making ends meet. Family can only help you so much here.

So basically you're saying that asking someone to pay market prices for their house and food, and to accept market prices for the job they are doing is harsh and selfish? Because it seems to me that is what you are saying. If not, please explain better.

And if so, please explain why I, having no family in SF, should be given less consideration than someone who grew up there (possibly several generations). There shouldn't be any interstate barriers (and even if there were - assume I grew up in San Diego. Now what?)

"So basically you're saying that if a family has lived in an area for many years (possibly several generations), and are gradually being priced out of the ability to exist and work, they should just move on somewhere else, breaking long established ties with friends and family?"

You do realize you live where you do solely because this has happened in the past, right?

"That's pretty harsh and selfish outlook about the lives and welfare of working families who will never see anywhere near the six figure salaries being earned by FB, Google et al engineers."

I do not consider it a harsh and selfish outlook that people should try to live where they can make ends meet. My parents did it. My great great grandparents did it too.

I did it myself. People move over time. Some generation in your family moved for exactly this reason. Probably many.

There is literally no way everyone in the world can afford to live in the same area. It is not an viable proposition.

The fact that people before you lived somewhere gives you no more right than the next guy to live there.

Your posts on this thread are quite strange. It's almost as if you are in complete ignorance of the most fundamental criticisms of capitalism. I'm not saying you have to agree with them, but it's bizarre that you are wildly thrashing about in confusion over topics that have been well discussed for over a century. The position of the workers here is not new, neither is their argument, but you have never encountered it before?

You seem to be implicitly assuming that the corporation will fight for their position, and that there is nothing wrong with that. When workers do the same suddenly you are left in shock and disgust. Why is that?

If Facebook wants to hire cheaper bus drivers, then they should just relocate to a cheaper area, right?

> If Facebook wants to hire cheaper bus drivers, then they should just relocate to a cheaper area, right?

If they couldn't find them, or were unable to do so by laws (e.g. minimum wage), then - yes, they should. And in fact many companies move as a result of regulations or a talent pool that becomes too expensive.

What exactly is your argument? That the drivers are right? (I don't have an opinion) That the fight is legitimate? (Yes, the fight is legitimate, but it is also legitimate for facebook to say "forget it, we'll get someone else to drive our buses". You can only afford to fight if you can afford to lose)

"The position of the workers here is not new, neither is their argument, but you have never encountered it before?"

Of course I have. It hasn't made actual sense for a very long time, however.

"You seem to be implicitly assuming that the corporation will fight for their position, and that there is nothing wrong with that. When workers do the same suddenly you are left in shock and disgust. Why is that?"

Because the corporation is already competing for talent in the other direction (very much so in fact!), but when it's the workers that need to compete, their answer is to complain that their is competition?

"If Facebook wants to hire cheaper bus drivers, then they should just relocate to a cheaper area, right?"

Sure, this is a viable alternative to me as well. Companies often do move when it becomes economically infeasible to stay where they are.

don't understand what this has to do with facebook moving. they'd just hire another bus contractor if the current one got too expensive

What about city centre hospitals. They need a bunch of low pay staff. Should those low pay staff all live a two hour commute away?

In London many nurses and firefighters servicing inner London experience worse problems. Their commutes are up to four hours away causing them to sleep in their cars between shifts. They're basically priced out of the City and it's too expensive to drive home each night.

Sure it'd be easier to suggest they get work closer to home but real life doesn't work out that way.

It is fundamentally oppressive and undemocratic to deny free men the chance to voluntary come together to collectively bargain for their rights.

This collective bargaining is called a union.

What is your problem with a group of people choosing to organize this way?

It is fundamentally oppressive and undemocratic to deny free men the chance to voluntary come together to collectively set the prices for the services they're selling.

This collective bargaining is called price-fixing.*

This isn't a clear-cut issue of rights that can be settled on principle. Workers have been given the right to collectively fix prices through unions not because it's a fundamental freedom, but because it has been recognised that employees negotiate from a position of relative weakness to their employer.

> If it's really a problem for the employees, isn't that where the free labor market would allow them to quit their job and look for something more in tune with their preferences?

A free labor market would certainly allow workers to unionize to leverage their power and pursue their own capitalist goals by whatever means the market allows them. A free labor market should recognize the workers as important actors in that market. I'm not sure why unions seem like such an appalling idea to capitalist idealists.

Because "capitalist idealists" is usually a covert concept for oligarch's ideals.

> I'm not sure why unions seem like such an appalling idea to capitalist idealists.

For the same reason capitalism was named "capitalism" by its critics (a name later adopted by its supporters) -- because it is a system in which society is ordered to serve the interests of capitalists first and foremost.

I think that when people argue against unions, they are usually implicitly arguing against the moral duty of the company to concede to the unions demands, or to allow the union to form (assuming they could legally prevent the union from forming). They are not arguing against the right of the union to try to achieve better wages or conditions, or arguing it is immoral to do so.

It is quite easy to be a principled proponent of free markets, no matter who they benefit in a particular instance. It is quite a stretch to say that anyone who claims to adhere to this principle is really an agent of the capitalists.

I'm not making a generalization about people who are opposed to unions (much less your clever interpretation about what people who are opposed yo unions are really opposed to, though I don't think that that interpretation is at all consistent with as NY of the anti-union arguments I've ever heard, much less a reasonable description of the general basis of such opposition). I was making a generaluzation about "capitalist idealists" and what it means to be one.

> I have a really hard time understanding the union's position. The problem is stated by the CEO of the contracting company very clearly

I think it boils down to this. The union's position is not thoroughly explained, while the author seems to have very good access to the contracting company's CEO.

That the CEO has poor opinion of union's request and present facts in a positive light for his company is a given. Now we need the other side's arguments explained first hand.