[istvan__]

It does not help that some of their maintenance staff is on 200K/y salary. Last time I have checked their wages it was pretty obvious that some of the staff is overpaid greatly. I also know some anecdotal stories about how employees exploiting the company.

[dogecoinbase]

Wow, with wages like those they might actually be able to afford to live in the city they work in!

[hugh4]

It's neither realistic nor desirable that maintenance workers in San Francisco should live in San Francisco. Any more than the cleaners at the Hilton should live in the Hilton.

San Francisco is a small expensive area within a large metropolis, it's not that tricky to commute from somewhere a lot cheaper.

[SamReidHughes]

Um, sorry, but it certainly is desirable that people be able to find an affordable short commute.

[hugh4]

Sure, it's desirable for them. In the same way that it's desirable to own a Ferrari.

However, more broadly speaking, it is neither necessary or desirable for everyone to own a Ferrari.

Given that a place in SF costs many times more than a Ferrari nowadays, I don't think it's an inapt analogy.

[SamReidHughes]

You don't think what's an inapt analogy? Wait, your Ferrari analogy that you made in the same post?

And it is indeed a great analogy because it shows how wrong you are -- having advanced cars that can rapidly accelerate to freeway speeds be affordable is a very desirable thing, and the fact that a Honda Civic of today is a vastly superior automobile to a Ferrari of the past (or better yet, a Volvo of the past) is a triumph of modernity. You think what, cars are too good?

Likewise, the fact that many people of today find that the best way to live involves throwing years of their lives away on a long commute is a human tragedy, and thinking that it's not desirable for this to be fixed is equally brain-damaged as thinking people shouldn't have good cars.

[MiddleEndian]

In what way is it not desirable for everyone to at least have the option of shorter commutes?

[istvan__]

I know people live in this city and having a lower wage...

[argonaut]

Nobody is entitled to live in the city they work in.

[jdavis703]

Rights are an arbitrary idea. Simply emphasizing that something is or isn't a right is tantamount to writing a fictional book. Even something as literally life altering as whether your own government (assuming you live in a democracy) can rightfully kill you or not is arbitrarily decided [0].

0: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/10/former-navy-c...

[argonaut]

Look. I work in the SOMA neighborhood of SF. That doesn't give me the right to live there (and I don't - it's too expensive, so I live in the south bay).

[venomsnake]

And as we saw with the recent refugee crisis no one is entitles to live at all. But if we strive to build a good society for whatever reason, one of the optimum solutions is to mix people of different backgrounds and paths of life together to enhance the social mobility.

[argonaut]

I didn't say people are not entitled to live.

[colordrops]

Depends on your philosophy, ideology, religion, and politics.

[organsnyder]

Why not? Is a living wage really a luxury?

[argonaut]

That's a false equivalence. I never said nobody is entitled to a living wage. If SF is too expensive, live in Oakland or Milbrae or Daly City.