[jamesaguilar]

You implied that they should be paid enough to live in downtown SF, which I think is equivalent to claiming they should be paid more. If not, let's just assume I can come up with some convoluted reason why I'm not talking about their pay either, and we can just stop talking about it.

> Pieces of paper from a broken educational system are not determinant of how much someone can or should make.

Certainly agree with that. The demand for the work you can do and your ability to do the work with quality should be the main determinants. So I guess we'll see how much the city is willing to pay, and how far the BART workers are willing to push them before they just get replaced. Our discussion on the matter is kind of a non-factor.

[nknighthb]

What I implied is that arguing they shouldn't is detached elitism.

You're free to stop talking about anything you want at any time.

[jamesaguilar]

Interesting. Let me get this straight. You claim folks who think bart workers shouldn't get paid more are detached elitists. But, you also aren't actually arguing they should get paid more. That seems like an untenable position to me.

[nknighthb]

"Nonsense" is what the capitalists are spewing: "It's a good life" vs perceived market value. Stick to one or the other. Either it's sufficient that the market work it out, or quality of life matters. Argue one or the other, not both.

[jamesaguilar]

Personally, I think that both should be weighed into the decision, but BART workers are way above average in terms of how their QoL is covered, and as a result should not have that optimized further considering their already over-market pay and the considerable cost to the taxpayer.

[nknighthb]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-08/news/ct-met-ge...

"Way above average"? "over-market"? Are you adjusting for cost of living in your guess or not?

[jamesaguilar]

Above a average for workers with similar background and job difficulty. Not transit workers. Yes, I am just guessing.