• maniclucky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Quick trip down the consequences of “servers should not expect to be able to live in a city”, as is your implied thesis.

    How many jobs exist in a city that are in this category? That is to say lower paying. Servers, sanitation people of assorted kind, transport, teachers, etc. How do you expect a city to function without them? People with low wages are also the people that may struggle to afford a commute.

    This idea is very “having your cake and eating it too”. A city needs to accommodate lower wage individuals or it will crumble. This neglects the expected basic living conditions for any given person.

      • maniclucky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Oh no. I mean waiters too. You want that nice restaurant? It’s gotta have staff. Gas stations and corner stores? Need staff. Every shop you go in needs staff and they aren’t going to be paid decent wages generally. Why are temp workers being excluded from being allowed in a city? Plenty of places need people on a temporary basis and plenty of people need such work.

        Your second point ignores the problem I’m pointing out. Rent must be limited in some way so that all the people the city runs on can live and work there. Given the gratuitous mass of people in a city, the incentive for investment and development will always be there. I’ll need a citation for the idea that an affordable city doesn’t get money from such things. That argument reeks of “greed justifying why it’s OK to have impractical and inhumane conditions”. There are more metrics than money.