|
On June 30 2015 04:59 andyrau wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 04:49 Plansix wrote:On June 30 2015 04:47 CorsairHero wrote:
andy is talking about public transit janitors
not high tech firms He is also talking about the most expensive city in the country that is fucking FAT on tech money. I need to see where they number came from before I will believe that San Fran is paying 75K per mop in public transit. i'm talking about the median salaries of public transit trains aka BART. in my original post I didn't really feel I needed to mention the name cause nobody would recognize it anyways outside of the area, and those inside the area know what I'm talking about. your articles are citing average janitorial salaries in bay area companies. http://www.mercurynews.com/bart/ci_23742276/bart-workers-paychecks-already-outpace-their-peershttp://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/10/09/phil-matier-plenty-willing-to-work-for-current-bart-wages/http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area/2012look under 'bay area rapid transit', then 'car cleaning', then 'foreworker' this isn't an opinion, it's a fact. median income in the bay area is around 60 grand and with that in mind these employees are far overpaid for what their job requires. not that I'm upset about their incomes but asking for a raise is a bit egregious. yes, the median income is skewed by the tech yuppies but there's also a lot of people that live on paycheck to paycheck. also it's perfectly possible to get by in the area on 50 grand a year. prices are high but not outrageous; maybe within city limits (specifically sf) and select areas where distinguished schools are located do you really need a higher salary. don't blame everything on the average wage earner in the silicon valley pls read and research b4 flames ty
If you look at the articles you linked, the average janitor gets 51K a year, which is not 75K. And the raises they wanted are 3% per year for 4 years plus some reworked health and pension. That seems fine for the most expensive city in the country. Also, that last part is fact too.
|
a quick google search indicates that that is not actually fact
unless maybe you cherry pick atherton or something, where i'm sure none of those workers are living
well sf and sj are up there but... if youve lived there you'd know the average doesnt tell the whole story... east san jose looks quite different from the rest, etc
|
If you let each of NYC burrows be its own city, then Manhattan wins every time. If you take NYC as a whole, then San Francisco wins.
|
who even wants to live in the city though its so windy and overcast and full of yuppies
|
16 degrees C would be pretty nice right now but then again the traffic is AWFUL from what i hear
|
On June 30 2015 04:18 Targe wrote:
its hard to imagine a city without extensive public transport
i'd like to introduce you to phoenix
|
i was thinking as opposed to farther south in the bay rather than as opposed to anywhere else in the world
traffic can be awful depending on where you live but its not as bad a shitfuck as la in general anyhow
|
On June 30 2015 05:23 tehh4ck3r wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 04:18 Targe wrote:
its hard to imagine a city without extensive public transport i'd like to introduce you to phoenix
you can afford to buy a house with a 2 or 3 car garage for pennies (relatively speaking)
|
On June 30 2015 05:25 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 05:23 tehh4ck3r wrote:On June 30 2015 04:18 Targe wrote:
its hard to imagine a city without extensive public transport i'd like to introduce you to phoenix you can afford to buy a house with a 2 or 3 car garage for pennies (relatively speaking)
driving everywhere sux
and he was asking about major cities without extensive public transport. that's phoenix
|
On June 30 2015 05:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 04:59 andyrau wrote:On June 30 2015 04:49 Plansix wrote:On June 30 2015 04:47 CorsairHero wrote:
andy is talking about public transit janitors
not high tech firms He is also talking about the most expensive city in the country that is fucking FAT on tech money. I need to see where they number came from before I will believe that San Fran is paying 75K per mop in public transit. i'm talking about the median salaries of public transit trains aka BART. in my original post I didn't really feel I needed to mention the name cause nobody would recognize it anyways outside of the area, and those inside the area know what I'm talking about. your articles are citing average janitorial salaries in bay area companies. http://www.mercurynews.com/bart/ci_23742276/bart-workers-paychecks-already-outpace-their-peershttp://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/10/09/phil-matier-plenty-willing-to-work-for-current-bart-wages/http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area/2012look under 'bay area rapid transit', then 'car cleaning', then 'foreworker' this isn't an opinion, it's a fact. median income in the bay area is around 60 grand and with that in mind these employees are far overpaid for what their job requires. not that I'm upset about their incomes but asking for a raise is a bit egregious. yes, the median income is skewed by the tech yuppies but there's also a lot of people that live on paycheck to paycheck. also it's perfectly possible to get by in the area on 50 grand a year. prices are high but not outrageous; maybe within city limits (specifically sf) and select areas where distinguished schools are located do you really need a higher salary. don't blame everything on the average wage earner in the silicon valley pls read and research b4 flames ty If you look at the articles you linked, the average janitor gets 51K a year, which is not 75K. And the raises they wanted are 3% per year for 4 years plus some reworked health and pension. That seems fine for the most expensive city in the country. Also, that last part is fact too.
you're under the impression that they live in the city and that most people in the bay area live in San Francisco. it's a big city but it only makes up like 15% of the population here and furthermore the tech corps & employees make up a very small percentage.
there are at least 3 major cities in the area serviced by the transit system - SF, Oakland, Fremont and there are plenty of alternatives within the vicinity, including San Jose - not everything is expensive here.
yes, real estate is insane in specific areas, but decently priced in others compared to other parts of the US. gas prices are something like 20c higher than Midwest America. food prices are about the same, probably cheaper.
I don't know where you're getting this idea that everyone's well off here.
I've lived here for over 2 decades. I grew up in an area where my house value went from 350k in 1996 to 1.2m in 2006, with a gross household income of 80k - not that much more than the 75k i mentioned.
and there are a lot of middle-class wage earners just like everywhere else - sure, there are maybe twice as many luxury cars on the road than most places, but the majority of people here are in our fords and hondas. yes, we have high income wage earners and we have low ones as well, along with a bunch more in the middle.
btw that median income the article cited also includes part time workers. median full time sanitation workers (on bart) make around 75 grand.
this was a big deal during their strikes a while ago, a lot of people here were very critical of the movement when it happened.
|
On June 30 2015 05:28 tehh4ck3r wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 05:25 CorsairHero wrote:On June 30 2015 05:23 tehh4ck3r wrote:On June 30 2015 04:18 Targe wrote:
its hard to imagine a city without extensive public transport i'd like to introduce you to phoenix you can afford to buy a house with a 2 or 3 car garage for pennies (relatively speaking) driving everywhere sux and he was asking about major cities without extensive public transport. that's phoenix
are things that far apart? ya driving can get annoying but is biking an alternative
|
On June 30 2015 05:36 andyrau wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 05:12 Plansix wrote:On June 30 2015 04:59 andyrau wrote:On June 30 2015 04:49 Plansix wrote:On June 30 2015 04:47 CorsairHero wrote:
andy is talking about public transit janitors
not high tech firms He is also talking about the most expensive city in the country that is fucking FAT on tech money. I need to see where they number came from before I will believe that San Fran is paying 75K per mop in public transit. i'm talking about the median salaries of public transit trains aka BART. in my original post I didn't really feel I needed to mention the name cause nobody would recognize it anyways outside of the area, and those inside the area know what I'm talking about. your articles are citing average janitorial salaries in bay area companies. http://www.mercurynews.com/bart/ci_23742276/bart-workers-paychecks-already-outpace-their-peershttp://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/10/09/phil-matier-plenty-willing-to-work-for-current-bart-wages/http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area/2012look under 'bay area rapid transit', then 'car cleaning', then 'foreworker' this isn't an opinion, it's a fact. median income in the bay area is around 60 grand and with that in mind these employees are far overpaid for what their job requires. not that I'm upset about their incomes but asking for a raise is a bit egregious. yes, the median income is skewed by the tech yuppies but there's also a lot of people that live on paycheck to paycheck. also it's perfectly possible to get by in the area on 50 grand a year. prices are high but not outrageous; maybe within city limits (specifically sf) and select areas where distinguished schools are located do you really need a higher salary. don't blame everything on the average wage earner in the silicon valley pls read and research b4 flames ty If you look at the articles you linked, the average janitor gets 51K a year, which is not 75K. And the raises they wanted are 3% per year for 4 years plus some reworked health and pension. That seems fine for the most expensive city in the country. Also, that last part is fact too. you're under the impression that they live in the city and that most people in the bay area live in San Francisco. it's a big city but it only makes up like 15% of the population here and furthermore the tech corps & employees make up a very small percentage. there are at least 3 major cities in the area serviced by the transit system - SF, Oakland, Fremont and there are plenty of alternatives within the vicinity, including San Jose - not everything is expensive here. yes, real estate is insane in specific areas, but decently priced in others compared to other parts of the US. gas prices are something like 20c higher than Midwest America. food prices are about the same, probably cheaper. I don't know where you're getting this idea that everyone's well off here. I've lived here for over 2 decades. I grew up in an area where my house value went from 350k in 1996 to 1.2m in 2006, with a gross household income of 80k - not that much more than the 75k i mentioned. and there are a lot of middle-class wage earners just like everywhere else - sure, there are maybe twice as many luxury cars on the road than most places, but the majority of people here are in our fords and hondas. yes, we have high income wage earners and we have low ones as well, along with a bunch more in the middle. btw that median income the article cited also includes part time workers. median full time sanitation workers (on bart) make around 75 grand. this was a big deal during their strikes a while ago, a lot of people here were very critical of the movement when it happened.
Sounds like what happens every time there is a contract renewal for public transport around here.
|
|
|
dont lie andy fords are fucking rare its hondas nissans toyotas and volkswagens n shit
i bet the bay has like the lowest percentage of american cars on the road
|
When the property value on my house goes triples in the span of 10 years and other discussions I have never had with my father.
I never said everyone was well off. I just find it amusing when everyone gets hyper critical of public workers doing the exact thing we are all encouraged to do in the private sector. Like when people in my state complained that Court clerks and staff were overpaid, because that is a job you want people to be underpaid for. I also think its funny that when folks devalue sanitation workers, as that is a job with a lot of hazards and isn't easy.
|
people forget that unions were created back in the day to help the powerless workers. nowadays unions just bully the public. fucking teachers postal worker bus driver striking cuz they want unreasonable raises.
id go be a janitor for 75k cuz crap jobs like that takes absolutely no skill whatsoever and you have so much sparetime to do whatever else you want to do.
|
These things are important and the workers deserve to be paid a certain amount, the problem is that you can't have both the security and unionization of a public sector job combined with the negotiation tactics of the private sector.
Something like the BART serves as an indispensable backbone to the bay area economy, but you don't see the water company striking and threatening to turn off everybody's water for raises.
|
I am all for union reform and that some of them suck(Like the teachers unions in MA). I just get annoyed when people hold up sanitation workers as this skill-less shit job that shouldn't be well paid. Like the people are literally picking up our garbage, but somehow they shouldn't make a living wage relative to where they live.
But when all they are asking for it a 3% raise per year over 4 years, I can't really be that upset for fighting for it.
On June 30 2015 05:54 HighTimeDotA wrote:
people forget that unions were created back in the day to help the powerless workers. nowadays unions just bully the public. fucking teachers postal worker bus driver striking cuz they want unreasonable raises.
id go be a janitor for 75k cuz crap jobs like that takes absolutely no skill whatsoever and you have so much sparetime to do whatever else you want to do.
If it is anything like the jobs in MA, its a ton of work. Like cleaning up other peoples vomit because its Thursday and the subway is how drunks travel.
|
if you're lumping all unions together then you're actually just an idiot.
Some are awful, but transportation and (some) non-city teachers get to play the hostage game and it gives them a huge upper hand in any/all negotiations. Crappy part of it is in an area like philly you have Septa union that literally takes all the money they can from the city and then shit happens with teachers that are pay frozen for 3+ years and are actually unable to strike thanks to the government despite the fact that the city has no intention of negotiating with them at all.
So yeah, generalizations are bad.
|
They're asking for that raise on top of ridiculous 20-30% raises they had obtained. Again the ridiculous thing isn't that they're asking for 3% raises over 4 years, its that its ok for them to ask (and get)10% wage increases during some periods but are not ok with flat rates other years.
Either you settle for slow, continuous growth or get occasional vast increases but its absurd to expect both
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
