
Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet - pmcpinto
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/24/facebook-cafeteria-workers-wages-zuckerberg-challenges
======
derekdahmer
> A spokeswoman for Facebook said none of the company’s contingent or contract
> workers have access to facilities such as clinics, gyms, or bring-your-
> child-to-work days

One thing I liked about AirBnB was their entire staff including cafeteria
workers and security guards were full-time employees who ate the same food,
had access to the same facilities and events, and went through the first week
'bootcamp' alongside developers, HR, and upper management.

That doesn't solve the wage gap, but it does make a huge difference in
developing empathy to see people you've had common experiences with at all
levels of the organization.

~~~
oneshot908
See also senior and older FB engineers being discouraged from participating in
perks and events intended for younger and junior employees because FB can
multitask at sucking.

~~~
steffan
> See also senior and older FB engineers being discouraged from participating
> in perks and events intended for younger and junior employees because FB can
> multitask at sucking.

Can you elaborate? I don't recall ever seeing anything of the sort while I
worked there.

~~~
oneshot908
There are all sorts of wonderful shop classes and related perks at FB. Older
and senior talent in my experience is discouraged from attending these
classes. Maybe they weren't always that way or maybe someone smacked them with
a clue bat over that behavior, don't know...

~~~
troygoode
"shop classes"? like... woodworking?

~~~
kitcar
...and silkscreening -
[https://www.facebook.com/analoglab/](https://www.facebook.com/analoglab/)

------
frgtpsswrdlame
Everybody here is focusing on real estate. (because young wealthy programmers
and older poorer workers have a shared interest in cheap real estate) But I'm
really interested in how HN feels about this section:

 _“I felt more secure at my other job. You didn’t have people looking down at
you,” Nicole said. Now she works at cafeterias with names like “Epic” and
“Living the Dream”, and the distance between the two classes of Facebook
workers can feel immense.

“They look at us like we’re lower, like we don’t matter,” said Nicole of the
Facebook employees. “We don’t live the dream. The techies are living the
dream. It’s for them.”

The smaller indignities are numerous. At the end of every shift, Nicole
watches large amounts of leftover food go into the compost – food that she’s
not allowed to take home. Cafeteria workers only enter Facebook’s medical
clinics if they’ve been selected for a mandatory drug test. Facebook recently
held a “Bring your kids to work” day, but cafeteria workers’ children were not
allowed.

A spokeswoman for Facebook said that none of the company’s contingent or
contract workers have access to facilities such as clinics, gyms, or bring
your kid to work days, but that other policies were a matter between the
contractor and the workers._

~~~
Dude2018
That's how capitalism and meritocracy work unfortunately.

~~~
danesparza
Nope.

There are many forms of capitalism...

Humanistic capitalism:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_capitalism)

Anarcho-capitalism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-
capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)

Democratic capitalism:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_capitalism)

Eco-capitalism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-
capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-capitalism)

Inclusive capitalism:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism)

Neo-capitalism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-
Capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Capitalism)

...just to name a few.

~~~
kafkaesq
Then there's, you know, "capitalism in actual practice".

Which is what the Dude above was referring to.

~~~
humanrebar
As long as we don't confuse what we have right now (corrupt cronyism,
corporatism, blatant vertical monopolies, blatant government-backed
monopsonies, etc.) with an actual free market.

~~~
kafkaesq
Yep, it's best not to confuse reality with pipe dreams, generally.

~~~
humanrebar
I'm not sure what way that sarcasm is cutting. I'll say the "design the
problem away" impulse is partly what causes corporatism and monopolies. For
example, regulatory capture in which the regulated industries more or less
control the regulators.

So I'll say the regulate-the-problem-away impulse is a pipe dream in the long
run.

~~~
kafkaesq
_So I 'll say the regulate-the-problem-away impulse is a pipe dream in the
long run._

I'll call it "the lesser of nightmares".

Being as we've seen where "just let property owners do whatever they want" has
lead us to in the past.

~~~
Danihan
Where's that?

~~~
kafkaesq
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood)

~~~
Danihan
And so now we have strict liability law.

Considering that, I don't believe this case, really justifies your (apparent)
paranoia against the free market.

~~~
kafkaesq
It isn't paranoia when the entire history of the "free market" demonstrates
that... (not all, but a far to high proportion of) these entities pretty much
will screw over everyone and everything they can, in exchange an extra buck or
too -- unless very rigorously constrained from doing otherwise.

Or that is to say, "regulated".

~~~
Danihan
THAT'S why there are so few issues in the heavily government controlled
sectors of the economy, like health care, public education and drug policy. /s

~~~
kafkaesq
There's plenty of issues, of course.

Which again, is why I referred to it as the "lesser of nightmares".

------
tmh79
The real story here is how the political conditions of the SFBA have prevented
growth of the housing supply. The sad reality is that housing here is now a
zero sum game, and any broad based increase in wages would pretty quickly be
captured by landlords. The real solution to this issue is not higher wages,
but targeted efforts to decrease the cost of living through building a ton of
of "missing middle" housing like 4-plexes near office space in the sea of land
populated by single family home zoning as well as renters protections (rent
control and eviction protection) ADUs ("accessory dwelling unit": stand alone
units in peoples garages or back yards) and likely some for of social housing
subsidy for the worst off among us.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
Why is the real estate market "the real story"? Seems like the real story is
that facebook ought to pay its cafeteria workers more.

~~~
henraldp
Don't be so susceptible.

The literal story is about food workers who can't afford to raise a family in
Palo Alto. The intended message seems to be that Facebook should pay food
workers more than $20/hr.

I think it's acceptable for people to ponder outside of that claim.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
I think people are pondering outside of that claim because young programmers
in Palo Alto also want cheap real estate so there's a shared interest. But
things this article brings up that are more uncomfortable for the members of
this board to think about like paying service workers more or pondering this:

 _“They look at us like we’re lower, like we don’t matter,” said Nicole of the
Facebook employees. “We don’t live the dream. The techies are living the
dream. It’s for them.”

The smaller indignities are numerous. At the end of every shift, Nicole
watches large amounts of leftover food go into the compost – food that she’s
not allowed to take home. Cafeteria workers only enter Facebook’s medical
clinics if they’ve been selected for a mandatory drug test. Facebook recently
held a “Bring your kids to work” day, but cafeteria workers’ children were not
allowed._

are going to go untalked about. And what's the problem with saying that
Facebook should pay it's workers more than $20/hr? If it's not enough to live
on, that's kind of all there is to it isn't there?

~~~
FussyZeus
At some point we have to recognize that service workers _must_ be paid a
living wage, or be automated. We cannot, morally or economically, have an
entire class of worker that we utterly depend on that lives permanently below
the poverty line and we just step on them because "they didn't work hard in
school" or whichever narrative you prefer to go with for why people who don't
have a degree do work that is essential to our civilization.

The reality is that the fair market isn't perfect, and even jobs that are low
on the totem pole but essential _must be compensated_ in such a way where
people don't need to work 60 hour weeks to barely afford a shithole home and
car.

~~~
manigandham
> or be automated

That's an extreme opposite from living wage.

~~~
FussyZeus
Well if you follow the popular theories, this means better jobs are created
elsewhere and improve life etc. etc. Historically this is true, this time is a
lot different, in general it's just a different discussion I didn't feel like
broaching in this thread.

------
austenallred
“Back in the day, [the wage] would have been a great number,” said Victor,
“but because of Facebook moving in, everything is so expensive. I have to get
payday loans sometimes. We barely make it.”

They make a combined (rounded) $75,000/year. The real tragedy is that you
can't afford to make it in the Bay Area on $75k/yr.

I don't think that's something you can blame solely on Facebook.

~~~
dpark
Where is their $75k/year going? I totally get that the bay is ridiculously
expensive, but they're living in his parents' garage. Are his parents charging
him that much rent? I'd think someone living in their parents' garage and
earning $75k would be doing pretty well in terms of money. (Setting aside the
fact that living with your family in a 2-car garage would definitely suck.)

~~~
rbanffy
Maybe the parents also rent the house. At 29/26 the parents could easily be
49/46 and still working.

Also, mind that poverty has a role in poor economic decisions (payday loans
being one of them).

[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-
br...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-
poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/)

(edit: added some extra info)

------
koolba
> They earn too much to qualify for state healthcare, but not enough to afford
> the health insurance offered by their employer. They frequently struggle to
> find enough money for basics like food and clothes for their children.
> Victor recently borrowed money from his mother to hold a birthday party for
> one of his daughters, and from a friend to pay for a dentist appointment.

They might want to look into not being married. A single mother with three
children would qualify for quite a few benefits. The lower income (single
parent) would also qualify her for Medicaid. Separately, the husband could
continue to work and pool his income with her, though not on paper.

It's pretty sad that the combination of the tax code, income based benefit
eligibility, and a high local cost of living make something like " _Divorce
for the sake of the children_ " a real option.

~~~
canadian_voter
_They might want to look into not being married._

Wow. Just wow. For some people, marriage is more than a financial arrangement.

They'd also save a bundle by not having kids. Maybe they should sell one of
them, it would help pay for the others?

~~~
wutbrodo
> Wow. Just wow. For some people, marriage is more than a financial
> arrangement.

Marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious/personal/emotional
commitment sense are not the same thing. I don't think you're necessarily
_always_ wrong, but I also don't see why you think it's so universal that
people should load a specific legal status with so much emotional weight and
be unable to separate it from the actual commitment, in the context of
meaningfulness.

If I have a religious ceremony during which I get married to someone, I would
consider myself married even if I didn't file the papers at the courthouse.
The latter is just paperwork. I can't say I relate to the notion that a
relationship between two people doesn't have meaning until you get the
government to approve it.

~~~
anigbrowl
It sounds like you've never been married. It's not a matter of getting the
government to approve, it's a matter of getting other people to recognize it.
If you have a common-law marriage but it's not documented then if your spouse
falls ill and taken to hospital you might be denied visitation rights, for
example.

I suggest you read some court filings/legal articles on the gay marriage cases
from a few years ago to get an understanding of why people sued to have the
right to get legally married, over and above just having an emotional
commitment.

~~~
wutbrodo
It sounds like you haven't read the thread you're commenting on. Those issues
(visitation rights etc) are explicitly stated in the GP comment, and the
comment was speculating that it may be worth the trade-off. The comment _I_
was responding to was talking entirely about legal marriage _meaning_ more to
its participants.

I suggest you read the threads you're participating in before smugly assuming
that someone else is the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'd read it, and I stand by my original comment. Your understanding of this
seems to be abstract rather than concrete and I'm suggesting reading material
you could examine to concretize your understanding. I don't know why you're
being so rude about it.

------
jeffdavis
They make decent money -- good money even. This is really an article about the
high housing costs in the Bay Area. I don't see any other real message here.

All of the people who oppose residential development near work sites are to
blame. Period.

~~~
ryandrake
Sorry for having to be "that guy" but they're living in Menlo Park for crying
out loud! I'd love to live in Menlo Park too, but I can't afford it, so
instead I live 2 hours away and commute to work like everyone else. In the Bay
Area, living close to work is pretty much a luxury for the rich.

~~~
overcast
Sorry, you commute two hours EACH WAY EVERY DAY? Nothing is worth that. I'd
expect serious money for putting up with that, and at that point, you could
just afford to live closer.

~~~
ryandrake
Nobody pays you more based on how long your commute is.

It's a tradeoff lost of people make. 1. Live in a garage, 2. Long commute, or
3. Live in an area with fewer job prospects?

~~~
igorgue
___Nobody pays you more based on how long your commute is._ __

Somebody has never negotiated a salary... The answer is yes, a lot more, you
just go "This commute is unbearable and I won't move to your stupid
neighborhood so if you want me, pay me 20k more" (not a joke, I did that, for
a 45 mins commute).

Just think about all the stuff you've missed out by being so closed minded and
not saying it, many people will pay you more if you complain about your
commute, that's a fact.

------
jimrandomh
This is a problem with zoning in the area. Paying these workers more money
would enable them to move out of a garage, but the amount of housing would
stay the same, causing prices to rise until someone else is forced _into_ a
garage. Unfortunately, local governments in the south Bay area are controlled
by people who want to maximize the price of their houses, injury to the poor
and middle class be damned.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
We really need some regional or state-driven action to drive down housing
prices in critical areas. It'd be pretty straightforward - make a "Zoning
Authority" tax and levy it on counties, cities, and neighborhoods that do not
meet a development target. Want to be an obstructionist NIMBY? I'm fine with
that if we're charging you $10k/yr for the privilege.

~~~
greglindahl
There is a regional authority which tries to force communities to match new
office space with new housing in the same city. And there's state action on
the way to force local areas to approve dense developments near transit hubs
like Caltrain. Obviously this isn't doing enough today, but there is action
happening.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Which politicians are behind this, and where can I learn more? I wish to write
them a letter stating my approval and donate to their political efforts.

------
cabaalis
Serious question, politics aside. How many jobs have been prior filled by
teenagers or recent college graduates, that are no longer being filled by
those groups for whatever reason? Is every single type of profession required
to support a family of 4?

Edit: 5, per the photo on the article

~~~
nxsynonym
It's education inflation.

a college degree is the new highschool diploma. Even with a 4 year degree in a
"real" field of study (business/stem/finance/whatever) it's becoming more and
more difficult to land entry level jobs. If you pay 30/60/90k for said degree,
you are going to feel entitled (rightfully or not) to working in a position
that's not for the "uneducated". These positions still need to be filled
though, because they are generally the jobs that make day-to-day life happen.
Nobody wants to flip burgers but they still want to be able to eat one at
lunch.

I'm of the opinion that yes, even minimum wage jobs should be able to get the
bare minimum expenses of an average family covered (housing/food/medicine),
let alone two incomes making more than minimum wage.

~~~
Consultant32452
We wouldn't need 4 year degrees if we hadn't dumbed down public school. We
wouldn't need 4 year degrees if employers were allowed to give potential
employees an IQ test. Want to become an electrician? You aren't allowed to
take an unpaid internship, so what do you have to do instead? Now you have to
_pay_ the electrician to teach you in a classroom setting, putting you in
massive debt.

>I'm of the opinion that yes, even minimum wage jobs should be able to get the
bare minimum expenses of an average family covered (housing/food/medicine),
let alone two incomes making more than minimum wage.

Do you support us immediately ceasing trade with China and Mexico? Or is it
only a problem when you can actually see the people that can't afford to live
a lifestyle similar to yours?

~~~
maxerickson
An electrician union here advertises apprenticeships with (decent for entry
level) hourly pay, benefits and no debt upon completion.

It's several years to complete, but the 8000 hours of work experience is then
sufficient to get a license to work independently.

~~~
Consultant32452
What's really important is that we design the system so that incumbent wealth
can maintain their position by controlling the market through government
regulation (licensing).

~~~
maxerickson
That's a great defense of your misstatement about what it takes to become an
electrician.

Of course regulation often goes wrong. I'm pretty sure that isn't a reason to
do away with it altogether, it is merely a reason to find ways to do it
better.

~~~
Consultant32452
I didn't make a misstatement. Both cases have the same problem. The government
has stepped in and made it more difficult for you to enter the market. In one
case, you have to pay an electrician to take a class because the government
won't let you learn for free. In the other case the government has made it
even worse because you now have to perform labor at sub-market wages for 4
years before you're allowed to do work that you likely could've performed on
your own after just a few weeks.

~~~
maxerickson
There's a difference between the requirements for licensing being excessive
and "massive debt".

~~~
Consultant32452
In both cases the government regulation is making you an indentured servant to
incumbent wealth. In one case you're a slave to financiers and the education
incumbents and in the other case you're a slave to the labor union who doesn't
want you coming in and undercutting them. I'm not interested in debating which
one is worse, they're both very similar problems. And neither is necessary.

------
redorb
They have been priced out of their own neighborhood and that is really
unfortunate. Theoretically they should move to a place with a cheaper cost of
living. People move all the time for wages and cost of living; I would guess
its the number one reason people move. They don't work for Facebook they work
for a contractor; I would say they need to find a better job or a less
expensive place to live (cost of living).

~~~
rhizome
_Theoretically they should move to a place with a cheaper cost of living._

Theoretically the entire company could do that.

~~~
deegles
I mean, they slowly are... Seattle is booming. Google, Facebook, et al. are
all massively expanding their presence.

Admittedly, the COL is going up rapidly there too, but at least there's a huge
amount of construction happening.

I wish the large tech companies would experiment with more remote-only teams,
it would be great to eliminate the commute and live anywhere I want.

~~~
mahyarm
When things go bad, the satellite offices get shut down first. That is a
reason for employees to stay in the area.

------
8ytecoder
Bay Area has a unique challenge in this regard. All jobs (pretty much) pay
more than what would have one qualify for benefits but not enough to actually
pay for even the basics - healthcare, housing and food. The only solution for
those who are not already locked into a rent controlled place and can't afford
the sky high rent is to move out. Politicians, NIMBYs everybody blocks or
opposes every proposed solution for one reason or the other. It's a stalemate.
It needs a big big political push out of this. Only someone who has a lot of
political capital can get it done - not just money.

My personal preference is to merge the housing, zoning and public
transportation authorities of all cities and municipalities in the bay area
into Metro wide organizations that plan for the whole area instead of just a
city/town.But this is the antithesis of local governance and a really hard
pill to swallow. Until then cities like SF and Oakland will bear the brunt of
this crisis while cities like Palo Alto try to ban even two story
constructions.

~~~
brianmartinek
Agree with this view. Only the state can force that type of cooperation. MN
did a variation of this in the early 70's to stop Twin Cities municipalities
from competing against each other with tax breaks in order to attract
companies. The result has been the only metro region that works together for
the benefit of the region, not individual towns.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-
mir...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-miracle-of-
minneapolis/384975/)

"No other large American city has adopted a plan like Minneapolis’s to
sprinkle business taxes across a region in order to keep the poorest areas
from falling too far behind."

"In the 1960s, local districts and towns in the Twin Cities region offered
competing tax breaks to lure in new businesses, diminishing their revenues and
depleting their social services in an effort to steal jobs from elsewhere
within the area. In 1971, the region came up with an ingenious plan that would
help halt this race to the bottom, and also address widening inequality. The
Minnesota state legislature passed a law requiring all of the region’s local
governments—in Minneapolis and St. Paul and throughout their ring of
suburbs—to contribute almost half of the growth in their commercial tax
revenues to a regional pool, from which the money would be distributed to tax-
poor areas. Today, business taxes are used to enrich some of the region’s
poorest communities.

Never before had such a plan—known as “fiscal equalization”—been tried at the
metropolitan level. “In a typical U.S. metro, the disparities between the poor
and rich areas are dramatic, because well-off suburbs don’t share the wealth
they build,” says Bruce Katz, the director of the Metropolitan Policy Program
at the Brookings Institution. But for generations now, the Twin Cities’
downtown area, inner-ring neighborhoods, and tony suburbs have shared in the
metro’s commercial success. By spreading the wealth to its poorest
neighborhoods, the metro area provides more-equal services in low-income
places, and keeps quality of life high just about everywhere."

------
whack
> _" Working at a Facebook cafeteria is an enviable job in many ways. Nicole
> earns $19.85 an hour as a shift lead, while Victor makes $17.85 – well above
> the $15 per hour minimum for contractors that Facebook established in
> 2015."_

Assuming they work 40-hour-weeks, for 49 weeks every year, they make a
combined family income of $74k/year. I've volunteered with low-income families
in SF. I've seen families just as big as theirs, getting by in San Francisco,
with half their salary. The way they are demanding attention, and comparing
themselves with others in far worse situations, makes them sound really petty.

I've personally met people who are truly struggling in horrendous ways. If
Mark Zuckerberg wants to use his personal time to help those at the very
bottom, good for him. Someone making ~$18/hour really has no business chiding
him for doing so.

~~~
humanrebar
> I've seen families just as big as theirs, getting by in San Francisco, with
> half their salary.

It's hard for me to judge individual budgets out of context. Some people are
in financial holes in various ways: healthcare debt, personal debt, usurious
lones, bad credit, bad investment choices, support payments, victims of
investment fraud, etc. Sometimes we can say it's their fault, but it's not
fair to assume it is.

It's also worth pointing out that "getting by" in the short term does not mean
living a net-wealth-building lifestyle in the long term.

------
bluedino
A few things. They aren't Facebook employees, as some people might infer when
reading the headline. They're working for the cafeteria contractor - Flagship
Facility Services.

They are making $2 and $4/hour _more_ than the $15/hour minimum wage people
are fighting for. Obviously $15 isn't enough and neither is more than $15.

>> Earlier in their relationship, the couple both earned about $12 per hour as
managers at Chipotle and were able to afford their own apartment.

What changed? Having the 3 kids? Did they move to a different area? $12/hr
isn't going to get you an apartment in most of CA.

~~~
eropple
_> They aren't Facebook employees, as some people might infer when reading the
headline. They're working for the cafeteria contractor - Flagship Facility
Services._

Not saying you're doing this, but this is very regularly used as a dodge to
erase the responsibility of very large companies (and smaller too, of course)
to ensure that the people working for their contractors to be treated fairly
and equitably, too.

Contractors-as-plausible-deniability is a bad, bad scene.

~~~
rlanday
What is "fairly and equitably"? If I choose to live in the most expensive
metro area in the country, have ten kids, and then kill my wife so there's no
one else to help support them, is it my employer's fault I'm struggling? At
what point do people's situations stop being other people's fault?

------
myroon5
Almost 80k/year in salary leaves a family stuck in a garage over there? That's
absurd

~~~
c0nfused
Only if you need to live in the most expensive housing market in the nation.

~~~
zlynx
Right. Raising their pay wouldn't even help. Oh, it would help _them_ but
whatever place they manage to move into with their improved cash flow would
displace someone else. Then those displaced people would have a sob story
until they get their pay raised, and displace someone...

The real problem is the lack of housing for the number of people that want to
live there.

A few good skyscraper high density developments would fix it better than pay
increases.

------
rhaps0dy
>Nicole watches large amounts of leftover food go into the compost – food
she’s not allowed to take home

Why is she not allowed to take it home? It would be free for whoever her
employer is, it would help her and her family.

Also I really dislike wasting food.

~~~
perfectstorm
One of the reasons for disallowing employees from taking home food is that
they will lose their motivation to sell food if they get to keep the unsold
food after business hours. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the deli
employees hide expensive food from customers and take it home after work
because it's "unsold".

My cousin worked at Walmart during Black Friday sales and he has told me that
his coworkers hide popular sale items in the back-shelf for themselves to buy
it when they are off the clock.

------
jmcdiesel
Facebook didn't make the area expensive. No tech company did. Those local
businesses, and the chains alike, have made it expensive. So much blame gets
put on the tech companies, but the tech companies aren't raising the prices,
they are just paying people better, and the local businesses abuse that to the
fullest extent. There is no NEED to charge $6 for a gallon of milk, when milk
from those same cows is sold for $2 50 miles away... thats not a SV valley
tech company problem, its a SV valley retailer problem, and the blame needs to
shift that way...

[edited because splellings]

~~~
dgacmu
> _Facebook didn 't make the area expensive. No tech company did. Those local
> businesses, and the chains alike, have made it expensive. So much blame gets
> put on the tech companies, but the tech companies aren't raising the prices,
> they are just paying people better, and the local businesses abuse that to
> the fullest extent. There is no NEED to charge $6 for a gallon of milk, when
> milk from those same cows is sold for $2 50 miles away... thats not a SV
> valley tech company problem, its a SV valley retailer problem, and the blame
> needs to shift that way..._

You're attacking a false target. Buying food in the bay area isn't expensive.
Rent and housing is expensive. There's a great Costco in mountain view that
charges the same prices as Costco most other places. Similar for other grocery
options.

When I lived there last year, our food bills were comparable to living in
Pittsburgh. Our rent on a 3br/1ba house, not renovated since 1956, with a
portable dishwasher in the garage... was 50% more than my mortgage is in
Pittsburgh for a decent size house in a lovely little neighborhood 3/4 of a
mile from my work. It was rather shocking.

It's a combination of high salaries and crappy housing policy leading to an
explosion in property costs.

~~~
Domenic_S
> _Buying food in the bay area isn 't expensive._

Yeah, I found that to be pretty much true. Of course there are plenty more
options (organic/natural/raw) if you WANT to spend more, but no intrinsic cost
increase.

But there are a lot of marginal cost increases in the Bay vs other places. Car
insurance is more expensive. Gas is more expensive. Simple one-offs (like oil
changes) are more expensive. You're more likely to eat out because of the
brutal commute times. Etc.

------
JustAnotherPat
What I get from this article is that these people should be salaried
employees, not contractors.

Sure it's not as cheap for Facebook, but folding them into a system that
already exists is probably more cost efficient for society itself than having
them fend for themselves in the money-pit of a private marketplace.

------
austincheney
They could move to Texas. The price for that garage is probably more than the
total cost of a 3000sqft house in north Fort Worth. The Toyota headquarters
just moved from CA to TX and those guys are buying large houses in expensive
areas of town in cash.

I have known many people who have left CA for exactly this reason. I am sure
CA is great when you are young and single, but once reality kicks in CA
becomes very expensive.

~~~
manarth

      The family of five have lived in this cramped space next
      to Victor’s parents’ house for three years.
    

It sounds like the garage belongs to his parents. Which implies they don't own
it (so no equity to free up in order to buy a place in Texas), and they may
well pay a very low (or no) rent.

~~~
nylonstrung
Didn't notice that- if that's the case this story is pretty different than
what I'd initially thought.

80K/year with no or a trivial amount of rent is a pretty good setup. There are
tens of millions of people in the US who have it worse.

------
oh_sigh
They're living in their parents garage. With the single biggest cost of
living(housing) removed, I'm curious how they can't afford life at 80k/yr.
Besides for housing, cost of living does not need to be particularly higher in
SV than elsewhere.

Either that, or the parents are charging them market rate to live in the
garage, which is probably illegal anyway...

~~~
bykovich2
How do you figure that "besides for housing, cost of living does not need to
be particularly higher in SV than elsewhere"? While housing is undeniably the
most wildly out-of-control expense in Silicon Valley, the rest of the
essentials of life ain't cheap either.

~~~
oh_sigh
What other essentials of life? A car and car insurance are within bounds of
normalcy. Food at grocery stores is in line with the rest of California and
farm raised food can be dirt cheap. Good public schools are readily available.
Healthcare costs are the same as anywhere else in the USA.

What other essentially things besides housing are inflated in SV? Yes, you can
go out and buy $20 bean sprout sandwiches, but that isn't exactly a necessity.

------
noobermin
Someone else was downvoted for saying so, but Zuckerberg is running for
president, which is exactly why he need not look at his own employees. Votes
in California are almost a sure bet for D nominee, if he becomes one. It is
voters in the swing states that politicians actually have to care about. It is
them who have to be understood and pandered to because they have political
power.

------
confounded
If you're interested in trying to improve the conditions of those who serve
you at your workplace, consider attending a meeting of the Tech Workers
Coalition.

Free beer!

[https://techworkerscoalition.org](https://techworkerscoalition.org)

------
mcrad
But he is on a journey to connect the world, since that is the greatest
challenge of his generation

------
misingnoglic
The big problem seems to be the lack of affordable housing in the area - when
I was looking for 1br apartments, none of them were under $2700 a month (plus
300+ for car parking), and they were all brand new luxury rooms.

~~~
galdosdi
When I hear stuff like this I'm flabbergasted. I live and work in downtown
Manhattan, and it's much more affordable to get housing [1] or parking [2]
than what online commenters describe about the bay area -- contrary to what
stereotypes would have you believe.

If the world's richest, densest, most economically productive city is
outperforming you on affordability, you're doing something really wrong.

Get out of the bay area and come to NYC. You can live well here on $20 an hour
(if it's fulltime with health benefits and you have no dependents), and
amazingly on a developer salary. You can live in a small place walking
distance to work, or in a huge place a comfy train ride away, or something in
between, all for substantially less than in the bay area.

All the big tech companies are here and a lot of startups have come from here
-- and we actually have other industries too, helpful if you have a spouse
that doesn't work in tech -- or if you change careers someday -- or if you
just enjoy having friends who don't all do the same thing you do and offer
different perspectives. It's just a much bigger place.

Computer tech had its day in the california sun, but I honestly believe NYC
will ultimately capture the US based computer tech industry, the same way it
has captured many industries in the past -- by outperforming all other US
cities at things that matter for employees and employers.

__

[1] I pay $1850 for a 1 bedroom near Houston St. It is still easy to find
similar and slightly cheaper deals. You can pay much less if you trade away
space or the luxury of being able to walk to work. For an example of trading
away for price alone, a friend of mine recently easily found and leased a room
(in a 3br share) for $650, a 30 min subway or bike away from downtown
manhattan.

[2] I had a car for a while for purely stupid fun impractical reasons (don't
anymore, for practical reasons) and paid almost nothing for parking by parking
it on the street, which is easy once you learn the tricks. Paid maybe $65 or
$130 a month for the occasional ticket. But parking is unnecessary anyway
since car ownership is unnecessary due to excellent transit (and
walkability/bikeability) -- and if you really needed a car once in a while,
you're surely in walking distance of a zipcar or one of its several
competitors.

------
mc32
One way to minimize the cost of living impact is to set up satellite offices.
Set up a campus in Texas or Oklahoma. It's not like people would not take jobs
there. I'm sure some globe trotters would not, but most jobs don't need the
globe trotter kind of mentality.

~~~
tsunamifury
Janitors, bus drivers, food service workers and security can't work from a
"satellite office". This is about more than engineers.

~~~
dfrey
Yes, but a lot of the big tech companies like Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google
and Microsoft want people to work at their head office location rather than
opening up satellite offices across the world. I understand how it simplifies
logistics and communication, but it's not without its own problems.

------
kelvin0
There is no Photo OP for Mark if he is working within his own company walls to
genuinely try to help his 'own'. T'sall 'bout managin' perception.

------
gmarx
It is terrible that he can't live in Menlo Park on 75K. On the other hand the
reason he lives in a garage is because he and is family are living with his
parents, most likely to save money and avoid the horrendous commute most of
his coworkers probably face.

On yet a third hand I can't feel all that bad for this guy since he someday
stands to inherit a house worth millions of dollars

~~~
rhizome
You had to pull out a third hand, but I'm glad you were able to figure out a
reason not to feel bad for them. That was close.

~~~
gmarx
haha, yeah. It's petty but I'm well into adulthood, have what I would have
considered an excellent income (had you asked me as a teen) and rent what I
would have considered (had you shown me as a teen) kind of dump because my job
is here. So yeah I have a bit less sympathy for the people who complain about
their income while ignoring the fact that they have a large financial asset
which is only ridiculously valuable because of the same things that make it
too expensive to live around here.

------
hw
As many have pointed out, the main issue here is the Bay Area's cost of living
- especially housing. What they're earning is higher than a lot of people in
the food service industry, but still isn't enough to afford a decent house or
apartment here in the bay area. It's not like Facebook can start paying them
30$ per hour or issue them stock.. some types of jobs just don't scale in
terms of salary and it's just unfortunate that homes in the bay area are
overpriced.

Something just needs to be done regarding affordable housing here. Otherwise
people not doing tech will just slowly get priced out from neighborhoods and
will have to deal with living 2 hours away in cheaper areas

------
cutler
I'm not saying Zuckerberg couldn't do more to include his cafeteria workers
but let's face it, even doubling the pay rates of the workers at the bottom of
the pile won't solve their problems because they lie elsewhere - with the
free-for-all property and rental markets which have been tearing communities
apart across the globe for decades. Nowhere is the brutal reality of
capitalism and its failings more evident than in the property market. Property
and finance are founded on the principle of getting something for nothing but
someone has to pay - you, who have only your labour to sell.

~~~
pm90
Brutal, but honest. Finance and property are where concentrated wealth really
show their ugly side. Without regulation, or with the wrong regulation, this
cannot spell good news for average joe worker.

------
BrandonMarc
In the end, the article reads as an advertisement for the union they're
joining. That's probably the general purpose of the article anyway.

That said, it does drive home the overall point that "inequality" is a very
complicated issue, and for all the good PR that Facebook and Zuckerberg have,
they're just as guilty, inasmuch as there is any real guilt to assign.

Facebook certainly has the money, and if they do indeed care about wealth
inequality, they would do well to start at their own doorstep. So this worker
is a contractor. So what? Very convenient; result still stands.

------
dqv
>They look at us like we're lower, like we don't matter

:\ Please stop doing this. You know who you are.

~~~
humanrebar
Management often contracts out food service, security, and janitorial work.
This means they do not qualify for perks that are described in the article. It
also means they don't qualify for company picnics, etc.

Good managers will often do retreats, mixers, happy hours, etc. to encourage
sales and accounts staff to mix with the engineers. I've never seen the same
concern about how white collar workers get along with blue collar ones.

I understand all the above reasoning. I'm just saying it's not just a problem
in personal interactions.

------
frankydp
The low income limit in the Santa Clara County is 75K for a family of 4. Which
should trigger a lot of program eligibility, especially for housing through
HUD. I would guess that availability of Section 8/HUD subsidized housing is a
critical factor with regards to this county though. Most section 8 properties
seem to be on long waiting list.

The exceptional property values would most likely limit the participation of
developers in any of the Section 8 lending or construction programs.

Only mentioning this because there are programs in place to support families
in this scenario, but local governance and investor behavior can directly
negate the effectiveness and availability of these programs.

[https://www.wetakesection8.com/search/CA/palo-
alto/](https://www.wetakesection8.com/search/CA/palo-alto/)
[http://section-8-housing-income-
limits.credio.com/l/227/San-...](http://section-8-housing-income-
limits.credio.com/l/227/San-Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa-Clara-CA-HUD-Metro-FMR-Area)

------
miguelrochefort
I wonder how much interest they're paying on those "payday loans".

~~~
jmcdiesel
A good bit. Payday loans aren't something anyone wants to do, ever. They are
predatory, they know people only turn to them at the last resort (ie, cant
feed your kids) so they can charge whatever they want.

The justice comes in the fact that they lose a shit ton of money, because of
how sleazy they are, the important credit companies (Equifax, Transunion, etc)
wont work with them, so if you don't pay them back, your only loss is not
being able to get more payday loans... (there is a specific payday loan/pawn
shop loan credit bureau).

So, dont give people shit if they have to take a payday loan, i've been
there... i've had to, when i got laid off and went 2 months without income and
borrowed from about every family member I could... i basically asked my prior
manager to lie and say i still worked there so i could get a loan to feed my
family. I'd never walk into one of those places if I werent in dire straits...

------
turc1656
I'm going to come right out and say it and fully expect to be downvoted to
death - these people are the problem. Not Facebook (who they don't actually
work for) and not their actual employer. They make a combined 75-80k a year.
The median household income in CA is 61k. The median for the Silicon Valley
area is 94k. They need to get up and move to give their children and
themselves a better lifestyle. They have the means to do it based on the
state's median household income. They're just being assholes.

They need to make the commute to work and live in a place that's much more
affordable. It's that simple. I work in NYC and make substantially more than
their combined incomes and yet I don't live in Manhattan or any NYC borough.
Why? Because it's hideously expensive in Manhattan and the nearby areas. I
drag my ass all the way from central NJ and it takes around 2 hours each way.
I'm not an outlier either. They have multiple bus lines to service all the
other central NJ commuters. These people need to come to grips that they can't
afford to live in that ridiculously overpriced area that happens to be located
within a convenient proximity to their jobs.

Also, their entirely mentality is completely fucked. They seemed surprised
that they weren't allowed to bring their kids to work when other, actual
Facebook employees did. It's like they don't realize they don't actually work
for Facebook, but rather just work in a Facebook building. Also, there's this
entitlement-driven, handout-seeking garbage: _“Our motivation is not to bash
either company. It’s for our families. Why do we have to live like this, when
the company we work for has the resources to make it better?”_ So...just
because your company has enough money to give you a raise, it should do so?
Their employer should just ignore market forces and the fair price for this
work? Speaking of which, they receive above the fair market rate already which
makes this comment even more astounding. They want their employer to also
ignore shareholders/owners interests and just give them more money? And this
money wouldn't even be done to retain talent, reward extraordinary
performance, or any of the other standard reasons for which this is usually
justifiable? Wow. The company I work for makes a lot of money and has
fantastic margins. But if I ever was in a performance review and said
something like, "hey, the company makes a lot of money and I feel like I
should get a larger piece" \- and didn't follow it up with a damn good reason
to justify that comment and prove my increased claimed value to the company,
they'd laugh in my face, and rightfully so.

These people need to get a clue.

~~~
Aloha
Exactly who then is supposed to do the service industry work for the bay area?

Two hours from Palo Alto gets you nowhere - because its not any more
affordable two hours away by car - there two hours on public transit wouldn't
even get you out of the Bay Area proper.

50 years ago, it was common that the employees in the cafeteria (janitors too)
were actually employees of the company who's building they worked for - why
should they have a different want - its not unreasonable to ask that they be
extended the same benefits of others working on the site.

To give you a clue - most of the bay area housing is single family homes (by
area) - its not anywhere near as dense as NYC or even large parts of NJ - its
a housing supply problem.

~~~
turc1656
While I'm not familiar with the area, a very quick search produced a rental
available across the water in Fremont, apparently only ~30 minutes by car. The
rental is $2,319 a month and has 3 beds and 2 baths and a total of 1,100 sqft
of living space.

Sounds extremely reasonable, all things considered.

~~~
Aloha
Their combined pretax income is like 74k - that means their take home is
probably closer to 58k - a 2300 dollar apartment is a stretch on 8k - it would
be a stretch for me and I make considerably more.

Also the distance makes childcare more complex too.

Also, I'd look at the average price you're seeing too - not the one or two
outliers.

------
perfectstorm
I grew up in India and both my parents worked for a Central government
company. Their company has quarters (apartment complexes) which were heavily
subsidized. The employee could own one individual apartment or pay subsidized
monthly rent. The company (central govt. in this case) offer loans for their
employees at a lower than market rate to own this apartment.

I like that approach. Since both my parents were working they were able to
afford a house outside of the area but a lot of their coworkers owned an
apartment.

Those apartment complexes were categorized differently for different income
people. So a lower income worker is not forced to live on an apartment that
they can't afford.

I wonder why Facebook or Google can't take a similar approach. I understand
that in this particular case, the employee is a contractor who happens to work
at Facebook. Heck, if I happened to work for such a company I know I would
live there.

~~~
derekdahmer
Facebook actually is trying to [build their own
housing]([https://sf.curbed.com/2016/7/27/12299438/facebook-housing-
de...](https://sf.curbed.com/2016/7/27/12299438/facebook-housing-development-
techeis)) now.

Ultimately though its a failure of Menlo Park that it hasn't allowed enough
housing units to support the number of office units its allowed to be built.

~~~
perfectstorm
i did not know that. I wish more and more companies did this.

------
throw2016
Amazon, Wallmart, McDonalds are notorious for pushing the cost of employees
onto welfare and the rest of the population. Facebook doesn't seem as bad but
clearly there are lingering issues around the widening wage gap, part time
work, contracting and access to basic facilities like healthcare that reflect
our societal values and need to be addressed as a whole.

Discrimination in access to facilities and making some employees feel they are
some kind of lesser human beings is backward and regressive behavior. Google
does this and so does facebook and no civilized society can accept this kind
of behavior. I don't know how decision makers in SV companies come to agree to
dehumanize some in this manner.

What kind of utopian future or 'better world' can these companies usher if
they can't even get basics like human dignity right.

------
thg
> _“He doesn’t have to go around the world,” said Nicole. “He should learn
> what’s happening in this city.”_

The journalists probably wouldn't notice and thus there would be no
(noteworthy) PR and thus no reason to do it. But now that there's negative
publicity he might just get around to that.

------
igorgue
People here in the comments are so insensitive.

I got from the article that Mark Zuckerberg is traveling the US to find people
struggling, while a person like that serves him food every day. He's a
hypocrite, no need to look for a different meaning in the article.

------
mattsfrey
The argument here should be don't have a kid when you work at chipotle, let
alone three. Why is this ludicrously irresponsible behavior not called out?
Why do we feel sorry for people who engage in such monstrously stupid and
selfish behavior?

~~~
canadian_voter
Quite right! There should be laws against the poor reproducing. Perhaps a tax
on children? Or some sort of permit system? Maybe a one child policy,
exceptions only for the rich? Or just take away the children of the poor if
they're irresponsible enough to have them and not be able to afford them. Give
them to rich families so they can be raised properly.

I wonder if there are any examples in history that we could learn from? Surely
other enlightened countries have tried something similar?

~~~
thomyorkie
This doesn't address parent's comment at all. You act as if there's no
difference between calling people out for irresponsible behavior and Orwellian
policies to control that behavior.

------
imlina
They own a dyson fan and a projector in the picture, and possibly more
expensive gadgets off-screen. It's just sad that when people are not willing
to work hard enough through school and end up in shitty jobs that pay less --
then complaining about the undesirable outcome. Suck it up and take an online
coding class or something. Time to build some cafeteria robots so they will at
least complain on someone else's turf.

~~~
no_one_ever
School is an expensive endeavor, you'd have to shell out thousands of dollars
or go into debt for years just to get a respectable degree. Without the
degree, most employers wouldn't give these people the time of the day.

~~~
imlina
zuckerberg never got (finished) his harvard degree. Plenty of success people
never went to college, richard branson, henry ford, rockefeller, murdoch, etc.

------
beatpanda
Tech workers from lots of different companies are organizing to get better
working conditions for cafeteria workers and other service workers like them.
See: [http://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2017/06/27/the-tech-
workers-h...](http://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2017/06/27/the-tech-workers-
helping-to-unionize-big-tech/)

------
659087
> Now she works at cafeterias with names like “Epic” and “Living the Dream”

It's like they went out of their way to come up with the most cringeworthy,
Silicon Valley stereotype confirming names possible for their cafeterias.

------
akras14
Upvoted, it's easy to blame others for not taking care of the people, while
walking by and not noticing thousands of homeless people on your way to a 6+
figure job.

------
notadoc
In summary: wages have not kept up with dramatic cost of living inflation. A
very common story on the west coast.

------
imlina
They own a dyson fan and a projector in the picture, and possibly more
expensive gadgets off-screen.

------
cosinetau
Zuckerburg is running for president.

------
IanDrake
If you're going to be featured in an article highlighting your financial
difficulty, move the $450 Dyson fan, 65" DLP TV, and overhead projector out of
the frame. It begins to erode their footing and make you question their
priorities.

I have friends that make much less than these folks. Some can barely make ends
meet and sometimes I will help them with their personal finances. Which is
when I usually discover why they can't make ends meet. $150/m cable bill,
$100/m mobile bill, a car they can't afford, and constant meals out. They're
usually living larger than me on 1/4 the income.

It's sad really, and I'd argue that it's probably not their fault. The level
of entitlement we feel is out of control at all income levels.

~~~
openforce
Question - Why is this down voted? Isn't living within your means a basic idea
in major parts of the world?

~~~
linkregister
This is a great question. Those electronics are actually rational purchases,
considering their situation.

The total value of the entertainment devices is around $2500. Spread out over
3 years (the length of time they've lived there), this equates to about
$70/mo.

These devices offer a lower-cost option than taking the family out to eat
twice per month, cable television, or for each of the adults to go out to a
tavern once per month.

In other words, $70/mo wouldn't bring great opportunity to them but allows a
low-cost way to blow off steam. Gardening, cooking, or athletics would be nice
recreational options at similar costs, but they don't have a yard, nor a
kitchen, nor do they likely have the time for scheduled athletics if they work
varied shifts. Hence, the electronics are by far the most rational choices for
entertainment.

~~~
IanDrake
I can't agree with you sorry.

No yard? Try a park in town. You can have hours of fun with a $20 soccer ball
or basketball or wiffleball or cornhole or horse shoes.

Need entertainment? Read a book from the library. The great thing is you might
actually learn something.

You're wrong about the value of $70 a month for someone who takes payday
loans. If they banked the $840 per year they could save hundreds in payday
loan interest on top of that.

Then after a few years of savings one of them could take night classes and
become a welder, a nurse, or learn some other trade that would boost their
income.

That is the American dream.

Let's stop pretending their jobs should pay more and start looking at reality.
The reality is there are plenty of _opportunities_ out there. Stop dreaming
that your current skillset is worth more and start learning one that actually
is.

~~~
linkregister
Thanks for the input. I think you either are an extreme autodidact or haven't
been exposed to the poverty trap.

Try a park in town? Not at night time you won't. Night time? Yeah, your
irregular shifts cause you to have down time at random times. Remember, the
Facebook contract isn't their only gig.

I never pretended the job should pay more. I'm remarking about the choice to
purchase electronic entertainment being rational.

I actually agree with you that the parents have the choice to commute from
East Oakland, Antioch, or Tracy if they want to start saving money. They are
clearly making some trade-offs. I think their trade-offs are rational, but
they shouldn't blame Zuck

Facebook is _heavily_ pushing employees to transfer to Seattle. They even keep
their pay rate!

------
mc32
MacDonald's is also a multibillion dollar corp., nobody in their right mind
thinks they can raise a family working at MacD's without additional income or
subsidy.

It's a job for teenagers to get experience and for blue collar retirees to
make some money to and to their SS checks.

People should stop thinking teenager jobs sustain families. It doesn't have
the value add. If you want to make a living open up a stand and maybe if you
do things well, you'll survive and thrive.

Even in developing economies, this is ceasing to be the case. Never mind
mature economies.

~~~
celim307
I don't understand, what point are you making? Your solution is pull yourself
up by your bootstraps?

~~~
mc32
No, but you cannot in good conscience believe that you can raise a middle
class family if that's your one skill.

We also have people complaining about vanishing steel jobs, listen, they're
not coming back and you are going to have to adjust.

~~~
Applejinx
Have you considered there is no possible skill that will establish a societal
middle class for the population, no matter what effort or resources are put
behind it?

In less than ten years you'll be talking about vanishing coding jobs, and the
word is they're not coming back. What then? There is nothing we can't optimize
to require less human labor. There is no possible skill that will translate to
'humans as a class' remaining relevant to productivity and a labor pool that's
increasingly nonhuman. It's like expecting people to hammer in railroad ties,
or dig through rock with pickaxes. Absurd, unreasonable, insane.

I quite agree with 'adjust', but I'm shocked by the idea that 'acquiring
skills' is your notion of the standard to apply to all humans. There is no
skill or skills that will do what you think is going to happen. All that will
happen is, desperate people will obliterate the labor value of coding and
thinking, during the final phase of human-centric thinking as a type of labor.

