
What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty - brown9-2
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/12/17/251992536/security-guards-at-big-tech-companies-struggle-with-low-pay
======
ericabiz
I never know what to make of these articles. I started out with low pay in
Silicon Valley, too; I took a job at a startup in 1999 making $15/hour doing
IT desktop support. In 2002 (edit: this was 2002, not 2001), when I quit to do
consulting and start my own company, things were miserable in the Valley--and
my salary as a developer was still only $49,500/year then.

I am a college dropout. By traditional standards, then, this guy has more than
I do: He has a college degree. Working at a tech company, he had to see that
the developers/sysadmins/computer folks made more than he did.

I find this juxtaposition interesting because, certainly, a similar article
could have been written about me in 1999. $15 an hour was a terrible wage then
in the Valley, too.

Faced with something similar, I asked several of the developers at our company
to teach me development. They were amused at this young 18-year-old girl
asking them what a "for loop" was. But they taught me.

It took me a while to pick up Linux system administration, bash shell
scripting, Perl and PHP (this was in 1999-2000.) When I dropped out of school
in 2001, my parents cut me off financially, so I shared tiny apartments, slept
on couches, and made ends meet.

Now, at age 32, I've bootstrapped a startup to a 7-figure sale and am now the
CEO of a funded startup.

For most of my life, I've dealt with depression and believing I was not "good
enough." In that way, I empathize with Manny. If he's reading this, I would
like to say to him: I stand here as proof that a minority with no college
degree and no formal education can make it in this world. You live in Silicon
Valley. If you really want to pull yourself out of poverty, all doors can be
open to you. The first step is believing that you can do it.

~~~
grecy
> _things were miserable in the Valley--and my salary as a developer was still
> only $49,500 /year then._

You were making $50k - (in 2001?) - that's $65k in 2012 dollars.

This guy is making $16,800 ($1,400/mo). That's 4 times less than you were, and
you think you're comparable?

~~~
ericabiz
I started out doing desktop support for $15/hour. (I actually think I started
out making less, but I'm not sure how much "less" was--perhaps $12/hour? so I
quoted the higher number.) $49,500/year was _after_ I spent over a year
learning development, and our startup got bought out by a huge company, and I
interviewed into a role at the big company as a developer.

I also started out working for a subcontractor, much like Manny in the
article. Indeed, I do think it's comparable.

Manny also has lower expenses than I did, since he lives with his mom, and in
a traditional way of looking at things, he has more "opportunities" open to
him since he has a college degree and I was a dropout.

~~~
selmnoo
Implicit in your reasoning is the suggestion that a security guard doesn't
deserve a dignified living wage. I disagree with that -- I think in a
civilized society he should be able to afford his own place, provide for his
daughter, give her rides as needed without sacrificing job security, etc. As
the other poster mentioned, we /need/ such people... we need people who mow
the lawns, people who flip burgers, people who shovel snow. We shouldn't think
of them as humans that don't deserve a respectable living wage.

re: luck, and making it in the valley

Consider the fact that if there was someone quite like Bill Gates, same
skillset, same personality, etc. starting out today, how far he'd be able to
get. I would assert that it's unlikely that he'd be able to maneuver the SV
world today and be able to get more than about 300k. But the real-life Bill
Gates has some 60 billion dollar worth... so what's the issue? Clearly luck is
a big factor.. you have to be at the right place at the right time, with the
connections, with the money, etc. I have known _way_ too many poor people who
work _unbelievably_ hard... so I just couldn't disagree more with what you
have to say.

I would like to respectfully suggest to you that you take some time out and
maybe volunteer at a soup kitchen so that you are made more familiar with the
real battles a lot of people face today. People like you and I, but without
the social support, without the coveted connections and networks, without the
job security, without the time to be able to learn a programming language
without external pressures (like the pressure to just make money for this
month's rent, so your daughter still has a roof on her head). It's very tough
for them out there, and getting up is not as easy as you think it is.

~~~
jedmeyers
"In a civilized society one should be able to afford his own place, provide
for his daughter, give her rides as needed without sacrificing job security,
etc" \- should society provide a place for a person in a location of its
choosing?

~~~
sentenza
Should the door in the location of your choosing have a guard?

Two questions, same answer.

~~~
jedmeyers
I don't see how this question fits anywhere in this discussion.

------
gdrulia
I don't know, maybe some people who lives there might find some sense in the
story, but to me it just doesn't make any sense (I'm east European living in
London). Seems just like another try to blame someone else for his own choices
how to live a life.

In the end, if you want to be equal with other employers, maybe it is time to
consider what makes them being more equal and try to reach it yourself instead
of just telling the world how unfair the world is.

But that just my personal opinion, maybe now it is considered O.K. to act like
that.

------
dkokelley
I dislike the implication that external contractors are basically second-class
employees that are being exploited by the hiring company. Google has no idea
what this person makes. Google hired a security company to perform a service.
Event/site security is not Google's core competency.

I am well aware of the external contractor dynamic. I work at a small company
that provides services to $Fortune_500_company. My access badge is a different
color than $Fortune_500_company employees, and I am not allowed to partake in
certain employee perks. In fact, $Fortune_500_company is very clear that
despite working on their computer, having their email address, having an
assigned seat at their campus, and being on their phone system, I am not an
employee of theirs. I am OK with this.

There are plenty of ways to be screwed in your career. Your contractor/staff
status should be considered an unrelated byproduct.

~~~
olefoo
> Google has no idea what this person makes.

They can certainly find out. Just like ethically sourced coffee beans are a
thing; ethically sourced menial labour can be a thing. It's hip and cool to
use ethically sourced labor that isn't toxic to the society you live in. :-)

~~~
dkokelley
How would you define an ethical wage for menial labor?

~~~
chadwickthebold
How about a wage that was at least a decent amount above the federal poverty
level?

~~~
dkokelley
By most measures the man in question does earn a rate higher than the "federal
poverty level". It seems like the issue is that he doesn't work enough hours.

~~~
lhc-
The federal poverty level isn't particularly relevant if you are in a place
that is considerably more expensive than average. Also, its not that he does
not want to work enough hours, his employer doesn't allow him to work more.
Plus, by that token, I could argue $7/hour is a livable wage, as long as you
work 100 hours a week.

------
blhack
/s

Does anybody see a link to this guys github profile? I wonder how far along he
is on any side projects that he's working on. Surely he must hang out at any
of the many coworking spaces in SF on the weekend, right?

I don't mean to be crass here, but...there are SO MANY programs available for
this guy to learn to code, and then get the employee benefit of taking home
free food from his employer (seriously? He's upset they don't let him take
free food?)

I don't really buy the excuse anymore that people are just being held down by
"the system", _especially_ in tech.

I've tried with /so many/ people who are in similar "woe is me" situations to
teach them to program. I've bought VPSs for them, I've set up curricula for
them, I've invited them to hackathons, offered to work on projects with them,
etc. etc. etc.

And they don't take it.

One friend, who I got a job with my employer as a part time support person,
needed help building his resume. At the time, I was building a new mail server
for us, and I told him I wanted him to help me with it so that he could add
some linux sys admin work to his resume.

Did he accept it? Nope! He spent his time at home watching Netflix and playing
WoW, or age of empires or something.

A month later these people are on facebook complaining about how the evil
wealthy people are holding them down.

\--

He's working 30 hours a week, and lives with his mom. C'mon, man, you're being
handed the ability to learn to code and build a github profile of a freaking
golden platter. Get to it! Or...stop complaining about making $18/hr and only
getting to /eat/ the free gourmet buffet, when you wish you could take it
home.

\--

Furthermore, move out of the bay area, man! That's one of the most expensive
places to live in the country! Go move to Iowa, or North Dakota. Those places
have high qualities of life, good wages, and low costs of living.

The Bay is one of the most desirable places in the WORLD to live. I'd love to
have sympathy for a guy making $18/hr and living the San Jose, but I just
can't bring myself to.

~~~
WildUtah
_Furthermore, move out of the bay area, man! That 's one of the most expensive
places to live in the country!_

Whenever I see these articles, I think about what makes the Bay Area
expensive. The key factor is housing prices.

There's a limited amount of land available near the centers of SV because of
mountains and natural areas. Supply is strictly constrained and demand is very
strong because of industry growth. The result is spiraling prices far above
what would seem reasonable elsewhere.

Supply constraint isn't really a natural limit, though. Bay Area housing is
spread out, low density, even sprawling. Even San Francisco is only half the
density of Brooklyn. San Jose and San Mateo county mostly look like a suburb
of Omaha.

Market demand would indicate big profit opportunities for anyone who can buy
up a subdivision and build a neighborhood of three story flats on wide
sidewalks and two lane streets. That would be over double the density of San
Francisco and ten times the density of a typical San Mateo subdivision. You
could easily afford to buy up property, knock down current buildings and carry
away a huge profit. But you can't get permission from planning boards.

Or you could build like Tokyo, which is a little less dense than Brooklyn.
You'd make free standing two or three story single family homes with very
little yard on 15' single lane streets and small blocks. That's the same
density as Brooklyn, 2.5 times San Francisco.

Or you could even build like San Francisco, but in San Jose. That's efficient
enough in land per housing unit to make big money.

But it's all prohibited.

The Bay Area has chosen to be unlivable and unpleasant by its choice of public
officials. Those city officials have prohibited the practices that make city
living affordable. The result of bad public officials is an unhappy public.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The Bay Area has chosen to be unlivable and unpleasant by its choice of
> public officials.

You seem to confuse "high density" with "livable" or "pleasant". I don't think
that makes a lot of sense.

> Those city officials have prohibited the practices that make city living
> affordable.

San Francisco -- whose development policies you suggest would make San Jose
more affordable -- is more expensive to live in than San Jose. Tokyo and New
York City -- your other comparators for the Bay Area -- aren't exactly
bastions of affordability.

The profits for developers if your proposals were adopted are, of course,
clear. The mechanism by which "affordable", "livable", or "pleasant" come out
of them is far less clear.

~~~
WildUtah
I've seen dense pleasant and unpleasant and rural pleasant and unpleasant and
most possibilities in between. I don't mean to equate the one axis with the
other. It is very challenging to build mid-density pleasant surroundings
without making car traffic impossibly nasty, though. The DPZ architecture firm
in Miami has proven that heroic effort can answer even that challenge.

San Francisco is more expensive than San Jose because more people want to live
in a city built like SF than one like SJ. Building more SF and less SJ style
will make people happier and produce more housing per acre.

 _Tokyo and New York City ... aren 't exactly bastions of affordability_

Correlation isn't causation.

The laws of supply and demand show that more supply will lower prices and less
supply forces prices up. Building more quality higher density neighborhoods
will make housing more affordable.

Historically very desirable areas became expensive which led to denser
construction so more people could afford them. Now the denser areas that were
so desirable are often still desirable and still expensive. It wasn't the
density that led to the expense, though; the density is mitigating the
expense.

There is a limit to what you can do with density to mitigate expense before
things get unpleasant and Manhattan is near the limit. Tokyo is not. San Jose
is nowhere near the limit.

~~~
dragonwriter
> San Francisco is more expensive than San Jose because more people want to
> live in a city built like SF than one like SJ.

No, its more expensive than SJ because it has a major port (driving commercial
value) and substantial beachfront, and because groups attracted directly by
those two things also, themselves, produce additional indirect demand.

California communities with even one of these things that are built more like
San Jose than San Francisco are often more expensive than San Jose -- and even
can be more expensive than San Francisco.

> Correlation isn't causation.

But the absence of correlation is pretty clear disproof of causation.

> The laws of supply and demand show that more supply will lower prices

Sure, more housing supply will lower housing prices -- and the resulting
increase in population will increase the demand for _everything else that
plays into affordability of living in the city_. What do the laws of supply
and demand say about that?

~~~
eqdw
> Sure, more housing supply will lower housing prices -- and the resulting
> increase in population will increase the demand for everything else that
> plays into affordability of living in the city. What do the laws of supply
> and demand say about that?

Yep. You're exactly right. Population is increasing, driving demand, raising
prices. Problem is, population will continue to increase for the projected
future. Since it's unconstitutional to prevent people from moving somewhere,
this needs to be accommodated.

Building more housing will induce demand. But it will also mitigate against a
future where growing demand and fixed supply raise rents even more.

The _ONLY_ way to substantively lower rents is to increase supply or decrease
demand. Nothing else will solve this. And for what it's worth, rent is about
65% of my monthly budget; lowering rents would substantially increase
affordability/cost of living in this area

------
w1ntermute
So let me get this straight. This guy got a girl who wasn't (or isn't anymore)
his wife pregnant when he was 20 and didn't have a college degree. _No shit_
it's going to be hard to get along. _For fuck 's sake_, you can get FREE
condoms from Planned Parenthood or another local health clinic. The sense of
entitlement people have is just astonishing to me.

~~~
MattGrommes
I think you're forgetting the phrase "shit happens". There is no way of
knowing what happened to the mom or their relationship. And I don't think it
matters either. How would his having a wife have any impact on his situation?
If she didn't work, it would be another person to take care of. If she did
work, they'd have the same childcare problems mentioned in the article. He
seems like he's working hard to take care of his kid but like most people
wishes the huge company he works for would help a little more. Where's the
entitlement?

~~~
w1ntermute
> I think you're forgetting the phrase "shit happens".

Oh come on. There is _no excuse_ for not using contraception when you're not
financially, emotionally, and maritally prepared to have a child. I don't know
about this particular man's case, but 95% of unwanted pregnancies are due to
failure to use contraception or use it properly [0], which is nothing more or
less than sheer irresponsibility on the part of the future parents.

> How would his having a wife have any impact on his situation?

Seriously? It's _much_ easier to raise a child when both parents are present.
It gives you more flexibility in terms of work, even if both parents are
working. You save a lot of money because you're not paying individual rents.
You save money on food as well. You get tax benefits from the government. If
one of you has a job with health insurance that includes dependents, then the
other gets it too. The list goes on and on.

> He seems like he's working hard to take care of his kid but like most people
> wishes the huge company he works for would help a little more. Where's the
> entitlement?

He irresponsibly had a child when he wasn't prepared to raise one, and is now
expecting others to help him out. _That_ is entitlement.

0:
[http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/05/09/ImprovingContracep...](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/05/09/ImprovingContraceptiveUse.pdf)

~~~
DanBC
> but 95% of unwanted pregnancies are due to failure to use contraception or
> use it properly [0], which is nothing more or less than sheer
> irresponsibility on the part of the future parents.

He made have made sure that she was using contraception, and not known that
she was doing so incorrectly. Or maybe she had some medication interaction
that no one warned her about. Or maybe they were one of the 5%.

~~~
w1ntermute
> He made have made sure that she was using contraception, and not known that
> she was doing so incorrectly.

This is also being irresponsible. Don't stick your dick in crazy.

> Or maybe she had some medication interaction that no one warned her about.

Not sure what you mean by this, but if she had a latex allergy, there are non-
latex condoms as well. Either way, there is no excuse for not using one.

> Or maybe they were one of the 5%.

Maybe, but then you can get an abortion. And besides, the real point of this
article isn't about this one individual, but about the large segment of
society that is in a similar position to him. And on average, 95% of those
people who had unwanted pregnancies fall into the "lack of or incorrect use of
contraception" category.

~~~
DanBC
Female birth control pills have a variety of fail methods.

> Don't stick your dick in crazy.

What a vile comment.

------
nickelite
I don't think it's a bad thing that Google treats each employee differently.

There's no reason why contractors should have the same benefits as regular
employees. Google is a business, not a charity. When Google gives engineers
to-go boxes, they don't do it because they like them better than other
employees, they do it because it's a competitive market out there, and they
want to keep the best.

Besides, maybe letting contractors take food home is too expensive for the
company. Maybe they couldn't afford free food at all if they give to EVERYONE.

If the security guard wants to earn more, he should either start a business on
his own or improve his skills to get a better job.

People who make this argument tend to make it sound as if it were a
discrimination issue, it's not. The reason engineers get paid better isn't
because they're white, taller or prettier, it's because they're more prepared
and thus add more value to the company.

~~~
scelerat
> If the security guard wants to earn more, he should either start a business
> on his own or improve his skills to get a better job.

Part of the reason people are engineers is because they've been exposed to
good examples and opportunities over a lifetime, not because they are
especially or particularly motivated over anyone else. There are all sorts of
factors which lead to people having the profession that they do. Work ethic is
one among many, and probably not very high on the list.

And, being taller and prettier is absolutely a predictor for being better
paid.

[http://www.livescience.com/5552-taller-people-earn-
money.htm...](http://www.livescience.com/5552-taller-people-earn-money.html)
[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020368750...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203687504576655331418204842)

------
altoz
It's interesting to note that this guy NEVER gets more than 30 hours. This is
most likely to make sure the employee can't be considered full-time. I'm sure
Google would rather hire 15 guys at 40-60 hours instead of 40 guys at 20
hours, but the sad reality is that the costs of compliance for a full-time
employee are just not worth it.

~~~
dkokelley
Google hasn't hired anybody. The security company was awarded a contract to
provide security services, which is fulfilled by employing some people at < 30
hours/week. If there is an issue with the < 30 hours/week loophole, the
security company is where it should be addressed.

"But Google is benefiting from this exploitation!" you might say.

Yes. Google can pay less for security services because the guards ultimately
cost less. If the guards worked 40 hours/week, the contract cost would have to
increase, and another lower cost security company may have won the contract.
The reality is that security services are only worth so much. Not every job
(even at full time) can or should be expected to pay a livable wage.

~~~
lhc-
What do you propose for those people who work these non-livable jobs
(including security jobs, janitors, restaurant service workers, and whatever
else) to allow them to, well, live? Because you can't just ignore it and say
they should get better jobs: someone has to do these things.

~~~
dkokelley
I apologize for the late reply.

The truth is some jobs are simply not worth much to the employer. The minimum
wage laws generally are designed to ensure a livable (albeit uncomfortable)
income for a single adult working full time. In California, the minimum wage
is $8/hr, and scheduled to increase to $10/hr within a couple years. This
combined with government assistance programs will generally ensure that
individuals with the will to work can afford to live near their livelihood
($500/month room with utilities in the bay area with BART access
[http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/roo/4250779898.html](http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/roo/4250779898.html)).
Of course there are several other factors that impact one's ability to sustain
themselves:

Dependants - There is government assistance available for dependant children.

Lack of work - The man from this article does not work full time. The
availability of full-time jobs aside, it is not reasonable to expect a livable
income on part time, unskilled work.

Major unplanned expenses - Things such as unplanned medical expenses or
enormous college tuitions or loan repayments will be a burden to someone
making minimum wage.

My point is, 1) I do not accept the assumption that certain jobs are non-
livable by definition. For an individual working full time without dependants
or edge-case financial burdens, you can generally get by in America. 2) "non-
livable" jobs only exist when certain edge case financial hardships arise. In
general, assistance is available in these cases, and we have systems in place
to support people who fall on hard times. Whether these systems are working as
intended is beyond the scope of employee compensation, although there is
definitely a case for improving these systems.

There is a third, unspoken point about "non-livable" jobs. People who work
these jobs are usually not expected to stay very long. Sometimes these are
"stepping-stone" opportunities for the young and inexperienced. Other times
these jobs act as a safety net for workers who have lost their higher-paying
jobs and need to survive until they can be fully employed. I accept there are
people who have no plans or hopes of moving on from these jobs, either due to
a lack of marketable skills or even language barriers. I don't believe the
answer is in regulating these jobs to pay better. I think the answer lies in
educational outreach. Instead of bettering the job, let's try to better the
individual so they can get a better job.

Finally, I agree that "someone has to do these things". The market will ensure
that the things that need to get done are done. Assuming that everyone "gets
better jobs", the supply of unskilled laborers will decrease. From economics,
I would guess that a lack of supply for certain menial tasks will have one of
two outcomes: the price for the menial task will increase ("non-livable" jobs
now become more livable), or a substitute will eliminate the need for the work
(automation).

------
joshklein
This is explored to a degree in a pop psychology book by Daniel Gilbert called
"Stumbling on Happiness". There are certainly better sources, such as the
papers Gilbert uses as his primary sources, but the book is an accessible way
to learn about the high degree to which our happiness depends on subjective
interpretation of our self-comparison to others.

There's a theory out there that we evaluate ourselves mostly against people we
can reasonably consider our peers (e.g. college classmates or the kid who grew
up down the street, not Barack Obama or Steve Jobs) because they are the best
proxy for what our lives could have been like had we made different choices
with the same starting point (e.g. medical school instead of starting a
business). These peers represent our best experimental data given a world of
singular outcomes.

The double-edged sword of you achieving success is that those hundred or so
people you compare yourself to sit high up on an asymptotic curve of outcomes.
That is, if your peer group all has advanced degrees and decades of
experience, the outcome-difference between the least and most successful will
be extreme. "Low success" peer groups sit at the flatter part of the curve, so
peers you compare yourself to will "look more like you", thus avoiding the
unhappiness of comparative failure when you judge yourself.

I'm forgetting whether this particular idea comes from Gilbert's book or
another source, like perhaps "Status Anxiety" by Alain de Botton.

~~~
dhugiaskmak
That was your takeaway from the article? Really?

~~~
joshklein
I was attempting to introduce another, separate subject of intellectual
interest to build on the conversation, not trying to provide my takeaway from
this article. If my comment came across as a callous attempt to make the topic
about the subjective happiness of the privileged rather than the objective
disadvantages of those in need, it was not my intention. I'm sorry for my
inappropriateness.

I did not think my takeaway from this article added to the conversation. Since
I've been prompted for it, all I can say about the situation is that I'm
appalled by income inequality and an apparent lack of empathy, but I don't
know enough about the subjects of this article, or the people examining the
article's subjects, to pass judgement. I can only empathize.

------
Aloha
I work for a major telecom company doing field service.

I'm a contractor, I get a fair wage, but not much else.

Real employees get, company truck, 20% more pay, 100% paid benefits, company
phone and a bunch of intangibles.

Like a good example when my manager goes on vacation even though I drive my
own vehicle and am paid mileage, none of my mileage requests are paid, right
now I'm floating about a month worth of mileage and other expenses, to the
tune of 700+ dollars. If I were an employee, I would have a company vehicle,
company gas card, company expense card, and it wouldn't be coming out of my
pocket.

------
cperry
This is a sad consequence of the dynamism of the tech economy, and while no
individual is directly to blame, it behooves us to do what we can to help out
those around us. Pointing fingers at this guy, blaming him for his own
mistakes, while possibly true (who's to say?) isn't worthwhile.

The rising inequality in the bay area is spurring the protests in SF aimed at
tech workers, and are just the beginning of a turning point which will result
in the tech elite becoming demonized at large[1], and by extension (and likely
less so) your average tech worker.

Becoming involved in the community, expressing sympathy, volunteering at food
banks, what have you, are all ways in which we can help avoid that fate.

[1] [http://www.economist.com/news/21588893-tech-elite-will-
join-...](http://www.economist.com/news/21588893-tech-elite-will-join-bankers-
and-oilmen-public-demonology-predicts-adrian-wooldridge-coming)

------
alexeisadeski3
Is it better to have """low pay""" in San Jose or low pay in Tijuana?

~~~
pessimizer
Tijuana. Is there any question?

~~~
peteretep
The question is "What is the question?"

\- Would you rather be on $24k/p/a in Tijuana?

\- Would you rather be in the bottom 10% income bracket in Tijuana?

~~~
alexeisadeski3
I definitely meant something like the latter!

------
pjmorris
If everybody learns to code, who's going to be the security guard?

~~~
sunnybythesea
Well...just because someone learns to code, does not mean they will be able to
do it full-time. I don't think we'll run into that problem anytime soon

~~~
pjmorris
You're right. But, to elaborate, it seems to me that the answer to 'these jobs
don't pay enough' is 'get a better job'. The bottom line seems to be 'do
what's hard and in fashion (coding), or you can't eat.' Reminds me of the
Glengarry Glen Ross contest: 'First prize is a Cadillac, second prize is a set
of steak knives, third prize is you're fired.' Is this really how we want to
run a society?

