Submitted by otter_spud t3_ye2buh in Connecticut
afleetingmoment t1_itw80xs wrote
Reply to comment by ThePermafrost in How can we incentivize real discussions around solutions to home affordability in CT? by otter_spud
That would work for me if we had county- or state-level resource sharing here. It's unrealistic for wealthy towns/people to point at the cash-strapped cities and say "you deal with all the problems."
The irony of course is that the wealthy towns rely fully on people from the poorer cities - to staff their homes and restaurants, do construction, mow their lawns, etc.
Until we stop "othering" the problems and work on mutually beneficial plans, the cycle will continue.
Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwh2qi wrote
I personally don’t see an issue with an area relying on lower demographics to do unskilled labor and blue collar work. That’s how it’s been for centuries. It also benefits both parties. I can speak on the trades because I work with and am friends with many tradies. They don’t want to live in Greenwich but they’re happy to upcharge the shit out of them to mow their lawns then go home to their lower income communities with a large paycheck. Never understood the argument that if you work in a city you should be able to afford it
afleetingmoment t1_itwhgup wrote
I 100% agree, all I'm pointing out is that unless and until the various towns group together and sort out the housing issue, it will never go anywhere. If the wealthy towns just sit back and wait for the cities with far less resources to figure it out, it will never happen. We need to work together since as you said, both parties benefit.
Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwigsd wrote
So should the wealthy communities be taking their own tax revenue to build housing in poor cities? Fairfield county already funds the majority of the state with its taxes
afleetingmoment t1_itwjet0 wrote
In a way, yes.
I'll compare here to where my parents live in Indian River County, Florida. Like here, there are extremely wealthy areas on the barrier island, there are middle-class suburban areas, there are really poor areas, and there are rural areas. Yet the entire county is one school district. Everyone shares various municipal services and resources. All the houses pay in in proportion to their value to create a school system.
Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwjtrt wrote
I personally disagree that my taxes should benefit communities other than my own but that’s completely ok to disagree on. It definitely could work but I don’t think that idea would make it past the folks that think like me.
Edit: for example, compare Greenwich’s public schools to Florida’s.
afleetingmoment t1_itwl5oz wrote
I totally get that view, yet therein lies the problem. Greenwich (and others) wouldn't survive in its current state if not surrounded by towns that can feed it workers. So in my estimation the economic system crosses many town's boundaries... yet due to the structure we have, Greenwich isolates the benefits of that system for itself and can have the best schools, resources, etc.
It's an interesting problem but one that seems solvable through some kind of resource sharing or perhaps the "council of governments" idea.
I don't expect the wealthy to just buoy everyone... nor do I think it's fair to look at a place like Bridgeport with zero available to it and say "you fix all your problems; they're not mine."
usernamedunbeentaken t1_itx56u6 wrote
But other communities wouldn't survive if not for the massive taxes that rich communities like Greenwich pay.
You (and others who argue for 'regionalization) are arguing that rich communities should support poorer communities. But the fact is they already do tremendously.
Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_itwtsvc wrote
Yea everything you said is correct and I agree with it. I think the divide is those who think that system is a problem or not.
TashaYarAtYourAww t1_iu0m8yx wrote
> I personally don’t see an issue with an area relying on lower demographics to do unskilled labor and blue collar work. That’s how it’s been for centuries.
Isn’t this kind of an argument in favor of slavery, though? Like, there should be an underclass that serves a community, but the community will reject them and give them nothing in return. I grew up in a wealthy CT suburb full of restaurants, cafes, schools, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and more. All of the people providing the labor to run the town have to live somewhere else because we as a society undervalue their labor while we simultaneously rely completely on it? Seems fucked.
> Never understood the argument that if you work in a city you should be able to afford it
How long should a low wage worker’s commute be?
Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_iu170ln wrote
Slavery? That’s a bit of a stretch. I’d argue it’s more of an argument for trickle down economics. Are you suggesting everyone should make the exact same amount of money regardless and all houses should cost the exact same? If so that’s alright but I do disagree with that mentality
TashaYarAtYourAww t1_iu3rawz wrote
I’m not talking about housing prices here. I’m checking up on this notion:
> I personally don’t see an issue with an area relying on lower demographics to do unskilled labor and blue collar work. That’s how it’s been for centuries.
It sounds like you are explicitly advocating for an underclass to exist from whom the wealthy may extract labor at low cost. These workers in turn are not seen as members of the community despite the fact that they do the community building work of child care, elder care, food service, retail service, delivery service and more. Why are they not allowed to live in the community that they build? Because they are members of a “lower demographic”. I don’t know what you mean but I wanted to point out exactly the kind of system that rests on that belief.
Sure, I used a hot word. But you also didn’t even attempt to answer my question: how long should the commute of these workers be? In another comment I believe you say they shouldn’t even live in Connecticut anymore. So how long should a worker drive or ride a bus to serve your coffee?
Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_iu4tlwg wrote
However long it takes to get from a community that they can comfortably afford, like this isn’t some wild notion. And you’re very wrong the lower class does benefit from this system as well. They make good money that would otherwise be unavailable to them.
TashaYarAtYourAww t1_iu4ywgo wrote
Okay, the coffee shop employee cannot afford to live anywhere in CT. Should they take a bus from RI? Is New Jersey too far?
Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_iu5afxb wrote
I see that as an income issue not a travel issue, you’d be hard pressed to find the salary that unskilled labor gets in CT outside of CT. It may not be enough but it’s a whole hell of a lot better than elsewhere. Out of curiosity although I may disagree, how do you think this issue would be solved. I feel like we may disagree morally on this issue but I am always happy to learn how others feel these issues can be fixed. There is a middle ground somewhere and that’s how we fix these issues
TashaYarAtYourAww t1_iu6es7r wrote
I also see that as an income issue, yes. I responded to initially because of your particular phrasing that it’s a good thing for a community to avail itself of low wage work by another class (or “lower demographic”) of people that aren’t community members. That is an alarming sentiment to me. This work has to be done for society to function. Care work, domestic work, service work, agricultural work, and many other types of work command sub-livable wages. Those workers do the work that supports the functioning and quality of life for wealthy residents. The people who benefit from that labor and the people who perform that labor should be neighbors, members of the same community. Fix it with wage increases, fix it with housing price adjustments, fix it with wealth redistribution and whatever else it takes. But start seeing the people who do the largely invisible, sometimes unpaid, many times underpaid labor in your community as FULL MEMBERS of your community. None of this “lower demographics” keep them in another town business.
ThePermafrost t1_itwdpv3 wrote
Interestingly enough, wealthier towns have the highest percentage of teen workers, so those towns are actually rather self sufficient for minimum wage labor. Apparently teens from wealthy families get accustomed to nice things, and then get after school jobs to pay for those nice things.
I’m sure the state offers grant money for projects such as these.
afleetingmoment t1_itweol5 wrote
Ha! That's a good joke. Teenagers are definitely cleaning, cooking, chauffeuring, plumbing, wiring, and teaching in all the wealthy towns.
ThePermafrost t1_itx3ecd wrote
Yes, teenagers are doing most of the food service, cleaning, and country club jobs in the area. Teaching and Trade work are among some of the highest paid professions in the state, so they can certainly afford to live wherever they work.
Whaddaulookinat t1_itxccxo wrote
This may be the most God damned stupid thing I've ever heard.
ThePermafrost t1_itxh68w wrote
The median teacher salary equalized for full time is $106,000 in CT. (Link) And tradespeople make $150/hr.
I’m not sure how you think that is somehow correlated to minimum wage work?
samskeyti_ t1_iucr4nk wrote
Some tradespeople earn $150/hr. For many it’s ~$50. It really depends on the trade.
Whaddaulookinat t1_itxi37w wrote
Damn two in a row... This is now the most God damned stupid thing I've read... Not the brightest are ya?
ThePermafrost t1_itxuhe4 wrote
Do you have any sources to back up your unfounded claims or is resorting to childish insults the best you can come up with?
Whaddaulookinat t1_itxzb8f wrote
I can do both, but I only have time and energy for the insults because what you said was so patently dumb and your backtracking is simply chefs kiss I don't have to antique spend energy going over it. You said something tone deaf and idiotic, we all do just take the L man
ThePermafrost t1_ityyuqh wrote
You defaulted to insults when you were proven incorrect. It’s not becoming. Do better.
Whaddaulookinat t1_itzcydv wrote
🤣🤣🤣
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments