I hate to say "move", but if dual income is super hard to make ends meet in SV, it's time to move out of SV. The US is huge, there are tons of places with decent tech scene, but affordable housing on a 5-figure salary without needing dual income (Texas, Utah, etc.).
Moving because of the pandemic when it means moving away from jobs (and potentially a career in the case of a technical writer), family, friends you've had since childhood...
It's not only not that simple, it's not even clear to me it's the right answer. The right answer is probably something involving employers understanding that this is a hard time right now and you need to be flexible.
It was in response to : [..] Plus when you land there, you won't be getting help or support. So toss all your support network for more space. For some that's reasonable, but for many it is not, and presuming that it's their own 'fault' for not moving is not charitable.[..]
It is just one more failure to come up with a robust solution to the problem here.
Immigrants land in places without a social net or help or support network literally 100% of the time. Often moving to places where language and culture and geography is starkly different from what they are used to reach for their best interests.
It is not the end of the world. To refuse to leave the cozy familiarity of ones social network is understandable only to those who feel the he same way.
Most immigrants I know leave their home countries and the coziness of familiarity for their children. And moving around America even temporarily is not the same as moving across oceans for a better quality of life.
Yes, all true, but let's not forget the overall context of the OP -- people's reactions to co-workers needing an extra day off. Deciding to uproot your life rather than take advantage of temporary company policies connected to the pandemic seems to be an overreaction.
That’s between employees and employers. My ire is directed towards those who claim that childless are free loaders being subsidized by the future generations and that having children is a sacrifice borne by them for society.
Employment contracts should be examined due to the extraordinary circumstances we are in and that would depend on the companies. I was only replying to specific comments that may or may not have anything to do with OP.
Let's not forget the context here. The context is people complaining that their co-workers are having to flex their time, or take extra days off over what they normally would. This is not about someone improving their life, this is about making adjustments to temporary conditions.
It's easy to say move, but much harder to actually do it. A lot of people flat out cannot afford to move half-way across the country, period, full stop, nor can they afford the added risk of getting new jobs. Plus, odds are good their salary where they're moving to is less, so it's not clear that they'll easily now be able to survive on a single salary anyway.
Plus, this solution isn't highly scalable; only so many people can do it.
You don't have to move half-way across the country. Pick any high rent location in the United States, there's a lower rent location 30 minutes away. SV included.
And now you've added another hour's worth of commute every day and are paying more in transportation costs. People are already being forced to do this and it's not that uncommon to see 2+ hour one-way commutes in the Bay Area now. This is clearly not sustainable long-term and is not a good solution for people's welfare, nor for the environment, nor for traffic congestion.
Plus when you land there, you won't be getting help or support. So toss all your support network for more space. For some that's reasonable, but for many it is not, and presuming that it's their own 'fault' for not moving is not charitable.
> odds are good their salary where they're moving to is less
so you're saying they are already getting the highest salary they could've gotten then (adjusted for cost of living etc)?
> this solution isn't highly scalable; only so many people can do it
If people move away enmass, then the demand for said worker increases, which should (at least, under the great invisible hand!) increase the salary, and a new balance reached. So it should only take a small % of people moving away due to low pay to affect the pay.
From the perspective of their decision, I mostly agree with you. But I hope it's not lost on anyone that if being a nurse is not a viable career, that will ultimately be far more disastrous than any other market inefficiencies.
