Sheila James starts her Monday, and the work week, at 2:15 a.m.; this might be normal for a baker or a morning radio host, but Ms. James is a standard American office worker. She is 62 and makes $81,000 a year as a public health adviser for the United States Department of Health and Human Services in San Francisco. Ms. James lives about 80 miles away in Stockton, which has cheaper homes than the Bay Area but requires her to commute on two trains and a bus leaving at 4 a.m. to get to work.The time spent commuting to work exhausts employees, as they must invest a total of nearly 4 hours into a work-related activity without receiving any compensation for it. The time invested into the work commute also takes away from one’s time with family and friends. Rather than spending those 4 hours bonding with family members and expanding one’s social circle, commuters are spending it inside a vehicle. Excessive commute times also have the potential to take a heavy toll on an individual’s physical and mental health. Since workers must wake early to get to work by 8 or 9 am, that means they often receive less sleep than their bodies require. Sleep deprivation can cause depression, memory loss, slower reaction times, and a weakened immune system.
Some may ask why don’t working-class families find employment elsewhere. For example, rather than commute to San Francisco every day for work, the commuter can work at a local establishment in Stockton. There are two flaws in this argument. The first flaw lies in the assumption that jobs can be readily found outside of major metropolitan areas. Areas such as Stockton may have more affordable housing than the San Francisco Bay Area region, but employment opportunities are far fewer in these places than major cities. The second flaw lies in the assumption that housing costs in these smaller cities will remain constant as more people move inside. Stockton’s rental prices may be low now, but if more working-class families move into the city then prices will rise. Thus, the process of pricing out working-class families from the area will repeat.
In the last five years, home prices in the Central Valley have increased 92%, reports Mercury News. The median listing price in Stockton a landlocked city of about 300,000 residents is $275,000 right now while it was only $180,000 in November 2013. The surge is mostly thanks to an influx of homeowners priced out of neighboring Silicon Valley.Without any viable options available, it is unsurprising that working-class families are leaving California in hopes of achieving a better standard of living. Las Vegas is one of the most popular destinations for those who leave California. It's relatively close to California, it's a major job center, the cost of living is much cheaper, and there are plenty of affordable new single-family homes available for purchase.
What will be the effect on California’s economy if working-class families continue to leave the state? How will the outflow of working-class families affect middle-class and upper-class families?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have a handful of relatives who were living in Manteca (somewhat south of Stockton and north of Modesto) and they recently moved to Oregon. Some of them are retired and others are working class. Those who are working class were frustrated at their inability to find jobs and pay rent. But those who are retired wanted to move because they were fed up with the area becoming congested with people who move there to commute to the bay area. Based on my family's case, it seems the creeping of the population out of the bay area is not only affecting the working class. What will be the effect on the economy if upper- and middle-class retirees all leave the town because they are tired of it being clogged by the commuters?
ReplyDeleteI think there will absolutely be negative economic effects to the working class moving out of CA, but I also believe the outflux means that there will probably be an even greater social divide among classes in our state. It's hard to understand the plight of the working class, their psychology, and why they vote the way they vote without the opportunity to interact at work, as neighbors, or as friends.
ReplyDeleteYour post reminded me of a Positive Psychology (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/positive-psychology) seminar I took in college. One of the biggest and most consistent indicators of unhappiness among people who were studied was a long commute. The longer the commute, the less happy you were. Unfortunately, it seems commuting into cities for work (cities that they have been priced out of) is just another reason for working class individuals to resent the middle and upper classes.
I think CA especially is a place where the middle class and working class can become allies for policies that will help them in cities. It's not just the working class who are being priced out of housing, are underpaid, and have trouble making ends meet. Perhaps it's time for a coalition to force cities to enact zoning policies and housing regulations that make housing more accessible. Perhaps they can prohibit practices like foreign real estate investment, private vacation rentals, and moratoriums on building more affordable housing. I also think that the middle class should look out for working class folks and encourage cities/the state to adopt a sustainable minimum wage.
I really sympathize with Sheila. I will be working in Silicon Valley next year and the housing prices truly are outrageous. Even with a generous salary, housing costs will take up a substantial portion of my earnings. Real estate is so expensive that to buy a house you need to budget at least one million dollars towards the purchase. Not to mention that California has the highest income taxes in the nation.
ReplyDeleteThe concentration of jobs in metropolitan areas is an issue that seemingly should be solved by technology. Many jobs can now be completed remotely. Other jobs may only require employees to be in the office periodically. It is beneficial for both employers and employees to engage in remote employment agreements. Employers could offer slightly lower compensation for the same work. Further, they would save on office space.
Employees would save both time and money on long commutes. They would no longer need to choose between living part-time on California’s causeways, and part-time in a house, or living full-time in a one-bedroom apartment.
It is surprising that the Central Valley is at the forefront of this issue. You would think that Silicon Valley would be innovators in reforming the workplace. I guess the executives at Google think the free food and bicycles is worth a 4-hour daily commute.
I’ve noticed that face time requirements vary widely amongst law firms. Some firms require attorneys to show up everyday and be in the office during the standard workday. Other firms are more relaxed and allow their attorneys flexibility. Some firms even allow attorneys to maintain a home office and only come into the office sporadically for occasions such as client meetings. I think attorneys should vote with their employment, and all else being equal, choose to work at firms that provide flexible face time requirements.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that cities are driving out their working class residents. As I mentioned in a reply to a different post, this model doesn't seem sustainable. It puts additional stress on working class members who commute long hours, increases productivity loses, and increases environmental pollution. I wonder if it's time to give up the proverbial American dream of owning a home with a spacious yard, and, instead, focus on making small homes.
Many individuals who have been priced out of their local markets have transitioned to tiny homes, or recreational vehicles. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG0_KiM9Mv8; and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6owZOOfmG4] Although these individuals are considered homeless because they don't have a physical address, they are better off than folks who have to sleep in tents on the streets. In Los Angeles, for example, where homelessness rose by 23% in 2016, some individuals have opted to purchase affordable RV's so they may remain in the city, and be able to save money. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02DvnRGIItg] But for this to be a sustainable long-term option, local laws will need to change to accommodate individuals living in tiny homes and RVs.
Furthermore, we need to work on changing people's perceptions of homelessness. Whereas homelessness may be linked joblessness or mental illness in some cases, homelessness today seems to be increasingly driven by a lack of affordable housing options. Yet, the latter still have to deal with the stigma that homelessness carries. At least in California, we need to admit that homelessness is an emerging working class condition, and develop (housing) policies and solutions accordingly.