Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 323 posts

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#31

Post by KekDemaga »

falsedan wrote: post #18
nxsynonym wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but new housing wouldn't be needed if there wasn't such a high influx of people moving into the Bay area. Sure tech isn't the only player in the game, but they're surely one of the biggest. If less people were moving there for high paying jobs - rent wouldn't rise as quickly or as drastically.

> new housing wouldn't be needed Bay Area housing supply has been growing less than demand for the last 30 years. New housing is needed, regardless of who is employing whom.

California building codes are pretty extreme from what I've seen, they go as far as measuring the pull force required to open a door for example. This seems like a place where a little deregulation would go a long way.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#32

Post by fullshark »

rhizome wrote: post #19
turtlebits wrote: post #8

A little misleading as she needs to catch the train at 4am. Still, an almost 3 hour commute is brutal.

Misleading? Do you not include layovers in the time it takes to travel somewhere? Most people do.

She says she likes to take her time also and enjoy her coffee etc. I think it's fair to say it's a little misleading.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#33

Post by cbhl »

colek42 wrote: post #4
nxsynonym wrote: post #2

While the rising cost of housing is an easy target, why not put the pressure on the companies that are driving the influx of workers and out of control cost of living? If tech companies are drawing people into cities and forcing out those who keep the city itself operating, why not have them subsidize and improve public transportation? Lower income housing? Encourage more remote work or move their headquarters out of…

why not have them subsidize and improve public transportation? Don't they do this already with property and state income taxes?

The SFMTA Commuter Shuttle Program is only allowed to recover costs of the program itself, for regulatory reasons.

Locals don't actually want to fix this problem -- ethnic groups are afraid of losing their homes, because historically that's what new housing construction has done.

All of SoMa was built by razing a predominantly black community and replacing it with what is there now. You can go to the SFMOMA and see photos of what it used to look like.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#34

Post by boondaburrah »

PopsiclePete wrote: post #7

So why do we keep commuting for jobs that don't really require our physical presence? It was a long hard battle for me to be able to work from home, and yes, I sometimes do miss out on face-to-face interaction, but going to the office 2 instead of 5 days a week is still a huge win - I'm not in a car out there, making traffic worse for you . You're welcome. Can we please solve the supposed "interaction" problem with s…

because in some cases, it's me that requires the physical presence - not the job. Working physically with the team is amazingly better for my productivity. Unfortunately, I have to take the jobs where they are. Since public transit is so bad, that's brutal commutes.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#35

Post by bartart »

It appears that when local cities have control over housing, they make decisions that are good for them, but bad for the state that needs higher paying jobs that generate tax revenue. Plus low density housing is bad for the environment when compared to high density: http://news.colgate.edu/scene/2014/11/urban-legends.html

Other places would move heaven and earth to have a place like Silicon Valley and it seems like California is shooting itself in the foot with this self inflicted housing shortage.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#36

Post by SolarNet »

mudil wrote: post #24

Liberals like to talk big about the public transportation, but when it comes time to deliver they follow the unions' script that results in exuberant costs (to build the system and to run it) and extremely poor performance. And as a result the average folks and the poor suffer the most.

Or, traveling a 100 miles takes a couple hours even if it isn't public transit, because of things like safety, traffic, and the laws of physics. Also, a click-bait headline (she leaves at 4 am).

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#37

Post by jsonne »

nxsynonym wrote: post #2

While the rising cost of housing is an easy target, why not put the pressure on the companies that are driving the influx of workers and out of control cost of living? If tech companies are drawing people into cities and forcing out those who keep the city itself operating, why not have them subsidize and improve public transportation? Lower income housing? Encourage more remote work or move their headquarters out of…

You assume that everyone working for a tech company is a 6 figure programmer. There are plenty of secretaries, social media coordinators, sales people etc. That likely make less than what a sanitation worker, cop firefighter, etc. make. It isn't so clear cut.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#38

Post by rhizome »

sp332 wrote: post #29
rhizome wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misleading? Do you not include layovers in the time it takes to travel somewhere? Most people do.

But she likes to take her time and have coffee. She keeps the lights low and the house quiet and Zen-like. “I just can’t rush like that,” she said. When the second alarm goes off at 3:45 — a reminder to leave for the train in 15 minutes — her morning shifts from leisure to precision. She could get up somewhat later to catch her train.

Right. That's addressed later in the article.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#39

Post by stingrae »

nxsynonym wrote: post #12
andrewjl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't an issue of tech companies forcing anyone out. Bay area municipalities and NIMBY property owners have created a hostile regulatory environment for property developers, leading to a lack of new housing coming onto the market and driving rents upward.

True, but new housing wouldn't be needed if there wasn't such a high influx of people moving into the Bay area. Sure tech isn't the only player in the game, but they're surely one of the biggest. If less people were moving there for high paying jobs - rent wouldn't rise as quickly or as drastically.

I don't understand what your point is. The Bay Area is a desirable place to be and demand isn't going to magically shrink.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#40

Post by nxsynonym »

Analemma_ wrote: post #25
nxsynonym wrote: post #2

While the rising cost of housing is an easy target, why not put the pressure on the companies that are driving the influx of workers and out of control cost of living? If tech companies are drawing people into cities and forcing out those who keep the city itself operating, why not have them subsidize and improve public transportation? Lower income housing? Encourage more remote work or move their headquarters out of…

There are so many misconceptions in this post... > why not put the pressure on the companies that are driving the influx of workers and out of control cost of living? What do you hope to accomplish with this "pressure"? That these companies hire fewer people? > Lower income housing? Housing costs are one of those nasty problems where throwing money at it just doesn't work (and I'm saying this as a democratic socialis…

I'll admit I'm not a city planner. I don't have the answers to the problems. It's just frustrating to see what's happening with these mega-cities and how it's affecting the lives of so many people negatively. Surely the benefit of having these boosted economies doesn't outweigh the negative aspects - or do they?

Bay area has a whole bucket of specific problems - but there are general shared trends that extend to other cities with big tech industries.

Post reply on HN