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

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

#211

Post by lisper » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:57 PM UTC

thephyber wrote: post #193

lisper wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the thing is that you (Bay Area landowners) are not really bearing the cost of insufficient housing. That's not true. It makes it hard to find good help. (That was intended to be humorously ironic, but there's a serious point behind it: everything in the SFBA is more expensive than it would be if housing were more plentiful.) > you're benefiting through increasing home values Not really. You only benefit from t…

> You only benefit from this if you sell Home equity is a benefit. You can borrow against it or otherwise use it as an asset on paper. > if you sell two bad things happen if housing prices are up. First, you take a big hit on capital gains Wait, what? You're arguing that it's a "bad thing" if you have to pay a percentage of additional profits ? Most primary residences aren't subject to capital gains if you hold them…

I do not object to paying taxes. In fact, I'm very politically active in trying to get taxes raised on rich people like me. But if I want to sell my house and buy the house next door and those two houses cost the same, then the higher those prices are the higher my actual cost of moving is, notwithstanding that I am theoretically trading like for like. That's bad for everyone because it makes me less likely to move, which reduces the liquidity of the housing market, which drives prices up even further.

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

#212

Post by scriptkiddy » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:58 PM UTC

anarazel wrote: post #204

scriptkiddy wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I've always been in favor of Hybrid zoning. Hybrid structures are even better in my opinion. You can have a building where the bottom floors are commercial space and the upper floors are residential space. Or you can zone an area where both commercial and residential development are permitted. Sure, living right next to a metal shop or something isn't the most pleasant thing, but it's really nice if you w…

> This is why I've always been in favor of Hybrid zoning. Hybrid structures are even better in my opinion. You can have a building where the bottom floors are commercial space and the upper floors are residential space. Interestingly in the mission bay area there's a lot of unused commercial first floor space below residential apartment buildings. Some of it empty since the buildings went up 2012/2013.

Mission bay San Diego?

Why do you think that is?

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

#213

Post by ChuckMcM » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:59 PM UTC

This is a pretty amazing example. It raises more questions than it answers however. The big one is "Why continue working in SF with this horrible commute?"

Market dynamics suggest that in a 'free' market, on an individual basis, a person seeks to maximize their value received. So in this case, if this was an open market, the (commute + $81K/year) > any other option that she might choose.

So what are we missing that there isn't at least an equal paying job available in the Central Valley that would cut her commute by 80 - 90% ? I can imagine lots of things that might contribute like pension eligibility, or specialization. But "Public Health Advisor for DHHS" seems to be a position that is available in many cities in the state. I would have liked to read what about this job in this city was so important.

And all of that is to the meta question of salary growth has been flat for a long time, but for a long time people felt they had to keep their job at all costs. A what point does the advantage change? 3% unemployment? 2%? What needs to happen so that people are confident enough to say "pay me more or I'll work somewhere else." ?

As a result of the stuff I wonder about, I feel like there might a tremendous amount of tension in the economy that isn't as visible as one might hope. And I wonder what happens when it snaps. Do we get the 10 - 15% stag-flation of the 70s?

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

#214

Post by closeparen » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:59 PM UTC

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 put the pressure on the companies that are driving the influx of workers and out of control cost of living?

You're going to need some extremely powerful public policy interventions to push back on a force as powerful in human civilization as urbanization.

It's so much better for society and for the individuals who currently don't live in major cities to centralize into them. You're going to need some extreme regulation to reverse the incentives that have driven the push towards cities worldwide and for thousands of years.

And for what? To protect a relatively tiny constituency of people who currently live in cities and want them to stay small, against the giant national/worldwide population that wants economic opportunity, and to use its resources for something other than cars?

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

#215

Post by concede_pluto » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:00 PM UTC

CodeMage wrote: post #181

lisper wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then she and other likeminded people should have organized politically and pressured the government to change the zoning laws before it was too late. Everything going on in the SFBA is the direct result of capitalism and democracy in action. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I don't see any principled way you could object to it. [UPDATE] Let me clarify: I can see how you could object to various aspects of our polit…

One can have principled objections against capitalism without objecting against democracy.

Or vice versa. What we have is a small committee of people you've never heard of deciding to reject deals that both renters and contractors are desperate to make. If we had a plebiscite on housing density, the outcome would be much better for most people.

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

#216

Post by dionidium » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:01 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #161

ucaetano wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never claimed them to be stupid. Your words, not mine. But the Stanford professor writing about the plight of the poor workers commuting for 2 hours lives in a multi-million dollar home in Atherton and votes for anti-poor-people zoning laws. The young, billionaire, startup CEO who wants to cause a positive impact in the world lives in Los Altos Hills, where zoning laws forbid lot sizes smaller than 1 acre, and bans…

> I never claimed them to be stupid. Your words, not mine. The adjective "self-inflicted" has an undeniable negative connotation. Why didn't you say, "deliberately chosen" instead? > The Bay Area housing situation is a tragedy of the commons. No, it's not. It is neither a tragedy, nor does it have anything to do with commons. Yes, it is a case of the rich making life harder for the poor, but that's only a tragedy for…

Yes, but you're just saying the same thing as the parent, which is that this is a question of values. It's not a natural disaster. It's the expected result of deliberate policy.

On the one hand you have more access for more people to one of the most important and dynamic urban areas in the United States. On the other you have the "distinctive nature of the SFBay area" and redwood trees.

I think it's pretty obvious that the first is more important than the latter, but it's fair of you to want to make that tradeoff explicit.

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

#217

Post by dtech » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:01 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #201

ucaetano wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never claimed them to be stupid. Your words, not mine. But the Stanford professor writing about the plight of the poor workers commuting for 2 hours lives in a multi-million dollar home in Atherton and votes for anti-poor-people zoning laws. The young, billionaire, startup CEO who wants to cause a positive impact in the world lives in Los Altos Hills, where zoning laws forbid lot sizes smaller than 1 acre, and bans…

I live in a rent controlled unit and still feel we need to eliminate Prop. 13 (prevents property tax increases caused by property asset increases) and eliminate rent control. Both are removing people from having skin in the game when it comes to housing policy. If everyone can feel the pain, maybe everyone can figure out a way to stop the pain.

Are there any concrete plans on how to implement this?

In the densely populated parts of the Netherlands we've had an unhealthy housing market for decades, partly because of government subsidized mortages through tax breaks.

"Everyone" kind of agrees that is should be abolished, but the polical and popular will is laking, and people won't be able to pay their mortages anymore if it happened too sudden. Also it would cause homes to deflate 10-30% which would be a serious issue for current owners who want to move.

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

#218

Post by lisper » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:01 PM UTC

anarazel wrote: post #182

lisper wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the thing is that you (Bay Area landowners) are not really bearing the cost of insufficient housing. That's not true. It makes it hard to find good help. (That was intended to be humorously ironic, but there's a serious point behind it: everything in the SFBA is more expensive than it would be if housing were more plentiful.) > you're benefiting through increasing home values Not really. You only benefit from t…

Are you actually complaining that the higher house price wouldn't be good for you, because you'd have to pay tax when selling? I'm still not sure this isn't all sarcastic.

Nope, not sarcastic at all. I live in a house that is much too big for me. I bought it during the crash when prices were low. I would like to move to a smaller house, but I don't because it's too expensive. I can't just trade my house for one of equal value and come out even. It would be very expensive for me to move to a house of equal value, and the higher prices go the more expensive it gets.

I have no objections to paying taxes. Quite the contrary.

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

#219

Post by deckar01 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:01 PM UTC

pavanky wrote: post #128

deckar01 wrote: post #83

I paid about 30% of my salary in 2014 for a SRO [0] in San Francisco with a 10 minute commute. I decided that the quality of living was not worth the potential future earnings for staying in the bay area. In Tulsa I pay about 14% of my salary to rent a large apartment with a 4 minute commute. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy

But is 70% of SF salary The only down side would be buying an actual house. A house in Atlanta would be 3-5x my yearly Atlanta salary. A similar house in SF would cost 7-8x my yearly SF salary.

I am making 75% of my SF salary in Tulsa, so it is a 5.5% reduction in pay after rent. The lower state taxes probably make it break even and I have a considerably higher quality of living.

Calculation:

    (0.75*(1.00 - 0.14)) - (1.00 - 0.30) =
    0.645 - 0.70 = 
    -0.055 =
    -5.5%

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

#220

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #167

flick wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the thing is that you (Bay Area landowners) are not really bearing the cost of insufficient housing. In fact, you're benefiting through increasing home values (for which you are not taxed due to Prop. 13). It's renters and others like Ms. James who are being hurt. The particularly cruel aspect of this is that once these people have been forced to the edges of the Bay Area, they no longer get to participate in the…

> But the thing is that you (Bay Area landowners) are not really bearing the cost of insufficient housing. That's not true. It makes it hard to find good help. (That was intended to be humorously ironic, but there's a serious point behind it: everything in the SFBA is more expensive than it would be if housing were more plentiful.) > you're benefiting through increasing home values Not really. You only benefit from t…

> (That was intended to be humorously ironic, but there's a serious point behind it: everything in the SFBA is more expensive than it would be if housing were more plentiful.)

No, except for housing, most things are less expensive, because more housing would mean more population but not proportionally more infrastructure (at least, without higher maintenance costs per unit, because the cheap choices are already built) for imports to the region, which means supply increases less than demand for anything with external inputs, which means prices go up.

This effect is even worse for things that are limited and local in supply, like unique local features, where you get increased demand with no increased supply, not merely supply increase less than proportional to demand. So prices on those go way up.