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

#261

Post by cbcoutinho » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 8:09 PM UTC

tmpdude01 wrote: post #235

ChuckMcM wrote: post #213

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 t…

I immediately searched for the word "pension" in the comments, and your comment was the only one to have it. She's 62 years old, and commuting to this job so that she can maximize her pension. https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/employers/benefit-programs/r...

Getting through tough times is much easier with an end in sight and incentives to keep going. This is truly the right answer

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

#262

Post by antisthenes » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 8:09 PM UTC

olegkikin wrote: post #103

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 you make a lot less in the absolute terms. So you save less, you can afford less of cool stuff. Most people in the world want to move in the opposite direction.

Most people in the world are not developers and cannot change jobs or locales as easily as them.

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

#263

Post by dmode » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 8:10 PM UTC

bkmartin wrote: post #121

beambot wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we would prefer [...] Pretty sure you're not speaking for me and most of my SFBA friends...

It is elected officials that make these decisions, and until people with your point of view start running for office and getting elected things won't change. As of right now it looks like the majority, however slim, of the voters in SFBA are not choosing to change. At least not as quickly as the problem seems to be progressing.

NIMBY is actually a very vocal minority. A lot of them are retired folks who have a lot of time to engage in City and County politics. I do a little bit and write to City, State, and County officials. But between a long commute and a kid and a dog, I just don't have time to dedicate on this. And that's the problem with local politics.

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

#264

Post by ucaetano » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 8:11 PM UTC

woobar wrote: post #139

rjsw wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have picked the town that is furthest away from an Autobahn in Southern Germany. There are plenty of small towns along the Rhine or near the Bodensee that are commutable to Zurich. People commute to Geneva from France too.

How about Lindau? 80 miles from Zurich across the large body of water? Google shows 2:30-3 hours of morning commute by transit.

Nobody here is saying that for any town within 80mi of Zurich, the commute time is short.

I'm sure you can find dozens of examples where it isn't.

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

#265

Post by mahyarm » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 8:13 PM UTC

soft_serve wrote: post #188

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…

> In fact, you're benefiting through increasing home values (for which you are not taxed due to Prop. 13) This is completely untrue. I have a house in 94087 where I live about 7 months/year (the other 5 months are in Tel Aviv, where it's also very expensive!) I own the house, bought in in 1989. I don't benefit at all from increased house prices. It just makes everything more expensive. And even under Prop 13, my prop…

Prop 13 makes houses a net negative on city budgets, so there is a financial incentive for cities to reject new housing units, while encouraging development of hotels and commercial properties which are net positives.

Prop 13 also induces people to not sell their property, or convert properties into more units like you, so there are less available units on the market, which increases prices even further.

For example go look at SF or LA vs Miami on Redfin and see the stark difference in how many units are for sale at one time.

Higher property taxes encourages people to sell their properties if it's not economically worth it anymore to hold the property and give it to people who would actually use it. And it also encourages them politically to build more housing so their property tax bill does not go up too much.

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

#266

Post by pnathan » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 8:14 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #213

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 t…

> I feel like there might a tremendous amount of tension in the economy that isn't as visible as one might hope.

Seattle, by any number of metrics, is one of the Boomtowns in America today.

But when you walk down almost all the major streets, there are usually at least one boarded up storefront. House prices are > 10x annual US median salary, and 5-7x the median Seattle salary. Homeless people are everywhere downtown. The "family size" apartments are nearly non-existent until you get a solid 30+ minutes away (everything is being aimed at rich people or young singles); single family houses are (comfortably) priced to people with a solid 200k+ combined salary (you CAN stretch it of course, but memories of prior bubbles suggest stretching it on living situations is a poor choice). This isn't making sense: it does not seem sustainable as a system.

Haven't dug into the numbers for Seattle, but the blue collar factories in the US etc are being pinched by a lack of entrants: no one wants to work for $12/hr and be at the bottom of the totem pole, but the employers claim they can't pay more. I read newspaper stories about this periodically.

Structurally, of course, there is significant financial inequality between municipalities/states/cities and more rural areas, and the concentration of wealth (jobs, culture, hope) in these metro areas is generating salt lake effects in many rural areas.

I think there's a definite snapping point in the economy that the current direction doesn't seem to be changing. I think, frankly, the US economy has metaphorical 'toxic' areas that haven't been honestly addressed and it's generating a lot of resentment.

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

#267

Post by pnathan » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 8:14 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #213

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 t…

> I feel like there might a tremendous amount of tension in the economy that isn't as visible as one might hope.

Seattle, by any number of metrics, is one of the Boomtowns in America today.

But when you walk down almost all the major streets, there are usually at least one boarded up storefront. House prices are > 10x annual US median salary, and 5-7x the median Seattle salary. Homeless people are everywhere downtown. The "family size" apartments are nearly non-existent until you get a solid 30+ minutes away (everything is being aimed at rich people or young singles); single family houses are (comfortably) priced to people with a solid 200k+ combined salary (you CAN stretch it of course, but memories of prior bubbles suggest stretching it on living situations is a poor choice). This isn't making sense: it does not seem sustainable as a system.

Haven't dug into the numbers for Seattle, but the blue collar factories in the US etc are being pinched by a lack of entrants: no one wants to work for $12/hr and be at the bottom of the totem pole, but the employers claim they can't pay more. I read newspaper stories about this periodically.

Structurally, of course, there is significant financial inequality between municipalities/states/cities and more rural areas, and the concentration of wealth (jobs, culture, hope) in these metro areas is generating salt lake effects in many rural areas.

I think there's a definite snapping point in the economy that the current direction doesn't seem to be changing. I think, frankly, the US economy has metaphorical 'toxic' areas that haven't been honestly addressed and it's generating a lot of resentment.

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

#268

Post by rrauenza » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 8:15 PM UTC

sbov wrote: post #249

ktRolster wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't happy at all that your house is worth a million dollars?

Speaking personally, the value of my house means little to me. I plan to live in this region for a long time - when my house goes up, other houses in the region go up. When my house goes down, other houses in the region go down. My house may be worth $1million, but selling it and buying another will get me the same house as when it was worth $500k. It only matters if I decide to sell it AND move somewhere else. Which…

Speaking of moving - a downside of prop 13 is that people used to upgrade / downgrade their houses. Have kids? Get a little bigger house. Retire? Downsize.

So now people buy in and don't move.

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

#269

Post by bb611 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 8:16 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #180

curun1r wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep going up the chain of causality. Property Owners are so NIMBY because there's an economic incentive to behave that way. This is only the case because Prop 13 caps their property taxes. If California had property taxes that, like other states, could increase as the assessed value of your home increases, the incentive to oppose new building would be significantly lessened and it would then be in everyone's best in…

> If California had property taxes that, like other states, could increase as the assessed value of your home increases, the incentive to oppose new building would be significantly lessened and it would then be in everyone's best interest to keep housing costs low, not just those who rent or are looking to buy. That might make rational sense but it is not how homeowners actually behave.

I'v seen this extensively in multiple upper-middle income communities on the east coast. Houses that have tripled in relative value force their now retired owners to sell because they can't afford the higher property tax. Developers can buy above market because they demo the house and put down 2 houses that each sell for 75% the original home's value.

This scales for quite a long time, and is generally how suburbia transforms into, well, east San Jose.

It's not that homeowners make rational choices as a result, it's that over time they are pushed out and the rational choice is made by the larger market.

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

#270

Post by sbov » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 8:19 PM UTC

rrauenza wrote: post #268

sbov wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking personally, the value of my house means little to me. I plan to live in this region for a long time - when my house goes up, other houses in the region go up. When my house goes down, other houses in the region go down. My house may be worth $1million, but selling it and buying another will get me the same house as when it was worth $500k. It only matters if I decide to sell it AND move somewhere else. Which…

Speaking of moving - a downside of prop 13 is that people used to upgrade / downgrade their houses. Have kids? Get a little bigger house. Retire? Downsize. So now people buy in and don't move.

IIRC you can usually transfer your tax advantaged status to the same county if you buy a smaller place. It's a little restrictive but it still enables you to downgrade.