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

#281

Post by dionidium » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 9:13 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…

I just want to make it clear that this is a choice you're afforded because of the value of your home.

You (quite literally) have a million-dollar offer on the table to move to, say, Austin, TX (or dozens of other great cities). The fact that you choose not to accept that offer does not negate the existence of the offer. The offer is always there. And this is a very real asset that you have (that, I hope it's clear, most people don't have), whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

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

#282

Post by wbl » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

DeepRote wrote: post #134

The reason it's so expensive to live near SF is because of people like this. Your landlord knows how much you'll pay if they know you work in the gay area and will tolerate a 5-hour commute. It's the same reason NJ is becoming more expensive. They know you'll pay because you're willing to ride PATH every day to get to work. Don't commute more than an hour to work. If you can't afford to live close to your work, find…

Actually refusing to build more housing is what is raising prices.

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

#283

Post by soft_serve » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 9:24 PM UTC

mahyarm wrote: post #265

soft_serve wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Housing" and the housed population that lives within my city (Sunnyvale) is not a net negative.

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

#284

Post by soft_serve » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 9:24 PM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #281

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…

I just want to make it clear that this is a choice you're afforded because of the value of your home. You (quite literally) have a million-dollar offer on the table to move to, say, Austin, TX (or dozens of other great cities). The fact that you choose not to accept that offer does not negate the existence of the offer. The offer is always there. And this is a very real asset that you have (that, I hope it's clear, m…

Not if your source if income isn't there, or if needed amenities aren't nearby.

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

#285

Post by Markoff » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 9:25 PM UTC

mmanfrin wrote: post #91

ucaetano wrote: post #52

San Francisco has more than twice the area of Manhattan, with half the population. The San Francisco Bay Area CSA has about the same population as Switzerland, with 2/3 of the area of Switzerland. Both have similar GDPs. If someone wanted to live in Germany, and commute to work in Zurich, with Swiss salaries and German cost-of-living, their commute would be about 1h15min. The housing and infrastructure problems in th…

San Francisco is surrounded by cities which are not San Francisco. Manhattan is part of New York City, and is surrounded by more of New York City. If someone lived 80 miles away from Zurich, in a German town such as Sankt Märgen, Google is telling me that it would take 2h 51m [1]. This tells me that if the woman in the Article made that same distance commute in German/Switzerland with, say, 30 minutes of slack, she w…

i live in europe and dunno anyone who would be commuting more than 90-100km daily which is like 1hr by train, although most of the people are lazy to do even that even with decent public transport, so 80mi is very extreme example for europe

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

#286

Post by mahyarm » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 9:51 PM UTC

soft_serve wrote: post #283

mahyarm wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Housing" and the housed population that lives within my city (Sunnyvale) is not a net negative.

So your saying that they don't lose money on new housing units, but gain it?

If the city doesn't make enough money, then it become bankrupt. Roads, schools, sewers and police can't function properly anymore. The money has to come from somewhere!

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

#287

Post by dionidium » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

soft_serve wrote: post #284

dionidium wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to make it clear that this is a choice you're afforded because of the value of your home. You (quite literally) have a million-dollar offer on the table to move to, say, Austin, TX (or dozens of other great cities). The fact that you choose not to accept that offer does not negate the existence of the offer. The offer is always there. And this is a very real asset that you have (that, I hope it's clear, m…

Not if your source if income isn't there, or if needed amenities aren't nearby.

I'm sorry, but no. If you have a million-dollar gold statue of a pig that you're unwilling to sell, your unwillingness doesn't even enter into it. You still have the million-dollar statue and it's still worth a million dollars. It doesn't matter what rationale you provide for not selling it. It just doesn't matter. Those reasons seem important to you. But they aren't important in assessing the value of the statue.

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

#288

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 9:56 PM UTC

bb611 wrote: post #269

emodendroket wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

It seems like if you're retired and having trouble with property tax a reverse mortgage would be pretty attractive.

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

#289

Post by OrwellianChild » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 10:08 PM UTC

madcaptenor wrote: post #277

sageabilly wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the article she can work from home some days a week (I know for feds in DC, it's mandatory 5 days out of 10, so maybe at least that many for her) and she has a government job which (for many in the non-tech, non-startup world) is the Holy Grail of jobs- incredibly stable, great benefits, pension, etc. She's 61, so in her mind the trade-off might be worth it if she plans on retiring at 65 (and perhaps even earlier…

People are required to work from home 5 days out of 10? I'm for encouraging working from home, but that policy assumes that everyone can spare the space in their home to have some sort of home office. (And since it's not a fully remote job, you still have to live near DC.)

Mandatory minimum allowed remote-work days. It's a quality-of-life measure for the employees - not some way to save money/office space on the employer's part.

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

#290

Post by curun1r » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 10:09 PM UTC

dmode wrote: post #273

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…

I wonder if a deal that removes Prop 13 but reduces state income taxes can be put on the ballot. That way you keep overall revenues same, but just change how it is collected.

Perhaps income and sales taxes could go down...California has some of the highest rates in the nation for both. But it would be a good idea to not have it net to zero considering Prop 13 originally resulted in deep cuts to public education in the state and the quality of schools has dropped significantly from pre-Prop 13 levels.