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

#291

Post by OrwellianChild » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 10:12 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #71

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…

On the other hand, I feel that she's over-compensating a little. No-one's saying the $1600/month that she was paying for a 1br in Alameda is "cheap" in any way... But at $81K salary, her $1000/mo rent is only just touching 20% of her take home, which is in the "very comfortable" range (for reference, most property management companies want you to be "not exceeding 35% of take home income").

I think it's important to acknowledge a very different set of priorities for someone in their early 60s, who is:

1) Close to retirement age

2) Likely still saving as much as possible so she can retire

3) May have other expenses not detailed in the article, stemming from family needs, health concerns, etc.

Also note that a property management company is evaluating someone from the "risk of non-payment" perspective - not a financial advisor's.

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

#292

Post by acerock » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 10:12 PM UTC

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…

You can easily live in Germany (or France) and work in Basel with a <1 hr commute.

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

#293

Post by PopsiclePete » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 10:18 PM UTC

xeromal wrote: post #56

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…

I hate working from home. I'm a social being.

Me too - which is why I still go to the office - just not 5 days a week. If we could stagger people's schedules somehow - you go on Monday, I go on Tuesday - and do that on a massive scale - it should help traffic congestion quite a bit.

Or we could actually build some nice mass transit in this country. But now I'm just talking crazy.

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

#294

Post by Grustaf » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 10:24 PM UTC

got2surf wrote: post #205

Grustaf wrote: post #171

As the article says, she could sleep 90 minutes longer. And if she drove to work, she does have a car, she could easily leave at five. She could also get a 3200 dollar apartment where she used to live, have at least two rooms, sleep late and still have 3550 left every month. Maybe medical insurance and such things that we europeans don't need to buy are very expensive, but apart from that it doesn't seem very difficu…

Take-home salary after taxes could be a lot less than $6,750 per month. Health insurance is probably reasonably priced given that she seems to have a government job. But I do see your point - she could (and many do) live closer, pay more, and sleep more.

Good point about the tax, American salaries are quoted pre tax of course! I've spendt the whole afternoon with my nose in P&Ls, where the quoted salary is pretty much what is interesting.

In any case, I feel the headline is pretty sensationalistic, even if she wants to live where she lives, she could probably get up at 5 and drive to work.

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

#295

Post by ucaetano » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 10:48 PM UTC

greggman wrote: post #276

ucaetano wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no need to become Manhattan or Hong Kong. Just invest in infrastructure. You're not getting the basic point with transit infrastructure: it requires density. Transit systems are only viable with enough people living and working at walking distance from the stations. Increasing density decreases traffic, increases transit effectiveness, and reduces environmental impact. It's simple geometry.

I don't know the details but Antwerp seems comparible. It seems to have amazing public transportation with a density only 1/6th of SF. Why they can do it an SF can't I don't know.

The area of Antwerp includes the entire harbor and several empty areas. Looking at the map, it seems to include islands of high density surrounded by empty areas.

That works very, very well for public transportation. The issue with transit and density is not about distances, is actually about the number of people living and working within walking distance of a transit stop.

If you increase density by 5X, that number increases by 5X.

So two cities with the same density, one spread out evenly and the other in high-density islands surrounded by low density seas, have very different viabilities for public transit.

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

#296

Post by ucaetano » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 10:50 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…

Quick question: what do you do with your house when you're out of the country?

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

#297

Post by BeetleB » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 11:12 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.

Both ways of looking at it are problematic.

The way you should look at it: Take your savings. If you suddenly could get no income, no welfare, etc: How many months/years can you maintain your current standard of living before you run out of money?

Being paid more in absolute, and even saving more in absolute, doesn't guarantee a longer time till you go broke. It's the ratio of your savings to the monthly cost of living.

I could move to the Bay area and get paid enough to save, say, $5K more per year than I do now, I'm still in worse shape because of the COL. Effectively, even though I'm saving more in absolute terms, I'll not be able to retire as early as I can now.

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

#298

Post by ericd » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 11:29 PM UTC

scriptkiddy wrote: post #280

mahyarm wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For CA, those housing units are negatives on the budget because of prop 13. It doesn't really matter where they are built.

I would be strongly in favor of reforming that law then. I have not seen anything regarding it come up on any of the recent ballots.

A repeal is hugely unpopular amongst many, since it would destroy house values and immediately make houses unaffordable for many owners on borderline incomes. You could try phasing it in, but housing values would take the change into account quickly, depending on how it's structured. Would be great for renters looking to buy, but catastrophic for recent buyers. That said, property taxes are very important as a feedback loop to discourage nimbyism that drives up prices.

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

#299

Post by manicdee » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 11:51 PM UTC

chx wrote: post #119

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.

The tram in Geneva goes to the French border, that's not comparable!

That is the whole point.

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

#300

Post by lttlrck » Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 1:24 AM UTC

lisper wrote: post #218

anarazel wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It seems that the best time to sell if you want to stay in the region is during a property market crash.

Edit: perhaps not ‘best’, rather ‘preferable if compatible with your financials’