90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies • Hacker News Board

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#91

Post by nathan_long » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

joker3 wrote: post #59

nathan_long wrote: post #18

Oh, tech companies. If only there were a way to have conversations about, create, and transmit computer programs using some kind of long-distance network. Maybe we could break the data up into "packets". Just thinking out loud here. Then maybe everyone creating textual output for a living wouldn't have to transport their physical body to an office. We can dream.

The people profiled in the article are a restaurant manager and a construction superintendent. How are they going to telecommute?

They're not. But if all the nerds spread themselves out over the rest of the country, the restaurants and construction projects wouldn't all be crammed up in Traffic Jam City, either.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#92

Post by ProfessorLayton » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #51

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #38

Part of me is still trying to understand why the housing shortage in the Bay Area is so severe. I understand NIMBYism from the homeowner's perspective, but there are a lot of renters in the SF Bay. SF is 63% renters, and should be able to outnumber NIMBY homeowners easily to have a lot more dense housing built. Alameda County is in 2nd place at 47% renters [1], so only a small percentage of homeowners need convincing…

75% of SF rental units are rent controlled.

Its still difficult to understand, even if one is under rent control, it is still beneficial to push for more housing units. Additionally, single family homes do not fall under rent control in Alameda County, where nearly half of the housing units are rentals.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#93

Post by justherefortart » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

fokinsean wrote: post #8

I recently had an opportunity to move out to the Bay Area with my current job (I am currently at a satellite office). The commute time combined with CoL and a few other factors made the decision easy to not go. I currently have a 3 minute commute and I would honestly lose my mind if I had to commute 90 mins one way. I have also been seeing a general rise of articles mentioning how many people are leaving, how insane…

I lived in the city (SF) and outside the city. My commute to the Embarcardero wasn't too bad when I lived in Pacifica. Just drive over the hill to Colma, park and take BART. I'd read on the way into the city and walk to work. Probably the best commute I've ever had except working from home.

Pacifica felt like a small town separated from it all. But I lived in the Manor area. Living down in Linda Mar (anything past Sharp Park) and dealing with Hwy 1 traffic would be frustrating.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#94

Post by conanbatt » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #38

Part of me is still trying to understand why the housing shortage in the Bay Area is so severe. I understand NIMBYism from the homeowner's perspective, but there are a lot of renters in the SF Bay. SF is 63% renters, and should be able to outnumber NIMBY homeowners easily to have a lot more dense housing built. Alameda County is in 2nd place at 47% renters [1], so only a small percentage of homeowners need convincing…

Because renters dont vote. They either dont have residency, are foreigners, or live transiently.

I think it is a terrible strategy to try to convince homeowners that its best for them to forego clear economic benefits for blurry future profits. The solution is land value tax: just remove city sales taxes and add a tax on land. That will make low density units more expensive, the tax burden is relieved from the renter and lands on the homeowner and renters see their income increase immediately.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#95

Post by aeontech » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #49

_m8fo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would buses contribute to the problem? Assuming every person who takes the bus would otherwise drive, a single bus would wipe out dozens of cars on the roads.

> Assuming every person who takes the bus would otherwise drive This assumption is where the problem is. For example, Google employees live in central San Francisco but commute to work in Mountain View because a bus service was added. They wouldn't be attempting that commute in a car in the first place. These busses have added to traffic, not reduced it.

> They wouldn't be attempting that commute in a car in the first place.

I think that's an unfounded assumption. I know plenty of people who do in fact drive daily from SF or Oakland down to MV/SJ.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#96

Post by notheguyouthink » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #53

nathan_long wrote: post #18

Oh, tech companies. If only there were a way to have conversations about, create, and transmit computer programs using some kind of long-distance network. Maybe we could break the data up into "packets". Just thinking out loud here. Then maybe everyone creating textual output for a living wouldn't have to transport their physical body to an office. We can dream.

>Then maybe everyone creating textual output for a living wouldn't have to transport their physical body to an office. Remote work hasn't taken off on a large scale because massively successful multi-billion dollar companies like Google/Facebook/Amazon/Apple/SpaceX were not built with remote workers . You get (relatively) minor companies touting it such as Automattic and Basecamp. Those smaller businesses haven't ach…

Isn't that the same for any new/fringe idea though? Working non-remotely has been the status-quo since before it was possible to work remotely.

More curiously, I'd like to see if remote work was responsible for preventing a company from reaching milestones like being a multi-billion dollar company.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#97

Post by masklinn » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

briffle wrote: post #76

nathan_long wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been a fully remote developer for 4 1/2 years. My employer has no physical office. I live in a pleasant medium-sized town, I bought a house for less than a Bay-area toolshed, and I can commute myself downstairs to make a sandwich. If every worker were remote, can you even imagine how hard you'd have to work to justify a physical office to the CFO and potential hires?

I have a similar setup, but I also live 2 time zones from my employer. to make things easier, I work 6am-3pm. I often go run errands after work before traffic start getting bad, but sometimes, I end up caught in 'rush hour' traffic and I just feel sorry for all of them. (and I live in a small town of 150k people)

> I live in a small town of 150k people

Even to the US's outsized standards, 150k is a mid-size city, not a small town.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#98

Post by soulnothing » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #53

nathan_long wrote: post #18

Oh, tech companies. If only there were a way to have conversations about, create, and transmit computer programs using some kind of long-distance network. Maybe we could break the data up into "packets". Just thinking out loud here. Then maybe everyone creating textual output for a living wouldn't have to transport their physical body to an office. We can dream.

>Then maybe everyone creating textual output for a living wouldn't have to transport their physical body to an office. Remote work hasn't taken off on a large scale because massively successful multi-billion dollar companies like Google/Facebook/Amazon/Apple/SpaceX were not built with remote workers . You get (relatively) minor companies touting it such as Automattic and Basecamp. Those smaller businesses haven't ach…

It's a double standard though. I was at one of the big companies mentioned. I was the only one on my team in my office. Everyone else was remote in a time zone. My manager wasn't on site. But I couldn't work from home, and my desk space was reduced several times during my time there.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#99

Post by abritinthebay » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

tmh79 wrote: post #79

thirduncle wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the ridiculous salary and equity while I'm here would be foolish to pass up So - how much of the "ridiculous" salary is left after subtracting living costs and taxes, actually?

I make ~175k/year cash, and I'm able to put away about 60k/year in savings. If you add in the equity I'm receiving (currently illiquid, but company is one of the mega-corns), I'm able to save an additional 60-100k/year on top of savings from salary. I live a decent life, 2 annual international trips, own a car, lease a ski house with friends in the winter, if you make over 120k, life in the bay area is quite nice.

You're putting $5k away every month when your take home pay is ~$8k a month?

I assume you must live a VERY spartan life in the Bay. Basically pay your rent (which must be shared or very cheap for the Bay) and utilities and not do much else...

I mean the average Bay area rent is more than the difference between your take home and your savings...

edit: I'm using ADP's calculator, don't know why SmartAsset is different but ADP is pretty legit so I'm going to continue to lean towards those numbers.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#100

Post by conanbatt » Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #51

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #38

Part of me is still trying to understand why the housing shortage in the Bay Area is so severe. I understand NIMBYism from the homeowner's perspective, but there are a lot of renters in the SF Bay. SF is 63% renters, and should be able to outnumber NIMBY homeowners easily to have a lot more dense housing built. Alameda County is in 2nd place at 47% renters [1], so only a small percentage of homeowners need convincing…

75% of SF rental units are rent controlled.

75%?? source?

That sounds like too much.