Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

story.californiasunday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#31

Post by toomuchtodo »

codyb wrote: post #30
zaphoyd wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Induction cooktops are fantastic. Wish it was possible to find them in rental housing instead of gas!

As someone who loves to cook and much prefers gas I’m genuinely curious about why you and parent like inductive so much? One neat thing at my girlfriend’s place was that there was an inductive circle with two possible diameters of heat which seems neat for a gigantic stock pot. But switching quickly between heats seems like it’d require you to have two “burners” going at once. At the end of the day I’m not sure if it…

Inductive cooktops allow for more granular control of heat applied. Can’t compare it to resistive electric cooking.

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#32

Post by brianwawok »

ldoughty wrote: post #27
hakfoo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always figured with modern technology we don't need to have all of the federal government in the DC/VA area. I'd scatter each department to a different rust-belt or similarly hollowed-out city, creating a permanent economic base and allowing redevelopment to jump start.

That's my argument for internet everywhere to. You physically can't have work from home employees if, in 2019, they have to pick between 3Mbps or a 25GB data cap. And if more people worked remotely, stress on large cities is reduced. I actually liked the concept of wework -- a shared office to work in that is not at home -- to bad there was serious issues with the company. With enough places like this, you can still…

The top issue of WFH is not internet speed. It’s a lot deeper than that. I could WFH on 1 mbit pretty easy, git commits and slack are low bandwidth.

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#33

Post by 34679 »

imtringued wrote: post #5

1. freeze property taxes on residential construction 2. local government is running out of funding 3. local NIMBYs want theirs home values to rise 4. government prioritizes commercial development permits (no frozen taxes) 5. area becomes more "desireable" as the number of jobs increases 6. housing fails to keep up with growing number of migrants 7. rent and home values rise quickly and become unaffordable 8. NIMBYs i…

Step 1 hurts step 2.

New Step 1 - Have a multiplier for property taxes based on the number of properties owned. If you own and live in 1 property, you pay the base rate. If you live in one property and own x properties (where x > 1), you pay the base rate * x

Step 2 - Profit for municipalities, affordable housing for citizens

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#34

Post by DataWorker »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #23
closeparen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These governments aren’t stupid; they’re correctly representing the interests of the majority of their voters who a) are homeowners and b) strongly prefer suburbia. Renters and people who appreciate density need to show up if we’re going to counteract that.

If renters and those who appreciate density are never close to the majority of constituents, how does showing up help?

That’s democracy. The residents get to choose what happens in their community. If they don’t want to fill the Bay Area with slums and housing projects, they can make that choice and keep people out.

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#35

Post by Hackbraten »

brianwawok wrote: post #32
ldoughty wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my argument for internet everywhere to. You physically can't have work from home employees if, in 2019, they have to pick between 3Mbps or a 25GB data cap. And if more people worked remotely, stress on large cities is reduced. I actually liked the concept of wework -- a shared office to work in that is not at home -- to bad there was serious issues with the company. With enough places like this, you can still…

The top issue of WFH is not internet speed. It’s a lot deeper than that. I could WFH on 1 mbit pretty easy, git commits and slack are low bandwidth.

Then again, many workers depend on video calls or video conferences, which easily require a multiple of that bandwidth. Regular security updates are also important. Those add up nowadays, and if they’re slow to download you tend to skimp on them.

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#36

Post by codyb »

randyrand wrote: post #24
nojvek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the US. How else do you think we have such a massive income disparity ? We’re a wealthy country but the wealth is in very few hands.

compared to what? Any contiguous plot of 350 million people in the world has similar disparity.

I think it’s 320 million people but that’s just being pedantic.

One thing you could compare it to is America four decades ago.

Wealth inequality in America seems to fluctuate, there was the gilded age which was greatly unequal, then we tampered it down with very progressive tax codes which we’ve since been slashing away at to produce what you see today (there are other factors as we of course).

Europe has many areas which are far more egalitarian than America but you’re almost certainly correct that the vast majority of Earth’s 7.whatever billion inhabitants live in deeply unequal societies.

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#37

Post by darren0 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #29
t34543 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, natural gas is being banned. California has gone crazy. Inductive cooktops are pretty good - I’ve grown to prefer it over gas.

Natural gas is a greenhouse gas, and contributes to climate change when leaking out of the distribution network or burned in your home. Not crazy at all to ban it. Remember when doctors used to smoke during your exam? That’s how future generations are going to look back at our fossil fuel use. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/11/10/climate-chang...

The basis of this article seems to be the statistic. "33% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation". What does that have to do with gas burned in your home? The statistics is for gas burned to create electricity. That seems like significant different things.

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#38

Post by downrightmike »

Hackbraten wrote: post #35
brianwawok wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top issue of WFH is not internet speed. It’s a lot deeper than that. I could WFH on 1 mbit pretty easy, git commits and slack are low bandwidth.

Then again, many workers depend on video calls or video conferences, which easily require a multiple of that bandwidth. Regular security updates are also important. Those add up nowadays, and if they’re slow to download you tend to skimp on them.

requiring video makes no sense

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#39

Post by toomuchtodo »

darren0 wrote: post #37
toomuchtodo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas is a greenhouse gas, and contributes to climate change when leaking out of the distribution network or burned in your home. Not crazy at all to ban it. Remember when doctors used to smoke during your exam? That’s how future generations are going to look back at our fossil fuel use. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/11/10/climate-chang...

The basis of this article seems to be the statistic. "33% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation". What does that have to do with gas burned in your home? The statistics is for gas burned to create electricity. That seems like significant different things.

I shared the article for every other paragraph. The one you mention is superfluous.

Natural gas is used quite a bit for cooking and home heating, and we need to phase it out where ever possible.

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#40

Post by toomuchtodo »

DataWorker wrote: post #34
toomuchtodo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If renters and those who appreciate density are never close to the majority of constituents, how does showing up help?

That’s democracy. The residents get to choose what happens in their community. If they don’t want to fill the Bay Area with slums and housing projects, they can make that choice and keep people out.

Agreed about democracy. Can’t force upzoning and density if existing population doesn’t want it and votes against it.
Post reply on HN