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

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#51

Post by closeparen »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #46
oppositelock wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renters are a voting majority here, and successfully passed rent control, at the same time, the city council down-zoned the city, and NIMBYs are able to stop developments via California's crazy environmental review process. So, we have a shortage and rent control, which means Mountain View is becoming more unaffordable to every newcomer, but some renters will have some protection. The local residents show up in drove…

> Renters are a voting majority here > The local residents show up in droves to oppose housing If renters are the majority, why are they not voting out city government representatives who don't support upvoting and density?

The far left fringe believes supply & demand is a Reagan conspiracy, and the rest aren't currently engaged on housing issues.

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#52

Post by [deleted] »

DuskStar wrote: post #49
toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, phasing it out of use for heating in favor of electricity is quite likely counterproductive. Burning natural gas for heat is more efficient than burning it to produce electricity, transporting that electricity, and then sending it through a resistor to create heat. Which means it's only an emissions win if the electricity is carbon neutral or the multiplier for a heat pump compensates for the generatio…

[deleted]

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#53

Post by toomuchtodo »

DuskStar wrote: post #49
toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, phasing it out of use for heating in favor of electricity is quite likely counterproductive. Burning natural gas for heat is more efficient than burning it to produce electricity, transporting that electricity, and then sending it through a resistor to create heat. Which means it's only an emissions win if the electricity is carbon neutral or the multiplier for a heat pump compensates for the generatio…

Electricity grid gets cleaner every year. You can generate closer to load centers to avoid transmission losses. Natural gas distribution network and consumption never does. Heat pumps work all the way down to 0F. Insulate, insulate, insulate.

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#54

Post by oppositelock »

DuskStar wrote: post #49
toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, phasing it out of use for heating in favor of electricity is quite likely counterproductive. Burning natural gas for heat is more efficient than burning it to produce electricity, transporting that electricity, and then sending it through a resistor to create heat. Which means it's only an emissions win if the electricity is carbon neutral or the multiplier for a heat pump compensates for the generatio…

Heat pump based electric heat in out mild climate emits less CO2, even factoring in transmission and conversion losses, than burning the gas in the most efficient condensing gas heater. It still costs about 3x as much in terms of energy cost, but emits less CO2.

However, the city regulators, like I said above, are stupid, so you often can't get a permit for a heat pump, because of noise ordinances. These things sound like an A/C compressor, so you can only install it if there is enough distance to your neighbors, and that's usually not possible in newer, denser developments, precisely the kinds where natural gas is banned, so you are now forced to use resitive heating, which uses 3-4x as much power as a heat pump, and costs more than 3x as much, due to our tiered electric prices (additional units cost more than early units)

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#55

Post by ldoughty »

pkaye wrote: post #44
ldoughty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my other comment on this thread, it's not just about the money... it's about the cost of living. Making $100k+/year now is "easy" in the tech sector, move to any of the major cities. Unfortunately homes cost $750k+ or you take an unpaid part-time job in commuting to the office (2-4 hours/day, 5 days a week). And yes, that's a HUGE disparity when compared to the people working service industry in the same cities..…

> And yes, that's a HUGE disparity when compared to the people working service industry in the same cities... but it's also a huge disparity compared to C-level and senior managers/owners... that can afford a 1-2 million dollar home and the $15-20+/day "Fast Lanes"... and can often afford to have one of the parents stay at home even! So do you not consider the $400k FAANG compensation a huge disparity vs the service…

I do, I just believe that level of pay is at higher levels of the company more often. Not everyone at those companies gets that level of compensation.

In addition, My argument was trying to point out that there's multiple levels to this issue, and saying low level employees is the problem is ignoring the fact senior leaders decide to stay in these big cities despite the fact their own employees can't find homes, or commute as a part time job.

Re: 3 Kids. 2 paychecks. No home

#56

Post by ldoughty »

downrightmike wrote: post #38
Hackbraten wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not all employees can communicate by text or voice alone. Body language is very important to a lot of people when communicating... I prefer video calls, though I don't require it.. but you can't easily tell an employee is having a rough day or is not following what you're saying on verbal/text cues alone... Or they say they get it in text but they really are not sure (and seeing their face or posture might have communicated that they "kinda" understand)..

Many people need the human-to-human interaction.. and many people don't. If you and your boss and direct reports are all happy connecting in text, great! But a huge portion of the population wants to see the other person when communicating

Post reply on HN