What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty

Oh come on. There is no excuse for not using contraception when you're not financially, emotionally, and maritally prepared to have a child. I don't know about this particular man's case, but 95% of unwanted pregnancies are due to failure to use contraception or use it properly [0], which is nothing more or less than sheer irresponsibility on the part of the future parents.

> How would his having a wife have any impact on his situation?

Seriously? It's much easier to raise a child when both parents are present. It gives you more flexibility in terms of work, even if both parents are working. You save a lot of money because you're not paying individual rents. You save money on food as well. You get tax benefits from the government. If one of you has a job with health insurance that includes dependents, then the other gets it too. The list goes on and on.

> He seems like he's working hard to take care of his kid but like most people wishes the huge company he works for would help a little more. Where's the entitlement?

He irresponsibly had a child when he wasn't prepared to raise one, and is now expecting others to help him out. That is entitlement.

0: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/05/09/ImprovingContracep...

Whenever I see these articles, I think about what makes the Bay Area expensive. The key factor is housing prices.

There's a limited amount of land available near the centers of SV because of mountains and natural areas. Supply is strictly constrained and demand is very strong because of industry growth. The result is spiraling prices far above what would seem reasonable elsewhere.

Supply constraint isn't really a natural limit, though. Bay Area housing is spread out, low density, even sprawling. Even San Francisco is only half the density of Brooklyn. San Jose and San Mateo county mostly look like a suburb of Omaha.

Market demand would indicate big profit opportunities for anyone who can buy up a subdivision and build a neighborhood of three story flats on wide sidewalks and two lane streets. That would be over double the density of San Francisco and ten times the density of a typical San Mateo subdivision. You could easily afford to buy up property, knock down current buildings and carry away a huge profit. But you can't get permission from planning boards.

Or you could build like Tokyo, which is a little less dense than Brooklyn. You'd make free standing two or three story single family homes with very little yard on 15' single lane streets and small blocks. That's the same density as Brooklyn, 2.5 times San Francisco.

Or you could even build like San Francisco, but in San Jose. That's efficient enough in land per housing unit to make big money.

But it's all prohibited.

The Bay Area has chosen to be unlivable and unpleasant by its choice of public officials. Those city officials have prohibited the practices that make city living affordable. The result of bad public officials is an unhappy public.

1. Federal poverty level isn't a term [1]... >The poverty guidelines are sometimes loosely referred to as the “federal poverty level” (FPL), but that phrase is ambiguous and should be avoided, especially in situations (e.g., legislative or administrative) where precision is important.

2. Government instructing market isn't in the constitution, nor is it in Free Market Capitalism, nor the concept of a Democratic Republic...

[1] http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm