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

Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 74 posts

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#11

Post by epicureanideal »

TheEzEzz wrote: post #7
epicureanideal wrote: post #6

Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…

> Should the government subsidize "below market rate" luxury cars too? People have families and lives built around geographic locations, not cars. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't subsidize housing (I lean libertarian personally), but it's disingenuous to suggest this is like the car market. What's at stake for many people is a foundational part of their lives.

They can build families and lives somewhere else if they can't afford to live here, right? Do people have a fundamental right to raise a family in San Francisco rather than Omaha or Austin? Are other places so horrible that we should use taxpayer money to ensure that the largest number of people possible can live in SF? And we should make it easier for the moderately low income to live here rather than people with higher income because ... why? Because people who work in technology don't deserve to raise their families here? Because despite education and hard work we really should make the ability to raise a family in a great area a random selection?

I actually think the car analogy is useful. Not subsidizing housing in San Francisco does not deny people the ability to start families. They can still start them in many other fine places that they can afford. Not driving a BMW or Tesla doesn't deny people the ability to get to work. A Honda or Toyota does that just as well.

NOTE: "Affordable housing" does not apply exclusively to people who have lived in the area for N years previously as far as I know, and even if it did I don't see why that would be fair. If you rent, you rent. When your lease is up, if the price goes up, that's how rent works. Also, there are already rent control policies that would serve this purpose.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#12

Post by epicureanideal »

steveklabnik wrote: post #10
epicureanideal wrote: post #6

Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…

You're ignoring the crux of the issue here. The issue is not "I want to move to San Francisco", the issue is "I've lived in this neighborhood my entire life, and now I can't afford to any longer." Let's not even get into how expensive it is to actually move, all of the complication and complexity involved in moving a family with children to a different school district, all of the paperwork that needs updated... it's…

Perhaps the person should have bought a house instead of rented? If they're renting (I still rent) they should understand that rents go up and they may not be able to afford to live there.

Let's say they can't buy. I am not indifferent to their problem, but I don't see why having lived in a place for a given length of time should mean that person has a right to live permanently in a place they can no longer afford. And I don't see why it should deny someone who can afford to live there the ability to do so.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#13

Post by TheEzEzz »

epicureanideal wrote: post #11
TheEzEzz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should the government subsidize "below market rate" luxury cars too? People have families and lives built around geographic locations, not cars. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't subsidize housing (I lean libertarian personally), but it's disingenuous to suggest this is like the car market. What's at stake for many people is a foundational part of their lives.

They can build families and lives somewhere else if they can't afford to live here, right? Do people have a fundamental right to raise a family in San Francisco rather than Omaha or Austin? Are other places so horrible that we should use taxpayer money to ensure that the largest number of people possible can live in SF? And we should make it easier for the moderately low income to live here rather than people with hi…

You can decide to build a family anyway. It's harder to move a family, especially an extended family.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#14

Post by steveklabnik »

epicureanideal wrote: post #12
steveklabnik wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring the crux of the issue here. The issue is not "I want to move to San Francisco", the issue is "I've lived in this neighborhood my entire life, and now I can't afford to any longer." Let's not even get into how expensive it is to actually move, all of the complication and complexity involved in moving a family with children to a different school district, all of the paperwork that needs updated... it's…

Perhaps the person should have bought a house instead of rented? If they're renting (I still rent) they should understand that rents go up and they may not be able to afford to live there. Let's say they can't buy. I am not indifferent to their problem, but I don't see why having lived in a place for a given length of time should mean that person has a right to live permanently in a place they can no longer afford. A…

> Perhaps the person should have bought a house instead of rented?

Choices like these aren't even open to people who are affected by gentrification.

> And I don't see why it should deny someone who can afford to live there the ability to do so.

I, personally, don't feel that those with money should be able to run roughshod over those who don't.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#15

Post by lsc »

scoofy wrote: post #9
epicureanideal wrote: post #6

Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…

As a recent nyc -> sf transplant, i think the best short term solution to making living in the bay area more affordable is to run one track of bart back and forth from 12am - 4am. SF needs a brooklyn, a real brooklyn, that you can get to when your shift at the restaurant/bar/other-service-job ends at 1am. Public infrastructure is a public good, and service industry workers can't be expected to cab it to oakland when…

>As a recent nyc -> sf transplant, i think the best short term solution to making living in the bay area more affordable is to run one track of bart back and forth from 12am - 4am. SF needs a brooklyn, a real brooklyn, that you can get to when your shift at the restaurant/bar/other-service-job ends at 1am.

That... sounds pretty great. As a bonus, it would make public transit usable for recreational use, and probably keep a bunch of drunks off the road.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#16

Post by epicureanideal »

scoofy wrote: post #9
epicureanideal wrote: post #6

Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…

As a recent nyc -> sf transplant, i think the best short term solution to making living in the bay area more affordable is to run one track of bart back and forth from 12am - 4am. SF needs a brooklyn, a real brooklyn, that you can get to when your shift at the restaurant/bar/other-service-job ends at 1am. Public infrastructure is a public good, and service industry workers can't be expected to cab it to oakland when…

I also wouldn't mind if they would add some extra cars so it isn't standing room only during commute hours. How hard is it to add an extra car to an existing train? Raise my fare, I'll pay not to have to be packed in like cattle.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#17

Post by epicureanideal »

steveklabnik wrote: post #14
epicureanideal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the person should have bought a house instead of rented? If they're renting (I still rent) they should understand that rents go up and they may not be able to afford to live there. Let's say they can't buy. I am not indifferent to their problem, but I don't see why having lived in a place for a given length of time should mean that person has a right to live permanently in a place they can no longer afford. A…

> Perhaps the person should have bought a house instead of rented? Choices like these aren't even open to people who are affected by gentrification. > And I don't see why it should deny someone who can afford to live there the ability to do so. I, personally, don't feel that those with money should be able to run roughshod over those who don't.

> I, personally, don't feel that those with money should be able to run roughshod over those who don't.

What other method of allocating scarce resources did you have in mind? Random selection seems less fair than high income, because income is at least somewhat correlated with producing value. I mean, if you disagree with this, you basically disagree with the free market. I agree our current market is imperfect but I don't think randomly gifting scarce housing space to people is better.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#18

Post by steveklabnik »

epicureanideal wrote: post #17
steveklabnik wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps the person should have bought a house instead of rented? Choices like these aren't even open to people who are affected by gentrification. > And I don't see why it should deny someone who can afford to live there the ability to do so. I, personally, don't feel that those with money should be able to run roughshod over those who don't.

> I, personally, don't feel that those with money should be able to run roughshod over those who don't. What other method of allocating scarce resources did you have in mind? Random selection seems less fair than high income, because income is at least somewhat correlated with producing value. I mean, if you disagree with this, you basically disagree with the free market. I agree our current market is imperfect but I…

> I mean, if you disagree with this, you basically disagree with the free market.

I do disagree with the notion that a free market (not that such a thing has ever or will ever exist) always leads to socially optimal outcomes, yes.

> I don't think randomly gifting scarce housing space to people is better.

Nobody is suggesting random gifting.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#19

Post by kunle »

epicureanideal wrote: post #6

Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…

Government subsidizes all sorts of things in all sorts of ways: Teslas/Priuses with credits, home loans with the mortgage deduction, student loans, Twitter moving to SF, and so on. Not saying these are good or bad, just indicating that subsidies are a pretty core part of our society and a case could be made for justifying or denying each.

Some rationales for subsidizing affordable homes specifically: fewer slums, greater social mobility for low income families (expensive areas also tend to have good schools), more stability for the elderly (who make up an astonishingly large proportion of low income folks as they can often no longer work).

A society where the raw effects of market forces were allowed to act on people would be really unpleasant (I grew up in one and have been to several) - free markets are a fantastic way to generate wealth but a poor way to ensure balanced social outcomes.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#20

Post by yapcguy »

epicureanideal wrote: post #6

Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…

> Should the government subsidize...

I don't see why a poorly run bank which has made bad investments in toxic assets should be bailed out with taxpayer's money when it should be allowed to fail, with good banks picking up clients and assets and growth in market share...

My point is there are few markets which are truly allowed to operate freely. If housing markets were not regulated, the uber rich would buy up every piece of real estate and then we'd all be stuffed.

> we bid up the houses to obscene prices due to lack of supply.

People can only bid what they can afford, and what they can afford is driven by loose lending and cheap credit. Tighten bank lending and housing prices will start falling.

Post reply on HN