Isn't the simple obvious solution just to build a lot more housing? More supply means lower prices.
Poor Kids of Silicon Valley
11–20 of 280 posts
Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley
#12there's no way the median HH income in san mateo county is 88k
You think it's low?
Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley
#13How can people of moderate (Silicon Valley) means help?
Push for policy changes that allow for the addition of enough housing to bring down prices.
Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley
#14there's no way the median HH income in san mateo county is 88k
According to the Census Bureau, it is: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06081.html
Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley
#15Build more housing.
Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley
#16It skips some important points. The cost of living is high due to zoning laws and a lack of building. Subsidizing families' rent will just make existing landlords richer. It would just drive rents up further. What is needed to get fewer people bidding on the same unit. If landlords are finding <1 suitable tenants per vacancy then suddenly it becomes a renter's market.
On top of more housing, we need better public transit. Start with running Caltrain every 10 minutes. Change local transit so that it becomes a feeder to/from Caltrain, BART, etc.
And make it cheaper.
Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley
#17How can people of moderate (Silicon Valley) means help?
Push for policy changes that allow for the addition of enough housing to bring down prices.
Surely, we need more government regulations and programs not less. Removing zoning laws can't possibly be the solution. Maybe we can have the government give housing to poor families, thereby taking housing stock off the market and reducing supply.
Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Push for policy changes that allow for the addition of enough housing to bring down prices.
Surely, we need more government regulations and programs not less. Removing zoning laws can't possibly be the solution. Maybe we can have the government give housing to poor families, thereby taking housing stock off the market and reducing supply.
Revamping zoning laws probably is the solution. Make it easier to build more housing.
Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley
#19It skips some important points. The cost of living is high due to zoning laws and a lack of building. Subsidizing families' rent will just make existing landlords richer. It would just drive rents up further. What is needed to get fewer people bidding on the same unit. If landlords are finding <1 suitable tenants per vacancy then suddenly it becomes a renter's market.
This may not be too popular, but subsidizing housing for the poor in Silicon Valley will drive up rents for the people in the middle who are not receiving the subsidy.
Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley
#20This may not be the most popular thing to say, but ... Just move?
If you are the head of a large household living in an area where the cost of living is too high to support your dependents, you would do a whole lot of good for them and yourself by starting new in some other part of the country. At the very least it would be wise to relocate across the Bay.
I realize that people have families, social networks, and small-scale culture that they don't want to separate from. It's a sad reality, but sometimes the economic forces that re-balance labor markets require people to physically relocate. If your labor is not as valuable in a particular geographic region, it's time to retrain or move. For most people retraining is not an option...
My sentiment is not classist or elitist. The same argument applies to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds. I have personally relocated for financial reasons three times in my life. I moved away from home for college, I moved to a new location for my first job, then I recently relocated to the Bay Area because this was the optimal place for me to be economically. I did all this with very little money saved up and with no financial support outside my paycheck. It has been easier for me to keep in touch with my family than it would be for these people (I make enough to travel to visit family several times a year). However, I have made sacrifices and relocated for my personal financial well-being. If I had a family to look after, I would have (and arguably ought to have) sacrificed even more.
EDIT: That being said, I fully support relaxing regulation on the construction of new housing. It would be better if people didn't have to move, but I believe that even with optimal housing growth there would not be enough real estate to comfortably house the current lower-middle class population of SV.