Live data from Hacker News

Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

cnn.com

211–220 of 280 posts

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#211

This 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 sma…

Your sentiment is naive.

People build up support structures - extended family, close friends, church and hobby/interest ares. The cost of moving once you have a family is a often a whole lot higher than easily quantifiable dollar values.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some people feel VERY STRONGLY emotionally about where they live Those feelings are a luxury. Taxpayers should not be forced to bear the cost of someone's emotional attachments. I would prefer tax dollars be spent on relocation assistance + job placement to help get people on a sustainable path.

I think you mean 'people ho pay more tax'. People living in poor neighborhoods typically pay taxes as well - on some of their income, most of their consumption, and on their residences since their rent is inclusive of property tax. I do not understand this insistence that money spent on building more housing here is bad whereas spending the same amount of money on having 'those people' move out of sight to somewhere…

I do not understand this insistence that money spent on building more housing here is bad whereas spending the same amount of money on having 'those people' move out of sight to somewhere else is somehow good.

Where does this housing get built? Why would you build it on some of the most expensive land (SV) in the lower 48?

I think the gap in your understanding is because you're just not listening to everyone telling you that the government's limited money will go further if it doesn't have to render/compensate landowners in the most expensive real estate market in the country.

It's ludicrous to suggest that the government spend money buying land to build co-op housing in SV.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#213
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider the audience, who will overwhelmingly shift to problem-solving mode. Empathy feels nice but doesn't provide a roof or full bellies.

And most responses are something along the lines of, "just move." Top notch problem solving, that right there.

A few responses are to that tune, and they are greeted with long and careful explanations of why that is not a reasonable response.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#214
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My sentiment is not classist or elitist. You just think poor people should have to move out of their homes because rich people decided they want to live there. Got it. > The same argument applies to people of all socioeconomic background. Yeah, rich people get forced out of their homes because they can't afford them all the time. /s

I'm a 40+ Programmer making good money with a family of five. A year ago I thought long and hard about moving away. In the end, I decided to stay because we have family here. Here's my unsolicited advice: if you are less than 30 and don't plan on being a dual-income family, move away no matter how much income you have. It makes no financial sense to live in the Bay Area: your net worth will be entirely tied to your p…

> It makes no financial sense to live in the Bay Area

Until your first layoff. Then it's an absolute blessing to live somewhere where your next job is one more exit up 101.

This is the thing that everybody who works in tech forgets. If you live in Pittsburgh, Tulsa, or Lubbock, you are in for a many month job search--or you are leaving the city--when (not if) you get laid off.

Seagate had this problem a couple years ago. They wanted VLSI layout people in Pittsburgh and were offering comparable to Silicon Valley money--and nobody from the tech cities would bite. Why? Everybody knew that they were going to be the most highly paid people in the office and subject to getting axed first. And would then have to move back to Silicon Valley.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#215
post #46

This 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 sma…

You mean well, but its easy to forget that moving a family a long distance costs a nontrivial amount of money, even if you do it on the cheap. Maybe not a problem for you or me, but much more so for a family already barely scraping by.

Nontrivial, but how does it compare to the 100K a year the article mentioned needed to life them out of poverty? 5K to move and then 20K a year to lift them out of poverty in a different area would allow us to help far more families.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#216
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! A lot of people feel that they are entitled to live in the city they grew up in. They feel that the rising cost of living is unjust, and that they are the victims. What needs to be understood is that we cannot force the cost of living to drop, and we cannot force the median income to rise. Either search for a job that pays more, or search for a home that costs less. If that means moving away from where you g…

"we cannot force the cost of living to drop" That's exactly what rent control does. I guess it's ok to not even try to make an argument on HN these days.

Rent control doesn't force the cost of living to drop: it just shifts it.

The ROI on apartments drops substantially, so investors aren't incentivized to make new buildings, but instead maintain their current ones as cheaply as possible until they're unserviceable.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#217

The "evidence" provided was pretty weak, IMO. I think the last option, a basic living allowance, is something we, as a country, are going to have to come to terms with. As manufacturing continues to automate, even the low skill jobs we offshore are at risk. It is unlikely everybody in the nation will be able to find employment as a knowledge worker or a service worker. That is the direction the world is heading, whet…

"The "evidence" provided was pretty weak, IMO. I think the last option, a basic living allowance, is something we, as a country, are going to have to come to terms with"

The issue with this is that once you start giving a basic living allowance, more and more people will continue to rely on it over time and the system will eventually collapse.

"I prefer a minimum living stipend for a few reasons: It doesn't treat the poor like they are too stupid or too criminal to manage their own lives and their own money."

It's not their money, it's money given to them by the tax payers..and I don't agree with you reasoning. If you are getting free money from the government, it means you can't manage your own life. I don't really see how this will change the view on the disadvantaged.

"It allows people the ability to move to more fulfilling (and more lucrative) employment by providing time for training."

I don't think this would increase anyone's time for training. I know lots of people that are unemployed (and get unemployment). You would think with all of that extra free time, they could finish more projects, learn new skills, or even get training. Unless they are forced, most just think of it as free money and don't appreciate it as much as they would if they earned it themselves. It's the same reason most people can't run a business and why most lottery winners end up losing it all within 5 years.

"It protects kids without trying to transition parenting responsibility to the state. In general, it keeps the state out of people's lives, increasing their dignity."

It doesn't really keep the state out of your life. It will create entire generations dependent on it. In fact, they will be directly controlling your life since many will start relying on that money to live.

"Yes, there will still be homeless people. There will be people who squander the money. But there will be many who take advantage of it and build a better life for themselves and all of their posterity. And I prefer to bet on the general desire of people to better themselves."

My issue still is that these costs will only increase over time. The middle class worker will see tax increases and there will be no incentive to get a minimum wage job, because you can just get it from the government. This will also have the added side effect of inflation.

The single worst thing you can do for someone disadvantaged is to give them a reason to stay exactly where they are in life (and no incentive to succeed at something more). A basic income does exactly this.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#218
post #191
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just trying to help. Sorry if it sounds wrong way.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHelpingMe But thank you for the apology. It's a step in the right direction.

Would you rather not have any help? No one is forcing these individuals to take the assitance we are discussing here. If they want to continue to live 11 to a house or mom and 2 kids in a garage, we aren't discussing making it illegal.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm usually against taxes in general, but I'm actually for increasing taxes and using that to have a completely free mass transit system across the entire Bay Area. This would provide a tremendous benefit for everyone. The problem is that unions will take advantage of all that money and increase wages and pension benefits for their workers instead of hiring more workers and increasing employment in general. This is w…

Note how BART has been expanding down the East Bay over time while Caltrain has made zero progress.

The problem is that a lot of rich people live right along the Caltrain line and have been opposing its expansion for decades.

But it's the unions' fault.

Try not swallowing so much propaganda next time.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#220
post #210
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't have to understand my preferences. All you need to do is try to respect my right to decide for myself what is best for me. We might respect it, but you haven't made a convincing case that we need to craft policy around financially supporting it.

Okay, let's see if this helps any: My genetic disorder costs on average $100,000 annually to keep me alive in a torturous fashion. My oldest son has the same condition. That's $200,000 annually that we "should" be spending on medical care. I am a former military wife. I am entitled to get that care through the military medical system -- which means at tax payer expense. Though, in reality, most people with my conditi…

You're partway there. You've made the case that some financial support is wise. You haven't made the case that it needs to be in a location of your choice, rather than the minimum needed to keep you as healthy as possible.

If the climate in San Francisco helps a person stay healthy, there are likely dramatically cheaper places that would have the same beneficial effect.

Assuming, of course, the goal being to produce the required effect for a minimum of cost.

Post reply on HN