Live data from Hacker News

Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

cnn.com

241–250 of 280 posts

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#241
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate rent control, but I think it's a symptom of incumbents' unwillingness to allow more development, on the grounds that it would lower the value of the property they own (or more realistically, slow that value's rate of increase). A fixed-rate mortgage is basically rent control for better-off people; typically the mortgage-holder pays off a small bit of principal each month and pays rent on the outstanding amount…

> I hate rent control, but I think it's a symptom of incumbents' unwillingness to allow more development, No. It began in SF as a very-specific response to Prop 13, which is essentially property-tax-control Both are bad policies in terms of market distortion and are often the overlooked elephants in the room in discussion of housing supply and affordability.

What? Rent control did not originate in San Francisco, and has been around a lot longer than Proposition 13. Its history in modern economics goes back to world War 1, and the concept of economic rents and the need to regulate them originates with Adam Smith in the 18th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rent_control_in_Engl...

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#242

I don't think the solution is as simple as 'building more housing'(aka giving permits). It would drive down the prices somewhat, but what's to stop more engineers from moving in/shortening their own commutes etc? I think the term we're looking for is 'build low-income housing'. That would make it more likely that people who need it get it.

Because engineers aren't moving here for the amazing housing. They're moving here for the jobs. If you're increasing housing, that doesn't affect the jobs available. It would decrease demand on housing without increasing demand by engineers.

Most of the engineers I work with live very far out, to find affordable housing/good school districts. If denser housing allowed them to afford to live closer to their job, they would.

I agree with increasing building density, but there is a large group already employed in SV/SF that will move into that housing from a 4hr radius around the area. Still would be interested to see a projection that would model this possibility.

Good modeling of the possible outcomes is the first step on the rocky road to getting Bay Area zoning changed. Not holding my breath.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#243
post #239
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My case is the same as it was previously: we may respect someone's decisions, but that doesn't mean we're going to put financing behind them. In other words, the best way to help someone might not be handing them whatever addresses their most immediate problem. Controlling their lives to do things like administer medical treatment might produce better, cheaper, more reliable long-term outcomes. Is that "unnecessary h…

we may respect someone's decisions, but that doesn't mean we're going to put financing behind them. Sigh. I am not sure if we are on the same page here with what we are trying to communicate. In some sense, you have to put money behind it in order to respect it, but perhaps not in any manner that you are meaning by that comment. The current state of the U.S. housing situation grows out of the history of the past many…

Food for thought. Thank you.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem in SV and much of SF is the unwillingess of property owners to tolerate too much upward building and their use of the private right of action granted by the California Environmental Quality Act to stymie development at the planning permission stage. Incumbent landowners try to maintain the value of their investment by limiting any increases in density. We might, for example, do better to abandon zoning and instead set up mechanisms to auction development rights, eg http://marketurbanism.com/2012/01/06/the-coase-theorem-in-la...

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#245
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if anyone's asked those poor people what they want. I've seen a few commenters here suggesting using government money to ship 'em out, or retrain or job-place them, but I wonder: what do the poor in Silicon Valley want for their lives? Do they want to be shipped out? To be retrained? Better wages? Cheaper housing? These are people, after all, and are worthy of being involved in any discussion concerning thei…

I'm in no way limiting their choices. I am merely discussing the limits that should be put to best utilize limited government resources. If they do not like those limits, they do not have to accept the aid.

The limits you think should be put.

A subsidised construction boom tied to population growth, for instance, would tend to help those on median to low incomes twice over. Once by keeping a lid on the cost of housing and secondly by providing a greater availability of reasonably well paid employment. It also helps those on higher incomes (as long as they are not those whose income is merely dependent on continually soaring house prices), both directly in lower rental costs and indirectly by reducing the cost of local services.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#246
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> If you are getting free money from the government, it means you can't manage your own life. No particular offense to you, specifically, but this sentiment is something that makes me rage. There are not enough jobs for everybody . We have MORE than doubled productivity since 1970. That means that HALF the jobs since then have vaporized. Gone. Kaput. Never to be replaced. If you were not "talented" enough to be born…

"We have MORE than doubled productivity since 1970. That means that HALF the jobs since then have vaporized. Gone. Kaput. Never to be replaced."

There are lots of jobs that can't even be filled right now. Many jobs have vaporized, but there are also plenty of new positions.

With all of the support here for open source, do people even care that jobs have been lost as a result? As an example, my last company probably should have hired 5 developers. Instead, they just hired me and used a free open source product.

So you push for open source and new technology, which reduces jobs, and now expect a bailout from the middle class? Maybe we should have a tax paid for by technology and open source companies that have reduced jobs.

"If you were not "talented" enough to be born into a family that was college educated prior to 1980, you were in for a very hard time in the future--through no fault of your own"

People can still get into a trade..and make good money without going to college..yet all of the stats I've seen show this is not happening. Why?

"The biggest predictor of whether you will be poor is whether you were born to poor parents."

It really is a parenting problem. My parents never taught me about saving, compound interest, and long-term investments (not just thinking about what I am emotionally feeling now).

This doesn't mean I can't learn about these things later in life.

I would rather invest in more education (which can teach someone the skills to be successful in many aspects of life) than a basic income, which will potentially make a person dependent on it for their entire life.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

So how do you handle a growing population size with an ever-shrinking job base? Do you force birth control on people who do not meet a certain level of financial independence? Do you take kids away from parents who lose that financial independence? Do you let people starve and freeze to death? There is a mythos that everybody can just create and run their own startup, and the world can be fed on startups of O(1) size…

"Do you force birth control on people who do not meet a certain level of financial independence? Do you take kids away from parents who lose that financial independence? Do you let people starve and freeze to death?""

I usually refuse to have discussions with people that use straw-man arguments and try to guilt me into siding with their opinion, but I will make this exception today.

If we had a basic income, how would you handle a growing amount of dependence on the system? In the beginning, we would still have people that were used to working..and they would be able to support everyone. But, as more and more people were born into the system (and used to the free money), there would be less and less money to pull from as a whole..and either the system would collapse completely or the government would pretty much have to take over private industry.

"I don't know that it's a good idea; it should be tested first, and, if it fails, we throw it out (unlike so many "big" ideas where, if and when it fails, the reason is always that "we didn't do it big enough, so we have to throw more at it"). The success criteria need to be well defined, but not politically motivated like so many ideas for providing for the poor. Like I said, I don't know how to get there from here."

Government programs don't really work this way. I don't think we could just "try it out" without wasting lots of taxpayer dollars.

"Is it better to move towards a new economic model that accounts for it or just deal with the revolution when 75% of people are unemployed?"

Again, you keep making these outlandish claims. How can I take you seriously?

JIT manufacturing isn't even close to taking out 75% of the jobs and it might not be close in our lifetimes. We might as well be discussing the potential of quantum teleportation technology putting the automotive industry out of business.

"No, the single worst thing you can do is let them starve or freeze to death, because then their one and only life is over."

Our poor are better than most countries in the world. Want to see real poverty? Go to India, Vietnam, Cambodia, or many countries in Africa.

"I consider this argument the "the poor are only poor because they are lazy, so anything that makes them more lazy will only make them worse" argument. And I believe it is a lazy argument in itself."

It's not laziness, it's just human nature. Any system needs to take into account human nature or it won't last..with painful results.

"I've scrounged through cupboards hoping there was anything in them while my parents drank away whatever money they got."

With freedom comes the freedom to destroy you or your kids lives. A basic income won't put a stop to this. What makes you think those same people won't take the money and continue to squander it?

One of my family members has always been poor. He finally got a job last year and makes 6 figures. We all thought that this would be a life-changing event. The result? He declared bankruptcy this year and can barely afford his mortgage.

Education is the key. Throwing more money at the problem without some sort of education won't solve the issue.

"Should I have been told to piss off because my parents couldn't pay for me to go to college? I had a high school diploma, so I had "enough", right?"

No, but if the tax payer does pay for your school (and you don't need to pay it back), you should be required to pick a major that has some chance of actually making you enough money to pay for the major.

"Where do you draw the line? How do you determine who is good enough and who isn't?"

We have many systems that already help the disadvantaged, but it never seems to be good enough. My taxes right now are close to 50% of my pay check, but it's never enough.

With great freedom comes great responsibility. If you are going to blame parenting and the way you are brought up on the inability to find a good job and succeed in life, maybe we should have less freedoms in regards to how a child is raised?

It just seems silly to not want to put any responsibility on the person having the children or the person that is poor yet continue to demand more and more money from society when it obviously isn't working.

On top of all this, we now have lots of free information available to us online. There are entire college courses, video tutorials, blogs, and other forms of free education available to all. You can even go to pretty much any library in any city and get high-speed Internet for free (many homeless people go to the public libraries in my city). Yet, we still have a problem with a lack of education and many people not able to get jobs.

I also don't like this notion that because a person is poor..that must be the reason why they aren't succeeding. We need to put more responsibility on the individual if you really want anything to change. Your place in life many times has to do with your poor decision making and planning.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do you handle a growing population size with an ever-shrinking job base? Do you force birth control on people who do not meet a certain level of financial independence? Do you take kids away from parents who lose that financial independence? Do you let people starve and freeze to death? There is a mythos that everybody can just create and run their own startup, and the world can be fed on startups of O(1) size…

"Do you force birth control on people who do not meet a certain level of financial independence? Do you take kids away from parents who lose that financial independence? Do you let people starve and freeze to death?"" I usually refuse to have discussions with people that use straw-man arguments and try to guilt me into siding with their opinion, but I will make this exception today. If we had a basic income, how woul…

> If we had a basic income, how would you handle a growing amount of dependence on the system?

With economics. If you set the level of basic income too high for sustainability given current productivity and people's willingness to work given the support available, such that there is, in the short term, excessive dependency on it, then you'll be giving out lots of money and it will be chasing very few goods because there won't be much production -- which will very quickly drive inflation sky high, which will reduce the level of living standards provided by the basic income, which will increase the need to work and cure the problem of excessive dependency before it becomes a long-term problem with substantial durable cultural impact.

Of course, you don't want to hit that unstable point because of the short-term disruptions it causes, so you'd do best to start BI low, and gradually ramp it up while retiring other support programs. But, ultimately, basic economics limits BI well short of the point where any durable culture of dependency that relies on unsustainable levels of support sets in.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does for the people being discussed.

Not necessarily. A poorly maintained, older building may have worse heat insulation or vapour barriers, or problems with mold, or simply less efficient fixtures than modern buildings. Energy and healthcare bills can be substantial, and are borne by the tenants, not the landlords.

What you're really describing is a lower standard of living, not merely a lower cost of living.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#250
post #183
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just empirically false. High rise construction is massively cheaper than the current property values. Per square foot, suburban Palo Alto is $1409 per square foot at the median [1]. Heck, even the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, and hardly a bastion of affordable housing, cost only 1.5B / 3,595,146 = $417 per square foot. [2] More reasonable construction of 10 - 20 stories could easily be put…

Most of the value in the "per square foot suburban Palo Alto" number comes from the land, not the structure. If all those single-family houses were torn down and rebuilt as high-density, then surely the price per square foot would be cheaper. Property rights are pesky though.

> Property rights are pesky though.

Let developers buy them out. Or theoretically, they could just eminent-domain a bunch of houses.[0]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Post reply on HN