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

Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 280 posts

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#161

Post by muzz »

sp332 wrote: post #115
cjensen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The Valley is geographically constrained. The mountains enclosing it are too rugged to safely build on. The best you could do would be to permit high-rise housing which would provide some expensive housing to the high-end. A better idea would be to stop permitting any non-housing construction until the housing to job balance is restored.

The Valley is geographically constrained. Which makes the 40-foot height limit insane. http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-density-thought... You could trivially build more housing by removing that limit. Some background: http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=Height_Limit_Revolt_Saves...

San Francisco is not "The Valley"

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#162

Post by mc32 »

mgraczyk wrote: post #20

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…

This is a multi-faceted issue that has no easy fix. In the SF bay region the issue is exacerbated by convoluted politics perpetrated by residents and government. Locals steadfastedly oppose growth, even when most might agree it's for everyone's good.

On the other hand, some sub areas are bound geographically and can't expand horizontally, so the only way is upwards, which faces even more resistance.

On top of this, no one has a natural right to live in a specific area. At the same time society has a responsibility to provide reasonably affordable living space for lower income residents. However, it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be in the posh areas of town.

Still as land prices increase, is it even possible to build in areas of high land prices? Where does that money come from? Do we divert taxes to that effort rather than building that same housing in areas where that money would go further?

With regard to people not being able to move away due to cost, there are lots of people who move to the US with nothing but a few dollars and an address. It's possible. I guess the question is do we want to put our own citizens in this kind of predicament?

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#163

Post by jkot »

Mz wrote: post #141
jkot wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, stockholm syndrome? We live in place with better climate than California, 100 meters from sea. Our total monthly expenses for 3 member family, are probably lower than most people in SV pay for rent. We rent nice house, insurances, school, etc...

Maybe you sort of overlooked the detail that I was a military wife (stated early in my above comment). I have lived in Georgia, Texas, Kansas, Washinton state, California, and Germany. I have driven through most states in the continental U.S. I spent a month on the gulf coast in Port Aransas on my way back to California. I returned to California from Georgia on foot and accepting rides, which took roughly two months…

Quite oposite. I dont understand why someone who traveled world and has medical condition would settle down in California.

Just try Greece for couple of months. Doctors are great here, speak english and are much cheaper.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#165

Post by chaqke »

subpixel wrote: post #74
mgraczyk wrote: post #20

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…

A big problem with this concept is jobs. The working poor are almost exclusively employed in the service sector at or near minimum wage. Worse yet, many are essentially day laborers, even outside of the sort of fields normally associated with on-demand labor (to wit: startups like workpop.com and shiftgig.com are responding to market realities). Finding a food service or house cleaning or landscaping job in a depress…

Agree - and in addition, they may not have a 2-week buffer to find a new job even if it were available. They certainly aren't being flown in for interviews.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#166

Post by Frondo »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #146
Frondo wrote: 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.

That doesn't address my basic point at all: what do they want for their lives?

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#167

Post by kazagistar »

cesarbs wrote: post #86
Kalium wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In SF, building regulations includes very powerful neighborhood groups with the ability to make arbitrary changes to projects. The net result of their involvement tends to be less housing at higher cost. There are also many areas zoned for a maximum height of zero feet. As for how to be involved, start by looking up who your city councilperson is. Talking to them would be a good start.

> There are also many areas zoned for a maximum height of zero feet. The smartass in me wants to say, "then build subterranean homes/buildings" :) Would suck in terms of natural lighting but it would be nice to see the faces of people who want those zones to be like that.

Unfortunately, building down tends to be much more expensive then building up.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#168

Post by dragonwriter »

jcfrei wrote: post #136
nsnick wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hilarious. California is so liberal that people are taking my sarcastic comment literally.

What always surprises me is that in the US "liberal" means left leaning and pro government intervention. Which is basically the opposite of liberalism.

> What always surprises me is that in the US "liberal" means left leaning and pro government intervention. Which is basically the opposite of liberalism.

Politically speaking, "left leaning" and "liberal" are both terms of 18th century origin, referring to the same kind of opponents of the centralized monarchic/oligarchic authority in favor of distribution of power to the people at large based on a conception of inherent rights; they certainly aren't opposite terms.

And the modern US liberal/conservative divide is a lot more about the purpose of government intervention than for/against it. (Both liberals and conservatives attack each other over different policies for supporting government control over individual freedom.)

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#169

Post by muzz »

refurb wrote: post #107
coderzach wrote: post #36

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

You just think poor people should have to move out of their homes because rich people decided they want to live there. Got it. I'm not poor by any means, but if SF rents keep going up, I'm going to be leaving if I can't find affordable housing (even on a relatively high salary).

For rents to go up, people have to be able to pay those higher rents. Ostensibly because they have salaries that are even relatively higher than yours (this is not intended to be a slight, but when there is a bidding war for salaries there will be a bidding war for limited housing).

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#170

Post by sp332 »

muzz wrote: post #161
sp332 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Valley is geographically constrained. Which makes the 40-foot height limit insane. http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-density-thought... You could trivially build more housing by removing that limit. Some background: http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=Height_Limit_Revolt_Saves...

San Francisco is not "The Valley"

And now I just feel silly. But anyway... building high-rise housing is probably a good idea.
Post reply on HN