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

90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 302 posts

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#191

Post by pessimizer »

reaperducer wrote: post #110
rhacker wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once there are unlimited remote jobs, the theory is they can live next door to the restaurant and construction site again. At least over the long term. In the meantime - that is playing out in smaller towns where remote employees are living.

>the theory is they can live next door to the restaurant and construction site Yes, because construction sites remain under construction for 10-20 years. /s Not everyone wants to find a new home every month.

Not literally "next door." Closer than a 90-minute commute. It's strange that you would read it that way. (What if the restaurant weren't on a residential street, or the two houses next door to it were already rented?)

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#192

Post by reaperducer »

misiti3780 wrote: post #129
reaperducer wrote: post #101

Amateurs. People in New York have been commuting two or more hours each way since at least the 70's. Some people who work in the city live in Pennsylvania.

yes, but by train, where you can actually accomplish a lot of things you cannot accomplish while driving.

>yes, but by train, where you can actually accomplish a lot of things you cannot accomplish while driving.

Most of the road warriors drive. Only a lucky minority live near where the trains run.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#193

Post by d1zzy »

kolpa wrote: post #133
abritinthebay wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're putting $5k away every month when your take home pay is ~$8k a month? I assume you must live a VERY spartan life in the Bay. Basically pay your rent (which must be shared or very cheap for the Bay) and utilities and not do much else... I mean the average Bay area rent is more than the difference between your take home and your savings... edit: I'm using ADP's calculator, don't know why SmartAsset is different…

Take-home pay on $175K in CA is $10k/month, not $8k/month https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator#RZ3V1... Sharing an apartment isn't "spartan", it's "normal"

If you're single I can see the advantages (beyond the obvious financial savings) of sharing an apartment. Doesn't really work as a couple/family.

I was saving much less per month because as a couple we rented our own single bedroom apartment and my SO doesn't work. However, we still managed to save enough in 5 years (while still not having sold most of the vested equity) to buy a house in the Bay Area. So I agree that the pay is worth the hassle, so far at least.

I'm curious how much you spend for food monthly (including restaurants)? Somewhat surprisingly this is the highest cost for us, after rent/mortgage, and we do cook a lot at home (go out maybe twice a month).

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#195

Post by dctoedt »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #104
ummonk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with a massive drop in rents, rents would still more than cover development costs. The limiting factor isn't the cost to construct high density housing units - it's the difficulty of getting permission to build high density housing units.

The permission (via zoning and permitting) is part of the cost.

> The permission (via zoning and permitting) is part of the cost.

But if the gatekeepers aren't willing to grant permission, then that cost is ∞

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#196

Post by majewsky »

kevinconaway wrote: post #158
Karunamon wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any professional idea conveyance you can do in person that you can't do over a modest video conference connection?

Videoconferencing introduces friction in to the process. Those meetings must be planned and scheduled. There are no serendipitous hallway or kitchen conversations that flow easily when people are colocated There is also the friction of the software itself. Whiteboarding and freewheeling discussion is possible but it doesn’t have the same feel to it

Also, you can pick up on the body language of people. When I want to discuss something with one of my colleagues, I can glance over at their desk and see if they're focused on something or just staring out of the window, waiting for something to compile. That way I don't have to rip him out of his focus like I would usually have to do with Slack etc.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#197

Post by dionidium »

sampo wrote: post #33
spyspy wrote: post #16

The sad fact is that long as people are willing to put up with this nothing is going to change. The crazy rents and terrible commutes sound insane to anyone living elsewhere but people are continuously more than happy to continue doing them to work at companies that haven't been priced out yet either. It's not an issue of social mobility either, since people living in the bay area are some of the most socially mobile…

> it'll only stop when everyone says enough is enough and leaves Or, alternatively, when enough people start voting in politicians who would allow building lots of new homes in central locations. Manhattan has 3.9× the density of San Francisco. At Manhattan density, the City of San Francisco could house 2.5 million more people.

To forestall responses decrying "Manhattanization," remember that every borough of New York City (except Staten Island) has a higher population density than San Francisco. San Francisco could add a couple hundred thousand people if just got as dense as Queens. At Brooklyn's density, the population would double.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#198

Post by softawre »

guiomie wrote: post #57
thirduncle wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the ridiculous salary and equity while I'm here would be foolish to pass up So - how much of the "ridiculous" salary is left after subtracting living costs and taxes, actually?

Much more than other places in the US. I keep seeing this type of comment, do the math, 2-3X salary increase, rent 2X increase, but rent is only ~25% of your salary, cost of things around ~25% higher. You are much better of in Silicon Valley as a techy in general.

Unless you want to have square footage and not have roommates.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#199

Post by d1zzy »

sizzzzlerz wrote: post #177
sudouser wrote: post #4

traffic sucks, people leave their office at 3:30 just to avoid traffic, but _everyone_ is doing it , so they still get stuck in traffic...

I live in Milpitas and work in Sunnyvale, commuting the 10 miles to my workplace on the infamous Highway 237. Having done this commute for 34 years, I can track the state of the economy by the time it takes to get home in the afternoon. During the recession, it was a breeze, 20 minute average. Today, even leaving around 3, 30-40 minute commutes are typical. Trying the same commute an hour or two later can add another…

Depending of where in Milpitas and Sunnyvale there are some nice bike routes. 10 miles isn't a big deal to bike, especially if you go for an e-bike (and with this latter option it should be less than the time it takes to drive and you don't get your anger worked up for being stuck in bumper to bumper traffic).

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#200

Post by misiti3780 »

reaperducer wrote: post #192
misiti3780 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but by train, where you can actually accomplish a lot of things you cannot accomplish while driving.

>yes, but by train, where you can actually accomplish a lot of things you cannot accomplish while driving. Most of the road warriors drive. Only a lucky minority live near where the trains run.

granted im working with a small sample size, but i live in NYC and everyone know that commutes in, and i mean everyone, drives to a train station and takes a train it, parking in midtown as high as 600/month, it makes no sense to actually compute it.
Post reply on HN