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

I lived in LA and commuted to Berkeley by plane to save on rent

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 123 posts

Re: I lived in LA and commuted to Berkeley by plane to save on rent

#21

Post by et-al »

bhl wrote: post #17

My takeaway from reading about the person's experience is that we need better high speed public transportation in California. It would unlock a lot of economic and non-economic opportunities if people can move across the state within an hour. Imagine if Berkeley was a commuter school for people in Los Angeles, or UCLA was a commuter school for people in Bay Area.

Have you seen Caltrain's service lately? To be realistic, I'd prefer our regional systems have more frequent headways and BART to circle the bay. SF-LA commuters are a drop compared to local commuters. I'll even settle for a 3am last BART train instead of the lone 800 bus or the 24 hour service we'll never get.

Re: I lived in LA and commuted to Berkeley by plane to save on rent

#22

Post by et-al »

kpw94 wrote: post #12

> Total Cost: $5592.66 For 10 months. Even if true story, only make sense if you can find rent $559 cheaper in LA (and don't value your time & the environment of course). It was extra special for the OP as he'd live rent free in LA. > Typically, the door-to-door commute time between my home in LA and my classroom in Berkeley is 4-5hrs EACH WAY Waking up at 3:30am and wasting 9h every day doesn't seem worth the $ savi…

If you check out the OP's FlyerTalk thread, they were already doing LAX-MIA-LAX mileage runs before attending Cal.

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trip-reports/2093205-epic-co...

Re: I lived in LA and commuted to Berkeley by plane to save on rent

#23

Post by deepzn »

alex_lav wrote: post #15
gruez wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you think you could find a reasonable, safe, clean place to live in the Berkely area for 560 / mo? A quick search says no. But to get that low quoted amount, you need to ignore the value of the frequent flyer miles used, and the value of his time spent commuting. If you factor those in, the cost is about $17.8k for the fall semester alone, plenty of money to get a nice place to live. [1] https://news.ycombinator.…

Sorry I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make. This person handed over the 5500 in cash, not the 17.8k you quoted, correct? It's not like they had a budget of 17.8k, because they wouldn't have gotten those miles had they not been flying in the first place.

The point is it wouldn't apply to most people without points. And the point they were trying to prove in the post is it was possible for others.

Re: I lived in LA and commuted to Berkeley by plane to save on rent

#24

Post by bruce511 »

gruez wrote: post #8
emrah wrote: post #2

> Total Cost: $5592.66 This is highly misleading since it doesn't include $ value of all the freq flyer miles used (as far as i can tell). And I'm left wondering was it really cheaper? If yes, by how much?

>This is highly misleading since it doesn't include $ value of all the freq flyer miles used (as far as i can tell). Yep. Here are the amounts with the value of the miles factored in[1]: >$1366.06 on Alaska, 307500 Alaska miles 307500 Alaska miles * 1.2 cents/mile = $3690 >$380.86 on Southwest, 43732 Southwest points 43732 Southwest points * 1.5 cents/point = $655.98 >$42.80 on United, 5500 United miles 5500 United m…

Valuing miles us a tricky thing to do because it depends on factors each are personal, and in this case unknown. I get that the airline has a book-value for them, but that's not the same as value-to-me.

Firstly, unlike $ they can expire. So it's not like you can save them forever. I recently had 15 000 miles expire, simply because there was nothing I wanted, or needed, that I could spend them on.

Secondly they're not universal. To follow the article, i can't spend them on rent. So they really only have a value if I can trade them for something I would/could have spent $ on. So sure, upgrades are nice, but not like essential.

It's the same with time. You can be time-rich or time-poor. You can be cash-rich or cash-poor. Typically your priorities will be to reduce poorness. Rich people spend cash to get more time. Cash-poor people spend time to get more cash.

Miles-rich follows the same argument.

So it's not so easy to put a $ price on miles or time. Clearly the equation will vary from one person to another.

Incidentally given the choice of commuting or working minimum wage, I'll choose commuting all day long. Especially if that commuting is eyes-free, so I can use that time in a productive or entertaining way.

Re: I lived in LA and commuted to Berkeley by plane to save on rent

#25

Post by deepzn »

bhl wrote: post #17

My takeaway from reading about the person's experience is that we need better high speed public transportation in California. It would unlock a lot of economic and non-economic opportunities if people can move across the state within an hour. Imagine if Berkeley was a commuter school for people in Los Angeles, or UCLA was a commuter school for people in Bay Area.

Yeah, the crazy part was the flying. But, people commute long distances for work or school all the time to save money on rents, especially all major cities. Having better subways definitely helps. For e.g. in NYC, where many commute from Jersey, or Long Island.

Re: I lived in LA and commuted to Berkeley by plane to save on rent

#26

Post by echelon »

bhl wrote: post #17

My takeaway from reading about the person's experience is that we need better high speed public transportation in California. It would unlock a lot of economic and non-economic opportunities if people can move across the state within an hour. Imagine if Berkeley was a commuter school for people in Los Angeles, or UCLA was a commuter school for people in Bay Area.

Build more density in the cities you want rather than bussing people in. That's the best answer.

Re: I lived in LA and commuted to Berkeley by plane to save on rent

#27

Post by stu2b50 »

ewoodrich wrote: post #10
alex_lav wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTA: > I was living in LA, rent free. But also, FTA: > August 2022-May 2023 So 10 months. At the quoted amount of 5592, that's 559 dollars a month. Do you think you could find a reasonable, safe, clean place to live in the Berkely area for 560 / mo? A quick search says no.

I guess I'm not seeing the argument here when the starting premise is free rent in a similarly high cost of living city.

The starting premise is that some students have families in different areas than their schools?

Re: I lived in LA and commuted to Berkeley by plane to save on rent

#28

Post by akiselev »

Key quotes:

> I was living in LA, rent free.

> I love flying and I have a lot of frequent flyer miles/points from credit card sign up bonus/flying over the past few years.

> I booked all my tickets for Fall 2022 back in April and May 2022. Then I booked all my tickets for Spring 2023 back in Nov 2022. Most tickets were booked using Alaska miles or Southwest points

> I have elite status with Alaska and Southwest, both offer a valuable perk called same-day change. I always book the cheapest flight of that day and call them when the check-in window opened to change to other flights of that day free of charge.

> Spent 45972 minutes on my commute, equivalent to 31.93 24-hr days.

So basically, if you're rich and have already spent several times the cost of rent on travel in your gap year(s), willing to spend over 20 hours a week commuting for 3 days of class, and have literally no concept of the value of your time, you too can afford the miserable commute from LA to Berkeley for university!

Re: I lived in LA and commuted to Berkeley by plane to save on rent

#30

Post by davidw »

kevinventullo wrote: post #9
newyankee wrote: post #5

I never understand how NIMBYSM is considered environmentally correct or friendly. Every movement is taken over by vested interests. Average 4-8 floor height buildings with existing American infrastructure otherwise should be enough to flood market with 'cheap enough' homes.

Does anyone consider NIMBYism environmentally friendly?

My parents are from the "boomer" generation, and their idea of environmentalism is pretty good in a lot of ways, but in terms of lifestyle, they think of it as "live on a big lot with a lot of trees and drive everywhere". Yes, they get to see lots of green - but they are very fossil fuel dependent.

There really is a shift in mentality from thinking about what you see out your front door to thinking about the whole thing as a global system, and not everyone is capable of connecting the dots.

Post reply on HN