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

221–230 of 280 posts

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#221

Post by slipjack »

redthrowaway wrote: post #142
jcdavis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because reality for the lower class is far more complicated than that. In theory, she should move elsewhere. In practice, its not nearly that easy - there's no certainty of a new job, no money to move, (well-placed) fear of losing what little safety net they have, etc.

That's awful for her and others in her situation, but I don't think it supports an argument that anyone should be able to afford to live in any region regardless of their income. And really, that's the only solution to problems like hers: building subsidized low-income housing in very expensive areas. San Mateo is expensive. Very expensive. Outside of direct market distortions like subsidized low income housing, it w…

Building subsidized housing is only one way to subsidize housing expenses. There are vouchers, sliding scale housing, mixed income housing, set-asides, and more.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#222

Post by refurb »

muzz wrote: post #169
refurb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

No that's a great point. If enough folks making very high salaries move to SF (and the housing stock stays constant), then prices will rise.

My point is that it might not be fair that low-income folks have to move when housing gets more expensive, but it doesn't stop with low-income. I'm sure plenty of middle-income folks have been forced out of the Bay area as well.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#223

Post by Lawtonfogle »

Frondo wrote: post #193
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your base point is a question? I assume you meant that your base point is something we should do with the answer to that question. Could you please restate your base point so I do not have to guess what that something is?

My point is, what these folks want for their lives matters in a discussion concerning their lives. You've said, ship 'em out! Retrain them! If they don't want to do those things, do nothing. What I'm going for is: ask them, too. It makes very little sense to try to have a conversation about solving a community's problem without listening to members of that community.

>You've said, ship 'em out! Retrain them! If they don't want to do those things, do nothing.

It seems you have misunderstood my point. I'm not saying to load them up and ship them out. I'm saying that if they want help, the best utilization of limited resources will be in helping them move somewhere more affordable. But they don't have to accept help; it isn't being forced on them.

I'm saying offer options, not enforce demands.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#224

Post by muzz »

fredophile wrote: post #209
muzz wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The cost of renting or buying property isn't limited to the income you get from your salary. I know of renters in expensive cities that have split one bedroom or studio apartments between multiple people. You can bet that whoever rented the woman in the article their garage to live in is using that money to help pay the mortgage.

Good point, housing is not atomic.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#225

Post by orky56 »

benten10 wrote: post #26
nsnick wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may not be too popular, but subsidizing housing for the poor in Silicon Valley will drive up rents for the people in the middle who are not receiving the subsidy.

And besides, the subsidies would be crazyyy because of the existing prices. What would help those in need without affecting the prices is building/assigning/requiring certain percentage of new housing projects to include low-income housing (I've mentioned this elsewhere in the thread).

The problem with this is that the low-income housing portion will be artificially lower than market prices forcing the landlord to increase the rent on the other units to make up for it. Once again as the OP mentioned, the middle class gets squeezed out since supposedly market prices do not actually exist to be taken advantage of.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#226

Post by Mz »

Kalium wrote: post #220
Mz wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wasn't asking for financial support from anyone. I was only arguing against what has been stated in this discussion on HN: "just move." I have my reasons why I chose to come back to California.

Not that it is actually any of your business, but I don't currently get any kind of government "assistance."

I'm somewhat baffled as to what you are arguing with me about.

FWIW: Before my life got derailed, I planned to be an urban planner and took college classes with an eye towards understanding how best to make policy that serves the human population in that regard, not targeted at "helping poor people" but also not skewing things in a fashion that causes them unnecessary hardship, which is basically what we currently do.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#227

Post by bsder »

paulhauggis wrote: post #217
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #63

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…

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

And, while everybody always mentions immigrants, I would like to point out that we have survivor bias. The immigrants that you know SUCCEEDED. Lots of them got lost along the way. Many of them are still poor--there is a reason they tend to congregate together in specific city sections.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#228

Post by cyberpanther »

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…

So if you look at the numbers actually tons of people are moving out of California. On the other hand tons of people are moving in too. However, I think the overall effect is Cailifornia is losing people every month.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#229

Post by Mz »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #218
Mz wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I really have no idea why you seem intent on picking an argument with me. I currently don't get assistance and I am homeless, not living in overcrowded living conditions.

Stating my objections to people saying "well, just move" is not remotely the same thing as advocating for any particular solution. I imagine the solutions I would propose would be things most people here would say wasn't what is under discussion. I generally frame problems differently from most other people.

Re: Poor Kids of Silicon Valley

#230

Post by throwaway9324 »

scott_karana wrote: post #216
throwaway9324 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

It does for the people being discussed.
Post reply on HN