6 ms·

My suspicion is that this fellow crashes on a friend's couch pretty often. Unless Google allows him 24 hour access, he doesn't have a bathroom at night or on we

My suspicion is that this fellow crashes on a friend's couch pretty often. Unless Google allows him 24 hour access, he doesn't have a bathroom at night or on weekends. >"It's really hard to justify throwing that kind of money away. You're essentially burning it — you're not putting equity in anything and you're not building it up for a future — and that was really hard for me to reconcile." Equity and saving for the future are things you do after you've established a home. Comfort and time off of work are essential to a well-balanced and healthy life. What's sad, to me, is not that he lives in a truck, it's that he works so much that doesn't value any time alone in his own space. I know the rent is exorbitant in the bay, but his pay from Google has that factored in -- he's no Mission artist getting evicted, after all. I happily pay a significant portion of my income to have a home, even a rented one.

copperx 11y ago
> Comfort and time off of work are essential to a well-balanced and healthy life. It has been shown that reducing commute time significantly increases your happiness. Besides, I'm sure there's a higher purpose for what he's doing, otherwise it would be intolerable.
allencoin 11y ago
>Equity and saving for the future are things you do after you've established a home. He has established a home, it's just not a traditional one. It's a really-not-up-to-code tiny house on wheels. If he were living in a Winnebago or a trailer would you feel differently?
- new_hackers 11y ago
  I was thinking that: why didn't he buy a Winnebago?
  - Pinckney 11y ago
    A truck is stealthy. It doesn't necessarily look like anyone is living there, which means you're much less likely to be hassled by the police. Compare carcamper's experiences below.
- intopieces 11y ago
  If this were a story about migrant workers employed by Google, would you feel differently? I suspect so; our standards for living spaces are not arbitrary. That this man chooses to forgo them despite his salary is certainly his prerogative, but this "hack" drawing admiration points to a central failure of both housing in the bay and the culture at large that values future profits over basic living.
  - allencoin 11y ago
    I think if this story were about migrant workers I would feel differently about it because it would be an entirely different story—it would be about people not being paid much and forced to live in a truck versus a story about somebody being paid a lot and living an alternative lifestyle. I'm perhaps looking at this differently because I am into the financial independence movement[1], and I also quite like tiny houses. I like the idea of saving as much as you can so you don't have to work for the rest of your life, and I also like the idea of reducing your ecological and physical footprint. So that's how I'm seeing this story. This guy seems like a "mustachian" more than he seems like a guy forced to live in his car. I don't know how much he gets paid, but I'm certain he could afford an apartment—ridiculously expensive though it may be. I absolutely agree with you that the housing situation in the Bay area is bonkers, though. [1] See Mr. Money Mustache http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/
beatpanda 11y ago
It is irrational to pay current Bay Area rents, especially if you plan on living here long-term. The only way to avoid eviction for sure is to buy, and that's going to cost you roughly half a million dollars at the low end. Better to minimize your expenses and ramp up to that than set half your paycheck on fire to pay the inflated rent.
- sdenton4 11y ago
  I'm living in the east bay, and was recently running calculations on home purchasing... Take a 30 year mortgage, calculate the total interest+property taxes paid over the 30 years, and divide by 30*12 to get the amount of money per month not going into equity. Turned out to be pretty close to my rent, in most cases. It also turns out that the appreciation of housing in the US has been negligible up until the post-2000 housing boom. From the 1920's to 2000, the average increase in a house's value was 0.6% per year. So the part that isn't going to the bank is going into a possibly really poor savings fund. And one that can burn down... At this point, I'm thinking it probably still makes more sense to rent, and do the usual index fund thing.
  - beatpanda 11y ago
    > Turned out to be pretty close to my rent, in most cases. Let's take this house: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Oakland/2822-Myrtle-St-94608/home/762268 https://www.redfin.com/CA/Oakland/2822-Myrtle-St-94608/home/... Property taxes according to Redfin are $2,471 a year, for a total cost of $74,130. A thirty-year mortgage at 4.5% interest will see you paying $350,229 in interest over 30 years. Together, that's $1,178 not going into equity. Here's a Craigslist search for homes with 4 bedrooms or more in the same neighborhood: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/eby/apa?nh=64&bedrooms=4 http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/eby/apa?nh=64&bedrooms=4 Note that there aren't any comparable places to rent, but even the ones that are close are more than double our "amount over equity per month" figure. This also assumes your rent over 30 years is going to stay fixed the same way your mortgage payment is. It won't: https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-oakland-rent-trends/ https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-oakland-rent-tren... I couldn't find good data on housing appreciation for the Bay Area, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it doesn't mirror the U.S. overall. And either way, appreciation only matters if you're thinking of your home as an investment. Assuming you're thinking of it as a place to live, it makes sense both in pure cost terms and for some things that are harder to put a price on. For instance -- how much is having a permanent address worth to you? Or the price of never having to move again, never having to sit in another group housing interview again, never being able to be evicted by "owner move in" or whatever shibboleth is currently popular in Bay Area eviction bootcamps? (this is a real thing: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Lawyer-pumps-up-S-F-landlords-at-boot-camp-5008552.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Lawyer-pumps-up-S-F-la...)
ori_b 11y ago
> Unless Google allows him 24 hour access, he doesn't have a bathroom at night or on weekends. Google allows 24 hour access, unless that's changed recently.
- intopieces 11y ago
  Hope he got a good parking spot, then; either he's walking a mile at night to use the facilities or seriously irking whoever maintains the lawn.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    He's got the middle of the night to get a good parking spot. After a few nights he'd easily have the best non-reserved/handicapped spot possible.
- xiaoma 11y ago
  He probably really enjoys being in the office and produces a lot now. It could be a great deal for Google, just as it is for him.
- ipsin 11y ago
  Yeah, large companies seem to allow badged access after hours. A chemical toilet is also a wonderful thing.
  - zzalpha 11y ago
    Large companies? Any company leasing office space with a badged security system (is, any modern office tower) would allow this.
    - nommm-nommm 11y ago
      Everywhere I've ever worked allowed 24 hour access. Never worked in an office tower though. Never lived on the West Coast.
    - dogma1138 11y ago
pconner 11y ago
In his blog, he mentions that some of the time he spends "at work" is spent eating meals, exercising, or socializing. It's not a complete lack of work/life balance.
- intopieces 11y ago
  >It's not a complete lack of work/life balance. To me, doing all of your life at work is work, with no life. I need to disconnect, and I can't do that in the place where I work. Is this a corporate culture thing now? Work for Google, socialize only with Googlers, eat/sleep/breathe work?
  - WOOKIE_pizza 11y ago
    The Circle!
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - morganvachon 11y ago
    > To me, doing all of your life at work is work, with no life. I need to disconnect, and I can't do that in the place where I work. Indeed, at my new job I can get free meals, a free gym, free health clinic (not just a band-aid station, a fully staffed urgent care center with its own dispensary), showers, and so on. And this is not even corporate, it's a government job. But after a few weeks of just partaking of the free lunch/dinner, I decided to stop using the freebies. I felt like I was living there (12 hour shifts contribute to that feeling of course) and so I began leaving for lunch breaks and decided not to use the other facilities unless absolutely necessary. Given it's a government gig, it already feels like they "own" me as it is (mandatory uniform, strict rules about social media use even off the clock, etc).
    - johan_larson 11y ago

copperx 11y ago

> Comfort and time off of work are essential to a well-balanced and healthy life. It has been shown that reducing commute time significantly increases your happiness. Besides, I'm sure there's a higher purpose for what he's doing, otherwise it would be intolerable.

allencoin 11y ago

>Equity and saving for the future are things you do after you've established a home. He has established a home, it's just not a traditional one. It's a really-not-up-to-code tiny house on wheels. If he were living in a Winnebago or a trailer would you feel differently?

new_hackers 11y ago
I was thinking that: why didn't he buy a Winnebago?
- Pinckney 11y ago
  A truck is stealthy. It doesn't necessarily look like anyone is living there, which means you're much less likely to be hassled by the police. Compare carcamper's experiences below.
intopieces 11y ago
If this were a story about migrant workers employed by Google, would you feel differently? I suspect so; our standards for living spaces are not arbitrary. That this man chooses to forgo them despite his salary is certainly his prerogative, but this "hack" drawing admiration points to a central failure of both housing in the bay and the culture at large that values future profits over basic living.
- allencoin 11y ago
  I think if this story were about migrant workers I would feel differently about it because it would be an entirely different story—it would be about people not being paid much and forced to live in a truck versus a story about somebody being paid a lot and living an alternative lifestyle. I'm perhaps looking at this differently because I am into the financial independence movement[1], and I also quite like tiny houses. I like the idea of saving as much as you can so you don't have to work for the rest of your life, and I also like the idea of reducing your ecological and physical footprint. So that's how I'm seeing this story. This guy seems like a "mustachian" more than he seems like a guy forced to live in his car. I don't know how much he gets paid, but I'm certain he could afford an apartment—ridiculously expensive though it may be. I absolutely agree with you that the housing situation in the Bay area is bonkers, though. [1] See Mr. Money Mustache http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/

beatpanda 11y ago

It is irrational to pay current Bay Area rents, especially if you plan on living here long-term. The only way to avoid eviction for sure is to buy, and that's going to cost you roughly half a million dollars at the low end. Better to minimize your expenses and ramp up to that than set half your paycheck on fire to pay the inflated rent.

sdenton4 11y ago
I'm living in the east bay, and was recently running calculations on home purchasing... Take a 30 year mortgage, calculate the total interest+property taxes paid over the 30 years, and divide by 30*12 to get the amount of money per month not going into equity. Turned out to be pretty close to my rent, in most cases. It also turns out that the appreciation of housing in the US has been negligible up until the post-2000 housing boom. From the 1920's to 2000, the average increase in a house's value was 0.6% per year. So the part that isn't going to the bank is going into a possibly really poor savings fund. And one that can burn down... At this point, I'm thinking it probably still makes more sense to rent, and do the usual index fund thing.
- beatpanda 11y ago
  > Turned out to be pretty close to my rent, in most cases. Let's take this house: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Oakland/2822-Myrtle-St-94608/home/762268 https://www.redfin.com/CA/Oakland/2822-Myrtle-St-94608/home/... Property taxes according to Redfin are $2,471 a year, for a total cost of $74,130. A thirty-year mortgage at 4.5% interest will see you paying $350,229 in interest over 30 years. Together, that's $1,178 not going into equity. Here's a Craigslist search for homes with 4 bedrooms or more in the same neighborhood: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/eby/apa?nh=64&bedrooms=4 http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/eby/apa?nh=64&bedrooms=4 Note that there aren't any comparable places to rent, but even the ones that are close are more than double our "amount over equity per month" figure. This also assumes your rent over 30 years is going to stay fixed the same way your mortgage payment is. It won't: https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-oakland-rent-trends/ https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-oakland-rent-tren... I couldn't find good data on housing appreciation for the Bay Area, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it doesn't mirror the U.S. overall. And either way, appreciation only matters if you're thinking of your home as an investment. Assuming you're thinking of it as a place to live, it makes sense both in pure cost terms and for some things that are harder to put a price on. For instance -- how much is having a permanent address worth to you? Or the price of never having to move again, never having to sit in another group housing interview again, never being able to be evicted by "owner move in" or whatever shibboleth is currently popular in Bay Area eviction bootcamps? (this is a real thing: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Lawyer-pumps-up-S-F-landlords-at-boot-camp-5008552.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Lawyer-pumps-up-S-F-la...)

ori_b 11y ago

> Unless Google allows him 24 hour access, he doesn't have a bathroom at night or on weekends. Google allows 24 hour access, unless that's changed recently.

intopieces 11y ago
Hope he got a good parking spot, then; either he's walking a mile at night to use the facilities or seriously irking whoever maintains the lawn.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  He's got the middle of the night to get a good parking spot. After a few nights he'd easily have the best non-reserved/handicapped spot possible.
xiaoma 11y ago
He probably really enjoys being in the office and produces a lot now. It could be a great deal for Google, just as it is for him.
ipsin 11y ago
Yeah, large companies seem to allow badged access after hours. A chemical toilet is also a wonderful thing.
- zzalpha 11y ago
  Large companies? Any company leasing office space with a badged security system (is, any modern office tower) would allow this.
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
    Everywhere I've ever worked allowed 24 hour access. Never worked in an office tower though. Never lived on the West Coast.
  - dogma1138 11y ago

pconner 11y ago

In his blog, he mentions that some of the time he spends "at work" is spent eating meals, exercising, or socializing. It's not a complete lack of work/life balance.

intopieces 11y ago
>It's not a complete lack of work/life balance. To me, doing all of your life at work is work, with no life. I need to disconnect, and I can't do that in the place where I work. Is this a corporate culture thing now? Work for Google, socialize only with Googlers, eat/sleep/breathe work?
- WOOKIE_pizza 11y ago
  The Circle!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- morganvachon 11y ago
  > To me, doing all of your life at work is work, with no life. I need to disconnect, and I can't do that in the place where I work. Indeed, at my new job I can get free meals, a free gym, free health clinic (not just a band-aid station, a fully staffed urgent care center with its own dispensary), showers, and so on. And this is not even corporate, it's a government job. But after a few weeks of just partaking of the free lunch/dinner, I decided to stop using the freebies. I felt like I was living there (12 hour shifts contribute to that feeling of course) and so I began leaving for lunch breaks and decided not to use the other facilities unless absolutely necessary. Given it's a government gig, it already feels like they "own" me as it is (mandatory uniform, strict rules about social media use even off the clock, etc).
  - johan_larson 11y ago