4 ms·

It's a bit tricky because the issue here is absolute vs. relative. The comment you link wants us to think: $100k/year? That's a lot of money! How could anyone

It's a bit tricky because the issue here is absolute vs. relative. The comment you link wants us to think: $100k/year? That's a lot of money! How could anyone be in trouble with that much money? Let's not do anything else for those greedy bastards, they've already got enough! And in absolute terms, it is a lot of money. But then you consider the relative value: $100k in Menlo Park is not actually very much money at all, given how expensive it is to live in or near Menlo Park in the first place. And while it's true that there are other people who have it worse, the idea is not to say "how dare you focus on this person, that person over there has it worse", because that leads to never doing anything for anyone (there will always be someone, somewhere who has it worse at any given moment, and thus it'll always be possible to distract effort by shaming anyone who looks at anyone else). The idea is to ask why it is that such a large amount of money (absolute) terms has such low (relative) value, and whether that's something we should fix, and how to fix it.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
100K a year I could certainly find a place to live in Santa Clara County if I'm single. Many, many people make do with less, and being single and making high five figures should not be a problem to finding housing (and it doesn't have to be out in fucking Gilroy either). Its not as if San Jose to Menlo Park is the worst commute in the world either.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rdl 11y ago
  Especially true if you're going to be living there for 30 years; it's hard to find a vaguely affordable place if you have to move quickly, but with 3 months to wait, you've got a good chance of finding something merely very expensive vs. completely unaffordable on $100k/person income. Housing is still a huge problem, though.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    Oh yes, definitely-its a massive part of why I left. But high five/low six figure salaries are more than adequate to live as a single person in a decent apartment in most parts of Santa Clara County. No need to commute in from Tracy or Merced (unless you assume firefighters are all rural Good Ole Boys at heart who must, must have their own house).
- pessimizer 11y ago
  Who needs a family anyway, amirite?
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    You must be a fan of wives staying home and not working.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    Oh absolutely. Ra ra ra. On the other side: Let's pay people based on how many dependents they have. Why does a single programmer with no children need any money? Or any time off from work? Clearly people who have children should get first preference about using paid time off? /s No, equality means everyone gets treated equally regardless of how much or how little family obligation they have. If someone has 12 children, that was their choice. Equal pay for equal work cuts both ways. Edit: This is another reason where a universal basic income could help. Sure, it won't be enough for an apartment in West Village in Manhattan but at least now we can tell anyone who lives there but can't afford to live there to simply get out and go a little further or better just move. Why is it wrong for people to be priced out of a neighborhood? I don't see anything wrong with it. I am so mad at cheap populism with slogans like "family first" or "children first". Say no to that. Another thing this brings me to is we should absolutely bring an end to elected representatives by district in our legislature. If there are enough people who benefit from rent collection in an area, they will continue to support legislation that allows them to continue collecting such rent (in this case it'd be suppressing new property development if you're a property owner or rent control if you are lucky enough to have a rent control apartment). Elected representatives who only need to answer to a particular district is a horrible idea and we should do everything we can to bring it to an end.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      By all means, pay people equally. But if a professional in their 30s isn't making enough to raise a family, they're not paid well. If you pay your firefighters like that, they're going to leave for other cities which do pay enough to raise a family. It's not that people with families should be paid more, it's just that making enough to live by yourself isn't a good benchmark for pay. People without families will make way more than they need, but that's just how things go; there's a reason DINK means "lots of disposable income."

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

100K a year I could certainly find a place to live in Santa Clara County if I'm single. Many, many people make do with less, and being single and making high five figures should not be a problem to finding housing (and it doesn't have to be out in fucking Gilroy either). Its not as if San Jose to Menlo Park is the worst commute in the world either.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rdl 11y ago
Especially true if you're going to be living there for 30 years; it's hard to find a vaguely affordable place if you have to move quickly, but with 3 months to wait, you've got a good chance of finding something merely very expensive vs. completely unaffordable on $100k/person income. Housing is still a huge problem, though.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  Oh yes, definitely-its a massive part of why I left. But high five/low six figure salaries are more than adequate to live as a single person in a decent apartment in most parts of Santa Clara County. No need to commute in from Tracy or Merced (unless you assume firefighters are all rural Good Ole Boys at heart who must, must have their own house).
pessimizer 11y ago
Who needs a family anyway, amirite?
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  You must be a fan of wives staying home and not working.
- newjersey 11y ago
  Oh absolutely. Ra ra ra. On the other side: Let's pay people based on how many dependents they have. Why does a single programmer with no children need any money? Or any time off from work? Clearly people who have children should get first preference about using paid time off? /s No, equality means everyone gets treated equally regardless of how much or how little family obligation they have. If someone has 12 children, that was their choice. Equal pay for equal work cuts both ways. Edit: This is another reason where a universal basic income could help. Sure, it won't be enough for an apartment in West Village in Manhattan but at least now we can tell anyone who lives there but can't afford to live there to simply get out and go a little further or better just move. Why is it wrong for people to be priced out of a neighborhood? I don't see anything wrong with it. I am so mad at cheap populism with slogans like "family first" or "children first". Say no to that. Another thing this brings me to is we should absolutely bring an end to elected representatives by district in our legislature. If there are enough people who benefit from rent collection in an area, they will continue to support legislation that allows them to continue collecting such rent (in this case it'd be suppressing new property development if you're a property owner or rent control if you are lucky enough to have a rent control apartment). Elected representatives who only need to answer to a particular district is a horrible idea and we should do everything we can to bring it to an end.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    By all means, pay people equally. But if a professional in their 30s isn't making enough to raise a family, they're not paid well. If you pay your firefighters like that, they're going to leave for other cities which do pay enough to raise a family. It's not that people with families should be paid more, it's just that making enough to live by yourself isn't a good benchmark for pay. People without families will make way more than they need, but that's just how things go; there's a reason DINK means "lots of disposable income."