11 ms·

“Back in the day, [the wage] would have been a great number,” said Victor, “but because of Facebook moving in, everything is so expensive. I have to get payday

• denzil_correa 9y ago
  > I don't think that's something you can blame solely on Facebook. I don't think "Facebook" is solely blamed. Facebook is used as a canonical example of SV companies.
  • austenallred 9y ago
    Even then. Housing prices are obviously related to Silicon Valley companies, but there's much to be said about housing policy as well.
    • princekolt 9y ago
      The sad part is that California, being the largest state in the US, should be the last one to have this sort of housing problems...
      • rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
        It has been attempted, and the only thing to show for it is perhaps America's most over-hyped ghost town[0]. Few Californians or transplants to California want to live anywhere but near the coastline. California's climate is not as pleasant once you go further inland. Also, the coastline is seismically active, and does not pose as a great location for Manhattan-style skyscrapers. (For that reason, I have always found San Francisco's skyline to be underwhelming). [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California
        • icebraining 9y ago
          Also, the coastline is seismically active, and does not pose as a great location for Manhattan-style skyscrapers. So is Tokyo, yet there's plenty of high buildings.
        • lostboys67 9y ago
          Skyscrapers withstand earth quakes better than lo rise in most cases
        • taysic 9y ago
          >Few Californians or transplants to California want to live anywhere but near the coastline. California's climate is not as pleasant once you go further inland. That's so untrue. If some of the large open areas in the South Bay or east bay were turned into suburbs people would happily move in
          • estebank 9y ago
            More suburbs is probably a bad solution to lengthy commutes.
            • princekolt 9y ago
              Not if you have high speed transport. If you can commute at 200mph, living as far as 100 miles from work you could commute faster than people who live closer and go by car.
            • deleted 9y ago
              [deleted]
            • deleted 9y ago
              [deleted]
      • umanwizard 9y ago
        This comment is wrong on many levels... 1/ State borders within the US aren't any sort of obstacle to commuting for work, so how big your state is is completely irrelevant (it's only a slight exaggeration to say that half of New Jersey is fully integrated suburbs of NYC). 2/ Even if it did matter, California is definitely not the largest state in the US.
        • galdosdi 9y ago
          > it's only a slight exaggeration to say that half of New Jersey is fully integrated suburbs of NYC) By land, yes. If measured by population, your "exaggeration" is probably even an understatement.
        • pascalxus 9y ago
          But still, 95% of CA is undeveloped. Even in the bay area, you can see vast amounts of land that are undeveloped or underdeveloped. I see prime real-estate near bart being squandered with these tiny little 2-4 story buildings - it's pathetic. From 580 you can see nothing but land in every direction - none of it being developed on at all. Meanwhile, people are driving farther and farther to work to find cheaper housing, x10 the amount of traffic. All due to politics - zoning and NIMBY.
  • thanksgiving 9y ago
    > They earn too much to qualify for state health care, but not enough to afford the health insurance offered by their employer. They frequently struggle to find enough money for basics like food and clothes for their children. Victor recently borrowed money from his mother to hold a birthday party for one of his daughters, and from a friend to pay for a dentist appointment. This one might be a little unpopular but it needs to be said. I have an ax to grind / pet peeve here. What we need to do is get rid of means testing for entitlements and government services in general. I want to live in a world where the excelsior scholarship[1] does not ask how much your parents (or you!) make. If we can afford a program to feed the poor, we can afford a program to feed everyone (who meets residency requirements I guess if we are talking state or city level funding). The real devil is means testing and nobody talks about it because we are essentially using it as a vote bank / scare tactic. "Don't vote for Republicans or they'll starve you and/or let you die without health care." we say. tl;dr we should get rid of means testing. [1] https://www.ny.gov/programs/tuition-free-degree-program-excelsior-scholarship https://www.ny.gov/programs/tuition-free-degree-program-exce...
    • dpark 9y ago
      > If we can afford a program to feed the poor, we can afford a program to feed everyone This isn't actually true, which is why means testing exists. If San Francisco gave every resident just $200/month for food, it would cost the city over $2 billion/year. And that's assuming only $200/month and no other assistance programs. The only way to get rid of means testing while maintaining existing social services would be to drastically raise taxes.
      • bryanlarsen 9y ago
        "drastically raise taxes." Sure, on paper it would drastically raise taxes, but the net effect would be nil. The average taxpayer would have taxes raised by $200 and receive a benefit of $200/month. And the raise should be substantially less than $200 because you no longer have to pay for the old food assistance program, nor most of the bureaucracy for it.
        • 9y ago
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• dpark 9y ago
  Where is their $75k/year going? I totally get that the bay is ridiculously expensive, but they're living in his parents' garage. Are his parents charging him that much rent? I'd think someone living in their parents' garage and earning $75k would be doing pretty well in terms of money. (Setting aside the fact that living with your family in a 2-car garage would definitely suck.)
  • austenallred 9y ago
    They must be paying a lot of rent for the garage. Otherwise the numbers don't work (or... not work, as it were)
  • mattmanser 9y ago
    Could be that they're not getting the hours to actually earn anywhere near $75k.
  • bluedino 9y ago
    "Living in a garage" sounds a lot worse than "staying with your parents rent free"
  • rbanffy 9y ago
    Maybe the parents also rent the house. At 29/26 the parents could easily be 49/46 and still working. Also, mind that poverty has a role in poor economic decisions (payday loans being one of them). https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-br... (edit: added some extra info)
    • robmass94 9y ago
      Unless this is referring to a different house, no, the parents do own it: >When Victor was growing up, his father was able to buy a small house in Menlo Park with his earnings a [sic] landscaper.
  • esMazer 9y ago
    75K before taxes with 3 kids..
• davidiach 9y ago
  The only reason $75k/yr is considered low wage has to do with the housing prices in that area. Everyone knows the solution to that problem is to increase the supply of housing, yet little is being done. Maybe soon enough, $100k/yr will be the new $75k$. What then?
  • tormeh 9y ago
    The long-time residents have enacted legislation that insulates them from price increases, so house prices are irrelevant to them. Rent controls, property tax freeze, etc. aren't failed policies, but wildly successful ones because they allow long-time residents to pretend that SF is still a small town. That it puts a hard squeeze on people moving in to SF is probably just frosting on the cake.
• s3r3nity 9y ago
  This - the headline of the article is a bit click-bait-y, but you nail the crux of the issue. When I worked there years back, I recall chatting with a few cafeteria workers and learning that they were paid more than the average contract worker; the issue isn't that they're being paid poorly, but rather that the Valley is _so expensive_ to live in. It should be more of a commentary on the state of California and the cities north, and including, of San Jose, rather than the tech companies that populate the region.
  • ringwalt 9y ago
    Well you can't really consider the Bay Area housing bubble and cost of living spike without taking the tech boom into account. I think it's both the fault of NIMBYism/failure to build sufficient housing in the South Bay, and the fault of large companies, VCs, and startups for doubling down on the South Bay instead of distributing new jobs more evenly throughout the rest of the country.
    • wbl 9y ago
      Why should they given the gains to concentration? Other metro like Chicago and NYC do have tech offices.
      • eropple 9y ago
        Maybe to not effectively destroy cities and communities with CoL traps? Y'know. Basic "we are members of a society and should be working to make it better" stuff. (Shocking, I know, but there have been eras where even Big Businessmans thought about this.)
        • selectodude 9y ago
          Those cities should stop destroying themselves and allow new construction.
          • eropple 9y ago
• ProAm 9y ago
  > I don't think that's something you can blame solely on Facebook You'll never be able to solely blame macro economic issues on a single entity, they certainly contribute to the to the issue however.
  • refurb 9y ago
    Contributing to the issue? You mean by creating a ton of high paying jobs? Are you saying they should stop doing that?
    • ProAm 9y ago
      A ton? Yes high paying jobs that clearly have had an effect on the local economy as shown by this article. Like I said it's a macro economic issue that can't be fixed with a comment on a discussion board.
      • selectodude 9y ago
        I’m literally any other situation, supply and demand would have taken care of this a decade ago. PA doesn’t allow new construction and then blames a third party for housing costs. It’s asinine.
• little_cat 9y ago
  Removed, changed my mind.
  • austenallred 9y ago
    To be fair, though, is your health insurance covered by your employer?
    • little_cat 9y ago
      This is fair point, medical expenses are largest risk in their situation, but I found that article is not about this.
  • joaomacp 9y ago
    now I ain't sayin she's a gold digger...
• VeejayRampay 9y ago
  This is precisely why the USA need to get on the HST gravy train. Fast, reliable trains provide a way for people who cannot afford living in the more densely populated area (or don't want to) a way to live in a huge house with a yard and a pool 100 miles from said populated area. You then have an hour long commute every day (door to door), which is quite long, sure, but bearable.
  • wbl 9y ago
    The valley is not densely populated. It has acres of luxury zoned single family housing.
    • akgerber 9y ago
      Neighboring Atherton has a land use goal of 'preserv[ing] the Town's character as a scenic, rural, thickly wooded residential area with abundant open space.'
      • sokoloff 9y ago
        Should the residents of the town of Atherton be able to vote and enact policies on how Atherton should evolve? I think they should.
        • wbl 9y ago
          When every city in the bay thinks that way we get a situation where only the lucky get to live here.
          • Danihan 9y ago
            And that's a bad thing why? Why shouldn't there be nice, exclusive areas to live in, just like there are exclusive schools to attend and exclusive companies to work for?
            • 9y ago
• rbanffy 9y ago
  > I don't think that's something you can blame solely on Facebook. They could pay their cafeteria workers better. Of course, it's not only Facebook that's a problem. I doubt many cafeteria workers make 75K/year. That said, aren't social housing projects an option here?
  • wavefunction 9y ago
    >>I doubt many cafeteria workers make 75K/year Isn't that 75k the gross from both adults in the family? And the worker even mentions facebook is their second gig so that's at least three jobs to hit 75,000. I don't think people working that hard should be living hand-to-mouth.
    • rbanffy 9y ago
      > Isn't that 75k the gross from both adults in the family? One reason I mentioned it is that requiring both parents to work in order to make ends meet limits their movement, limits their ability to change jobs and limits their ability to save for retirement. > I don't think people working that hard should be living hand-to-mouth. I imagine there are studies indicating this is bad for the overall economy.
• turc1656 9y ago
  That's why they should be commuting to from a more reasonably-priced area of CA instead of living in the hideously expensive place they chose to live. This is colossally stupid on their part.
• mcgrath_sh 9y ago
  I agree so much. At $75k/yr in my area, you would be able to live in a top 15 school district and go on a family vacation anually. I literally cannot conceptualize scraping by on $75k a year. That is just unfathomably expensive!
  • xenihn 9y ago
    What area is that?
    • AnOscelot 9y ago
      Kansas City, and it's nearly infinite suburbs, would be incredibly comfortable at 75k. Could easily afford a nice home in one of the bustling urban neighborhoods, or a 2,000+ sq ft. in the burbs, or something with a few acres out in the country but near an interstate for commuting.
      • xenihn 9y ago
        Ahh, could you recommend any specific neighborhoods? I'm starting to seriously consider Kansas City, coincidentally enough.
        • AnOscelot 9y ago
          My knowledge of what neighborhoods are currently great is a little rusty. I moved away from the area for a while, and now I'm one of those people with acreage outside of the city. But when I was in the city full time, my favorite area was around 39th street just over the state line on the Missouri side. Walking distance to quite a few restaurants, coffeeshops, bookstores, and other funky shops. Another fun place was the area around the Plaza. Some nice old apartments and houses. Walking distance from the Nelson art museum, the Plaza stores and restaurants, and fairly close to the bars in Westport. Westport is a fun place to hang out, but it's a little dodgy in terms of living there. Lots of petty crime, and a sad uptick in shootings of late. But when you're in your twenties, it's one of the most fun places in the city. At least it was for me. One thing which changed after I left was the revitalization of downtown. Used to be dead, and now you can have a semblance of urban living there. Lots of lofts and townhouses available, and in walking distance of the new bar / restaurant district, plus the convention center and the new performing arts hall. Related is the River Market area. It's on the edge of downtown with lots of rennovated apartments & lofts. Has the main farmers market, and the usual bars, restaurants, and odd stores. And is very walkable. The new streetcars have a very limited route, but River Market and Downtown are covered (or will be). The place I used to live now has a name: Crossroads Arts District. Stretches between downtown and the area around Crown Center. Has lots of art galleries, predictably enough, and all the other usual stuff. Holds a street art & food festival (First Fridays) once a month. Streetcar service will be coming soon-ish, but not quite there yet. There's also the West Bottoms. Used to be a swamp, then was a warehouse / industrial district, then was abandoned (when I was there), and now is an up & coming area with the usual lofts and stuff. Used to be one of my favorite areas of the city due to the interesting abandoned factories and how quiet it was despite being in the middle of the city. Probably a lot of fun now. I don't know much about the burbs. Johnson County (suburbia on the Kansas side) was great for big box stores but was otherwise a black hole for me. However, one great thing about Johnson County is that it has a Microcenter and it's glorious. Need a Raspberry Pi Zero + a handful of sensors for a project and need it now? Done. Though speaking of the burbs, if you have a little extra money for buying, check out some of the inner ring suburbs. Places like Leawood. Some beautiful houses with old huge trees. Some of the more expensive neighborhoods in the city, but cheap compared to the Valley. If you want to get off the beaten path, and are interested in fixer uppers, I always kinda liked Kansas City, Kansas. There are some neat old homes there on bluffs overlooking the Kansas River. And, last time I looked, many of those neighborhoods haven't gentrified, so there are bargains to be had. The neighborhoods are rough in spots, but there's something about the old blue collar neighborhoods that I always liked. KCK and the area around Bonner Springs can also give you some country living on the edge of the city. There's still some farms left and still some acreage while being 10-15 minutes away from the city center. The only risk is that you buy your perfect quiet piece of land and then get swamped with development a few years later, but I suppose that's a risk for any city's edge. Another good place for quiet small town-ish living while being very close to the city center is Parkville, MO. It's adjacent to the city. Probably one of the first KC suburbs. The town's center is Victorian and has a vibrant downtown with the typical Main Street USA feel. Also has a huge riverfront park on the Missouri River. The latter is quite nice because in much of KC, they've turned their back on the river and there's not much in terms of waterfront parks. This will be changing in the upcoming years with parks planned. But for now, there's not many. One last place to mention is Lawrence, Kansas. It's about 30-40 minutes away from the city, and is the home for Kansas University. It's an absolutely wonderful place to live. Reminds me of Austin but without the crowds and high prices. Very vibrant downtown and music scene. Low crime. Very walkable for both the neighborhoods and in terms of hiking trails that start in the city. Tons of interesting old houses. Extremely laid back. Surprisingly hilly. One of my favorite places on earth. Didn't mean to write a novel but that should give you some places to start looking. I spent much of my twenties in KC before heading out west in the dot-com boom, and then came back ten years later when I wanted some quiet times. I would sometimes be jealous of other larger cities, but KC was in many respects perfect for me. Unpretentious, unjudgemental (outside of the burbs, of course), and was a live and let live place from every angle. The biggest downside of KC is that a car is essential. I've tried to point out walkable neighborhoods, but public transportation is mostly limited to bus. No metro, no light rail (beyond a couple of miles of the streetcars). And a level of sprawl which is enormous. I suppose with Uber / Lyft these days, a personally owned car isn't quite so required now. But it was mandatory in my day. On the plus side for cars, traffic is usually not too terrible outside of rush hour. And if you end up living in the city center and working in the suburbs, there's a good chance you'll be going opposite to the huge traffic flow, and even rush hour will be easier. That's what happened to me. If you end up coming here, I think you'll like it. If I can help any further with your search, just let me know.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]