5 ms·

> 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 com

> 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

> 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