16 ms·

Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism

by mjfl 9y ago

Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right? I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment was at 5% through the great recession. However, I find whenever I suggest that, people act like if they move there they will be lynched - as if the place is a primitive wasteland inhabited by backwards rednecks carrying pitchforks. In reality, it is a modestly wealthy area filled with dentists, insurance providers, accountants, and other mid-level white collar workers. You're more likely to die of boredom, but isn't that better than food stamps, and isn't boredom good if you want to raise a family? The people that read and write these articles don't seem to consider things like this.

mprev 9y ago
Even if you take that stance, it’s hard to square it with the fact that Silicon Valley needs more than VCs and startup founders to function.
- mjfl 9y ago
  That is economically illiterate. If it got to the point where there was not enough people to fill necessary jobs around the city the wages would rise to attract more people. Right now the opposite is happening: there are too many people.
  - d--b 9y ago
    Too many people? Are you serious? San Francisco + Silicon valley has 3 million people. That's less than half of New York City. The amount of money the region makes is more than enough to support that population over that area...
    - nbtdev 9y ago
      There are 7 million in the 9- county Bay Area, and having lived there for ten years, that is the stat that matters. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/ http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/ Cost of living on the peninsula has already pushed many people to the east and south and even then you don't get much of a break. Land use restrictions mean there is very little new land on which to build and having to jump through eleventy different legal hurdles to do so means that when built, it's already more expensive than many of those in need can afford. I moved away after being there ten years as a software developer because the cost of living, level of congestion and crowding was obnoxious, and I have no intention of returning. But then, I had that option.
      - azernik 9y ago
        New York City (the city proper, not including the suburbs) has that many people in a fraction of the area.
    - ratboy666 9y ago
      Yes... too many people. If a software eng or ceo wanted to eat out, someone has to prepare the food. The person, in turn, has to live there. So, if 86,000 is "poor" (defined as the minimum needed to live in the area), the person doing the food preparation has to be paid at least that. The "burger flipper" has to be paid that. If people moved out, quickly the "burger flipper WOULD be paid that". But that, in turn, would attract "burger flippers" who simply compare the money. Resulting in high unemployment, and the need for food banks again. Its the concentration of rich people that is the problem.
      - closeparen 9y ago
        Your claim is incredibly easy to verify: are there restaurants in New York and Paris? Apparently so. There are too many people to maintain our suburban character, sure.
    - seattle_spring 9y ago
      The Bay Area has 7 million people. I'm not sure why you cherry picked a subset of the region to claim a low population, but it strikes me as intentionally misleading.
      - d--b 9y ago
        I got the number from there: https://jointventure.org/news-and-media/news-releases/1260-silicon-valley-population-hits-3-million https://jointventure.org/news-and-media/news-releases/1260-s... It's the top result from googling "silicon valley population" Still 7 million people is not a lot density-wise, I'm just saying you just can't blame high prices on people density only... At least you can blame it on "not enough housing". Which sounds weird to me, cause cheap housing is very quick to build.
        closeparen 9y ago
        Large-scale housing production is prohibited in the Bay Area as a matter of public policy. Reasons include honoring the “rights” of neighbors to be spared from unwanted changes in their neighborhoods, general anti-capitalist beliefs that markets are the wrong way to allocate housing or that private capital is the wrong way to build it, rejection of the idea that supply and demand apply to hosuing, and the simple observation that when new housing is built, it tends to be expensive.
OfficialJoeGG 9y ago
Sometimes that rent trap is to high. You pay three quarters of your paycheck to just living (even house hunting you still need a place to live). You then have one quarter to spend on food (for 2 people) & electricity, water, and heat (if your rent doesn't cover utilities)& maybe some extra things like hygiene products, bills such as car payments, etc... You have almost no left over to put in for moving. So I don't disagree with your standpoint in theory, the logistics always muddy the water.
- mjfl 9y ago
  I don't believe it. Say you find a place in Lincoln for $500-$600 (which is possible in Lincoln), just by using the difference between old rent and new to cover debt from moving expenses, a mover could pay off $15,000 of debt within one year.
  - gbarc888 9y ago
    the jobs that lead to potential upward mobility aren't in Lincoln. Plus, this kind of forward-thinking (incur $15k worth of debt now, pay it off with money saved on rent later) is really difficult for someone like myself who already has a lot of debt.
  - OfficialJoeGG 9y ago
    Again this comes down to circumstances. I don't personally know Karla Peralta's money situation, however, there is the possibility of having poor credit due to the food stamps and things like that. I, again, don't disagree with you but to be so matter of fact is in my opinion incorrect.
  - foldr 9y ago
    Not everyone can borrow $15000. Wealthy people seem often not to realize that poor people don't have access to credit on the same terms that they do.
    - mjfl 9y ago
      Nonsense. A person with a non-terrible credit rating can max-out around $16,000 using multiple credit cards. It's not a great idea, but I've seen it done, and confirmed that it's not a good idea. But if your alternative is a life of misery - escape! Also, it's highly unlikely that moving will be as expensive as $16,000 anyways. Perhaps $6,000-$7,000 for a small family of two?
zxcmx 9y ago
Because about 90% of people are white, in Lincoln, Nebraska. I think your evaluation is probably right, if you're white.
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  I don't see why race is a factor. There is a whole host of things that could affect a place's desirability to live. It does not matter what you look like, if you're poor you gotta eat some shit once in a while.
  - zxcmx 9y ago
    That might be because you don't value family or other people like you around you. Personally I've lived in a bunch of countries and it's always been a lot easier for me with a support network. I suppose in the context of the article we are talking about people already struggling, and I'm not suggesting at all that it's not a welcoming place. I'm just saying that it's gonna be out of comfort zone or "mental availability" for a lot of people. What is obvious to one person is not at all obvious to another. Someone in SF is not likely to know anyone who moved to Lincoln, Nebraska, for example. They might know people who came from there though, I suppose.
    - jimmywanger 9y ago
      Maybe you didn't read my comment. If you're poor, you don't have resources. If you don't have resources, you have to deal with suboptimal conditions. A support network is great, just like pleasant weather or a good job market. What is the premium you're willing to pay for being around people like you or family? Because you're going to have to pay.
      - zxcmx 9y ago
        Absolutely the opposite. I've been poor and absolutely I valued connections and networks over the fundamentals, much as rich people do. Frankly I think this is the rational decision under the circumstances, factoring in uncertainty and decision costs. You think I'm SJWing here while I'm just trying to explain how people actually make decisions, which is typically not with reference to abstract tables, but based on proximate lived experience.
d--b 9y ago
How? How do you move to Nebraska when you have $100/week for food? How do you find a job, when you have literally 0-day you can spend without working? Are there really than many jobs for people who flip burgers in Lincoln, Nebraska? And are people who flip burgers in Nebraska so much better?
- mjfl 9y ago
  I have a friend who makes due on a customer service job for Comcast, pays about $300/month in rent, and still has time to be in a death metal band, travel (to other places in midwest). He's definitely not happy, but he's not starving either. 0% chance of a life like this in San Francisco.
- b6 9y ago
  > How do you move to Nebraska when you have $100/week for food? How could anyone here answer that question? It's not specific enough to answer. Could it be difficult to do? Yes. Are you trying to claim it's impossible, that people are actually truly trapped? It's not impossible, they are not truly trapped.
  - lovich 9y ago
    Bears aren't actually trapped in "bear traps", they can just chew their arm off and bleed to death elsewhere. If you don't have enough money to eat, it's not like you can scrimp and save to spend a lot of money to move while also looking for a new job and still live.
- elgenie 9y ago
  > How do you move? A train or bus from the Bay Area to Nebraska will run around $100. That’s around the same amount as Bay Area rent costs for just the time spent on the train/bus during the trip. > How do you find a job? To start, “Help Wanted” signs and odd jobs in the usual places (e.g. Home Depot). Then, network or use free internet at public libraries to search for something better. > Are there really many jobs for burger flippers? There are fewer jobs, but also fewer people attempting to get them. > Are people who flip burgers in Nebraska so much better? Of course not. But they live in a place where population has held steady (graying) instead of growing wildly, where there’s plenty of land, and plenty of housing stock on that land, so housing takes 25% of the burger flipping paycheck instead of 75% (don’t forget commuting time in the cost of housing). As a result, their standard of living is higher. The Bay Area, or any high cost area for that matter, is a great place in which to save 20% of one’s income and a terrible one in which to live paycheck-to-paycheck 0%.
drb91 9y ago
Well, lack of jobs, or lack of a hiring pool. Take your pick.
- mjfl 9y ago
  Unemployment is at 2.3%. That's one of the lowest in the country If you do not have a job you will be snatched off the street.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - drb91 9y ago
    I suppose. That doesn’t speak very much to the healthy of the economy, however, much less to whether it can serve me well—how many of those jobs will be there in 20 years? Will I regret it if I buy a house there? Will I be stuck doing some job I hate because it’s the only job that pays well enough in the area?
stinky 9y ago
There is a solution. At the moment successful EU countries such as Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark are struggling with aging population and not enough people to fill blue colar jobs. I think EU should make it easier for US citizens who get any job here to move over. Americans in general are super hard working. Europe needs hard working people, while we can provide them with free universal healthcare, free university education, and way more upward mobility than they could ever dream of. The deal could be so that you can move to Europe for any job, and if you work for 5 years then you are eligible for permanent residence. If you loose your work, and become unemployed for more than 6 months you have to move back to US. Yes, there would be risks, but at the same time, it could also be a win win - hard working folk from USA would get a chance to raise their kids in a society that would allow them to put their kids through college without selling a kidney.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  It's already possible if you have technical skills. Just find a company to sponsor you. I once emigrated to Austria. Permanent residency would have been offered after 5 years, but I came back to the US before that.
  - stinky 9y ago
    Yep, it is easy for an expert to move to EU, but people going hungry in the article above are not experts in technical fields.
  - doktrin 9y ago
    > It's already possible if you have technical skills. By and large, an American engineer moving to Europe is trading down in a big way - including but definitely not limited to financial compensation.
    - saiya-jin 9y ago
      ... which is not true at all, I get above-US-average enginnering (IT) salary in heart of Europe, and that is before taxes. After taxes, it's day and night. Plus small added benefit of actually having a life after work, have plenty of vacations, system that properly takes care of you in you are ill or unemployed, or detail that my paid taxes are not directly used to kill innocents half around the globe for corporate&political greed. Yepp, life can be good here. Of course Europe is big and extremely diverse, much more than US, so some of this is valid only for some parts.
nostrademons 9y ago
"You're more likely to die of boredom, but isn't that better than food stamps, and isn't boredom good if you want to raise a family?" That's pretty much it. The Bay Area gives you the chance to be on the cutting edge of change, which - for a certain personality type that tends to be overrepresented in the Bay Area - is often reason enough to live there. Most of the people who want a stable & boring environment to raise a family have already left. Most of the rest are from regions where boring != stable. (Seriously: I'm expecting a kid in the near future, and in the childbirth classes, there are literally no white people - the only people having babies in Silicon Valley are seemingly Indian and Chinese, along with a smattering of Mexicans and other immigrants. I have a bunch of white friends here, and of the ones who have had kids or are planning to in the near future, they fit into two groups: 50% have moved back to their hometown already, and 50% are planning to.) There's also the issue where history has basically never been kind to groups of people who felt they could live a stable, boring existence while clinging to old ways and enjoying a high standard of living. Makes me a little scared for America, but that reckoning is probably decades out.
- mjfl 9y ago
  If I should pay taxes to subsidize people that feel a fundamental need to be on "the cutting edge of change", I'm going to quit work and sit in an SF cafe all day so I can "ride the wave of change". You need to pay for me, because I need to be here.
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    I don't understand what you're saying. I think it's an appeal to personal responsibility, which I don't disagree with but misses the point. Correct me if I'm wrong on that interpretation. The root of Silicon Valley's successes and its problems are the same thing, and they both stem from how markets operate. New technologies in automation allow companies to successfully compete with incumbents but use drastically less manpower. (This, BTW, is why large swathes of America have seen mass unemployment and stagnant wages for a generation; you may not feel it in Lincoln, but the folks in Detroit/Ohio/West Virginia certainly do.) Markets price based on your best alternative, so if you invent a technology that does the same work as 10,000 people and price it accordingly, you can redirect the wages of those 10,000 people into your company's profits, and if you do that with 100 employees, you can all become pretty filthy rich. All that money flowing into the Bay Area drives up prices, because there's a fixed amount of land (and some pretty fucked-up NIMBYist policies). The cost of living is an effect of the region's prosperity, not a cause, and not an independent variable. If you are a rainmaker for one of the companies - sales, or a key engineer or manager, or best of all, the owner of the company - then you're doing just fine; your salary goes up faster than rents & housing prices. But if you have to compete with all the other unskilled people in the area for an unskilled position, your salary is capped by what they are willing to work for; remember, in a market economy, you can price based on whatever the best alternative is, and there are a lot of good alternatives for chefs, housecleaners, and security guards. The market allocates the small available amount of housing to the people who are willing to pay the most, which means that the folks who are not indispensable to this large-scale transfer of wealth from the rest of the world to Silicon Valley get priced out and either have to double up, move to Clear Lake or Stockton, or live on the streets. Most people from other parts of America are not willing to do this, so they move back home. However, these living conditions are typically an improvement on what you'd get in much of Southeast Asia or Mexico, so you see these unskilled jobs taken by them. (Many of the Indian & Chinese immigrants are actually very intelligent & highly skilled - U.S. immigration policy makes it very difficult to move from there if you're not. But when it comes to crowding & quality of life, the Bay Area is a literal breath of fresh air compared to China.) The interest in UBI among Silicon Valley's cognoscenti is because they're looking ahead to what happens when the technology wave reaches the rest of America, and all the dentists, insurance providers, accountants, and other mid-level white collar workers have had their jobs automated away. What do you do with the people left behind? What do you do with the engineers once they've written all the software to automate our daily lives? Most of Silicon Valley is actually fairly free-market libertarian, but because they're so exposed to the market and have first-hand experience with how it's changing, a certain segment here is thinking very actively about what the end-game looks like.
JoshMnem 9y ago
> Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? You don't think that the influx of tech workers from places like Nebraska has any relationship to driving prices up for the locals? If you're young, relatively new to the area (without a lifetime of friends and family here), and don't have kids, the prospect of moving away to some random, unfamiliar town is going to seem much easier than it really is for most people.
ethftw 9y ago
This is a classic argument and the classic reply is family connections. Its not easy to leave your family. And if you are poor it may mean saying bye to your parents for good as you can't afford to fly back.
parenthephobia 9y ago
Lincoln, Nebraska. Population approx. 350k. Do you imagine that adding an extra million people would not effect the cost of living or the vibrancy of the economy?
lr4444lr 9y ago
I've been saying almost this verbatim for years about New York City. So much self-imposed misery by people who will never make progress financially on their current life trajectory by staying prevents them from living independently elsewhere in the wide expanse of the USA.
trentmb 9y ago
> You're more likely to die of boredom Who are these people? Having lived in both rural and urban environments, I don't think I've ever succumbed to boredom.
- paganel 9y ago
  Never set foot in the States, so is not a direct comparison, but as an European who prefers living in a big city compared to living in my parents' village, which borders the lower Danube, I can say that the village is certainly nice and dandy, but it doesn't have theater shows, doesn't have cinemas, doesn't have cafes, doesn't have bookstores, doesn't have (decent) sports teams, doesn't have countless streets on where one can lose him/herself walking, and, most important of all, doesn't have people. Yeah, rural life is indeed boring for many people until a certain age (I eventually plan to retire to my parents' village if I reach 60).
- meebs 9y ago
  > Who are these people? Having lived in both rural and urban environments, I don't think I've ever succumbed to boredom. I find it interesting that you've seemingly lived a life devoid of meeting ANYONE who was bored. I can name more than I can remember and that's JUST from university peers.
eloisant 9y ago
The funny thing is that if they all did that, you wouldn't have anyone left to cook your food and clean your office. Then maybe the tech sector would realize they need to pay living wages for all the workers supporting their daily life. And a living wage in SV is much higher than the rest of the world.
- verroq 9y ago
  Clearly not enough are leaving because otherwise the pay will naturally rise.
  - jorgemf 9y ago
    If the pay rises more will come. Things are not that simple
    - rblatz 9y ago
      It’s almost like that’s how the market is supposed to work! The price moves around until demand and supply match.
      - crdoconnor 9y ago
        Right. Everybody is charging for scarcity. Some people charge for the use of the labor they do with their own two hands. Other people are simply charging for the scarcity of land which they didn't create or make valuable, but were granted the exclusive right to use by the government.
      - jorgemf 9y ago
        That is my point. It doesn't solve the problem
      - notthemessiah 9y ago
        The job market doesn't necessarily behave the same as commodity markets: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/keynes http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/keynes
cantankerous 9y ago
He's right about one thing. You will die of boredom in Lincoln. There are plenty of other nearby Midwestern cities with character and interesting stuff to do (and people to see). Omaha and Kansas City are a couple. I'd probably pick Des Moines over Lincoln, too. It really is as described: sprawling new developments on old farmland in a (sort of) Big 10 college town. A lot of folks in the Valley who are the hardest hit by these economic changes grew up in California. It's ironic to me that somebody from the Midwest move there and then criticize the residents for not moving to where they moved away from.
robert_foss 9y ago
Why? Because you need a job, and moving to a new place is expensive. Who do you think serves you lattes at Starbucks? Millionaires? Low paying work needs to be done, even in SF.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
> I find whenever I suggest that, people act like if they move there they will be lynched - as if the place is a primitive wasteland inhabited by backwards rednecks carrying pitchforks. In reality, it is a modestly wealthy area filled with dentists, insurance providers, accountants, and other mid-level white collar workers If you get a better image the first people to move there will be the rich ones who want out of SV and then turn the place into where they came from. Look what happened to Denver.
coldtea 9y ago
>I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. What, the local taxidermist is hiring?
- new_hackers 9y ago
  Yes, clearly Nebraska has nothing to offer, move along www.berkshirehathaway.com
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Yes, clearly an extreme outlier if there ever was one (and not related to dev industry anyway), is a counter-argument for a vibrant job market...
julesqs 9y ago
you're not addressing the people in article at all. It literally references a single mother that works in kitchens and you're complaining about upper middle class people that sneer at Nebraska? what's wrong with you? People live where jobs are, and a lot of them have reasons to stay in the Bay. She has children and a life. She's not a fucking software engineer that can just pick and move.
- stygiansonic 9y ago
  Yep, you're spot on. It's unlikely the single mother referenced in the article could get a job in Nebraska that would offer a generous relocation package.
- Helmet 9y ago
  Yes, she can move. If she cannot afford to live there, she can move. It sucks, but life sucks and sometimes it means you can't live exactly where or how you want to. My parents worked as "pickers" for the Home Shopping Network near DC, making minimum wage. It became financially untenable, so they moved to southern Virginia to a place with good schools and where you can live and get by on low income salaries.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    That your parents once did something in different circumstances does not mean everybody can here and now. Even if we value family connections on a pure cash basis -- which I don't recommend -- moving can be bad for people. E.g., the cost of replacing grandparents with professional childcare can be astronomical. Family also provides an economic buffer against the ups and downs that are especially hard on the poor. What if your old car has a sudden breakdown that you can't afford to fix? If you have family around, perhaps you can borrow somebody's old car or get a ride to work. Move to a place where you have no social network, though, and you could be in deep trouble.
    - Helmet 9y ago
      We had no family here. If your car breaks down and you can't take it in, you fix it - been there, done that. I sympathize with their situation, I have personally LIVED their situation, but if they cannot afford to live somewhere they need to figure out how to move.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Because people who are food insecure don't have savings to relocate, or the ability to take the income they have with them, generally. > I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there Lincoln has a population of 250,000; there are, per the article, 720,000 food-insecure people in Silicon Valley (and with California’s CoL-based poverty rate of 15%, ~4.5 million poor in California.) Aside from the previously mentioned considerations, that suggestion wouldn't be viable for making even a noticeable dent in the problem. > However, I find whenever I suggest that, people act like if they move there they will be lynched - as if the place is a primitive wasteland inhabited by backwards rednecks carrying pitchforks. While not necessarily addressing Lincoln specifically, that's (while perhaps exaggerated) pretty consistent, at least for the non-whites overrepresented in Silicon Valley’s needy, consistent with what non-white (and white, the though it usually bugs them less) travellers have consistently told me: their worst experiences of in-your-face, constant racial/ethnic discrimination and tension in the US are almost always in the Midwest, both white v. non-white and between non-white groups. > isn't boredom good if you want to raise a family? Not really. There might be some things that are good that very loosely correlate with boredom, but boredom itself is bad.
- taway20171214 9y ago
  > their worst experiences of in-your-face, constant racial/ethnic discrimination and tension in the US are almost always in the Midwest i'm asian american. here's what life is like somewhere other than maybe 3 or 4 cities in the US: 1. constantly explaining to people why i am not white (where i'm from, where my parents are from, why my last name is what it is [it's anglo]) 2. children are constantly getting the 'eyes pulled back' and other racist names/gestures at school, and all the adults (teachers/admins) think its hilarious too (it's just a joke! don't you love being the butt of jokes? why can't you just let everyone make fun of you all day and take it silently?) 3. name-calling 'chink', 'gook', etc are normal occurrences, not exceptional events. 4. the general feeling that nobody thinks you're really american. i.e. when discussing whichever asian country is in the news today they'll say "no offense". 5. oftentimes being ignored by people, even when you walk right up to them and ask them a question. for example when shopping in a store. 6. hyperawarneness of the hollywood situation (in tv and movies white people = gods, everyone else = a literal joke) 7. limited cuisine that you grew up with (although this one is changing) basically it's just non-stop suffering. that's why everything is cheap in the midwest. it fucking sucks unless you are the 25% of the population that its designed for. quite frankly if i had kids, i'd rather be STRUGGLING in california than outright RICH in the midwest, because i don't think you can be rich enough to actually buy your kids a good enough life to make up for racism. it's borderline child abuse. the kicker of course is not only do i experience this kind of stuff in i.e. michigan, people visiting from the midwest do this to me in my own home city.
zkms 9y ago
> Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right? The "is doing %s a fundamental right?" argument works a lot of ways. Is preventing other landowners from building high-density housing on their property (which would decrease the "$2000/month" rents, a blindingly obvious signal of low housing supply) a fundamental right? The crisis mentioned in the article would be quite lessened if minimum rents in the area were far lower; which they would be if NIMBYs weren't abrogating the property rights of others by preventing the construction of new dense housing.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Many seem to think that the right to vote on zoning is embedded in real estate ownership.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
newshorts 9y ago
I find your opinion a bit harsh and generalized. However you do have a point. If people simply left, it would put upward pressure on wages for lower income jobs. But it seems there’s a limit to supply and demand. At some point things become borderline predatory.
deadmetheny 9y ago
"Just move" is not a tenable solution. These people most likely can't afford to move to begin with. Then, on top of that, if their entire lives of friends and family are based there, why would they want to move? Who are you, a self-admitted (presumably tech industry) interloper, to tell them that they should just leave their home and go to the home that you yourself have forsaken? These people are far more likely to have lived there for their entire lives, making due with whatever they can make due. I live in the Midwest, I like it here, and I would welcome people who want to move here, but this is telling them to come here for all of the wrong reasons.
emodendroket 9y ago
I feel like your experience easily leaving your hometown as a young man may not be easily generalizable to everyone, at every stage of life and in every family arrangement. And of course one wonders why, if it's so great, you're not there anymore.
ballenarosada 9y ago
How many of these people do you think can afford to move? You're proposing to create a ghetto out of the Midwest, but the plan is stupid even on its own terms.
- workthrowaway27 9y ago
  Can they afford not to move?
  - ballenarosada 9y ago
    I guess the point I'm trying to make is that "can afford" is a positively barbaric rubric for deciding what people do with their lives.
ballenarosada 9y ago
Why should longtime residents have to leave the Bay Area because of your ignorance/piles of money? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right?
- newshorts 9y ago
  Some of us tech workers might be poorer than you think. Foreign investment in housing is also putting upward pressure on cost of living. As with most things, the problem is more complex.
nine_k 9y ago
I did nearly that: I moved to a relatively small city away from technology centers, where my wages from a remote developer job were enough for quite comfortable life. No, nothing like a primitive wasteland, of course. But that the next position offered to me, paying, say, 3x my then-current wage, was in NYC, full-time and on-premises only, so I moved, despite the cost of living. Probably once communications improve in these remote areas, working from there will become a more widespread option for IT people. Most of my current team works remotely, from offices in other cities across the globe. The other problem was getting education for children. Finding and affording it is an important cause for moving.
- mcgrath_sh 9y ago
  Define “remote area.” I can name a half dozen cities with cheaper cost of living within ~6 hours drive time of NYC. Pittsburgh. Buffalo. Rochester. Philly. Newark, DE. I don’t think communication systems are the problem. There are cities that have low(er) cost of living.
jpao79 9y ago
Maybe there could be a case for a YC startup focused on relocation. The idea is to simplify the process for non-tech people to discover options for employment, housing, culture, community, etc. in the various smaller towns and cities in the US. The ability for people to do any product discovery (where the product is the city/town) prior to relocating is quite limited with huge ramifications/risk if you get your selection wrong. A bit like a Lonely Planet/Tripadvisor/Yelp but for real life. It could crowd source ratings of cities by some basic quality of life score based on various attributes - housing costs, openness to new ideas, food scene, etc. It could verify residency by requiring you to provide GPS coordinates for a month before letting you rate. It could even be monetized by apartment providers, employers, restaurants, etc.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  I know founders who've tried to do a relocation-financing startup. They failed to get traction and ended up running out of money. AFAIK, so did most of their competitors, as well as startups in the general "here are some nice other places to live" category you describe. (It was a pretty crowded space...you can bet that any market where there are Internet commenters saying "Why isn't there a startup doing X?" actually has several startups doing X.) The root problem seems to be that the decision to move is basically emotional, and usually depends on life factors that no startup can influence. I'm here for two reasons: family and startup (my wife's family all lives around here, and I have a nascent startup where if it takes off, it'll be really handy to be close to investors). Among the other people I know who are thinking of leaving, or whom it doesn't really make economic sense to be here, what's keeping them is always similar things. They work for Google and there's no Google office near where the rest of their family lives. They grew up here and have sentimental attachment to the place. They really love the warm Mediterranean climate and can't imagine living in a place with snow or rain. When you dig into their lives, usually staying is actually the right choice despite the high expense, and it's more "Well, I wish I didn't have to put up with the cost of living and massive traffic snarls."
  - jpao79 9y ago
    To your point about someone already doing it, this is roughly what I was thinking although with a more global focus: https://teleport.org/cities/ https://teleport.org/cities/ https://teleport.org/cities/portland-or/ https://teleport.org/cities/portland-or/ https://teleport.org/compare/portland-or-vs-raleigh-vs-los-angeles/ https://teleport.org/compare/portland-or-vs-raleigh-vs-los-a... Seems like it was founded by former Skype employees and recently acquired by a Relocation/Move coordination company.
justifier 9y ago
But the most reasonable next step in the logic you yourself laid out is you should move back to lincoln to avoid having 'to pay increased taxes for [other's] ignorance/provincialism?' You seem yet to have considered a thing like:'is living in San Francisco a fundamental right' for you?

by mjfl 9y ago

mprev 9y ago

Even if you take that stance, it’s hard to square it with the fact that Silicon Valley needs more than VCs and startup founders to function.

mjfl 9y ago
That is economically illiterate. If it got to the point where there was not enough people to fill necessary jobs around the city the wages would rise to attract more people. Right now the opposite is happening: there are too many people.
- d--b 9y ago
  Too many people? Are you serious? San Francisco + Silicon valley has 3 million people. That's less than half of New York City. The amount of money the region makes is more than enough to support that population over that area...
  - nbtdev 9y ago
    There are 7 million in the 9- county Bay Area, and having lived there for ten years, that is the stat that matters. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/ http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/ Cost of living on the peninsula has already pushed many people to the east and south and even then you don't get much of a break. Land use restrictions mean there is very little new land on which to build and having to jump through eleventy different legal hurdles to do so means that when built, it's already more expensive than many of those in need can afford. I moved away after being there ten years as a software developer because the cost of living, level of congestion and crowding was obnoxious, and I have no intention of returning. But then, I had that option.
    - azernik 9y ago
      New York City (the city proper, not including the suburbs) has that many people in a fraction of the area.
  - ratboy666 9y ago
    Yes... too many people. If a software eng or ceo wanted to eat out, someone has to prepare the food. The person, in turn, has to live there. So, if 86,000 is "poor" (defined as the minimum needed to live in the area), the person doing the food preparation has to be paid at least that. The "burger flipper" has to be paid that. If people moved out, quickly the "burger flipper WOULD be paid that". But that, in turn, would attract "burger flippers" who simply compare the money. Resulting in high unemployment, and the need for food banks again. Its the concentration of rich people that is the problem.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      Your claim is incredibly easy to verify: are there restaurants in New York and Paris? Apparently so. There are too many people to maintain our suburban character, sure.
  - seattle_spring 9y ago
    The Bay Area has 7 million people. I'm not sure why you cherry picked a subset of the region to claim a low population, but it strikes me as intentionally misleading.
    - d--b 9y ago
      I got the number from there: https://jointventure.org/news-and-media/news-releases/1260-silicon-valley-population-hits-3-million https://jointventure.org/news-and-media/news-releases/1260-s... It's the top result from googling "silicon valley population" Still 7 million people is not a lot density-wise, I'm just saying you just can't blame high prices on people density only... At least you can blame it on "not enough housing". Which sounds weird to me, cause cheap housing is very quick to build.
      - closeparen 9y ago
        Large-scale housing production is prohibited in the Bay Area as a matter of public policy. Reasons include honoring the “rights” of neighbors to be spared from unwanted changes in their neighborhoods, general anti-capitalist beliefs that markets are the wrong way to allocate housing or that private capital is the wrong way to build it, rejection of the idea that supply and demand apply to hosuing, and the simple observation that when new housing is built, it tends to be expensive.

OfficialJoeGG 9y ago

Sometimes that rent trap is to high. You pay three quarters of your paycheck to just living (even house hunting you still need a place to live). You then have one quarter to spend on food (for 2 people) & electricity, water, and heat (if your rent doesn't cover utilities)& maybe some extra things like hygiene products, bills such as car payments, etc... You have almost no left over to put in for moving. So I don't disagree with your standpoint in theory, the logistics always muddy the water.

mjfl 9y ago
I don't believe it. Say you find a place in Lincoln for $500-$600 (which is possible in Lincoln), just by using the difference between old rent and new to cover debt from moving expenses, a mover could pay off $15,000 of debt within one year.
- gbarc888 9y ago
  the jobs that lead to potential upward mobility aren't in Lincoln. Plus, this kind of forward-thinking (incur $15k worth of debt now, pay it off with money saved on rent later) is really difficult for someone like myself who already has a lot of debt.
- OfficialJoeGG 9y ago
  Again this comes down to circumstances. I don't personally know Karla Peralta's money situation, however, there is the possibility of having poor credit due to the food stamps and things like that. I, again, don't disagree with you but to be so matter of fact is in my opinion incorrect.
- foldr 9y ago
  Not everyone can borrow $15000. Wealthy people seem often not to realize that poor people don't have access to credit on the same terms that they do.
  - mjfl 9y ago
    Nonsense. A person with a non-terrible credit rating can max-out around $16,000 using multiple credit cards. It's not a great idea, but I've seen it done, and confirmed that it's not a good idea. But if your alternative is a life of misery - escape! Also, it's highly unlikely that moving will be as expensive as $16,000 anyways. Perhaps $6,000-$7,000 for a small family of two?

zxcmx 9y ago

Because about 90% of people are white, in Lincoln, Nebraska. I think your evaluation is probably right, if you're white.

jimmywanger 9y ago
I don't see why race is a factor. There is a whole host of things that could affect a place's desirability to live. It does not matter what you look like, if you're poor you gotta eat some shit once in a while.
- zxcmx 9y ago
  That might be because you don't value family or other people like you around you. Personally I've lived in a bunch of countries and it's always been a lot easier for me with a support network. I suppose in the context of the article we are talking about people already struggling, and I'm not suggesting at all that it's not a welcoming place. I'm just saying that it's gonna be out of comfort zone or "mental availability" for a lot of people. What is obvious to one person is not at all obvious to another. Someone in SF is not likely to know anyone who moved to Lincoln, Nebraska, for example. They might know people who came from there though, I suppose.
  - jimmywanger 9y ago
    Maybe you didn't read my comment. If you're poor, you don't have resources. If you don't have resources, you have to deal with suboptimal conditions. A support network is great, just like pleasant weather or a good job market. What is the premium you're willing to pay for being around people like you or family? Because you're going to have to pay.
    - zxcmx 9y ago
      Absolutely the opposite. I've been poor and absolutely I valued connections and networks over the fundamentals, much as rich people do. Frankly I think this is the rational decision under the circumstances, factoring in uncertainty and decision costs. You think I'm SJWing here while I'm just trying to explain how people actually make decisions, which is typically not with reference to abstract tables, but based on proximate lived experience.

d--b 9y ago

How? How do you move to Nebraska when you have $100/week for food? How do you find a job, when you have literally 0-day you can spend without working? Are there really than many jobs for people who flip burgers in Lincoln, Nebraska? And are people who flip burgers in Nebraska so much better?

mjfl 9y ago
I have a friend who makes due on a customer service job for Comcast, pays about $300/month in rent, and still has time to be in a death metal band, travel (to other places in midwest). He's definitely not happy, but he's not starving either. 0% chance of a life like this in San Francisco.
b6 9y ago
> How do you move to Nebraska when you have $100/week for food? How could anyone here answer that question? It's not specific enough to answer. Could it be difficult to do? Yes. Are you trying to claim it's impossible, that people are actually truly trapped? It's not impossible, they are not truly trapped.
- lovich 9y ago
  Bears aren't actually trapped in "bear traps", they can just chew their arm off and bleed to death elsewhere. If you don't have enough money to eat, it's not like you can scrimp and save to spend a lot of money to move while also looking for a new job and still live.
elgenie 9y ago
> How do you move? A train or bus from the Bay Area to Nebraska will run around $100. That’s around the same amount as Bay Area rent costs for just the time spent on the train/bus during the trip. > How do you find a job? To start, “Help Wanted” signs and odd jobs in the usual places (e.g. Home Depot). Then, network or use free internet at public libraries to search for something better. > Are there really many jobs for burger flippers? There are fewer jobs, but also fewer people attempting to get them. > Are people who flip burgers in Nebraska so much better? Of course not. But they live in a place where population has held steady (graying) instead of growing wildly, where there’s plenty of land, and plenty of housing stock on that land, so housing takes 25% of the burger flipping paycheck instead of 75% (don’t forget commuting time in the cost of housing). As a result, their standard of living is higher. The Bay Area, or any high cost area for that matter, is a great place in which to save 20% of one’s income and a terrible one in which to live paycheck-to-paycheck 0%.

drb91 9y ago

Well, lack of jobs, or lack of a hiring pool. Take your pick.

mjfl 9y ago
Unemployment is at 2.3%. That's one of the lowest in the country If you do not have a job you will be snatched off the street.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- drb91 9y ago
  I suppose. That doesn’t speak very much to the healthy of the economy, however, much less to whether it can serve me well—how many of those jobs will be there in 20 years? Will I regret it if I buy a house there? Will I be stuck doing some job I hate because it’s the only job that pays well enough in the area?

stinky 9y ago

There is a solution. At the moment successful EU countries such as Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark are struggling with aging population and not enough people to fill blue colar jobs. I think EU should make it easier for US citizens who get any job here to move over. Americans in general are super hard working. Europe needs hard working people, while we can provide them with free universal healthcare, free university education, and way more upward mobility than they could ever dream of. The deal could be so that you can move to Europe for any job, and if you work for 5 years then you are eligible for permanent residence. If you loose your work, and become unemployed for more than 6 months you have to move back to US. Yes, there would be risks, but at the same time, it could also be a win win - hard working folk from USA would get a chance to raise their kids in a society that would allow them to put their kids through college without selling a kidney.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JoshMnem 9y ago
It's already possible if you have technical skills. Just find a company to sponsor you. I once emigrated to Austria. Permanent residency would have been offered after 5 years, but I came back to the US before that.
- stinky 9y ago
  Yep, it is easy for an expert to move to EU, but people going hungry in the article above are not experts in technical fields.
- doktrin 9y ago
  > It's already possible if you have technical skills. By and large, an American engineer moving to Europe is trading down in a big way - including but definitely not limited to financial compensation.
  - saiya-jin 9y ago
    ... which is not true at all, I get above-US-average enginnering (IT) salary in heart of Europe, and that is before taxes. After taxes, it's day and night. Plus small added benefit of actually having a life after work, have plenty of vacations, system that properly takes care of you in you are ill or unemployed, or detail that my paid taxes are not directly used to kill innocents half around the globe for corporate&political greed. Yepp, life can be good here. Of course Europe is big and extremely diverse, much more than US, so some of this is valid only for some parts.

nostrademons 9y ago

"You're more likely to die of boredom, but isn't that better than food stamps, and isn't boredom good if you want to raise a family?" That's pretty much it. The Bay Area gives you the chance to be on the cutting edge of change, which - for a certain personality type that tends to be overrepresented in the Bay Area - is often reason enough to live there. Most of the people who want a stable & boring environment to raise a family have already left. Most of the rest are from regions where boring != stable. (Seriously: I'm expecting a kid in the near future, and in the childbirth classes, there are literally no white people - the only people having babies in Silicon Valley are seemingly Indian and Chinese, along with a smattering of Mexicans and other immigrants. I have a bunch of white friends here, and of the ones who have had kids or are planning to in the near future, they fit into two groups: 50% have moved back to their hometown already, and 50% are planning to.) There's also the issue where history has basically never been kind to groups of people who felt they could live a stable, boring existence while clinging to old ways and enjoying a high standard of living. Makes me a little scared for America, but that reckoning is probably decades out.

mjfl 9y ago
If I should pay taxes to subsidize people that feel a fundamental need to be on "the cutting edge of change", I'm going to quit work and sit in an SF cafe all day so I can "ride the wave of change". You need to pay for me, because I need to be here.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  I don't understand what you're saying. I think it's an appeal to personal responsibility, which I don't disagree with but misses the point. Correct me if I'm wrong on that interpretation. The root of Silicon Valley's successes and its problems are the same thing, and they both stem from how markets operate. New technologies in automation allow companies to successfully compete with incumbents but use drastically less manpower. (This, BTW, is why large swathes of America have seen mass unemployment and stagnant wages for a generation; you may not feel it in Lincoln, but the folks in Detroit/Ohio/West Virginia certainly do.) Markets price based on your best alternative, so if you invent a technology that does the same work as 10,000 people and price it accordingly, you can redirect the wages of those 10,000 people into your company's profits, and if you do that with 100 employees, you can all become pretty filthy rich. All that money flowing into the Bay Area drives up prices, because there's a fixed amount of land (and some pretty fucked-up NIMBYist policies). The cost of living is an effect of the region's prosperity, not a cause, and not an independent variable. If you are a rainmaker for one of the companies - sales, or a key engineer or manager, or best of all, the owner of the company - then you're doing just fine; your salary goes up faster than rents & housing prices. But if you have to compete with all the other unskilled people in the area for an unskilled position, your salary is capped by what they are willing to work for; remember, in a market economy, you can price based on whatever the best alternative is, and there are a lot of good alternatives for chefs, housecleaners, and security guards. The market allocates the small available amount of housing to the people who are willing to pay the most, which means that the folks who are not indispensable to this large-scale transfer of wealth from the rest of the world to Silicon Valley get priced out and either have to double up, move to Clear Lake or Stockton, or live on the streets. Most people from other parts of America are not willing to do this, so they move back home. However, these living conditions are typically an improvement on what you'd get in much of Southeast Asia or Mexico, so you see these unskilled jobs taken by them. (Many of the Indian & Chinese immigrants are actually very intelligent & highly skilled - U.S. immigration policy makes it very difficult to move from there if you're not. But when it comes to crowding & quality of life, the Bay Area is a literal breath of fresh air compared to China.) The interest in UBI among Silicon Valley's cognoscenti is because they're looking ahead to what happens when the technology wave reaches the rest of America, and all the dentists, insurance providers, accountants, and other mid-level white collar workers have had their jobs automated away. What do you do with the people left behind? What do you do with the engineers once they've written all the software to automate our daily lives? Most of Silicon Valley is actually fairly free-market libertarian, but because they're so exposed to the market and have first-hand experience with how it's changing, a certain segment here is thinking very actively about what the end-game looks like.

JoshMnem 9y ago

> Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? You don't think that the influx of tech workers from places like Nebraska has any relationship to driving prices up for the locals? If you're young, relatively new to the area (without a lifetime of friends and family here), and don't have kids, the prospect of moving away to some random, unfamiliar town is going to seem much easier than it really is for most people.

ethftw 9y ago

This is a classic argument and the classic reply is family connections. Its not easy to leave your family. And if you are poor it may mean saying bye to your parents for good as you can't afford to fly back.

parenthephobia 9y ago

Lincoln, Nebraska. Population approx. 350k. Do you imagine that adding an extra million people would not effect the cost of living or the vibrancy of the economy?

lr4444lr 9y ago

I've been saying almost this verbatim for years about New York City. So much self-imposed misery by people who will never make progress financially on their current life trajectory by staying prevents them from living independently elsewhere in the wide expanse of the USA.

trentmb 9y ago

> You're more likely to die of boredom Who are these people? Having lived in both rural and urban environments, I don't think I've ever succumbed to boredom.

paganel 9y ago
Never set foot in the States, so is not a direct comparison, but as an European who prefers living in a big city compared to living in my parents' village, which borders the lower Danube, I can say that the village is certainly nice and dandy, but it doesn't have theater shows, doesn't have cinemas, doesn't have cafes, doesn't have bookstores, doesn't have (decent) sports teams, doesn't have countless streets on where one can lose him/herself walking, and, most important of all, doesn't have people. Yeah, rural life is indeed boring for many people until a certain age (I eventually plan to retire to my parents' village if I reach 60).
meebs 9y ago
> Who are these people? Having lived in both rural and urban environments, I don't think I've ever succumbed to boredom. I find it interesting that you've seemingly lived a life devoid of meeting ANYONE who was bored. I can name more than I can remember and that's JUST from university peers.

eloisant 9y ago

The funny thing is that if they all did that, you wouldn't have anyone left to cook your food and clean your office. Then maybe the tech sector would realize they need to pay living wages for all the workers supporting their daily life. And a living wage in SV is much higher than the rest of the world.

verroq 9y ago
Clearly not enough are leaving because otherwise the pay will naturally rise.
- jorgemf 9y ago
  If the pay rises more will come. Things are not that simple
  - rblatz 9y ago
    It’s almost like that’s how the market is supposed to work! The price moves around until demand and supply match.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      Right. Everybody is charging for scarcity. Some people charge for the use of the labor they do with their own two hands. Other people are simply charging for the scarcity of land which they didn't create or make valuable, but were granted the exclusive right to use by the government.
    - jorgemf 9y ago
      That is my point. It doesn't solve the problem
    - notthemessiah 9y ago
      The job market doesn't necessarily behave the same as commodity markets: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/keynes http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/keynes

cantankerous 9y ago

He's right about one thing. You will die of boredom in Lincoln. There are plenty of other nearby Midwestern cities with character and interesting stuff to do (and people to see). Omaha and Kansas City are a couple. I'd probably pick Des Moines over Lincoln, too. It really is as described: sprawling new developments on old farmland in a (sort of) Big 10 college town. A lot of folks in the Valley who are the hardest hit by these economic changes grew up in California. It's ironic to me that somebody from the Midwest move there and then criticize the residents for not moving to where they moved away from.

robert_foss 9y ago

Why? Because you need a job, and moving to a new place is expensive. Who do you think serves you lattes at Starbucks? Millionaires? Low paying work needs to be done, even in SF.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

> I find whenever I suggest that, people act like if they move there they will be lynched - as if the place is a primitive wasteland inhabited by backwards rednecks carrying pitchforks. In reality, it is a modestly wealthy area filled with dentists, insurance providers, accountants, and other mid-level white collar workers If you get a better image the first people to move there will be the rich ones who want out of SV and then turn the place into where they came from. Look what happened to Denver.

coldtea 9y ago

>I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. What, the local taxidermist is hiring?

new_hackers 9y ago
Yes, clearly Nebraska has nothing to offer, move along www.berkshirehathaway.com
- coldtea 9y ago
  Yes, clearly an extreme outlier if there ever was one (and not related to dev industry anyway), is a counter-argument for a vibrant job market...

julesqs 9y ago

you're not addressing the people in article at all. It literally references a single mother that works in kitchens and you're complaining about upper middle class people that sneer at Nebraska? what's wrong with you? People live where jobs are, and a lot of them have reasons to stay in the Bay. She has children and a life. She's not a fucking software engineer that can just pick and move.

stygiansonic 9y ago
Yep, you're spot on. It's unlikely the single mother referenced in the article could get a job in Nebraska that would offer a generous relocation package.
Helmet 9y ago
Yes, she can move. If she cannot afford to live there, she can move. It sucks, but life sucks and sometimes it means you can't live exactly where or how you want to. My parents worked as "pickers" for the Home Shopping Network near DC, making minimum wage. It became financially untenable, so they moved to southern Virginia to a place with good schools and where you can live and get by on low income salaries.
- wpietri 9y ago
  That your parents once did something in different circumstances does not mean everybody can here and now. Even if we value family connections on a pure cash basis -- which I don't recommend -- moving can be bad for people. E.g., the cost of replacing grandparents with professional childcare can be astronomical. Family also provides an economic buffer against the ups and downs that are especially hard on the poor. What if your old car has a sudden breakdown that you can't afford to fix? If you have family around, perhaps you can borrow somebody's old car or get a ride to work. Move to a place where you have no social network, though, and you could be in deep trouble.
  - Helmet 9y ago
    We had no family here. If your car breaks down and you can't take it in, you fix it - been there, done that. I sympathize with their situation, I have personally LIVED their situation, but if they cannot afford to live somewhere they need to figure out how to move.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Because people who are food insecure don't have savings to relocate, or the ability to take the income they have with them, generally. > I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there Lincoln has a population of 250,000; there are, per the article, 720,000 food-insecure people in Silicon Valley (and with California’s CoL-based poverty rate of 15%, ~4.5 million poor in California.) Aside from the previously mentioned considerations, that suggestion wouldn't be viable for making even a noticeable dent in the problem. > However, I find whenever I suggest that, people act like if they move there they will be lynched - as if the place is a primitive wasteland inhabited by backwards rednecks carrying pitchforks. While not necessarily addressing Lincoln specifically, that's (while perhaps exaggerated) pretty consistent, at least for the non-whites overrepresented in Silicon Valley’s needy, consistent with what non-white (and white, the though it usually bugs them less) travellers have consistently told me: their worst experiences of in-your-face, constant racial/ethnic discrimination and tension in the US are almost always in the Midwest, both white v. non-white and between non-white groups. > isn't boredom good if you want to raise a family? Not really. There might be some things that are good that very loosely correlate with boredom, but boredom itself is bad.

taway20171214 9y ago
> their worst experiences of in-your-face, constant racial/ethnic discrimination and tension in the US are almost always in the Midwest i'm asian american. here's what life is like somewhere other than maybe 3 or 4 cities in the US: 1. constantly explaining to people why i am not white (where i'm from, where my parents are from, why my last name is what it is [it's anglo]) 2. children are constantly getting the 'eyes pulled back' and other racist names/gestures at school, and all the adults (teachers/admins) think its hilarious too (it's just a joke! don't you love being the butt of jokes? why can't you just let everyone make fun of you all day and take it silently?) 3. name-calling 'chink', 'gook', etc are normal occurrences, not exceptional events. 4. the general feeling that nobody thinks you're really american. i.e. when discussing whichever asian country is in the news today they'll say "no offense". 5. oftentimes being ignored by people, even when you walk right up to them and ask them a question. for example when shopping in a store. 6. hyperawarneness of the hollywood situation (in tv and movies white people = gods, everyone else = a literal joke) 7. limited cuisine that you grew up with (although this one is changing) basically it's just non-stop suffering. that's why everything is cheap in the midwest. it fucking sucks unless you are the 25% of the population that its designed for. quite frankly if i had kids, i'd rather be STRUGGLING in california than outright RICH in the midwest, because i don't think you can be rich enough to actually buy your kids a good enough life to make up for racism. it's borderline child abuse. the kicker of course is not only do i experience this kind of stuff in i.e. michigan, people visiting from the midwest do this to me in my own home city.

zkms 9y ago

> Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right? The "is doing %s a fundamental right?" argument works a lot of ways. Is preventing other landowners from building high-density housing on their property (which would decrease the "$2000/month" rents, a blindingly obvious signal of low housing supply) a fundamental right? The crisis mentioned in the article would be quite lessened if minimum rents in the area were far lower; which they would be if NIMBYs weren't abrogating the property rights of others by preventing the construction of new dense housing.

closeparen 9y ago
Many seem to think that the right to vote on zoning is embedded in real estate ownership.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

newshorts 9y ago

I find your opinion a bit harsh and generalized. However you do have a point. If people simply left, it would put upward pressure on wages for lower income jobs. But it seems there’s a limit to supply and demand. At some point things become borderline predatory.

deadmetheny 9y ago

"Just move" is not a tenable solution. These people most likely can't afford to move to begin with. Then, on top of that, if their entire lives of friends and family are based there, why would they want to move? Who are you, a self-admitted (presumably tech industry) interloper, to tell them that they should just leave their home and go to the home that you yourself have forsaken? These people are far more likely to have lived there for their entire lives, making due with whatever they can make due. I live in the Midwest, I like it here, and I would welcome people who want to move here, but this is telling them to come here for all of the wrong reasons.

emodendroket 9y ago

I feel like your experience easily leaving your hometown as a young man may not be easily generalizable to everyone, at every stage of life and in every family arrangement. And of course one wonders why, if it's so great, you're not there anymore.

ballenarosada 9y ago

How many of these people do you think can afford to move? You're proposing to create a ghetto out of the Midwest, but the plan is stupid even on its own terms.

workthrowaway27 9y ago
Can they afford not to move?
- ballenarosada 9y ago
  I guess the point I'm trying to make is that "can afford" is a positively barbaric rubric for deciding what people do with their lives.

ballenarosada 9y ago

Why should longtime residents have to leave the Bay Area because of your ignorance/piles of money? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right?

newshorts 9y ago
Some of us tech workers might be poorer than you think. Foreign investment in housing is also putting upward pressure on cost of living. As with most things, the problem is more complex.

nine_k 9y ago

I did nearly that: I moved to a relatively small city away from technology centers, where my wages from a remote developer job were enough for quite comfortable life. No, nothing like a primitive wasteland, of course. But that the next position offered to me, paying, say, 3x my then-current wage, was in NYC, full-time and on-premises only, so I moved, despite the cost of living. Probably once communications improve in these remote areas, working from there will become a more widespread option for IT people. Most of my current team works remotely, from offices in other cities across the globe. The other problem was getting education for children. Finding and affording it is an important cause for moving.

mcgrath_sh 9y ago
Define “remote area.” I can name a half dozen cities with cheaper cost of living within ~6 hours drive time of NYC. Pittsburgh. Buffalo. Rochester. Philly. Newark, DE. I don’t think communication systems are the problem. There are cities that have low(er) cost of living.

jpao79 9y ago

Maybe there could be a case for a YC startup focused on relocation. The idea is to simplify the process for non-tech people to discover options for employment, housing, culture, community, etc. in the various smaller towns and cities in the US. The ability for people to do any product discovery (where the product is the city/town) prior to relocating is quite limited with huge ramifications/risk if you get your selection wrong. A bit like a Lonely Planet/Tripadvisor/Yelp but for real life. It could crowd source ratings of cities by some basic quality of life score based on various attributes - housing costs, openness to new ideas, food scene, etc. It could verify residency by requiring you to provide GPS coordinates for a month before letting you rate. It could even be monetized by apartment providers, employers, restaurants, etc.

nostrademons 9y ago
I know founders who've tried to do a relocation-financing startup. They failed to get traction and ended up running out of money. AFAIK, so did most of their competitors, as well as startups in the general "here are some nice other places to live" category you describe. (It was a pretty crowded space...you can bet that any market where there are Internet commenters saying "Why isn't there a startup doing X?" actually has several startups doing X.) The root problem seems to be that the decision to move is basically emotional, and usually depends on life factors that no startup can influence. I'm here for two reasons: family and startup (my wife's family all lives around here, and I have a nascent startup where if it takes off, it'll be really handy to be close to investors). Among the other people I know who are thinking of leaving, or whom it doesn't really make economic sense to be here, what's keeping them is always similar things. They work for Google and there's no Google office near where the rest of their family lives. They grew up here and have sentimental attachment to the place. They really love the warm Mediterranean climate and can't imagine living in a place with snow or rain. When you dig into their lives, usually staying is actually the right choice despite the high expense, and it's more "Well, I wish I didn't have to put up with the cost of living and massive traffic snarls."
- jpao79 9y ago
  To your point about someone already doing it, this is roughly what I was thinking although with a more global focus: https://teleport.org/cities/ https://teleport.org/cities/ https://teleport.org/cities/portland-or/ https://teleport.org/cities/portland-or/ https://teleport.org/compare/portland-or-vs-raleigh-vs-los-angeles/ https://teleport.org/compare/portland-or-vs-raleigh-vs-los-a... Seems like it was founded by former Skype employees and recently acquired by a Relocation/Move coordination company.

justifier 9y ago

But the most reasonable next step in the logic you yourself laid out is you should move back to lincoln to avoid having 'to pay increased taxes for [other's] ignorance/provincialism?' You seem yet to have considered a thing like:'is living in San Francisco a fundamental right' for you?