9 ms·

The US are such a weird country... on one hand, Silicon valley et al, producing the coolest tech & the shiniest toys, and on the other hand... people who can on

The US are such a weird country... on one hand, Silicon valley et al, producing the coolest tech & the shiniest toys, and on the other hand... people who can only afford to live in trailer parks, even with a full time job. It never ceases to amaze & depress me simultaneously.

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
It's the same reason those same Silicon Valley companies hire security guard companies at $15/hr and have the security guards take the food to the dumpster, and lock it. That security guy probably could use that food more than the dumpster.
- dylan604 6y ago
  At $15/hour, that security guard is probably close to double the income people living in trailer parks earn.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
    Adjusted for cost of living, that security guard is poorer than the person living in a trailer park or very close to it. There's been a large rise in people living in campers in California due to high rents.
    - dylan604 6y ago
      As we all know, how things are in CA does not evenly apply to the other 49.
  - DaedPsyker 6y ago
    But the security guard lives in SF, which increases his living costs.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- alacombe 6y ago
  Why bother with $15/hr security guard when you can get replaceable temp workers to feed, pamper and wipe $150k white-knight social-justice "engineers".
markbnj 6y ago
For what it's worth my in-laws specifically chose to buy a second home in a mobile home park. I don't know all their reasons but the low cost of the land was part of it. I've seen their "trailer" and it's quite nice, so I wouldn't necessarily assume everyone who lives in one of these places does so out of desperation or lack of choices. People have different needs and wants.
- starpilot 6y ago
  A lot of the California ones are pretty decent. I dated a girl who lived in one. I also stayed in an Airbnb that was in one. The owner, who lived there, was a woman with a Stanford degree. They're cheap and reasonable places to live with a lot of stigma. The ones I saw around me growing up in Virginia were... shitty.
pm90 6y ago
Where to start? Lol. The US is a vast country with a vast population and its economy has been geared towards high end services. Those with the relevant education are able to thrive while those without education or wealth get cast aside. Urban centers thrive in this economy while rural ones fade away and decay; most people don’t want/ can’t move to where the opportunities are. There’s also a multitude of socio political issues. From the relative independence of States to set social benefits policies, to the phenomenon of convincing people to vote against their own interests when race or culture war is involved.
keiferski 6y ago
The oddest part about it is how much of a mess the Bay Area is. Typically you’d expect centers of wealth to be excessively clean, filled with expensive architecture and monuments, etc. to the point of being boring. Dubai, for instance. Somehow SV just decided to not bother with that at all.
- m463 6y ago
  I have a theory about that. I think it's weather. California has such a mild climate, that you can build a house out of ticky-tacky, skip the insulation, and people won't care because they have a lemon tree growing in their yard. Nowadays code won't allow you to skip insulation (or solar), but with earthquakes and high land prices you still aren't getting stone or brick homes.
  - danans 6y ago
    > Nowadays code won't allow you to skip insulation (or solar), but with earthquakes and high land prices you still aren't getting stone or brick homes. Structural stone and brick homes aren't really a thing in the US that much any more. Beyond seismic issues, when it comes to insulation and efficiency and air/water leaks, homes built using bricks and stone are terrible, because those materials are very difficult to seal. Most newer homes that have brick or stone exteriors use it only for aesthetics, and do not rely on it for structural integrity or resistance to the environment. Their actual skeletons are wood frames, and the weather resistance is provided by layers of materials over that. You can build incredibly sturdy homes with wood - not ticky-tacky at all. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/energy-efficient-home-design/advanced-house-framing https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/energy-efficient-home-des...
- fossuser 6y ago
  Prop13, NIMBYs, local political control and anti-housing politics. With RHNA (and state law attempts like SB50) this may be starting to change, but the people responsible for the economic success are not the ones with the political power to fix housing policy. Most of these issues stem from bad housing policy and incumbents restraining supply.
- 6y ago
smabie 6y ago
I visited my friend a couple years ago who lived in a shipping container in a trailer park. tbqh it was super nice and everyone was super friendly. Seemed like a really solid place to live. My friend loved it to: he made a good salary as a software engineer but just really loved the trailer park vibe.
Alex3917 6y ago
> people who can only afford to live in trailer parks, even with a full time job. Given that the rent in many trailer parks comparable with an NYC apartment, it stands to reason that most people are there by choice.
exolymph 6y ago
The United States is the land of high variance. We let people crash and burn, but we also let people soar. A society that permits the former is unremarkable — letting people suffer is the default in poverty, and most countries are relatively quite poor. But the latter, letting the tall poppies stand proud with not much more than heckling for their height, is something special, and it's a big part of how we've become such an outlier nation in terms of success.
- Tarsul 6y ago
  maybe a and b are connected? You can't have the ultra rich or at least such a discrepancy between the top 10% and the bottom xx% without built-in systemic inequality. Nonetheless, it wouldn't hurt the US at all if the poorest had more support.
  - ctdonath 6y ago
    The poorest have tremendous support. US poverty line is at 80th percentile of world incomes, and welfare options ensure nobody has to live under that line. The ultra rich do a great deal (and got there) by making much affordable for lower incomes (Walmart, Amazon for high profile examples). For that matter, world abject poverty has been largely eradicated. Increasing customer productivity (both individual and aggregate) increases customer buying power - favorable to capitalism.
- 1996 6y ago
  So true. This is why the US is so much better than Asia. What worries me however is how there are more and more laws and regulation to not let people crash and burn - like forcing people to have health insurance. Stupid code for building houses - etc EDIT: and I'm not being sarcastic. I admire how by taking the correct decision to apparently sacrifice the poor, we have made the pie bigger for everyone including the poor (unfortunately, as noted by a comment below about Des Moines, building code is quickly changing that)
  - lucasmullens 6y ago
    Wait, what? You're against building codes? A lack of building codes is in no way why the US has been successful. They prevent people from literally burning.
dghughes 6y ago
I'm in Canada not in the US but I know of a medical doctor that lives in a trailer park near me. It's not a dump but it is a trailer park.
starpilot 6y ago
I read that the world needs both types of economies. The US is a dynamic, freewheeling sort with the most extremes. You can get incredibly rich, but the bottom has no floor. It's easy to amass capital and to pay workers. Or have western Europe, which is a relatively painful climate for businesses. Taxation for extensive social services is stifling, but at least most of the middle people are OK.
- nicolas_t 6y ago
  With the problem of western Europe having massive braindrain. A doctor in France who decides to work in China will easily quadruple his salary. likewise in pretty much any country. An engineer in France, working in the US will also triple his salary. Of course, there's less safety nets, less benefits but for educated people who are part of the upper middle class (doctors, teachers, engineers, etc...), the increase in salary is such that it really makes no sense from an economic standpoint to stay in France. I'd say it's better only for working class to lower middle class.
- opo 6y ago
  >... but the bottom has no floor. That really doesn't represent reality. The majority of federal spending goes to transfer payments: >...The federal government spent $2.87 trillion on transfers to individuals in 2017, accounting for 72.2 percent of federal spending. https://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-brief/troubling-trend-federal-investment-spending https://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-brief/troubling-trend... One estimate is that about 22% of state government is spent on public welfare: >...Another 22 percent of expenditures went toward public welfare. Public welfare includes spending on means-tested programs, such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Supplemental Security Income. https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/state-and-local-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative... The people of the US also give a great deal of money to charity: >...The United States has been the most generous country in the world over the past decade. >That’s the conclusion of the World Giving Index, a ranking that measured how likely residents of 128 countries were to practice acts of generosity. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-generous-country-but-americans-say-debt-is-keeping-them-from-giving-more-to-charity-2019-10-18 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-generou... >...Americans give around 3 percent of our collective income to charity — more than the citizens of any other country. Better yet, these are individual Americans, not the government, who are generating the lion’s share of the contributions. https://www.thetimesherald.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/12/08/americans-give-charity-country/108430012/ https://www.thetimesherald.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017...
throwaway894345 6y ago
I suspect we gutted our middle class with globalization. Any jobs that could be exported overseas for cheaper were, and management was rewarded for saving investors so much money by outsourcing those jobs. If we had a stronger collective identity (as with many European countries) we might've felt a kinship or patriotic duty to protect those jobs or otherwise redistribute the wealth garnered by outsourcing. And I'm not optimistic that this will get better given how much Americans are being primed to reject any collective national or even human identity and instead identify with their race and party.
- burntoutfire 6y ago
  > I suspect we gutted our middle class with globalization. It's not about middle class. In other rich countries, everyone, incl. the lower class, can afford to live in apartments, and doesn't have to resort to living in trailers.
  - mrDmrTmrJ 6y ago
    Not sure whey you're being downvoted - so I upvoted you. The US has huge problems with regulation that prevent new housing creation. A lot of that has it's origin in segregation: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten... This applies to cities and suburbs. For example in lost of NYC and SF, most buildings would be "illegal" if they were built today. If you can't change "supply" a "free market" that relies on balancing supply and demand won't balance. It's crazy. And a building issues in US politics.
  - alacombe 6y ago
    > the lower class, can afford to live in apartments Do you mean the same crime ridden inner cities slums ?
    - burntoutfire 6y ago
      There's practically no visible crime in Poland. The worst you're going to get in the shittiest districts of shittiest cities (we're talking places where you can get a studio in city center for $10000) is potentially some obnoxious drunks for neighbors. No one is going to break in into your car or mug you on the streets.
hardtke 6y ago
And when you combine Silicon Valley and a mobile home park you have a $40M property. With 117 units, that's $342000 per unit + a the cost of renovations. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/05/18/404m-deal-saves-buena-vista-mobile-homes https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/05/18/404m-deal-sav...

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago

It's the same reason those same Silicon Valley companies hire security guard companies at $15/hr and have the security guards take the food to the dumpster, and lock it. That security guy probably could use that food more than the dumpster.

dylan604 6y ago
At $15/hour, that security guard is probably close to double the income people living in trailer parks earn.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  Adjusted for cost of living, that security guard is poorer than the person living in a trailer park or very close to it. There's been a large rise in people living in campers in California due to high rents.
  - dylan604 6y ago
    As we all know, how things are in CA does not evenly apply to the other 49.
- DaedPsyker 6y ago
  But the security guard lives in SF, which increases his living costs.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
alacombe 6y ago
Why bother with $15/hr security guard when you can get replaceable temp workers to feed, pamper and wipe $150k white-knight social-justice "engineers".

markbnj 6y ago

For what it's worth my in-laws specifically chose to buy a second home in a mobile home park. I don't know all their reasons but the low cost of the land was part of it. I've seen their "trailer" and it's quite nice, so I wouldn't necessarily assume everyone who lives in one of these places does so out of desperation or lack of choices. People have different needs and wants.

starpilot 6y ago
A lot of the California ones are pretty decent. I dated a girl who lived in one. I also stayed in an Airbnb that was in one. The owner, who lived there, was a woman with a Stanford degree. They're cheap and reasonable places to live with a lot of stigma. The ones I saw around me growing up in Virginia were... shitty.

pm90 6y ago

Where to start? Lol. The US is a vast country with a vast population and its economy has been geared towards high end services. Those with the relevant education are able to thrive while those without education or wealth get cast aside. Urban centers thrive in this economy while rural ones fade away and decay; most people don’t want/ can’t move to where the opportunities are. There’s also a multitude of socio political issues. From the relative independence of States to set social benefits policies, to the phenomenon of convincing people to vote against their own interests when race or culture war is involved.

keiferski 6y ago

The oddest part about it is how much of a mess the Bay Area is. Typically you’d expect centers of wealth to be excessively clean, filled with expensive architecture and monuments, etc. to the point of being boring. Dubai, for instance. Somehow SV just decided to not bother with that at all.

m463 6y ago
I have a theory about that. I think it's weather. California has such a mild climate, that you can build a house out of ticky-tacky, skip the insulation, and people won't care because they have a lemon tree growing in their yard. Nowadays code won't allow you to skip insulation (or solar), but with earthquakes and high land prices you still aren't getting stone or brick homes.
- danans 6y ago
  > Nowadays code won't allow you to skip insulation (or solar), but with earthquakes and high land prices you still aren't getting stone or brick homes. Structural stone and brick homes aren't really a thing in the US that much any more. Beyond seismic issues, when it comes to insulation and efficiency and air/water leaks, homes built using bricks and stone are terrible, because those materials are very difficult to seal. Most newer homes that have brick or stone exteriors use it only for aesthetics, and do not rely on it for structural integrity or resistance to the environment. Their actual skeletons are wood frames, and the weather resistance is provided by layers of materials over that. You can build incredibly sturdy homes with wood - not ticky-tacky at all. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/energy-efficient-home-design/advanced-house-framing https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/energy-efficient-home-des...
fossuser 6y ago
Prop13, NIMBYs, local political control and anti-housing politics. With RHNA (and state law attempts like SB50) this may be starting to change, but the people responsible for the economic success are not the ones with the political power to fix housing policy. Most of these issues stem from bad housing policy and incumbents restraining supply.
6y ago

smabie 6y ago

I visited my friend a couple years ago who lived in a shipping container in a trailer park. tbqh it was super nice and everyone was super friendly. Seemed like a really solid place to live. My friend loved it to: he made a good salary as a software engineer but just really loved the trailer park vibe.

Alex3917 6y ago

> people who can only afford to live in trailer parks, even with a full time job. Given that the rent in many trailer parks comparable with an NYC apartment, it stands to reason that most people are there by choice.

exolymph 6y ago

The United States is the land of high variance. We let people crash and burn, but we also let people soar. A society that permits the former is unremarkable — letting people suffer is the default in poverty, and most countries are relatively quite poor. But the latter, letting the tall poppies stand proud with not much more than heckling for their height, is something special, and it's a big part of how we've become such an outlier nation in terms of success.

Tarsul 6y ago
maybe a and b are connected? You can't have the ultra rich or at least such a discrepancy between the top 10% and the bottom xx% without built-in systemic inequality. Nonetheless, it wouldn't hurt the US at all if the poorest had more support.
- ctdonath 6y ago
  The poorest have tremendous support. US poverty line is at 80th percentile of world incomes, and welfare options ensure nobody has to live under that line. The ultra rich do a great deal (and got there) by making much affordable for lower incomes (Walmart, Amazon for high profile examples). For that matter, world abject poverty has been largely eradicated. Increasing customer productivity (both individual and aggregate) increases customer buying power - favorable to capitalism.
1996 6y ago
So true. This is why the US is so much better than Asia. What worries me however is how there are more and more laws and regulation to not let people crash and burn - like forcing people to have health insurance. Stupid code for building houses - etc EDIT: and I'm not being sarcastic. I admire how by taking the correct decision to apparently sacrifice the poor, we have made the pie bigger for everyone including the poor (unfortunately, as noted by a comment below about Des Moines, building code is quickly changing that)
- lucasmullens 6y ago
  Wait, what? You're against building codes? A lack of building codes is in no way why the US has been successful. They prevent people from literally burning.

dghughes 6y ago

I'm in Canada not in the US but I know of a medical doctor that lives in a trailer park near me. It's not a dump but it is a trailer park.

starpilot 6y ago

I read that the world needs both types of economies. The US is a dynamic, freewheeling sort with the most extremes. You can get incredibly rich, but the bottom has no floor. It's easy to amass capital and to pay workers. Or have western Europe, which is a relatively painful climate for businesses. Taxation for extensive social services is stifling, but at least most of the middle people are OK.

nicolas_t 6y ago
With the problem of western Europe having massive braindrain. A doctor in France who decides to work in China will easily quadruple his salary. likewise in pretty much any country. An engineer in France, working in the US will also triple his salary. Of course, there's less safety nets, less benefits but for educated people who are part of the upper middle class (doctors, teachers, engineers, etc...), the increase in salary is such that it really makes no sense from an economic standpoint to stay in France. I'd say it's better only for working class to lower middle class.
opo 6y ago
>... but the bottom has no floor. That really doesn't represent reality. The majority of federal spending goes to transfer payments: >...The federal government spent $2.87 trillion on transfers to individuals in 2017, accounting for 72.2 percent of federal spending. https://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-brief/troubling-trend-federal-investment-spending https://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-brief/troubling-trend... One estimate is that about 22% of state government is spent on public welfare: >...Another 22 percent of expenditures went toward public welfare. Public welfare includes spending on means-tested programs, such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Supplemental Security Income. https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/state-and-local-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative... The people of the US also give a great deal of money to charity: >...The United States has been the most generous country in the world over the past decade. >That’s the conclusion of the World Giving Index, a ranking that measured how likely residents of 128 countries were to practice acts of generosity. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-generous-country-but-americans-say-debt-is-keeping-them-from-giving-more-to-charity-2019-10-18 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-is-the-most-generou... >...Americans give around 3 percent of our collective income to charity — more than the citizens of any other country. Better yet, these are individual Americans, not the government, who are generating the lion’s share of the contributions. https://www.thetimesherald.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/12/08/americans-give-charity-country/108430012/ https://www.thetimesherald.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017...

throwaway894345 6y ago

I suspect we gutted our middle class with globalization. Any jobs that could be exported overseas for cheaper were, and management was rewarded for saving investors so much money by outsourcing those jobs. If we had a stronger collective identity (as with many European countries) we might've felt a kinship or patriotic duty to protect those jobs or otherwise redistribute the wealth garnered by outsourcing. And I'm not optimistic that this will get better given how much Americans are being primed to reject any collective national or even human identity and instead identify with their race and party.

burntoutfire 6y ago
> I suspect we gutted our middle class with globalization. It's not about middle class. In other rich countries, everyone, incl. the lower class, can afford to live in apartments, and doesn't have to resort to living in trailers.
- mrDmrTmrJ 6y ago
  Not sure whey you're being downvoted - so I upvoted you. The US has huge problems with regulation that prevent new housing creation. A lot of that has it's origin in segregation: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten... This applies to cities and suburbs. For example in lost of NYC and SF, most buildings would be "illegal" if they were built today. If you can't change "supply" a "free market" that relies on balancing supply and demand won't balance. It's crazy. And a building issues in US politics.
- alacombe 6y ago
  > the lower class, can afford to live in apartments Do you mean the same crime ridden inner cities slums ?
  - burntoutfire 6y ago
    There's practically no visible crime in Poland. The worst you're going to get in the shittiest districts of shittiest cities (we're talking places where you can get a studio in city center for $10000) is potentially some obnoxious drunks for neighbors. No one is going to break in into your car or mug you on the streets.

hardtke 6y ago

And when you combine Silicon Valley and a mobile home park you have a $40M property. With 117 units, that's $342000 per unit + a the cost of renovations. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/05/18/404m-deal-saves-buena-vista-mobile-homes https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/05/18/404m-deal-sav...