4 ms·

Let's try to see it from another human perspective. You've been living in Oakland for the last 10 years. You work at a local place making $15/hr. You have buil

Let's try to see it from another human perspective. You've been living in Oakland for the last 10 years. You work at a local place making $15/hr. You have built up a lot of friends and enjoy your life. Suddenly the tech boom hits. A year later your landlord decides to sell the house. You go out and try to find a new place but its twice what your last place was and over half your income. But that doesn't matter because the market is so competitive the new landlord wouldn't rent to you anyway. So now you go into a desperate struggle to save the life you've built for the last 10 years. Calling and emailing everywhere trying to find a place. You have 20 days left. 10 days left. You have an old friend in Oklahoma City. He says you can crash for a couple weeks and that there's plenty of jobs and cheap rent. You know you have to go and leave behind your life. You know that if the tech boom didn't show up none of that would have happened. Sure you're not going to die on the streets. But I would probably be pretty pissed.

7Figures2Commas 12y ago
> You've been living in Oakland for the last 10 years. You work at a local place making $15/hr. You have built up a lot of friends and enjoy your life. Suddenly the tech boom hits. A year later your landlord decides to sell the house. You go out and try to find a new place but its twice what your last place was and over half your income. > You know that if the tech boom didn't show up none of that would have happened. The tech boom has obviously not hurt the real estate market in the Bay Area, but it's a common misconception that the tech boom is the primary driver. There is a substantial amount of money coming into the Bay Area real estate market from overseas and a significant amount (perhaps most) of the domestic home buyers are not newly-minted tech millionaires. The truth of the matter is that a lot of the well-paid tech workers cannot afford to buy in the Bay Area. This has impacted the rental market more than it has the home market, but the rental trend is one seen nationally.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  The really important part of my quote you missed was > But that doesn't matter because the market is so competitive the new landlord wouldn't rent to you anyway.
  - 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
    As I noted, the rental trend is one seen nationally. In the wake of the Great Recession, which destroyed the finances and credit scores of millions of Americans, many folks have found themselves unable to obtain a mortgage. Even for those who are able to obtain financing to buy a home, in many metropolitan areas, rebounding home prices have pushed many out of the market. Furthermore, in many areas it is exceedingly difficult to find and close on a purchase as a non-cash buyer. Around the country, millions of would-be home buyers have become renters and there is not enough apartment supply. Rents are rising nationally and lots of people are struggling to cope, including in cities where there is no tech boom to blame. In short, the dearth of affordable rentals is not the result of the tech industry. It's the result of a broader supply and demand imbalance.
    - fred_durst 12y ago
      Yes, that is absolutely true and valid. Indeed the rental push is national and a great point. That said, to compare the rental increase in Oakland, or the Bay in general, is a far stretch from the national average. And the reason for that is obvious to most who have lived in both situations.
      - 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
        You seem to be assuming that the Bay Area has experienced the greatest increase in rents. Looking at the actual numbers is more useful. Recently, Seattle has experienced the greatest percentage increase in rents[1]. San Francisco and San Jose were up there, but the recent percentage increases in the Bay Area have, for instance, been on par with the increases seen in 2012-2013 in cities like Houston, Miami, San Diego and Boston[2]. It's a tough market out there for lots of people and while it's convenient to think that the Bay Area is always special because of the tech industry, this simply isn't the case. [1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304887104579304830053269994 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230488710... [2] http://realestate.msn.com/massive-rent-increases-to-continue http://realestate.msn.com/massive-rent-increases-to-continue
aianus 12y ago
Plenty of tech workers left everything behind and moved thousands of km across borders and oceans to work in SF in precarious visa situations and make a decent living. If they lose their jobs they don't get to go to OKC, they're deported back to India or China in 10 days. It's harder to empathize with US citizens who've managed to squander their enormous advantages and have to suffer the relatively mild indignity of moving to a different US city.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  "Squander"... many US citizens see the actions of Silicon Valley and the entire tech VC culture as grossly immoral and unethical. Maybe you have yet to realize that all your actions in the US will only make rich families richer and hurt and damage the lives of those beneath you, but many Americans decide to do work that helps individuals directly as opposed to help investors become even richer. It's fun to think poor Americans are lazy, but when you realize that helping people in America is one of the lowest paid(often volunteer) positions, how warped the reality of the US dollar is. To many "dignity" as you described it, is not working like a slave to enrich the evil that is destroying our country. And if you are moving here to contribute to that you are not much more than a paid mercenary. EDIT: Look, I get it that you are possibly coming from a fucked situation wherever you might come from. And I can't blame you for it. But realize that few people in the US actually will benefit from it, and it will actually make their lives worse. It's what you have to do, but it really isn't something that many Americans would think is good. We already learned about imperialism in High School and prefer not to repeat it.
  - aianus 12y ago
    Money is obviously an imperfect proxy for how much someone contributes to society but it's the only fair way to ration housing or any other limited resource. "My parents lived in this city and I grew up here" does not and should not trump "I moved here to work and be productive".
    - McDoku 12y ago
      Are you seriously arguing that "to work and be productive" overrides the rights of native inhabitants of a region?
QuantumChaos 12y ago
The disruption that people experience due to sudden price changes certainly has a negative affect on them, but this is simply the reality of demand for these resources. It would be nice if the government or private industry could insure people against this kind of disruption, but I don't see it happening soon. In the meantime, people are constantly affected by all sorts of circumstances out of their control. Unless you don't believe in the free market at all, I don't see how the case of renters is any different.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  So you don't think that people will become less motivated to work if they know that at any time the rug can be pulled out beneath them?
  - QuantumChaos 12y ago
    I don't follow your logic. The more you work, the more you get paid and the less affected you will be by this sort of thing, so I would assume this sort of risk motivated people to work harder.
    - fred_durst 12y ago
      Wow, just wow.
      - QuantumChaos 12y ago
        You challenged my point not by saying that "pulling the rug from under people" was unethical, but that it would remove people's motivation. When I directly answer why it wouldn't, you act as if I was supposed to be explaining addressing the ethics, and that my answer betrays me as callous and uncaring. But you didn't make the argument that society should avoid "pulling the rug from under people" for its own sake, regardless of its affect on motivation to work. So I didn't address that point. I did, however, explain precisely the ethics of my viewpoint in my original post, you just chose not to address this, and took the easy way out by focusing on a technical issue (the effect on people's motivation to work) and then pretending I had failed to address a moral issue that you raised.

7Figures2Commas 12y ago

> You've been living in Oakland for the last 10 years. You work at a local place making $15/hr. You have built up a lot of friends and enjoy your life. Suddenly the tech boom hits. A year later your landlord decides to sell the house. You go out and try to find a new place but its twice what your last place was and over half your income. > You know that if the tech boom didn't show up none of that would have happened. The tech boom has obviously not hurt the real estate market in the Bay Area, but it's a common misconception that the tech boom is the primary driver. There is a substantial amount of money coming into the Bay Area real estate market from overseas and a significant amount (perhaps most) of the domestic home buyers are not newly-minted tech millionaires. The truth of the matter is that a lot of the well-paid tech workers cannot afford to buy in the Bay Area. This has impacted the rental market more than it has the home market, but the rental trend is one seen nationally.

fred_durst 12y ago
The really important part of my quote you missed was > But that doesn't matter because the market is so competitive the new landlord wouldn't rent to you anyway.
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
  As I noted, the rental trend is one seen nationally. In the wake of the Great Recession, which destroyed the finances and credit scores of millions of Americans, many folks have found themselves unable to obtain a mortgage. Even for those who are able to obtain financing to buy a home, in many metropolitan areas, rebounding home prices have pushed many out of the market. Furthermore, in many areas it is exceedingly difficult to find and close on a purchase as a non-cash buyer. Around the country, millions of would-be home buyers have become renters and there is not enough apartment supply. Rents are rising nationally and lots of people are struggling to cope, including in cities where there is no tech boom to blame. In short, the dearth of affordable rentals is not the result of the tech industry. It's the result of a broader supply and demand imbalance.
  - fred_durst 12y ago
    Yes, that is absolutely true and valid. Indeed the rental push is national and a great point. That said, to compare the rental increase in Oakland, or the Bay in general, is a far stretch from the national average. And the reason for that is obvious to most who have lived in both situations.
    - 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
      You seem to be assuming that the Bay Area has experienced the greatest increase in rents. Looking at the actual numbers is more useful. Recently, Seattle has experienced the greatest percentage increase in rents[1]. San Francisco and San Jose were up there, but the recent percentage increases in the Bay Area have, for instance, been on par with the increases seen in 2012-2013 in cities like Houston, Miami, San Diego and Boston[2]. It's a tough market out there for lots of people and while it's convenient to think that the Bay Area is always special because of the tech industry, this simply isn't the case. [1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304887104579304830053269994 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230488710... [2] http://realestate.msn.com/massive-rent-increases-to-continue http://realestate.msn.com/massive-rent-increases-to-continue

aianus 12y ago

Plenty of tech workers left everything behind and moved thousands of km across borders and oceans to work in SF in precarious visa situations and make a decent living. If they lose their jobs they don't get to go to OKC, they're deported back to India or China in 10 days. It's harder to empathize with US citizens who've managed to squander their enormous advantages and have to suffer the relatively mild indignity of moving to a different US city.

fred_durst 12y ago
"Squander"... many US citizens see the actions of Silicon Valley and the entire tech VC culture as grossly immoral and unethical. Maybe you have yet to realize that all your actions in the US will only make rich families richer and hurt and damage the lives of those beneath you, but many Americans decide to do work that helps individuals directly as opposed to help investors become even richer. It's fun to think poor Americans are lazy, but when you realize that helping people in America is one of the lowest paid(often volunteer) positions, how warped the reality of the US dollar is. To many "dignity" as you described it, is not working like a slave to enrich the evil that is destroying our country. And if you are moving here to contribute to that you are not much more than a paid mercenary. EDIT: Look, I get it that you are possibly coming from a fucked situation wherever you might come from. And I can't blame you for it. But realize that few people in the US actually will benefit from it, and it will actually make their lives worse. It's what you have to do, but it really isn't something that many Americans would think is good. We already learned about imperialism in High School and prefer not to repeat it.
- aianus 12y ago
  Money is obviously an imperfect proxy for how much someone contributes to society but it's the only fair way to ration housing or any other limited resource. "My parents lived in this city and I grew up here" does not and should not trump "I moved here to work and be productive".
  - McDoku 12y ago
    Are you seriously arguing that "to work and be productive" overrides the rights of native inhabitants of a region?

QuantumChaos 12y ago

The disruption that people experience due to sudden price changes certainly has a negative affect on them, but this is simply the reality of demand for these resources. It would be nice if the government or private industry could insure people against this kind of disruption, but I don't see it happening soon. In the meantime, people are constantly affected by all sorts of circumstances out of their control. Unless you don't believe in the free market at all, I don't see how the case of renters is any different.

fred_durst 12y ago
So you don't think that people will become less motivated to work if they know that at any time the rug can be pulled out beneath them?
- QuantumChaos 12y ago
  I don't follow your logic. The more you work, the more you get paid and the less affected you will be by this sort of thing, so I would assume this sort of risk motivated people to work harder.
  - fred_durst 12y ago
    Wow, just wow.
    - QuantumChaos 12y ago
      You challenged my point not by saying that "pulling the rug from under people" was unethical, but that it would remove people's motivation. When I directly answer why it wouldn't, you act as if I was supposed to be explaining addressing the ethics, and that my answer betrays me as callous and uncaring. But you didn't make the argument that society should avoid "pulling the rug from under people" for its own sake, regardless of its affect on motivation to work. So I didn't address that point. I did, however, explain precisely the ethics of my viewpoint in my original post, you just chose not to address this, and took the easy way out by focusing on a technical issue (the effect on people's motivation to work) and then pretending I had failed to address a moral issue that you raised.