4 ms·

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but why is it reasonable to think that a single mother with a low income should be able to afford to live in San Mateo?

jcdavis 12y ago
Because reality for the lower class is far more complicated than that. In theory, she should move elsewhere. In practice, its not nearly that easy - there's no certainty of a new job, no money to move, (well-placed) fear of losing what little safety net they have, etc.
- redthrowaway 12y ago
  That's awful for her and others in her situation, but I don't think it supports an argument that anyone should be able to afford to live in any region regardless of their income. And really, that's the only solution to problems like hers: building subsidized low-income housing in very expensive areas. San Mateo is expensive. Very expensive. Outside of direct market distortions like subsidized low income housing, it will always be too expensive for many people to live there. As many challenges as she faces in moving, she'll face more trying to raise a child in a garage.
  - slipjack 12y ago
    Building subsidized housing is only one way to subsidize housing expenses. There are vouchers, sliding scale housing, mixed income housing, set-asides, and more.
mindfulgeek 12y ago
Its very possible the father of the child lives in SM, and she is obligated to live in a certain area. Lawyers cost money even if one person is not paying child support. W/o a good lawyer, people can lose things, like kids. Also, if she had a technical career, her best way to find income again is to stay in the area -- shorter commute, more opportunities, higher income. Speaking as a once single mom with an extensive technical resume, finding a job can be next to impossible. Regardless, living in the city increases the chance.
slipjack 12y ago
A) We don't know she's single, only that she's living alone. Those are two different things. B) She says in the video that she makes good money. C) Our communities do better with more income/etc diversity (http://www.urban.org/publications/411955.html http://www.urban.org/publications/411955.html).

jcdavis 12y ago

Because reality for the lower class is far more complicated than that. In theory, she should move elsewhere. In practice, its not nearly that easy - there's no certainty of a new job, no money to move, (well-placed) fear of losing what little safety net they have, etc.

redthrowaway 12y ago
That's awful for her and others in her situation, but I don't think it supports an argument that anyone should be able to afford to live in any region regardless of their income. And really, that's the only solution to problems like hers: building subsidized low-income housing in very expensive areas. San Mateo is expensive. Very expensive. Outside of direct market distortions like subsidized low income housing, it will always be too expensive for many people to live there. As many challenges as she faces in moving, she'll face more trying to raise a child in a garage.
- slipjack 12y ago
  Building subsidized housing is only one way to subsidize housing expenses. There are vouchers, sliding scale housing, mixed income housing, set-asides, and more.

mindfulgeek 12y ago

Its very possible the father of the child lives in SM, and she is obligated to live in a certain area. Lawyers cost money even if one person is not paying child support. W/o a good lawyer, people can lose things, like kids. Also, if she had a technical career, her best way to find income again is to stay in the area -- shorter commute, more opportunities, higher income. Speaking as a once single mom with an extensive technical resume, finding a job can be next to impossible. Regardless, living in the city increases the chance.

slipjack 12y ago

A) We don't know she's single, only that she's living alone. Those are two different things. B) She says in the video that she makes good money. C) Our communities do better with more income/etc diversity (http://www.urban.org/publications/411955.html http://www.urban.org/publications/411955.html).