8 ms·

> My sentiment is not classist or elitist. You just think poor people should have to move out of their homes because rich people decided they want to live ther

> My sentiment is not classist or elitist. You just think poor people should have to move out of their homes because rich people decided they want to live there. Got it. > The same argument applies to people of all socioeconomic background. Yeah, rich people get forced out of their homes because they can't afford them all the time. /s

cjensen 12y ago
I'm a 40+ Programmer making good money with a family of five. A year ago I thought long and hard about moving away. In the end, I decided to stay because we have family here. Here's my unsolicited advice: if you are less than 30 and don't plan on being a dual-income family, move away no matter how much income you have. It makes no financial sense to live in the Bay Area: your net worth will be entirely tied to your property which is risky compared to living somewhere else and having diverse investments and savings. The advice makes sense for the rich as well as the poor.
- chaqke 12y ago
  Financial sense depends on how you price the benefits of living in this area vs other areas. For example, being near family is a a benefit...so is being near people who care about technology, if that matters to you. Consider being a programmer in several startups over 5 years vs being a programmer in a large bank. There are many houses on the market that fail or pass "rent vs buy" calculators - savings can go into diverse sources instead of a property if you so choose. I'm of the opinion that the overall package is "worth it" here, but each person should consider their own evaluation metrics - and yes, move if you don't think it's worth it. Note: this is certainly off-topic from the troubles of extremely poor people in this area.
- bsder 12y ago
  > It makes no financial sense to live in the Bay Area Until your first layoff. Then it's an absolute blessing to live somewhere where your next job is one more exit up 101. This is the thing that everybody who works in tech forgets. If you live in Pittsburgh, Tulsa, or Lubbock, you are in for a many month job search--or you are leaving the city--when (not if) you get laid off. Seagate had this problem a couple years ago. They wanted VLSI layout people in Pittsburgh and were offering comparable to Silicon Valley money--and nobody from the tech cities would bite. Why? Everybody knew that they were going to be the most highly paid people in the office and subject to getting axed first. And would then have to move back to Silicon Valley.
  - frostmatthew 12y ago
    > Until your first layoff. Then it's an absolute blessing to live somewhere where your next job is one more exit up 101. The Bay Area is not the only place with a high amount of tech jobs. Sure it may have the most but there's many other cities with plenty of openings. Searching "software engineer" job listings on LinkedIn[1] shows: San Francisco (12,676) New York City (6,619) Washington D.C. Metro (5,613) Seattle (4,584) Boston (4,452) Chicago (3,933) Los Angeles (3,135) [1] https://www.linkedin.com/job/software-engineer-jobs/ https://www.linkedin.com/job/software-engineer-jobs/
    - bsder 12y ago
      And the cost of living of most of those areas is quite high which is what people are trying to escape.
- Veratyr 12y ago
  But is there anywhere else where I could feasibly save ~$60k each year? I honestly don't know since I only just moved to the US but at the moment my plan is to work here for a few years, save a nice pile of money and then move somewhere affordable and less urban to raise a family. I'm hoping to be able to save ~$240k and buy a modest house on the outskirts of Portland or Tacoma and have a little left over. I'm just wondering if there's anywhere else where I could save money like this?
fragsworth 12y ago
The way you frame the argument is ignoring all the social, economic, and political problems that come with attempts to solve the issue. Rent control, for instance, has some serious issues that arguably negate the benefits that come from it.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I hate rent control, but I think it's a symptom of incumbents' unwillingness to allow more development, on the grounds that it would lower the value of the property they own (or more realistically, slow that value's rate of increase). A fixed-rate mortgage is basically rent control for better-off people; typically the mortgage-holder pays off a small bit of principal each month and pays rent on the outstanding amount. So if we want to outlaw rent control, we should outlaw fixed rate mortgages too, and eliminate the artificial cap on property taxes (something that corporations exploit by using shell companies to 'own' commercial real estate, and then transferring ownership or voting control of the shell company while shielding themselves from property tax on the current value of the real estate). But we both know that that's not likely to happen.
  - muzz 12y ago
    > I hate rent control, but I think it's a symptom of incumbents' unwillingness to allow more development, No. It began in SF as a very-specific response to Prop 13, which is essentially property-tax-control Both are bad policies in terms of market distortion and are often the overlooked elephants in the room in discussion of housing supply and affordability.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      What? Rent control did not originate in San Francisco, and has been around a lot longer than Proposition 13. Its history in modern economics goes back to world War 1, and the concept of economic rents and the need to regulate them originates with Adam Smith in the 18th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rent_control_in_England_and_Wales#1915_to_1939 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rent_control_in_Engl...
Domenic_S 12y ago
> You just think poor people should have to move out of their homes because rich people decided they want to live there. That isn't how this works, at all. When the number of people who want to live in an area > the area's capacity, prices increase. See: every metro area in the world. > Yeah, rich people get forced out of their homes because they can't afford them all the time. /s Rich people move to optimize their finances all the time. http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/State-leaders-closely-watch-migrating-millionaires-5135090.php http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/State-leader... http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/February/Frances-Reckoning-Rich-Young-Flee-Welfare-State/ http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/February/Frances-Recko... http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/04/27/it-makes-sense-for-toyota-to-leave-california-for-texas/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/04/27/it-makes-sen... http://www.aei.org/publication/companies-are-leaving-california-in-record-numbers-and-it-might-get-worse/ http://www.aei.org/publication/companies-are-leaving-califor...
- onion2k 12y ago
  That isn't how this works, at all. If rich people living around you only affected house prices then you'd be right, but they tend to push the cost of everything up. That's what drives poor people out.
  - Domenic_S 12y ago
    This line of thinking is confusing cause and effect though. Silicon Valley started here because it was cheap. The whole area was agriculture and houses. Then computers took over the world and the success of the business here computerfied the valley. It made people who were already here wealthy. It's like people think this situation is new, and poor people are the "real" natives of SV. If those damn facebooks and googles had left the valley alone everything would be great!
ForHackernews 12y ago
> Yeah, rich people get forced out of their homes because they can't afford them all the time. /s Actually, in some places (certain NYC or London neighborhoods), the rich are getting pushed out by the ultrarich. What chance does a mere millionaire have against billionaires? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/19/how-the-ultra-rich-are-pulling-away-from-the-merely-rich/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/19/h...
refurb 12y ago
You just think poor people should have to move out of their homes because rich people decided they want to live there. Got it. I'm not poor by any means, but if SF rents keep going up, I'm going to be leaving if I can't find affordable housing (even on a relatively high salary).
- muzz 12y ago
  For rents to go up, people have to be able to pay those higher rents. Ostensibly because they have salaries that are even relatively higher than yours (this is not intended to be a slight, but when there is a bidding war for salaries there will be a bidding war for limited housing).
  - fredophile 12y ago
    The cost of renting or buying property isn't limited to the income you get from your salary. I know of renters in expensive cities that have split one bedroom or studio apartments between multiple people. You can bet that whoever rented the woman in the article their garage to live in is using that money to help pay the mortgage.
    - muzz 12y ago
      Good point, housing is not atomic.
  - refurb 12y ago
    No that's a great point. If enough folks making very high salaries move to SF (and the housing stock stays constant), then prices will rise. My point is that it might not be fair that low-income folks have to move when housing gets more expensive, but it doesn't stop with low-income. I'm sure plenty of middle-income folks have been forced out of the Bay area as well.

cjensen 12y ago

I'm a 40+ Programmer making good money with a family of five. A year ago I thought long and hard about moving away. In the end, I decided to stay because we have family here. Here's my unsolicited advice: if you are less than 30 and don't plan on being a dual-income family, move away no matter how much income you have. It makes no financial sense to live in the Bay Area: your net worth will be entirely tied to your property which is risky compared to living somewhere else and having diverse investments and savings. The advice makes sense for the rich as well as the poor.

chaqke 12y ago
Financial sense depends on how you price the benefits of living in this area vs other areas. For example, being near family is a a benefit...so is being near people who care about technology, if that matters to you. Consider being a programmer in several startups over 5 years vs being a programmer in a large bank. There are many houses on the market that fail or pass "rent vs buy" calculators - savings can go into diverse sources instead of a property if you so choose. I'm of the opinion that the overall package is "worth it" here, but each person should consider their own evaluation metrics - and yes, move if you don't think it's worth it. Note: this is certainly off-topic from the troubles of extremely poor people in this area.
bsder 12y ago
> It makes no financial sense to live in the Bay Area Until your first layoff. Then it's an absolute blessing to live somewhere where your next job is one more exit up 101. This is the thing that everybody who works in tech forgets. If you live in Pittsburgh, Tulsa, or Lubbock, you are in for a many month job search--or you are leaving the city--when (not if) you get laid off. Seagate had this problem a couple years ago. They wanted VLSI layout people in Pittsburgh and were offering comparable to Silicon Valley money--and nobody from the tech cities would bite. Why? Everybody knew that they were going to be the most highly paid people in the office and subject to getting axed first. And would then have to move back to Silicon Valley.
- frostmatthew 12y ago
  > Until your first layoff. Then it's an absolute blessing to live somewhere where your next job is one more exit up 101. The Bay Area is not the only place with a high amount of tech jobs. Sure it may have the most but there's many other cities with plenty of openings. Searching "software engineer" job listings on LinkedIn[1] shows: San Francisco (12,676) New York City (6,619) Washington D.C. Metro (5,613) Seattle (4,584) Boston (4,452) Chicago (3,933) Los Angeles (3,135) [1] https://www.linkedin.com/job/software-engineer-jobs/ https://www.linkedin.com/job/software-engineer-jobs/
  - bsder 12y ago
    And the cost of living of most of those areas is quite high which is what people are trying to escape.
Veratyr 12y ago
But is there anywhere else where I could feasibly save ~$60k each year? I honestly don't know since I only just moved to the US but at the moment my plan is to work here for a few years, save a nice pile of money and then move somewhere affordable and less urban to raise a family. I'm hoping to be able to save ~$240k and buy a modest house on the outskirts of Portland or Tacoma and have a little left over. I'm just wondering if there's anywhere else where I could save money like this?

fragsworth 12y ago

The way you frame the argument is ignoring all the social, economic, and political problems that come with attempts to solve the issue. Rent control, for instance, has some serious issues that arguably negate the benefits that come from it.

anigbrowl 12y ago
I hate rent control, but I think it's a symptom of incumbents' unwillingness to allow more development, on the grounds that it would lower the value of the property they own (or more realistically, slow that value's rate of increase). A fixed-rate mortgage is basically rent control for better-off people; typically the mortgage-holder pays off a small bit of principal each month and pays rent on the outstanding amount. So if we want to outlaw rent control, we should outlaw fixed rate mortgages too, and eliminate the artificial cap on property taxes (something that corporations exploit by using shell companies to 'own' commercial real estate, and then transferring ownership or voting control of the shell company while shielding themselves from property tax on the current value of the real estate). But we both know that that's not likely to happen.
- muzz 12y ago
  > I hate rent control, but I think it's a symptom of incumbents' unwillingness to allow more development, No. It began in SF as a very-specific response to Prop 13, which is essentially property-tax-control Both are bad policies in terms of market distortion and are often the overlooked elephants in the room in discussion of housing supply and affordability.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    What? Rent control did not originate in San Francisco, and has been around a lot longer than Proposition 13. Its history in modern economics goes back to world War 1, and the concept of economic rents and the need to regulate them originates with Adam Smith in the 18th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rent_control_in_England_and_Wales#1915_to_1939 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rent_control_in_Engl...

Domenic_S 12y ago

> You just think poor people should have to move out of their homes because rich people decided they want to live there. That isn't how this works, at all. When the number of people who want to live in an area > the area's capacity, prices increase. See: every metro area in the world. > Yeah, rich people get forced out of their homes because they can't afford them all the time. /s Rich people move to optimize their finances all the time. http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/State-leaders-closely-watch-migrating-millionaires-5135090.php http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/State-leader... http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/February/Frances-Reckoning-Rich-Young-Flee-Welfare-State/ http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/February/Frances-Recko... http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/04/27/it-makes-sense-for-toyota-to-leave-california-for-texas/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/04/27/it-makes-sen... http://www.aei.org/publication/companies-are-leaving-california-in-record-numbers-and-it-might-get-worse/ http://www.aei.org/publication/companies-are-leaving-califor...

onion2k 12y ago
That isn't how this works, at all. If rich people living around you only affected house prices then you'd be right, but they tend to push the cost of everything up. That's what drives poor people out.
- Domenic_S 12y ago
  This line of thinking is confusing cause and effect though. Silicon Valley started here because it was cheap. The whole area was agriculture and houses. Then computers took over the world and the success of the business here computerfied the valley. It made people who were already here wealthy. It's like people think this situation is new, and poor people are the "real" natives of SV. If those damn facebooks and googles had left the valley alone everything would be great!

ForHackernews 12y ago

> Yeah, rich people get forced out of their homes because they can't afford them all the time. /s Actually, in some places (certain NYC or London neighborhoods), the rich are getting pushed out by the ultrarich. What chance does a mere millionaire have against billionaires? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/19/how-the-ultra-rich-are-pulling-away-from-the-merely-rich/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/19/h...

refurb 12y ago

You just think poor people should have to move out of their homes because rich people decided they want to live there. Got it. I'm not poor by any means, but if SF rents keep going up, I'm going to be leaving if I can't find affordable housing (even on a relatively high salary).

muzz 12y ago
For rents to go up, people have to be able to pay those higher rents. Ostensibly because they have salaries that are even relatively higher than yours (this is not intended to be a slight, but when there is a bidding war for salaries there will be a bidding war for limited housing).
- fredophile 12y ago
  The cost of renting or buying property isn't limited to the income you get from your salary. I know of renters in expensive cities that have split one bedroom or studio apartments between multiple people. You can bet that whoever rented the woman in the article their garage to live in is using that money to help pay the mortgage.
  - muzz 12y ago
    Good point, housing is not atomic.
- refurb 12y ago
  No that's a great point. If enough folks making very high salaries move to SF (and the housing stock stays constant), then prices will rise. My point is that it might not be fair that low-income folks have to move when housing gets more expensive, but it doesn't stop with low-income. I'm sure plenty of middle-income folks have been forced out of the Bay area as well.