
California Has the Jobs but Not Enough Homes - arcanus
https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-has-the-jobs-but-not-enough-homes-11553007600
======
curtis
The biggest problem I saw with the High-Speed Rail plan wasn't the outrageous
cost, but rather that it was a plan to spend 60+ billion dollars to solve the
wrong problem. The state should have been working on some plan to give high-
speed access from the SF Bay, where property is really expensive, into the
Central Valley where it's really cheap.

Not many people need to travel the 400 miles between LA and SF at 220 miles an
hour. On the other hand, if you can travel 60 miles or so from San Francisco
(or the mid-peninsula or even San Jose) at 120 miles an hour, that's a big
deal, because that opens up a bunch of low-cost real estate for local workers.

~~~
true_tuna
Or speed and augment existing infrastructure. Spend a billion dollars on
feeder light rail to Caltrain. Run twice as many cal trains. Oops, neighbors
complain about traffic wait times. Bury five of the crossings. Now you can
speed up the cal train. Nice. Now run more trains, connect the stops to the
places people actually live and work. Do the same in and around Sacramento and
LA. But don’t build a bullet train to nowhere. There’s so much more good we
could have done with billions in transportation funding.

~~~
deathanatos
> _Run twice as many cal trains._

My understanding of this is that CalTrain is _already_ running at capacity.
Trains are, essentially, back to back. Part of the electrification project is
that the electric engines should have better acceleration than the current
diesel ones, allowing tighter packing of trains on the tracks. (And thus, more
trains, and thus, more capacity.)

We really, IMO, need 4 rails from SF to SJ, but if Atherton doesn't want to
give up a few trees, I can only imagine the hell that would get raised for
more _space_. That, and funding.

> _Bury five of the crossings._

AIUI, Mountain View considered this (grade separation) w/ the
Castro/Moffett/Central intersection, but decided against it, opting instead
for simple removing the crossing. (The wrong decision, IMO. I'd bury the
train, but I think the (canned) plan was to bury the road, as it would be less
disruptive.)

~~~
nostrademons
That was my understanding as well. Someone did an analysis when I was at
Google and concluded that there was basically no way to optimize the rush-hour
schedule further and pack further trains in, given reasonable
acceleration/deceleration constraints and station boarding times. I've also
had the experience of sitting at the Castro/Moffett/Central crossing for 20
minutes as 3 trains go by and block every opportunity for a green light.

"AIUI, Mountain View considered this (grade separation) w/ the
Castro/Moffett/Central intersection, but decided against it, opting instead
for simple removing the crossing."

Wait, are they getting rid of the Castro crossing? This seems...strange, given
that that crossing is the primary highway access to downtown (via 85), one of
the primary routes between the Googleplex and downtown/Castro, and also links
a densifying residential neighborhood to downtown. Are they getting rid of the
bus service between Caltrain and the Googleplex as well?

~~~
deathanatos
> _Wait, are they getting rid of the Castro crossing?_

That's my understanding. See
[https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/pw/transport/services.asp](https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/pw/transport/services.asp)
— specifically, the section titled, "Transit Center Master Plan" and the
diagram on that section. See also the link in that section that points to
[http://www.mountainviewtransitcenter.com/](http://www.mountainviewtransitcenter.com/)
and the images on that page, particularly
[http://www.mountainviewtransitcenter.com/images/Castro%20Vie...](http://www.mountainviewtransitcenter.com/images/Castro%20View.jpg).

I originally just heard this through a friend who is more active in MTV
politics that I am, but that seems to be the official info/site for it.

~~~
nostrademons
Oh. There's actually a bunch of really good stuff in that plan - the rail
crossing is being replaced by pedestrian/bike undercrossings, Evelyn is being
extended to Shoreline, and a protected bike lane goes from Steven Creek trail
to the transit center.

IMHO they should just get rid of the 101 & 85 Moffett interchanges. It's close
enough and low-traffic enough that residents can just use
Shoreline/Ellis/Whisman. That would make Moffett a prime bike boulevard
between downtown & Caltrain and the Googleplex via Stevens Creek Trail, which
would make Caltrain + bike into Google (and the Ellis office park area) very
attractive, which would take cars off of 101 & Shoreline, which is desperately
needed.

~~~
DrScump

      they should just get rid of the 101 & 85 Moffett interchanges
    

85? Aside from the SB Moffett to SB 85 onramp, I don't know of an 85/Moffett
"interchange".

~~~
nostrademons
There's a both-directions Moffett (NB has a left-turn lane) to SB 85 onramp,
and an NB 85 to both-directions Moffett offramp. I used to live in the area,
so this would be my primary highway access (along with 101 <-> Moffett).

Both are kinda superfluous - it's less than 1/2 mile to the Shoreline
interchange (with access to SB 85, SB 101, and NB 101), and other than the
apartment/condo complexes on Moffett/Cypress Point, the neighborhoods in that
area tend to have easier access to either Shoreline or Ellis. It probably made
sense when Moffett was an active military base and NASA/Ames was a big
employer, but now traffic on NB Moffett is miniscule.

------
almost_usual
It'll continue being a problem. Housing has become the gold of California and
those who have the gold don't want more of it otherwise the value drops. There
is no incentive right now for California home owners to want more housing.

~~~
thorwasdfasdf
What about when they realize their children and Grand children are all moving
out of state? only to be seen once per year again.

~~~
almost_usual
From what I've seen the parents stay around, the kids move out of state,
eventually inherit their homes, and then either rent the homes or cash out but
face a huge tax penalty.

Older people have a community and time invested living in a place, it's hard
to motivate them to move or want change. They would also rather their kids get
their financial investment (gold) and have comfort knowing they'll be taken
care of when they're gone.

~~~
nostrademons
Most seem to be selling their homes (or the kids are selling their homes). A
majority of the open houses I've been to have been older parents selling their
homes & moving to cheaper regions now that the kids are grown, or dead parents
passing their homes to adult kids who sell them. Few people want to be
absentee landlords in California, where tenants have all sorts of rights &
protections.

Don't really blame them, $2.4M for the house that your parents paid $200K for
isn't bad when you can still buy that $200K house in much of the rest of the
country.

~~~
sharadov
There is no sense in renting them as well, I rent a 1.6 million dollar house
for $4200/month. Of course, the owner bought it for way less, but I would
rather sell, take the money and invest it elsewhere and get a better return.

~~~
r00fus
It makes sense if you think that property values and rents increase over time.

Also if there’s any likelihood you move back.

~~~
nostrademons
Only if you also believe that the other assets you could be investing in
(stocks, bonds, sweat equity in a startup, cryptocurrency, an apartment block
in Portland) _won 't_ increase over time.

The money you save in interest doesn't just disappear - if you have any
financial sense, you invest it in an asset that yields more than 3%/year.

------
Bhilai
And yet somehow silicon valley companies are oblivious to this. I have had so
many recruiters disappear on me when I mentioned upfront that I cannot move to
the bay area. It was surprising because some of these companies have small or
satellite offices in the city I live in and yet they want "co-located" team
members only.

~~~
thorwasdfasdf
outside the valley, recruiters aren't really needed (or at least not so much
as to warrant the enormous bonuses they get for SF/PA). Recruiters get paid
big bucks in Palo Alto and SF precisely because there's no housing there, thus
it's much harder to convince people to move there and work there.

companies don't care because it's easier to pay recruiters big bonuses than it
is to ask VCs or CEOs to get on an airplane a few times a year.

------
notTyler
Another article about how San Francisco is prohibitively expensive!

I think more mid to big companies should consider investing in moving to some
of these areas where there's little to nothing else. If you look at something
like Epic in Madison WI, they basically own that town in that sector, so a lot
of people end up working there a lot longer than they want to because they've
invested in that area (whether economically, emotionally, or something else).

~~~
rubicon33
The problem is nobody wants to live in Madison WI.

If you're a top performing engineer you're likely to want to head straight to
the epicenter of tech innovation. You want to knock heads with the best of
'em, and that isn't in Madison WI or any other small town.

~~~
JBReefer
As a New Yorker, this comment is hilarious. Madison is about a third of the
size of SF. As a polite reminder, SF is a little more than a third of the size
of Queens, and fundamentally still kind of a small town compared to real
cities. It's about the same size as Hempstead, NY which is certainly a small
town. Hell, I bet more people bike to work as a % in Madison than in SF.

Lake Nebagamon WI is a small town.

~~~
rubicon33
This comment is hilarious. You assumed (incorrectly) that we're talking about
just SF. Try the entire Bay Area.

It's also worth pointing out if it's not already clear, that "small" does not
always refer to population size, or even geographical expanse. "Small" can
refer to accomplishments, and impact/significance in the tech world. By
comparison, Madison WI is quite small.

And for the record I don't live in the Bay Area. Nor do I want to.

------
baxtr
When I visited SF and the valley a while back I wondered about all the low
rise buildings in many areas. Homes with 2 stories max. While I think it’s an
essential part of the areas’ culture I wondered why the space above is left
unused. Because of geological reasons? Esthetic reasons?

~~~
duckfruit
Only one reason: Greed

Homeowners want to see their investment appreciate, plain and simple, and will
do anything and make up any justification to impede development so as to
reduce supply and increase home values. Pretty much any argument, any rule,
that restricts housing ("ruining neighborhood character", "affecting the
historic value of the neighborhood", and in almost all cases, "environmental
impact") can be understood if seen through the prism of selfishness. Never
mind that people's lives are more important than obtuse feelings of
'neighborhood character', and never mind that the reason the shitty silicon
valley house you bought in the 70s is worth millions only because of the
blood, sweat and tears of all the people who came here and started companies
and built things.

As you can probably guess, I'm pretty disillusioned at probably not ever being
able to ever afford a place to live in the place I call home. (And I'm a
relatively well paid engineer, others have it much worse).

~~~
almost_usual
This is normal for any investment, why would anyone want their investment to
depreciate? I also don't understand why so many people in San Francisco want
to own a home. Owning a home in San Francisco is a giant pain in the ass.
Everything is ridiculously expensive once you own. These homes are 100+ years
old and most need updates and earthquake retrofitting (that's $100k+). You pay
an obscene amount in property taxes and have to go through the city to change
nearly anything. Once you do get approved you have to find a contractor and
most contractors are on giant month long waits because there aren't many in
the city. It's a pain, honestly I don't understand why anyone would want to
buy when you can rent and be on rent control and not worry about any of these
headaches.

~~~
bendmorris
The problem is housing being treated as an investment, resulting in
artificially high prices and limited supply for the people who need to live in
it.

We should buy housing to live in, not to extract rent from the suckers that
were too late. A land value tax would help lower prices and remove the
incentive to treat housing as an income source.

~~~
almost_usual
So how does this argument convince the population who has invested into their
homes to suddenly want to devalue their property?

~~~
kamaal
Anybody who thinks they can drop $1.5 million+ into an asset without risk
needs reality check on how entitlements don't work. Besides the world doesn't
owe any one an insurance for stupid ideas.

~~~
almost_usual
Once again how does this argument convince the voters and home owners to
change their mind?

------
tzs
If more companies would let people work at home 3 or 4 days a week, there
would be a lot more housing options.

There are plenty of affordable homes in the San Joaquin valley, close enough
to San Francisco to do a round trip on one Tesla charge. Every time I check
Redfin, for example, Merced has plenty of 3 or 4 bedroom houses in the 1700 sq
ft range for under $300k. Modesto also has plenty under $300k, and is even
closer to San Francisco.

Merced or Modesto doesn't have anywhere near the cultural offerings San
Francisco has for your off work time, but again, San Francisco is close enough
that a weekend trip is not a big deal.

~~~
seattle_spring
I'm sorry but suggesting a 5-6 hour commute round-trip, even once a week, is
absolutely not a reasonable solution.

------
pmiller2
Clickbait title. 99% of the article is about the Bay Area, where we already
_know_ there’s a housing crisis.

~~~
SubiculumCode
Its in Sacramento too. Just saying. Sure, not Madera, Visalia, Fresno, or
Stockton.

~~~
scruple
What is the housing crisis in Sacramento? I only ever read about the Bay Area
and occasionally Southland.

~~~
PhoenixReborn
It's a housing crisis by spillover - all the people in the Bay Area who can't
afford houses there are going to Sacramento instead. Here's a particularly
pointed and opinionated editorial on the subject:
[https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/erika-d-
smi...](https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/erika-d-
smith/article174139716.html)

------
UweSchmidt
One of the symptoms of communism as experienced in Eastern Germany and other
countries was the scarcity of many things. People formed long queues when rare
goods (e.g. bananas) happened to be available and spent a lot of effort to
procure necessary items (parts and materials to repair a vehicle or fix their
appartment).

Occasionally we find this kind of queue-forming scarcity in western market
based economies, even though the laws of supply and demand handle most
situations quite well. To me this is not just an irrationality, it's a bit of
a disgrace. With all of the shortcommings of capitalism, at least it ensures
that a good substitute product is always available.

Be it a job market with affordable housing, a mobile phone or a movie, or a
restaurant with friendly service and fair prices: Whenever I spent a few
moments to look around, I never fail to find an excellent choice of suitable
products and services.

On the other hand, outside of communism, a horde of irrational customers who
insist on having a certain scarce thing cannot possibly be satisfied. Prices
go up and/or the provided value goes down.

I wish for everyone to recognize the workings of the laws of supply and
demand, and a happy life in any of the great tech/startup cities of the world.

~~~
epistasis
The scarcity problem is well understood in the Bay Area: government works hard
to disallow new housing. Cities here zoning for lots of jobs, but they do not
allow residences for those who work at those jobs.

The irrationality is simply bad planning by local governments. They are
extremely strict in what they allow, and they do it in a way that maximizes
profits for current residents, at the expense of anybody who comes along later
(through birth or migration). This is pure regulatory capture.

------
11thEarlOfMar
There are currently 50 development projects in the city of Santa Clara,
population ~130,000. Most are residential. Many residential development
projects that are active are tearing down light industrial and replacing with
apartments and condos. For example, this 347 unit project described as
follows:

"Project Description: SummerHill Apartment Communities proposes to demolish
three existing light industrial buildings on a 3.06-acre site within the
Tasman East Specific Plan area and replace them with one 347-unit apartment
building and dedicate 0.4178 acres to be a City of Santa Clara park, which
will include a dog park and children's play area. The proposed park also
includes walking and bicycling paths which will connect into the broader
Tasman East bicycle and pedestrian network. The proposed apartment building
will include two stories of above-ground parking, seven stories of residential
units with associated building amenities and a community garden. SummerHill
proposes a total of 275,000 square feet of new residential area with 396
vehicular parking spaces and 24 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project
will include street and utility improvements and a lot line adjustment and
merger to create two new parcels (one for residential and one for city park)."

[http://santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/Bu...](http://santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/263/2495?npage=3)

Here is the full list:

[http://santaclaraca.gov/businesses/development-projects-
stor...](http://santaclaraca.gov/businesses/development-projects-story-
map/development-projects-list/-npage-1)

~~~
pthomas551
Having a project in the city database means little until shovels get put in
the ground. Plenty of zombie projects are on the books in my town. Even if the
project is active, it often takes years to get all the permits.

------
eweise
Random house in Concord CA easily commutable by bart to SF under $600K
[https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/18386554_zpid/globalre...](https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/18386554_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.950642,-122.033351,37.947034,-122.038335_rect/17_zm/)

~~~
moorhosj
Google maps says it’s about 1.5 hours to Market Street arriving at 9am. $600k
for a 1,000 sqft house with 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom in a horrible school
district with that commute isn’t really a good deal.

~~~
Balgair
Horrible School District!? MDUSD isn't all that bad, is it? Granted it's been
a while since I was there.

YV isn't College Park, sure, or De La Salle, but it ain't Mount Diablo.

I guess things have _changed_ then.

Also, 600 for that house is a bit of a steal. My folks live across 680 in PH,
and the house next door just went for 950 a year ago.

In the end, all these comments are just dancing around the real issue: Prop
13. Nothing will make sense in CA housing until Prop 13 is revoked and the
inevitable wild swings in the housing stock then settle down.

EDIT: Ok, that's right, I forgot. YV is like 4 blocks from De La Salle. So,
they take all the good students and leave all the rest of the 'poor' students
to go to YV. I forgot. If you look at all the other High Schools in the area,
they're all 8/10 or 9/10.

~~~
moorhosj
==If you look at all the other High Schools in the area, they're all 8/10 or
9/10.==

And this house would be even more expensive if it was in the boundaries of
those schools. $600k for a house that size, more than an hour outside of a
city, with poor local schools is astronomical.

Prop 13 deserves a lot of the blame. However, at some point the prices reach a
point where people will just move to New York, Boston, Chicago, Philly,
Austin, Nashville, Portland, Dallas, etc. In Chicago, we have already seen
some of this with companies like Foursquare, Google, Facebook, Coinbase and
Salesforce opening more engineering-focused offices in the past couple of
years.

~~~
sharkmerry
I think prop 13 is 99% of the issue. It disincentivizes moving at an
increasing rate the longer you hold on. Taxes rising with market value
prevents this acceleration.

Average home value in Palo Alto is 2,901,408. Average Property tax is 0.42%.
$12185.88. Thats the equivalent tax bill of a new house worth 1.2 million,
less than 50% of the average house value in Palo Alto

------
neonate
[https://outline.com/hkanFb](https://outline.com/hkanFb)

------
andrewprock
This is the natural effect of the passage of Proposition 13. When you cannot
raise real estate taxes to keep up with inflation, residential real estate
becomes a liability for governments, not an asset.

California has had to turn to business development to make up for the short
fall. From an economic perspective, the government has a high demand for
commercial development, and a low demand for residential development.

~~~
pthomas551
(Not) looking forward to CA millennials turning into NIMBYs when they inherit
properties with super low Prop 13 tax assessments. Passive rental income with
minimal property taxes is a hell of a drug..

------
melling
Nothing that futuristic mass transit couldn't fix.

Fortunately, China is already building it. Something that travels around 100
mph should do the trick.

[https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/china-driverless-
maglev-t...](https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/china-driverless-maglev-
trains/index.html)

------
evo_9
How about allowing remote workers? I don't get the resistance to it.

I pay for my computer. I pay for my own coffee/tea. I pay the electrical bill.
I pay for my phone/internet. My quality of life goes up massively.

God forbid we work remote and avoid traffic and all the headaches of
commuting.

~~~
orestes910
I think it comes down to performance measurement being a really weak area for
many companies. No one really knows whats real when it comes to output over a
40 hour week, and so bosses are afraid of getting shafted by an employee whom
they can't see toiling away at their desk.

It's all but fact that a 40 hour work week doesn't result in 40 hours of
productivity. Those non productive hours are seen as acceptable in an office
for some reason, but when you're at home and can fire up a video game, it's
sacrilege.

~~~
colordrops
The fact is that not everyone has the discipline to be productive while
working remotely, and a company requires a different way of hiring, operating,
and measuring to support remote work.

------
jelliclesfarm
California also has fixed borders. And limited resources like water and
crumbling infrastructure. Failing public education. 40 million people. How
many more homes can we build? More homes = more infrastructure, shrinking
land, loss of habitat and nature, strained water, over crowding, more schools,
more support jobs(low pay), more cars on the same roads, more consumption,
more pollution. 45 percent of the state budget goes to public education and it
is one of the highest tax collecting states. If we don’t think of a way to
hack this situation, California will become a failed state and bankrupt.
Sooner than most of us fear.

~~~
tathougies
What bubble are you living in to think California has no space. If there's one
thing California has more than enough of, it's open space. I suggest driving
on one of the myriad freeways for a few hundred miles and then tell me there's
no open space. It's actually space that is the problem, because everyone wants
the low-density SFH that the space affords. No one wants to invest in higher
density housing.

~~~
stcredzero
He is right about the alarming ratio of public school funding to public school
failure.

California's problem isn't space. It's NIMBY. CA's gone so NIMBY that
regulations stifle the younger generation's ability to build and buy their
homes. My wife and I went to open houses this weekend. Young Berkeley
professors can't afford to live where they work. Young teachers can't afford
to live where they work. This sort of thing is a societal recipe for disaster.

(Long, but consider this a documentary on how NIMBY has affected housing in
California, from the POV of a cool landlord.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8x4CWBMsPg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8x4CWBMsPg)
)

~~~
throwawaysea
I see repeated painting of this as generational warfare, but it isn't. It's
more that younger generations feel entitled to live in one of the most
desirable places in the world, at the prices they want, doing the jobs they
do. I would like to live on the beach in Hawaii - should I be able to have
that no matter what? Should everyone be able to?

It makes sense that the Bay area would be priced high given its tremendous
desirability (which may be tapering off now). If people are willing to work
there for low wages, then that is their choice - they have opted into a
tradeoff they are OK with, and they/others should not demonize those who were
already there and want to preserve their culture/way of life/standards of
living. There are numerous affordable places to live in the US that are not
[New York, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.] - you may not have every big city
amenity you want, or maybe even be able to do the exact job you want - but
such compromises are also just a regular part of life, aren't they?

To me the reframing of this issue as a generational war, or a rich versus poor
thing, or use of pejoratives like "NIMBY" serves to distract from the plain
truth, which is simply that people are acting in their own self-interests. And
yes, this includes the folks who believe they have an unalienable right to
live in the Bay area.

~~~
stcredzero
_which is simply that people are acting in their own self-interests. And yes,
this includes the folks who believe they have an unalienable right to live in
the Bay area._

It's not actually in people's self interest. A society that creates severe
divisions courts social unrest. Perceptions of relative status are directly
linked to social unrest and lawlessness. This is operating in people at a
level below consciousness, and the evolutionary roots of it probably predate
human language.

Of course, no one has an "unalienable right to live in the Bay area." This is
technically correct. However, it's still pretty crappy if the Bay Area prices-
out everyone except for techies living there. Just because you _can_ buy it,
doesn't mean you should. Just because you can keep it for yourself, doesn't
mean you necessarily should.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
Exactly. Anyone can buy into Stockton.

But many don’t and they chose Bay Area because they want to...see the key
word? ‘Want’? You are saying that the vulnerable society’s ‘want’ is weighted
more than the non vulnerable section of society.

Why? I do this all the time. I call it the ‘Five Whys’ method. If you can
answer five consecutive ‘Why’s ..issue will clarify.

~~~
stcredzero
_Exactly. Anyone can buy into Stockton._

(Tangential: One of the best musicians I know took great pains to move to SF,
for artistic reasons. He took great pains to move away from Stockton. I think
I'll ask him about your observation above.)

 _You are saying that the vulnerable society’s ‘want’ is weighted more than
the non vulnerable section of society._

Incorrect. What I'm saying is that causing the de-facto division of society
into separate castes is a recipe for social disaster.

[https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-fuels-an-
info...](https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-fuels-an-informal-
caste-system/)

In addition to markets, there are certain wired-in facts about human
psychology. Perceived relative status, if the gap is too wide to let people
feel dignified, directly causes social unrest. It's just not smart for the
segment of society that controls resources to let that situation come about.
That's just how people work. The psychological and social science research on
this is clear.

 _Why? I do this all the time. I call it the ‘Five Whys’ method. If you can
answer five consecutive ‘Why’s ..issue will clarify._

My hunch is that you've strawmanned your particular whys. Judging from other
parts of this thread, I would probably agree with all of your answers and
conclusions, yet I still come to a different conclusion.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
I don’t see a problem with a fragmented society. It makes for diversity. We
should alleviate hardship but it’s not our social responsibility to form a
homogeneous society on the basis of wealth.

Dignity is not about living in the Bay Area. Those who live in Bay Area and in
nice homes may even suffer indiginities at work that facilitated their status.

The psychological and social study is actually not clear. We don’t have true
poverty in this corner of our western world like in India or Bangladesh or in
some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have relative poverty.
Cupertino folks are poorer than those in Atherton. Hayward is poorer than
Cupertino. Visalia is poorer than Hayward. There will always be hierarchies.
There are enough studies to back that tho’.. And hierarchies are important.
They are the furnaces from where societies are tempered.

Making assumptions is easy. None of us can be saviours of others. We can only
be saviours of ourselves. It’s ok not to be a super hero in our story. We
don’t even have to be hero’s. I would rather that we aspire not to be
villains. But again..that pesky thing called free will. So there’s that..

~~~
stcredzero
_We don’t have true poverty in this corner of our western world like in India
or Bangladesh or in some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have
relative poverty._

Relative poverty, _specifically,_ is what causes social unrest. (Perhaps here
is another hole in your social sciences education?)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE)

 _There will always be hierarchies. There are enough studies to back that
tho’.. And hierarchies are important. They are the furnaces from where
societies are tempered._

I am also pro-meritocracy. Pareto is as widespread as the normal distribution.
Sure. I'm also down with the idea that different groups will know different
things and so will have vastly different outcomes in the economy. Thomas
Sowell is a personal hero of mine, and I own and am working through something
like 5 of his books.

 _I would rather that we aspire not to be villains. But again..that pesky
thing called free will. So there’s that.._

Octavia Butler's viewpoint in her books generally, but especially in the
_Parable of the Sower_ series, is valuable for its observation that much of
human conflict is determined below the level of consciousness. Society can't
ignore those forces, precisely because they can override conscious rationality
and are powerful enough to tear even the most powerful societies apart.

Principles are important. However, we are not creatures of pure rationality.
If a society tries to live as such, purely on principles, it will fail.
Probably through its elites becoming out of touch. California to a T, through
and through.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
I am familiar with gini coefficient...I don’t understand the relevance of the
video tho’...if you want to normalize the gini coefficient, then all welfare
programs and benefits have to be scrapped. Minimum wages and rent controls
have to be abolished. No more affordable housing quota by the state.

So I am confused why you’d bring that up..unless you support the measures
above. When free market forces take over, things will fall into place.

Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don’t live in a
vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting
changes in society. This is why things change and don’t stay the same for
‘thousands of years’.

Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour
complex that is irresponsible and dangerous.

Milton Friedman was my thesis subject in college. I get Thomas Sowell too. I
just don’t understand your stance.

Octavia Butler didn’t finish the Parable series. Writer’s block. Maybe there
was a reason why..badly plotted.

You say: ‘Principles are important’. True. But your principles are important
only to you. I may define mine differently.

We are not rational animals but we are all ‘rationalising’ creatures. I don’t
see the relevance either bring to this discussion.

~~~
stcredzero
_if you want to normalize the gini coefficient, then all welfare programs and
benefits have to be scrapped. Minimum wages and rent controls have to be
abolished. No more affordable housing quota by the state._

I would be for that.

 _Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don’t live in a
vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting
changes in society. This is why things change and don’t stay the same for
‘thousands of years’._

Sure. The violent kind, no one should need in the USA in 2019.

 _Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour
complex that is irresponsible and dangerous._

Keeping violence out of society is simply a good idea. You can't have commerce
and markets without order. Giving people the opportunity for the pursuit of
happiness is a good idea. Everything which is the "fabric of life" should be
within the means of everyman and everywoman. I think this should be achievable
in the free market. The organizations and forces which dominate society have a
_practical_ obligation to provide such things. Historically, it's a good way
to make money. Also, the disappearance of true everyman/everywoman activities
and goods seems to be associated with dying industries trying to hold on by
raising prices.

I think you and I would agree that giving stuff away would create more
problems than it would solve. That's not what I'm proposing here. Also,
saviors are dangerous. The real ones wield power in a more concentrated form
than is wise.

 _I just don’t understand your stance._

Markets aren't the be-all end-all. They're just a tool. Everyone in business
should be biased towards getting ahead by creating delight and avoiding
resentment. On one level, that's just good brand management. On another level,
the dignity of all levels of society is necessary for a long lasting, healthy
society. Powerful people all working together informally and voluntarily
towards this end are the hallmark of the healthiest societies.

 _You say: ‘Principles are important’. True. But your principles are important
only to you. I may define mine differently._

Making sure large swathes of the public don't feel put upon is something to
keep in mind as well. Principles may not be important at all, to minds taken
by instincts more deeply rooted than rationality. Like the status calculations
of young men and women who decide they no longer have a stake in society.

 _We are not rational animals but we are all ‘rationalising’ creatures. I
don’t see the relevance either bring to this discussion._

You seem to be biased towards prioritizing only principles, rationality, and
markets. Those are great, but they don't cover everything.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
Ok.

1\. No one is going to get violent because they can’t find housing in the Bay
Area. 2\. Violence is a very expensive endeavor for human beings. It extracts
lives, property and depletes resources. Most human beings avoid violence
unless they have nothing to lose. This is what happens in war torn areas. 3\.
People MOVE when resources become scarce. That’s why America is made of
immigrants. From the time it was formed, people MOVED in from places that got
too crowded or when resources became thin. Trying to cram everyone into one
tiny desirable geographically area in California is exactly the opposite of
what to do to avoid violence due to social unrest. 4\. This is a land of
opportunity. People TAKE opportunities. Spoon feeding and force feeding after
the threat of malnutrition is not the same as offering a plentiful plate of
food. There is ‘fabric of life’ beyond certain zip codes in California. 5\.
Asking property owners to give up quality of life and environment for higher
density homes with minimal benefit to them is most definitely asking them to
GIVE UP something. 6\. There is dignity outside certain zip codes in
California. This is bordering on nonsensical now. I fail to understand the
import of your communication. We have a hot housing market where people below
a certain earning potential are priced out. And there is theatrics all over.
News flash: This happens everywhere in the world. Every single decade. Only in
California is this about loss of dignity and potential for violence and
obligation of retired old folks to give up their homes for high density while
on fixed incomes because someone just out of college can’t afford a mortgage.
7\. No. We can’t cram everyone who wants to live in the most desirable zip
codes in California because that means they lose dignity. 8\. And no. We can’t
make everyone happy. We can’t make everyone feel not resentful. We can’t
control how people feel about their entitlements or inadequacies or whatever.
The best we can do is NOT enable it. Bringing this to a conclusion. No. We are
built out. Some of us want quality of life. Some of us don’t. Some of us can
afford to live where we desire. Some of us can’t. And there is a whole lot of
us in between the book end choices.

Sometimes it’s better NOT to act outside one’s sphere of influence. If you
feel that more people need to move in a low density area, feel free to
demolish your home and built multiple dwellings in it. Maybe you can
evangelize your position and convince others. Be the change you want to see,
but don’t expect others to be the change you are unable to create yourself. It
doesn’t say so in the rulebook of life. It has only three things: Welcome.
Live. Die. You can define that any way you want and find meaning in it for
yourself only.

~~~
stcredzero
_1\. No one is going to get violent because they can’t find housing in the Bay
Area._

More professors are radicalizing kids, and there are even examples of
indoctrination of children at grade school levels documented. There are more
campus

 _2\. Violence is a very expensive endeavor for human beings._

There is an expansion of the amount of it committed by the Far Left in the US
for the past several years. Before Christchurch, the Far Left had doubled the
death toll of the Far right for the past two.

 _Trying to cram everyone into one tiny desirable geographically area in
California is..._

A part of how cities create wealth. The economic activity of SF would be
expanded by taking up the difference in density between it and NYC.

 _5\. Asking property owners to give up quality of life and environment for
higher density homes with minimal benefit to them is most definitely asking
them to GIVE UP something._

Is not asking them to give up quality of life. They could also move, by your
same logic. Having more money, this would be far easier for them than for
people working in restaurants and assistant professors and teachers.

Your "Asking property owners to give up quality of life" is actually rich and
powerful people manipulating laws to stymie growth and market forces.

 _6\. There is dignity outside certain zip codes in California._

Is there dignity in being forced to move away from one's home? It depends.

 _7\. No. We can’t cram everyone who wants to live in the most desirable zip
codes in California_

We have historical precedents that indicate we can have about 30% more.

 _We can’t control how people feel about their entitlements or inadequacies or
whatever._

We can avoid obvious rigged games and broken markets. Those things stick out
like a sore thumb as something unfair.

