
Poor Kids of Silicon Valley - metasean
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/03/opinion/ctl-child-poverty
======
mgraczyk
This may not be the most popular thing to say, but ... Just move?

If you are the head of a large household living in an area where the cost of
living is too high to support your dependents, you would do a whole lot of
good for them and yourself by starting new in some other part of the country.
At the very least it would be wise to relocate across the Bay.

I realize that people have families, social networks, and small-scale culture
that they don't want to separate from. It's a sad reality, but sometimes the
economic forces that re-balance labor markets require people to physically
relocate. If your labor is not as valuable in a particular geographic region,
it's time to retrain or move. For most people retraining is not an option...

My sentiment is not classist or elitist. The same argument applies to people
of all socioeconomic backgrounds. I have personally relocated for financial
reasons three times in my life. I moved away from home for college, I moved to
a new location for my first job, then I recently relocated to the Bay Area
because this was the optimal place for me to be economically. I did all this
with very little money saved up and with no financial support outside my
paycheck. It has been easier for me to keep in touch with my family than it
would be for these people (I make enough to travel to visit family several
times a year). However, I have made sacrifices and relocated for my personal
financial well-being. If I had a family to look after, I would have (and
arguably ought to have) sacrificed even more.

EDIT: That being said, I fully support relaxing regulation on the construction
of new housing. It would be better if people didn't have to move, but I
believe that even with optimal housing growth there would not be enough real
estate to comfortably house the current lower-middle class population of SV.

~~~
coderzach
> 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
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.

~~~
bsder
> 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
> 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
And the cost of living of most of those areas is quite high _which is what
people are trying to escape_.

------
maerF0x0
It skips some important points. The cost of living is high due to zoning laws
and a lack of building. Subsidizing families' rent will just make existing
landlords richer. It would just drive rents up further. What is needed to get
fewer people bidding on the same unit. If landlords are finding <1 suitable
tenants per vacancy then suddenly it becomes a renter's market.

~~~
mlmonkey
On top of more housing, we need better public transit. Start with running
Caltrain every 10 minutes. Change local transit so that it becomes a feeder
to/from Caltrain, BART, etc. And make it cheaper.

~~~
steven2012
I'm usually against taxes in general, but I'm actually for increasing taxes
and using that to have a completely free mass transit system across the entire
Bay Area. This would provide a tremendous benefit for everyone.

The problem is that unions will take advantage of all that money and increase
wages and pension benefits for their workers instead of hiring more workers
and increasing employment in general. This is what happens when there's an
influx of money, it causes inflation.

~~~
bsder
Note how BART has been expanding down the East Bay over time while Caltrain
has made zero progress.

The problem is that a lot of rich people live right along the Caltrain line
and have been opposing its expansion for decades.

<sarcasm>But it's the unions' fault.</sarcasm>

Try not swallowing so much propaganda next time.

~~~
mlmonkey
Caltrain already runs all the way to Gilroy. You can't really extend it much.
But you _can_ run it more frequently; and that's where you run into union
issues. It's not propaganda that public employee unions are quite resistant to
change; just look at MUNI's Union (in SF) for example.

But that's a topic for another day. :-)

------
SoftwareMaven
The "evidence" provided was pretty weak, IMO. I think the last option, a basic
living allowance, is something we, as a country, are going to have to come to
terms with. As manufacturing continues to automate, even the low skill jobs we
offshore are at risk. It is unlikely everybody in the nation will be able to
find employment as a knowledge worker or a service worker. That is the
direction the world is heading, whether we want it to or not, and, even if
they can all find employment, it's questionable what percentage of service
workers can make sufficient to provide for their needs.

I prefer a minimum living stipend for a few reasons: It doesn't treat the poor
like they are too stupid or too criminal to manage their own lives and their
own money. It allows people the ability to move to more fulfilling (and more
lucrative) employment by providing time for training. It protects kids without
trying to transition parenting responsibility to the state. In general, it
keeps the state out of people's lives, increasing their dignity.

Yes, there will still be homeless people. There will be people who squander
the money. But there will be many who take advantage of it and build a better
life for themselves and all of their posterity. And I prefer to bet on the
general desire of people to better themselves.

The problem is I don't know how to get there from here.

~~~
paulhauggis
"The "evidence" provided was pretty weak, IMO. I think the last option, a
basic living allowance, is something we, as a country, are going to have to
come to terms with"

The issue with this is that once you start giving a basic living allowance,
more and more people will continue to rely on it over time and the system will
eventually collapse.

"I prefer a minimum living stipend for a few reasons: It doesn't treat the
poor like they are too stupid or too criminal to manage their own lives and
their own money."

It's not their money, it's money given to them by the tax payers..and I don't
agree with you reasoning. If you are getting free money from the government,
it means you can't manage your own life. I don't really see how this will
change the view on the disadvantaged.

"It allows people the ability to move to more fulfilling (and more lucrative)
employment by providing time for training."

I don't think this would increase anyone's time for training. I know lots of
people that are unemployed (and get unemployment). You would think with all of
that extra free time, they could finish more projects, learn new skills, or
even get training. Unless they are forced, most just think of it as free money
and don't appreciate it as much as they would if they earned it themselves.
It's the same reason most people can't run a business and why most lottery
winners end up losing it all within 5 years.

"It protects kids without trying to transition parenting responsibility to the
state. In general, it keeps the state out of people's lives, increasing their
dignity."

It doesn't really keep the state out of your life. It will create entire
generations dependent on it. In fact, they will be directly controlling your
life since many will start relying on that money to live.

"Yes, there will still be homeless people. There will be people who squander
the money. But there will be many who take advantage of it and build a better
life for themselves and all of their posterity. And I prefer to bet on the
general desire of people to better themselves."

My issue still is that these costs will only increase over time. The middle
class worker will see tax increases and there will be no incentive to get a
minimum wage job, because you can just get it from the government. This will
also have the added side effect of inflation.

The single worst thing you can do for someone disadvantaged is to give them a
reason to stay exactly where they are in life (and no incentive to succeed at
something more). A basic income does exactly this.

~~~
bsder
> If you are getting free money from the government, it means you can't manage
> your own life.

No particular offense to you, specifically, but this sentiment is something
that makes me rage.

 _There_ _are_ _not_ _enough_ _jobs_ _for_ _everybody_.

We have _MORE_ than doubled productivity since 1970. That means that _HALF_
the jobs since then have vaporized. Gone. Kaput. Never to be replaced.

If you were not "talented" enough to be born into a family that was college
educated prior to 1980, you were in for a very hard time in the future--
_through no fault of your own_. The biggest predictor of whether you will be
poor is whether you were born to poor parents.

And, while everybody always mentions immigrants, I would like to point out
that we have survivor bias. The immigrants that you _know_ SUCCEEDED. Lots of
them got lost along the way. Many of them are still poor--there is a reason
they tend to congregate together in specific city sections.

~~~
paulhauggis
"We have MORE than doubled productivity since 1970. That means that HALF the
jobs since then have vaporized. Gone. Kaput. Never to be replaced."

There are lots of jobs that can't even be filled right now. Many jobs have
vaporized, but there are also plenty of new positions.

With all of the support here for open source, do people even care that jobs
have been lost as a result? As an example, my last company probably should
have hired 5 developers. Instead, they just hired me and used a free open
source product.

So you push for open source and new technology, which reduces jobs, and now
expect a bailout from the middle class? Maybe we should have a tax paid for by
technology and open source companies that have reduced jobs.

"If you were not "talented" enough to be born into a family that was college
educated prior to 1980, you were in for a very hard time in the future--
through no fault of your own"

People can still get into a trade..and make good money without going to
college..yet all of the stats I've seen show this is not happening. Why?

"The biggest predictor of whether you will be poor is whether you were born to
poor parents."

It really is a parenting problem. My parents never taught me about saving,
compound interest, and long-term investments (not just thinking about what I
am emotionally feeling now).

This doesn't mean I can't learn about these things later in life.

I would rather invest in more education (which can teach someone the skills to
be successful in many aspects of life) than a basic income, which will
potentially make a person dependent on it for their entire life.

~~~
bsder
> There are lots of jobs that can't even be filled right now. Many jobs have
> vaporized, but there are also plenty of new positions.

Sure. But mostly it's like this, the Natrona Heights, PA steel mill just got a
very expensive reinvestment and retooling. It now employs about 600 when it
used to employ 4,000.

And of those 600, most of those now require fairly technical training while
the vast majority of the previous 4,000 jobs could be filled with a basic
level of training.

So, you need _at least_ 3,400 jobs to materialize out of thin air.

Even if I assume that you could magically turn all those people into
engineers, until you show me where those 3,400 jobs are, the rest of your
arguments are moot.

The only retort I ever get is: "Well, they should move." Move where? I can
repeat that job-loss ratio for cites all over the US from big to small--
Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Allentown, Poughkeepsie,
Burlington, etc. So, you can't just move _ALL_ of those city's population to
Silicon Valley, Boston, and Austin (although the tech folks are trying very
hard to disprove that statement with their actions by flooding those areas
with people).

 _NOBODY_ has been able to tell me where those jobs that people should move to
are. That's because _they don 't exist_.

> People can still get into a trade..and make good money without going to
> college..yet all of the stats I've seen show this is not happening. Why?

Companies say they want more tradesmen. What they really want are _cheaper_
tradesmen. I don't see salaries rising in the US, at least, so the job rate is
at rough balance.

> So you push for open source and new technology, which reduces jobs, and now
> expect a bailout from the middle class?

I certainly don't wish to reverse automation--especially in things like steel
mills where it replaces very dangerous jobs.

However, you can't just hang people out to dry either. Education doesn't
magically make a job appear (just ask the non-technical PhD's about that).

------
hypnos1
The lack of empathy on display here is astonishing. Is this quality a
prerequisite to participating in the luckier side of the wealth-gap of silicon
valley?

~~~
Domenic_S
Consider the audience, who will overwhelmingly shift to problem-solving mode.
Empathy feels nice but doesn't provide a roof or full bellies.

~~~
comatose_kid
Empathy vs problem-solving is a false dichotomy. Having empathy helps to
better understand the problem, and this understanding can lead to better
solutions.

~~~
Domenic_S
Fair, but I suspect the OP was confusing empathy with _sympathy_.

------
Mz
For people saying "Just move":

I lived on the West Coast (Washington State and two places in California) for
about ten years as a military wife. I had to leave California during my
divorce because I could no longer afford it. I returned to California three
years ago as a homeless person. I returned for my health. My medical condition
is hellaciously debilitating and expensive to treat. Being not so sick to
begin with both raises my quality of life and lowers my cost of living.

I currently live in San Diego County. I have plans to move within the next few
months to someplace cheaper, because (in a nutshell) I would like to get off
the street and I can't afford housing in this county. But, I plan to remain in
California -- because the climate here and the far lower than the national
average levels of ragweed do good things for my serious health problems.

So, I think it's an incredibly shitty position to take to say "just move."
What you are saying is: Only rich people can live where they choose and the
rest of y'all -- fuck you.

I will suggest that is not good for the nation as a whole. Fucking over too
many people is a good way to eventually get to a place where the nation just
doesn't work at all. Not being rich should not be the same thing as being a
prisoner of your problems, with no real options.

~~~
jkot
Hm, stockholm syndrome?

We live in place with better climate than California, 100 meters from sea. Our
total monthly expenses for 3 member family, are probably lower than most
people in SV pay for rent. We rent nice house, insurances, school, etc...

~~~
Mz
Maybe you sort of overlooked the detail that I was a military wife (stated
early in my above comment). I have lived in Georgia, Texas, Kansas, Washinton
state, California, and Germany. I have driven through most states in the
continental U.S. I spent a month on the gulf coast in Port Aransas on my way
back to California. I returned to California from Georgia on foot and
accepting rides, which took roughly two months (actual travel time, not
counting the month spent in Port Aransas).

I am nearly 50 years old and I have been around the block a few times with my
health issues, as well as all over the country. I am a LOT healthier in
California than anywhere else.

This is not some psychological issue and it is not some untested hypothesis.
It is a pretty thoroughly tested understanding of what helps keep me healthy
for less than the average $100,000 annually my medical condition typically
costs.

~~~
jkot
Quite oposite. I dont understand why someone who traveled world and has
medical condition would settle down in California.

Just try Greece for couple of months. Doctors are great here, speak english
and are much cheaper.

~~~
Mz
You don't have to understand my preferences. All you need to do is try to
respect my right to decide for myself what is best for me.

Thinking you have a superior answer for my life after reading a couple of
comments by me on the Internet and saying I should move to another country
because you don't understand my choices is beyond insulting.

~~~
Kalium
> You don't have to understand my preferences. All you need to do is try to
> respect my right to decide for myself what is best for me.

We might respect it, but you haven't made a convincing case that we need to
craft policy around financially supporting it.

~~~
Mz
Okay, let's see if this helps any:

My genetic disorder costs on average $100,000 annually to keep me alive in a
torturous fashion. My oldest son has the same condition. That's $200,000
annually that we "should" be spending on medical care. I am a former military
wife. I am entitled to get that care through the military medical system --
which means at tax payer expense. Though, in reality, most people with my
condition get a lot of that care covered by some kind of state aid and/or
charitable program and the like (as well as often qualifying for disability in
their 30s). Being sick all the damn time means you not only have high medical
bills, you are also can't work.

We have gotten ourselves well and my productivity is rising. I no longer
receive food stamps and I am now well enough to do freelance work to help
support us.

Going someplace where the climate is good for my expensive medical condition
is a financial win/win scenario, good not only for me but also for other
people who would otherwise be getting stuck with the bill.

If you read much about homelessness, helping solve the problems of the
homeless is typically cheaper than trying to "take care" of them while
controlling their lives and so on.

~~~
Kalium
You're partway there. You've made the case that some financial support is
wise. You haven't made the case that it needs to be in a location of your
choice, rather than the minimum needed to keep you as healthy as possible.

If the climate in San Francisco helps a person stay healthy, there are likely
dramatically cheaper places that would have the same beneficial effect.

Assuming, of course, the goal being to produce the required effect for a
minimum of cost.

~~~
Mz
I wasn't asking for financial support from anyone. I was only arguing against
what has been stated in this discussion on HN: "just move." I have my reasons
why I chose to come back to California.

Not that it is actually any of your business, but I don't currently get any
kind of government "assistance."

I'm somewhat baffled as to what you are arguing with me about.

FWIW: Before my life got derailed, I planned to be an urban planner and took
college classes with an eye towards understanding how best to make policy that
serves the human population in that regard, not targeted at "helping poor
people" but also not skewing things in a fashion that causes them unnecessary
hardship, which is basically what we currently do.

~~~
Kalium
My case is the same as it was previously: we may respect someone's decisions,
but that doesn't mean we're going to put financing behind them.

In other words, the best way to help someone might not be handing them
whatever addresses their most immediate problem. Controlling their lives to do
things like administer medical treatment might produce better, cheaper, more
reliable long-term outcomes. Is that "unnecessary hardship"?

Consider that SF's record of attempting to deliver services in-place to the
homeless population has not made much of a dent in the size of the population.

~~~
Mz
_we may respect someone 's decisions, but that doesn't mean we're going to put
financing behind them._

Sigh.

I am not sure if we are on the same page here with what we are trying to
communicate. In some sense, you have to put money behind it in order to
respect it, but perhaps not in any manner that you are meaning by that
comment.

The current state of the U.S. housing situation grows out of the history of
the past many decades, going back to at least WWII. During WWII, men went off
the war and women got factory jobs, consumer items were rationed and car
factories got converted to making military vehicles. You had a lot of de facto
two income households with no kids and no means to have a child due to the man
being on a different continent from the woman. During WWII, savings rates were
as high as 50% during some years, just because there was no means to spend it
all. Luxury items simply weren't available and people in the U.S. were being
encouraged to grow Victory Gardens so that food grown on farms could be used
to supply the military overseas.

The men came back home after WWII and they were entitled to VA benefits,
including help buying a home. Practically overnight, the federal government
put together the financial infrastructure to help large numbers of returning
soldiers buy a house. There weren't enough houses to go around, in part
because WWII was preceded by The Great Depression. So America also had to
create the housing infrastructure overnight. This resulted in Levittowns going
up all over the place, introducing suburbs to the nation.

At that point in time, the average new home was less than 1200 square feet,
two bedrooms, one bath and housed a family with two adults and two to three
children. By 2000, the average new house was over 2000 square feet and housed
a family with two adults and only one child. We have diversified
demographically and we now have a lot more elderly retired couples with no
kids at home, single parents, and other non-nuclear families while at the same
time having a lot fewer housing alternatives in real terms. During The Great
Depression, things like SRO's and boarding houses were a lot more common.
These days, if you are a single young person with not much of a paycheck, in
most parts of the U.S., you wind up renting an apartment designed for a
nuclear family and sharing it with roommates because there basically are no
other viable alternatives.

This is all rooted in housing policy, which is very tied up in things like tax
breaks and financing instruments. If you do not change policy in a way that
makes money/financing instruments more accessible to people currently getting
ugly labels because of their low income or lack of housing or what not --
because, in short, they fail to be what America wants to believe is some
picture of success, as if that were context-neutral, which it very much is not
-- then, no, you aren't ACTUALLY respecting people who are currently being
screwed over royally by our current system.

Fixing it doesn't mean more government dole programs that control the lives of
the recipients. It means altering national policy such that we genuinely need
less of that because market solutions are more available to more people. Right
now, housing policy and financing instruments tie the hands of a lot of
people.

Anyway, I have work to do. I no longer get food stamps and I kind of would
like to eat every day this month. So I need to excuse myself from further
participating here, at least until I get some paid writing done.

Thank you.

~~~
Kalium
Food for thought. Thank you.

------
doki_pen
Fix the public education system so that living in a poorer area doesn't mean
your kids have zero chance at real success. We are moving more and more
towards a caste-system where your parents success is the most important factor
in your own success, as a child. It hurts us all when we don't have the most
qualified people possible performing the important professions.

~~~
nsnick
You could fix both issues by moving out of California. The children could get
a good public education, and the parents could afford a house.

~~~
yitchelle
This is the "just move" solution which, as mentioned by someone else, is not
as easy or possible as it sounds.

~~~
nsnick
I don't think moving across the bay is going to fix their terrible public
education problem.

------
nsheth17
A lot of people here are saying maybe poor people should just move away to
where it's cheaper. Supposedly, the economic arguments are in their favor. If
you can't afford to live here, why don't you just move to where you can?

Counter arguments say the expected "that's not fair to them." But I think
that's missing the point. The real, honest truth is we (speaking as someone
better off) need these people to stay here. If they move away, who will drive
our buses? Who will teach our children? Who will build our homes? Who will do
all the jobs that don't pay well enough for the richer ones among us to do?
(Please don't say machines. We're not there yet.)

Two solutions:

(1) Pay them more, so they can afford to live here. But that begs the
question. Where is the money going to come from? Frankly, it's unlikely we'll
just suddenly start paying construction workers and plumbers and teachers
more.

(2) Subsidize their cost of living. There's probably a case to be made that if
we need people to work these jobs, they should be entitled to some cost of
living subsidies. Maybe create a group of "endangered" jobs that we need but
whose average wages are lower than the cost of living. Anyone who works those
jobs has access to affordable housing, gas credits, etc. It's a run around the
wage market, but maybe it could work.

~~~
emodendroket
> (1) Pay them more, so they can afford to live here. But that begs the
> question. Where is the money going to come from? Frankly, it's unlikely
> we'll just suddenly start paying construction workers and plumbers and
> teachers more.

Why not raise the minimum wage? As you've alluded to, it's not that easy to
just fire all low-wage workers because wages have gone up.

------
andy_boot
Isn't the simple obvious solution just to build a lot more housing? More
supply means lower prices.

~~~
cjensen
No. The Valley is geographically constrained. The mountains enclosing it are
too rugged to safely build on. The best you could do would be to permit high-
rise housing which would provide some expensive housing to the high-end.

A better idea would be to stop permitting any non-housing construction until
the housing to job balance is restored.

~~~
1053r
This is just empirically false. High rise construction is massively cheaper
than the current property values. Per square foot, suburban Palo Alto is $1409
per square foot at the median [1]. Heck, even the Burj Khalifa, the tallest
building in the world, and hardly a bastion of affordable housing, cost only
1.5B / 3,595,146 = $417 per square foot. [2]

More reasonable construction of 10 - 20 stories could easily be put up for
that cost, even once you factor in the high cost of labor in CA.

1 - [http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Palo_Alto-
California/](http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Palo_Alto-California/) 2 -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa)

~~~
muzz
Most of the value in the "per square foot suburban Palo Alto" number comes
from the land, not the structure.

If all those single-family houses were torn down and rebuilt as high-density,
then surely the price per square foot would be cheaper. Property rights are
pesky though.

~~~
ForHackernews
> Property rights are pesky though.

Let developers buy them out. Or theoretically, they could just eminent-domain
a bunch of houses.[0]

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London)

------
pearjuice
Is there any way to read the article in a Web 1.0 manner, with paragraphs and
inline media? I like that CNN is trying to present content in a new manner but
that felt like I was reading the slides of a conference presentation. At some
point I even turned on the sound to make sure I wasn't missing the embedded
speaker's audio.

------
benten10
I don't think the solution is as simple as 'building more housing'(aka giving
permits). It would drive down the prices somewhat, but what's to stop more
engineers from moving in/shortening their own commutes etc? I think the term
we're looking for is 'build low-income housing'. That would make it more
likely that people who need it get it.

~~~
selectodude
More people want to live there? Awesome, build even more. Demand is not
infinite. Ever.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
It may not be infinite, but it is often larger than supply.

~~~
selectodude
It's only larger than supply when you make it illegal to build enough housing
to satiate demand.

------
nikhizzle
How can people of moderate (Silicon Valley) means help?

~~~
Kalium
Push for policy changes that allow for the addition of enough housing to bring
down prices.

~~~
nsnick
Surely, we need more government regulations and programs not less. Removing
zoning laws can't possibly be the solution. Maybe we can have the government
give housing to poor families, thereby taking housing stock off the market and
reducing supply.

~~~
1053r
This is simple supply and demand. Everyone from liberal economist Paul Krugman
[1] to SF board of supervisors member Scott Wiener [2] agrees that California
and bay area housing policies are horrible. The only people who actually like
these policies are the people who are benefiting from them, typically because
they moved to a neighborhood decades ago and are either on rent control or
"rent control for property tax" (aka Proposition 13).

The solution is simple. Set aside a square mile in each city on the peninsula
and zone it such that it is illegal to build a building of less than 10
stories. At the same time, and more importantly, repeal both proposition 13
and rent control statutes.

For step 3, sit back and watch the California economy go into turbo drive as
there is a massive construction boom, which funnels money away from rich
landlords and into the pockets of ordinary construction workers and the
service workers that support both them and the engineers the region's wealth
is built on.

1 - [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-
rent-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-
affair.html) 2 - [https://medium.com/@Scott_Wiener/yes-supply-demand-apply-
to-...](https://medium.com/@Scott_Wiener/yes-supply-demand-apply-to-housing-
even-in-san-francisco-193c1b0c190f)

~~~
jcfrei
Absolutely agree. It baffles me why the tech companies in the area don't lobby
aggressively for reduced zone regulations and restrict appeals to construction
work. The whole bay area would profit massively from a more flexible workforce
and less money being spent on rents (in addition to the construction boom).

~~~
Kalium
Often they do. City residents resist. Palo Alto and Mountain View are good
examples.

------
dvirsky
As someone from outside the US, how much do you need to earn in order to live
well in this area? There was one slide stating a minimum of $100K for a family
of four just to "escape poverty". Is that really the case?

And if so, how do early stage founders who aren't already rich manage to get
by?

~~~
doki_pen
They don't have a family of four. They are usually young and single.

~~~
dvirsky
AFAIK the median/average age of founders is around 40.

~~~
doki_pen
Is that true for tech start ups in the bay area? I'd be interested to know if
the investors have different founder salary expectations for older founders.

------
redthrowaway
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
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
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
Building subsidized housing is only one way to subsidize housing expenses.
There are vouchers, sliding scale housing, mixed income housing, set-asides,
and more.

------
lordnacho
It's quite unfortunate for these folks. I don't have an immediate solution
other than what has already been said about increasing the supply of housing.

But the thing is there's this very valuable network in SV that's been built.
Everywhere where some new innovation is happening, anywhere wealth is being
created, you are going to get this sort of thing happening. People who are at
the cutting edge will be moving ahead in income, but there's always going to
be folks who aren't part of the party. So an income gap will pop up where
there's all this wealth being generated.

I lived in London for a long time, and you saw the same. Millionaires'
apartments in the same neighbourhood as council flats. Kids with chauffeurs,
kids with free school meals.

------
RestlessMind
How are children born into poverty in the first place? How many of them are
"planned" by their parent, vs how many of them are unplanned consequences of
relationships between parents who haven't yet "settled"?

I believe child poverty can be reduced significantly if the society focuses on
_unwanted_ pregnancies. Some ideas:

1\. Better sex education

2\. Cheap / free access to contraceptives - it can be a joint effort with some
charitable organizations

3\. Easy access to abortions - there will be political opposition in certain
parts of the country, but I don't see who opposes it in places like Silicon
Valley.

~~~
emodendroket
Oh, I've got it. Let's institute a policy whereby parents can only have one
child. We could call it the "Single Kid Policy."

------
async7
I've become very concerned after seeing this. I'm about to move to the bay
area on a $125K salary with my partner - not sure what kind of job my partner
will find as he isn't an engineer. It looks like I might have made a mistake
accepting that offer. What do you think? Could someone have a comfortable life
with a $125K salary in Silicon Valley?

I've been poor in my life once, the kind where you don't have enough to eat
and you go to bed hungry (dictatorship country), so I totally feel for these
people. Poverty has a snow-ball effect as someone else noted here, and this
effect could possibly be stopped or slowed down at early stages when you have
the right opportunities, but once this effect has really taken off, it's very
hard to stop it or come back from it.

In my experience, people will work hard to end their sufferings when you give
them the right opportunities. Please remember that: "Whatever the conditions
of people’s lives, wherever they live, however they live, we all share the
same dreams." \- Melinda Gates

------
nsnick
Build more housing.

------
andymcsherry
It's a shame they used a national statistic for income mobility of bottom 20%.
While still not perfect, the area has the highest in the nation among large
populations.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-
incom...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-income-
ladder-location-matters.html?pagewanted=all)

------
jkot
I dont get it. One person on video lives in nice bedsit (garage) and talks
about homeless.

~~~
tlrobinson
But living in a garage is not part of the American Dream™.

------
mdjdk
That's a hard problem to tackle at a national level without the dreaded
Socialism.

~~~
whybroke
Correct. There is a religious libertarian belief that somehow changing zoning
laws will "fix" the problem. No numbers are ever given (maybe prices would
stay level for a few years) And no one notices that the extremely dense
housing of Manhattan did not make Manhattan cheap.

If they want to fix the problem they'd need large tracts of very high grade
housing rented non-profit, (never sold) on government land. The competition
from this would drive prices through the floor.

~~~
nsnick
You have to ask yourself why Manhattan is now cheaper than San Francisco.

~~~
whybroke
No, we need to ask is Manhattan affordable? Are Manhattan prices dropping? Did
they ever?

A 10%-20% price difference is irrelevant and will just disappear in just a few
years anyway.

~~~
nsnick
The price difference will increase if San Francisco continues to not build
enough housing to meet demand.

~~~
whybroke
The price will increase no mater what you do so long as you rely on an
uncontrolled free market in real-estate.

At some point prices will make employing people there impracticable due to
wages and commercial rental. In the current system, that is the price point
the market will reach no mater how many units are built.

------
codeshaman
TLDR: Had an offer to relocate to Sillicon Valley, refused because of the
poor/homeless people all around.

Full version:

A couple of years ago I had this offer to relocate to Sillicon Valley to work
at my company's new office there. H1B visa, great salary, incredible project,
a dream come true.

I live in Barcelona and there are few cities in the world which can compete
with the Barcelona package, even during times of 'crisis' \- great climate,
beautiful architecture, laid back lifestyle and great cuisine.

San Francisco was one of those cities and I didn't want to miss the
opportunity now that I had it. And Sillicon Valley - it's like coming to the
centre of the tech world where history is being forged.

So I came over to explore and see if it makes sense to relocate.

It was my first time visiting the United States and I was so excited !

I had Scott McKenzie playing in my headphones when my train arrived in San
Francisco. It was an emotional moment and I almost felt bad that I didn't have
a flower in my hair :).

It felt incredible to be there. People were smiling and saying 'Hello', there
were techies everywhere and the city looked very nice indeed. I went to Haight
Ashbury and then the Golden Gate park, some guy offered me a joint and I just
sat there listening to drummers and looking at the great, powerful oak (? pine
?) trees surrounding me.

The air, the drums, the joint put me in a state of trance and I felt as if the
city started speaking to me - "Come here, in here there is power, this is the
place to be if you want to change the world'. I've felt it's power, I felt
it's might, I've felt that it's now or never.

But there was something else in it's tone. A kind of strange arrogance and
slight bullying, a kind of 'either you're with me or get the fuck out of here'
kind of vibe.

At first I didn't give it much thought when I saw the homeless people -
drunks, addicts, ex cons, whatever... But then I started to notice that
there's lots of them in the city and as it started to get dark, the streets
became filled with these people - fucked up, strange and scary, outcasts,
abandoned, ignored, useless... I almost ran back to the train station.

The next days that I stayed there I couldn't help but see homeless and the
poor people everywhere and I just couldn't comprehend it.

How is it possible that the place were the greatest fortunes are made is
filled with so many poor people ? I mean, I know it's their lives and they're
responsible for that... but still ? Why did they get to this state ? Is the
society there so 'cruel' that you either make it or fuck off ?

How come there are no homeless (or at least bum-looking) people in Barcelona ?

This contradiction was one of the reasons that I refused the offer to
relocate. I can't explain it rationally - rational people don't base their
decisions on such ridiculous details - but nevertheless it's been a big factor
in my decision.

But there is food for thought there.

That said, I still want to come back to San Francisco and Sillicon Valley,
seems like there's so much to explore there. And I know I will, probably soon
and maybe then I will be able to understand it better. But for now, it's in my
list of mysteries.

~~~
therobot24
> a kind of 'either you're with me or get the fuck out of here' kind of vibe

Oddly enough this is very common in bigger US cities, and not just a SV thing

> then I started to notice that there's lots of them in the city and as it
> started to get dark, the streets became filled with these people - fucked
> up, strange and scary, outcasts, abandoned, ignored, useless... I almost ran
> back to the train station

aside from the whole mental hospital dump [1], warmer climates tend to attract
homeless for a variety of reasons (e.g., on the street + cold weather = gona
have a bad time)

> How come there are no homeless (or at least bum-looking) people in Barcelona
> ?

that's a very good question

[1]:
[http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_lega...](http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/)

------
james1071
This doesn't seem to be that difficult a problem.

The solution is surely transitional payments to get people to relocate.

------
RIMR
Is there an actual article I can read, or I am stuck with this third-grade
picture-book format?

------
pyrrhotech
there's no way the median HH income in san mateo county is 88k

~~~
ojbyrne
You think it's low?

~~~
pyrrhotech
very low. I think they forget how much small business owners cheat on their
taxes. Teachers make more than 88k in San Mateo County

------
kkshin
Good content, but seriously who signed off on actually presenting this content
the way it is presented? Seems like a high school multimedia class project.

~~~
Rainymood
I was _almost_ going to bail on the site because I couldnt scroll through it,
NOR use my arrow-keys, ugh, horrible UX.

~~~
Squarel
Arrow keys worked fine for me

------
taco_emoji
> Use these arrows to advance through the story.

Uh, no.

~~~
ddispaltro
The left and right arrow keys worked fine for me.

~~~
taco_emoji
The interface isn't the issue, it's the PowerPoint format.

------
cabalamat
Didn't read due to ridiculous web design. I don't think I should have to click
between every sentence, nor should I be subjected to a non-standard user
interface.

~~~
TheHypnotist
I guess you aren't terribly familiar with slide shows.

~~~
pconner
The slide show worked well for the visual content (of which there was a lot),
but there was also a lot of content that would be better suited to a regular
article.

