
Is the Bay Area pushing people to the breaking point? - sverige
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/24/is-bay-area-pushing-people-to-the-breaking-point/
======
erentz
Rightly or wrongly we live in a world where corporations lobby for all kinds
of things. But the response from Bay Area companies to this growing problem
over the past decade seems to be invisible if it exists.

Do the big Bay Area companies not see this as a threat? Why aren’t they busy
lobbying local and state government on the issue? You hear about Google vs
Mountain View, and small things like that. But there’s no big sustained
campaign to raise awareness of the problem, it’s causes, and it’s solutions.
Heck put up some billboards at least.

~~~
deepakhj
5 out of the 6 top reasons are housing related.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/california-
home-p...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/california-home-prices-
climate.html)

------
temp129838
If you have an average tech job _and_ you are single/partnered (w/ dual
income) with no kids, you are probably relatively fine as far as affordability
goes.

If you have kids or living on a single income for 2 people, then it gets
harder because presumably you'll want to find a more permanent living
situation than renting a bedroom in a larger home with roommates or a small
studio/1 bedroom.

My guess is that the existential crisis/breaking point happens for those in
transition periods in their lives, the most notable those in their 20s/30s who
have recently gotten married and thinking of having their first kid. At that
point, if you haven't been fortunate enough to make enough to afford at least
a small 2 bedroom in a good school area for $1.5m-$2m + school + daycare it
isn't going to very sustainable to keep living here. Plus, many people want
help from their parents to help raise their kids while they continue working,
and unless you're in a situation where your parents are already living here
that would be difficult to accommodate as well.

~~~
maze-le
>> If you have kids or living on a single income for 2 people

Does anyone still live with that kind of family-model? '2 people + kids / 2
incomes' is pretty much standard where I live, no one can afford otherwise --
not even the higher-earning income bracket.

~~~
temp129838
Some, but right almost certainly a lot less than in previously generations...

If one partner made enough to support the whole family _and_ you had kids,
then I imagine there are some families who would want a full-time parent
caring for their kids vs relying on daycare/parents/nanny.

~~~
slfnflctd
If you aren't making at least $40k a year (with a low-stress job), you will
mostly just be treading water covering the cost of daycare, and might as well
stay home with the child. Unless you have other reasons to keep working
besides cash flow.

~~~
maze-le
>> If you aren't making at least $40k a year (with a low-stress job), you will
mostly just be treading water covering the cost of daycare

Ahh, I see... That's actually a rational argument in favour of it. I sometimes
tend to take conditions on this side of the Atlantic for granted -- like 90 €
/ month [+reduction for lower-income parents] for daycare / Kindergarten.

------
samstave
I just accepted a job in santa rosa for a third of what I would have been
making in san fracisco.

I did so, for many reasons, some of which:

* At 44, I experience a hell of a lot of ageism now

* I am burnt out on my previous role - and I had litterly zero passion for the only thing I had pretty much done my entire career

* After spending more than 6 months interviewing with tons of companies, I could literally feel my skills atrophy. My professional vocabulary was starting to fail. I was forgetting really basic things that were previously innate

* Housing sucks in the bay area

* mass transit is an evil joke which punishes anyone who wants to take it

* I am pretty much done with the bay area, and even moving outside it - and not wanting to do what I have done for 20 years will require effectively building up a new path for myself.

Now, I am working in cannabis tech. And I like it way better than ops tech for
what I did before, regardless of the pay.

------
NTDF9
Living in the bay area was good as long as you were single with no stuff, no
attachments, no desire to run home to your spouse/kids. It's very easy to live
with roommates who you don't care about.

As soon as those come in, the 1.5 hour commute + parking + prices starts
biting. There are entire areas of bay area that are so weirdly connected
(because of geography and no public transit) that makes some jobs brutal. Eg:
Living in east bay but working in mountain view-san jose-cupertino. Or living
in San Jose and working in mid-center SF

~~~
derekp7
Are there any park-n-rides in the areas that are a long commute from city
centers? Basically, where you can have cheap housing (because it is far away),
then drive to a large parking structure to pick up a bus, light rail, or
commuter train (or all three)? Also, is it common enough that if you are using
public transportation, where you can VPN in via cellular, and start your day
early (and have that "count" as part of you work day), so that 2 hour total
commute means only 6 hours at the office? Or do most employers frown on that?

This is a really nice option where I'm at (Chicago area), where you can drive
to one of the closer suburbs to the city, park, and hop on the L to get to the
city center.

~~~
NTDF9
> Are there any park-n-rides in the areas that are a long commute from city
> centers?

There are two train lines, Caltrain and Bart. Both have park and ride in
stations outside city limits. For people working in the city, they would park
in the nearest suburban train station and take the train.

The problem is on the other side in the city. A lot of offices are not close
to any train station. Especially if you're coming from the south bay (using
caltrain). Caltrain in the city is in a weird corner. You'll need to take a
bus/uber after the train which is slower than walking sometimes.

> Also, is it common enough that if you are using public transportation, where
> you can VPN in via cellular, and start your day early (and have that "count"
> as part of you work day)

Yes. But the connectivity sucks enough to not be able to vpn often.

> Or do most employers frown on that?

That's between you and the employer. Typically, you'll see many people stay
back longer (free dinners and all that) and that does put some peer pressure.

------
plaidfuji
It really comes down to lack of usable land area. When 7 million people are
competing for a fixed number of parcels jammed into narrow strips between the
ocean, an enormous bay, and development-unfriendly mountains, you end up with
skyrocketing land prices and terrible commutes due to traffic choke points.

~~~
erentz
> competing for a fixed number of parcels

Hmm, what if we changed zoning to allow more people to live on those fixed
number of parcels.

~~~
derekp7
Then you run into issues with things like sewer / water / trash disposal, and
also funneling those people into and out of those parcels. And you need to
take away some of those parcels for increased shopping capacity, parks /
recreation (with families, it is good to be able to access baseball / soccer /
other sports fields, regular parks, etc).

So yes, you can tear down large parts of the bay area, and replace them with
Manhattan, but at that point why not just move to Manhattan which is already
built on that model?

Of course, I'm partial to the model that works where I'm at, Chicago area. You
have the city and everything it brings to it, yet there is bountiful land
surrounding it for having more spread out housing and other development. With
good transportation all around, and a tone of both large and small businesses
built up all around the city, up to 50 miles from the city core (so many
people don't have to commute that far for work).

------
Aaargh20318
The root cause seems to be the same as with most of humanity's problems:
overpopulation.

~~~
temp129838
You either do not live in the Bay Area or you are wildly misinformed. The Bay
Area's housing crisis is caused by a mix of bad zoning laws and rampant
NIMBYism that has blocked enough housing construction to keep up with
population growth. It has nothing to do with overpopulation.

~~~
Aaargh20318
> The Bay Area's housing crisis is caused by a mix of bad zoning laws and
> rampant NIMBYism that has blocked enough housing construction to keep up
> with population growth.

There shouldn't be any population growth to keep up with. The problem is too
many people on too little space. Not sure why people seem to want to live in
cities that resemble ant-hills if it's shown that it makes them miserable and
depressed.

~~~
maze-le
The number of people I know in suburban settings and inner city settings are
fairly equally miserable and depressed though. I kinda don't buy that suburbia
makes a happy-life theme...

~~~
Aaargh20318
I’m not talking about suburbs, if you’re able to walk to a neighbours house
within a day, it’s too crowded.

