Hacker News Reader

Comment by eitally | Hacker News Reader

Because in order for cities to function properly, it's important that blue collar workers are able to afford to inhabit them. Un-governed gentrification and unreasonably low levels of low income housing result in situations like exist in the SFBA now, where many middle class households are either forced into extraordinarily long commutes (leads to higher stress, worse health and increased mortality) or cramped living in shared multi-family apartments/houses.

View on HN

What force makes people stay living in the same rented house no matter how bad it makes their life? Somehow people all across America are managing to survive despite not living in gentrified areas. Is SFBA the only place those middle class people can find a job? That sounds kind of unbelievable. Are they unmotivated to move because it's too much hard work? Afraid of losing friends and being unable to make new ones? I know these are costs but they really too high to bear?

Personally, I live in a relatively small city and my income is far higher than my expenses. I once lived in London and the two were almost equal. Life was less comfortable then but I certainly didn't blame the rich bankers for pushing up my rent and bus fares.

"Is SFBA the only place those middle class people can find a job" Do you know how expensive it is to move? I mean, move across the country from the Bay Area? Should people be forced to move into the Central Valley, a 2+ hour train/public transit commute into the SFBA? What kind of crap quality of life is that?

>Somehow people all across America are managing to survive despite not living in gentrified areas.

No, they're not. Employment, especially mid-to-high-wage employment, is geographically concentrated. Most of the land-area of the USA, so to speak, is poor, and getting poorer. Also, remember, 80% of the population actually lives in large metro-areas, not in the countryside.

The thing is, it partly depends on how you feel about societal well-being in general. If you believe these folks are valuable contributors to society, then you should naturally also believe it's important to help them continue doing so in ways that are not hazardous to their health, demeaning, or cause societal breakdowns (homelessness, drug abuse, child endangerment, etc).

If you don't believe they're valuable contributors, I challenge you to describe how any high-CoL metro would successfully function without blue collar service workers.

It's not just about the same house. It's also about moving away from friends, family and support structures that make life better no matter who you are and can make poverty more survivable. And it's about a city's inability to function without people who can pay the rent somewhere close enough to their low-wage jobs (in retail, bartending, waiting tables, etc - at the businesses which make the city desirable to live in in the first place) to make sense for them to work in the city instead of in another community.

> I once lived in London and the two were almost equal. Life was less comfortable then but I certainly didn't blame the rich bankers for pushing up my rent and bus fares.

I don't know your particular situation, but moving in a place you already know is expensive is an entirely different case than being priced out of a place you've already been living. (Plus it's hard to blame individual bankers or techies or whatever for it, it's more of a matter of public policy).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com