Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryaniscool | Hacker News Reader

There are easier locations to live on $15/hr in California and the USA than Silicon Valley. Some of the people featured in the article have vehicles which implies mobility. I wish the article focused more on the reasons people choose to stay in a place with a ridiculous cost of living that they can't afford. That seems like the real story to me. I'm sure there are valid reasons like family or other things but it's not mentioned at all.

View on HN

Maybe it's hard for them to find work outside of the area and they are living paycheck to paycheck. So any gap in employment would sink them.

It's hard to get out of an area when you're economically distressed. Cutting that tiny lifeline is a massive risk. This is the same problem keeping poor rural people stuck in poor rural areas.

I don't think that's OP's point, the article should talk more about the reason why the housing is so expensive, not just say "because of silicon valley." I would like to know what the problem is as well, as I was under the impression that salaries where connected to the cost of living (i.e. If someone needs a security guard, they should pay comparable to the cost of living in the area their employees would live.)

For home prices: Tech companies pay high wages, and can afford to follow cost-of-living increases (and have to, because demand for tech employees in SV is higher than the supply). Home prices go up because NIMBYism won't allow housing supply to increase along with demand.

If someone needs a security guard, they'll pay the least that gets them someone competent to do the work. For the employer, the question isn't directly connected to the standard of living, it's "can I get a body in the door for this rate of pay?" I'd suspect the pay won't go up, as long as the answer's "yes".

> I don't think that's OP's point, the article should talk more about the reason why the housing is so expensive, not just say "because of silicon valley."

I don't think so;

> I wish the article focused more on the reasons people choose to stay in a place with a ridiculous cost of living that they can't afford.

Perhaps that's open to interpretation, but I took it to mean, why are staying if they can't afford to?

Are there no unemployment benefits at all to cover that gap in the US?

Those locations don’t pay $15/hr. if you can find a job, and you probably can’t. Employment is rising in densely populated areas and not so much in rural areas. This is a little different on the east coast, but that’s a more significant moving investment.

Other services like healthcare in rural areas has eroded to barely existent. I can speak from experience in Oregon.

Moving costs money, something they don’t have.

Finding a new job costs time and money. They’ve got neither.

Unskilled labor in Houston may not get $15/hour, but jobs are pretty easy to come across. I know multiple people who really aren't good at their job (one's a waitress, one works in retail) but they frequently get new jobs when they lose the old (and sometimes have more than one at once). It's not hard to find a $700 apartment here either.

Interesting that you bring up Houston. As someone who lives in Austin and frequents Houston (and have friends living in Houston), I really really liked the city for its great housing at affordable prices, amazing food and nightlife (even though one has to drive fucking everywhere with inhumanly aggressive drivers). Has your opinion changed after the recent Hurricane?

I live in an area where I was unaffected (north of Houston). It really only affects where I'd buy a house in the future, as I'd ensure I'm not near a bayou or creek (my current home, a lease, is outside of that danger zone). If you're open to where you live, and aren't stuck on a certain hot spot, I still think it's a great (if hot with the traffic you mentioned) place to live.

It's interesting you bring up healthcare. My wife's cousin is currently working as a travelling nurse. He get shipped off to some rural part of the country for 8 weeks to (mostly) work the over night shift at various rural ERs.

Apparently it's near impossible to fill the roles otherwise.

Wow. I haven’t heard about that before but I’m not surprised.

Cities that aren't on the coasts exist, you know. $15/hr jobs in Midwestern cities aren't outlandish by any stretch.

We're talking about someone who's struggling to get by in SV. Where are they going to get the money to move their family to the Midwest?

Well, if all your possessions are in an RV, moving your family to the midwest costs gas - that's pretty much it.

Several hundred in gas, I'm guessing, and that may not be such an insignificant amount if you're that much on the margin.

Remember: you almost definitely aren't paying for it on credit in this scenario.

Why not stop participating altogether? It's not hard to leave this system of slavery[1]: it just requires sacrifice.

You don't need to live on the major coasts or in a major city. You can live off the land in the woods, hunting and growing your own clean food, drinking clean water, etc.

[1] https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/n...

I can't imagine someone who has no experience in surviving out in the woods is going to last long.

I wonder when the last time wah that a similar argument was made in the US congress.

Which is very much not cheap. Not to mention, while you're driving from point A to point B, you're not bringing in income. So where are you gonna get the money for gas and food?

It doesn't take months to travel 300 miles by car. Bringing in income during the long trip is not a realistic issue.

It's going to take at least a week, and a lot of gas. We're talking about people who already aren't bringing in much, and so likely don't have anything saved up.

Have you never loaded everything you own in a car and moved before? It does not take a week. And driving 300 miles takes 6 hours in an RV, not 7 days. Within a 300 mile radius of SV is everything from LA to Reno to Eureka.

What world do you live in? 300 miles is like a 4 hour drive on the interstate.

Getting to somewhere in the Midwest from SV is far from 300 miles.

That’s assuming this RV is in sound condition for the trek. That’s quite the assumption given the context but, sure, maybe.

This is true, but it is also not not the point I am addressing.

Well, except maybe in St. Louis, which set a $15 minimum wage only to have it nullified by the state of Mizzureh.

They technically exist, but it's like...would you ever think of opening a business somewhere like Illinois? That's like opening a tin of meat in a school of pirhannas.

I own a business in the Midwest. So, yes, I absolutely would.

Fair enough, to each their own. I like the Midwest a lot, don't get me wrong. It's just not the sort of place I'd go if I wanted to employ people.

More the sort of place I'd go if I wanted to run a small workshop for a year or two. Rent is cheap, and in my experience the people are friendlier than around the coasts so you won't go insane if you aren't willing to take on a second job called 'trying and failing to meet people.'

I did get the feeling it was because I was a white guy, in a lot of cities, but...is it wrong to say that at least they were friendly? As opposed to condescending everyone equally? Probably; I don't really feel comfortable with that line of reasoning...or maybe I just am dealing with mild discrimination and it's hard because so far I've basically been pampered through life on that count? It seems more likely that I'm just overly sensitive, but...fuck, the looks I get from people I've never seen before...I don't know, people are so complicated

Twin cities or Chicago?

Hard to put down a security deposit on a new place when you're completely broke.

But here's the thing: SV still needs 7-11 clerks, still needs fast food workers, still needs coffee baristas, and still needs all of those lower income positions. Automation is nowhere near eliminating all of those positions yet. So if all those people left, where would those businesses hire from?

If more people said "F* this, I don't want to live out of my car" and then drove away to someplace cheaper, business owners would have to raise wages to attract people to either stay or move to the area.

What I'm interested is why has the equilibrium been established where people who aren't making enough to have a decent standard of living choose to stay there.

Relatives? Kids? Friends?

Essentially people are not really fungible. There are costs associated with migration.

It turns out, being poor is very expensive and when you have no money, you have no money to start over somewhere else.

These articles always find insane numbers. People pack into apartments and houses before leaving. I lived in Santa Clara right near the Caltrain tracks, which is in no way a ghetto area. But 2-3 bedroom apartments frequently had 4 or more cars and ~2-4 adults and 1-2 kids. Our apartment was a 3 bedroom 2 bath and was 2500 and we had 3 of us and 3 cars. This was my first apartment after college with two friends, was cheap for me as a junior dev.

Again, with what money? And simply driving away to somewhere else doesn't mean there's going to be a job there that will let you afford an apartment.

They'd pay more for what's left. The customers would in turn pay more. It'd be a crisis then apparently, but one the hiring class could subvert through higher wages across the board.

> Some of the people featured in the article have vehicles which implies mobility

A good friend is a mechanic in the East Bay and services many people out in SF and the entire bay too. Before 2008's housing bust, about 90% of customers had 2 cars and routinely paid in checks or cash (yes really, even for a $3.5k transmission). After 2008, most people got rid of the second car, only ~15% have more than one now, and the credit card usage is about 95%. You can argue something about 2% cash back or something, but the fact is that they don't have the money to cover a brake job, let alone a new OBC.

So, no, most Bay Area families do not have mobility anymore, as they are both using the same car to drive to different workplaces. They can't move, as they don't have the money and trying to 'solve the 2-body problem' is very difficult.

Aside: buy one of these, or something like it: https://www.amazon.com/Reader-Diagnostic-Check-Engine-Light/...

I can't cite the study or article, but I remember reading that even in times of war or famine; people just simply refuse to move. If my memory is good, the study mentioned that less than 15% of the population will move even in these terrible conditions.

The article was basically about the evolutionary fitness of immigrants who came to the US.

Jobs are hard to get by in cheaper places, even if the hourly wage is $15.

As a filthy filthy hobo I can share my own reasons: nice weather, free college, interesting people, not too hard to find gig work, and surrounded by natural beauty. It's one of the best places to be homeless. Weather and ascetics are a big factor IMO. Even filthy hobos can enjoy the lawns of the Presido, the jagged hills of the city, the almost ominous, creeping fog, pregnant with mystery... and you know, the crack scene is totally popping.

Leaving everything and, more importantly, everyone you know is not an easy choice to make. There are many, many reasons—human reasons that pure economics can't capture—to stay in a place. A sense of home. Social support. Simple attachment. Maybe even just stubbornness. Point is, this is about way more than money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com