Hacker News Reader

Comment by pavanky | Hacker News Reader

That is probably the most condescending thing I've seen on hacker news (and I've seen a lot of that).

The protesters may be wrong in their methods and they are probably fighting for a losing cause. But to say people made bad decisions in their life because they are not earning twice or thrice the national median income is just ignorant.

You compare SFO wit Chicago. But I am guessing the high earners living in the city also work there, unlike SFO where they commute OUT to work.

There are no easy solutions to this problem. But please do not straight up dismiss it.

Disclaimer: I do not live in the region so I have no idea about the specifics. I just felt the parent comment was wrong.

View on HN

I think the reason why people don't live in Silicon Valley is that it's even more expensive to live there.

I'm also kind of skeptical toward the protestors, mostly because it's confusing to me that people actually expect living in the city to be cheap. Big cities have lots of people and very little space. Therefore, space is in high demand and is really expensive. If you don't want to live in a shoebox, don't live in the city.

California is even more expensive because it's in even higher demand. It has a burgeoning culture scene, a large tech scene, and is a desirable retirement spot. All of these things are pretty much beyond the protestors' control.

Not only that, let's look at their endgame. There are two ways for rent to be lowered:

1. Subsidized housing.

2. Make fewer people want to live in San Francisco.

The first will work in the short term, but it will also drive up taxes in the area. Businesses will then raise their prices. The rich guys will be unaffected - what do they care if eggs now cost $3.00 instead of $2.00? The poor guys will, again, be unable to make ends meet. But at least their housing is affordable!

The second makes me think of cities where no one wants to live like Flint and Camden. I'm sure there's very cheap real estate there, but I wouldn't want my city to turn into it.

3. Allow for the construction of many more housing units.

This allows supply to help satisfy the demand, and is preferable to #1 or #2 by miles. The main objection, it seems, is that people fear that the character of the city will change (at least, so I hear--but is that true?).

Oh, it will definitely change, and I think that a lot of people will view the changes as negative. It means that more lower-class people will live there.

I think that these same people who are conducting protests toward Google would throw a fit if it was suggested. They want affordable housing and the exclusivity that comes with living in an affluent city. They don't want to live in Oakland; they want to live in San Francisco.

Price-rising effects of a subsidy depend on how you do it. Ideally what you'd want is something quasi-Georgist -- you tax rentier profits progressively up to a limit.

  > You compare SFO wit Chicago. But I am guessing the high
  > earners living in the city also work there, unlike SFO
  > where they commute OUT to work.

If all the tech workers living in SF were forced to actually work in SF, that would only make the problem worse. The city is undergoing a crisis because the voters refuse to build enough residential capacity to house its population; what would be fixed by adding more demand for office buildings?

I was not supporting the protesters. That was not my intention. I was trying to point out what was wrong in the parent comment. i.e. comparing SFO to Chicago is wrong for the reasons he mentioned. From your comment and others I have seen, it looks like the problem is the lack of sufficient supply of housing rather than that of high demand.

One easy solution is to make it legal to build more apartments.

Didn't help Brooklyn.

Can you post more info about this?

I'm a software engineer who lives in San Francisco, and pretty much agree with everything you say in your response, pavanky. No disclaimer :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com