Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lawtonfogle | Hacker News Reader

Assuming government resources are needed to be spent to help resolve this, would they not be put to better use helping individuals relocate to somewhere sustainable (especially those who would be making a living wage elsewhere) than to subsidize the difference year after year?

View on HN

I wonder if anyone's asked those poor people what they want.

I've seen a few commenters here suggesting using government money to ship 'em out, or retrain or job-place them, but I wonder: what do the poor in Silicon Valley want for their lives? Do they want to be shipped out? To be retrained? Better wages? Cheaper housing?

These are people, after all, and are worthy of being involved in any discussion concerning their fate.

The problem is that the "poor" people are asking the wrong question. They are asking, "why can't I afford to live where I grew up?" The question they should be asking is, "should I live where I grew up?"

Exactly! A lot of people feel that they are entitled to live in the city they grew up in. They feel that the rising cost of living is unjust, and that they are the victims.

What needs to be understood is that we cannot force the cost of living to drop, and we cannot force the median income to rise.

Either search for a job that pays more, or search for a home that costs less. If that means moving away from where you grew up, then sorry, but that's literally your best option.

Is it fair? No - but life isn't fair. If you find yourself living in a place that you cannot afford, then you are the problem, not the world around you. Fix your own life, because nobody is going to do it for you.

I guess I can't think of a single instance in history where the world was made a better place with the attitude of "life isn't fair, you're on your own".

> Is it fair? No - but life isn't fair. If you find yourself living in a place that you cannot afford, then you are the problem, not the world around you. Fix your own life, because nobody is going to do it for you.

Come on. It's not as though the circumstances that created "Silicon Valley" were natural and beyond the control of anyone; why should we turn around and pretend the side effects were (well, other than it being convenient)?

"we cannot force the cost of living to drop"

That's exactly what rent control does. I guess it's ok to not even try to make an argument on HN these days.

Rent control doesn't force the cost of living to drop: it just shifts it.

The ROI on apartments drops substantially, so investors aren't incentivized to make new buildings, but instead maintain their current ones as cheaply as possible until they're unserviceable.

It does for the people being discussed.

Not necessarily. A poorly maintained, older building may have worse heat insulation or vapour barriers, or problems with mold, or simply less efficient fixtures than modern buildings. Energy and healthcare bills can be substantial, and are borne by the tenants, not the landlords.

What you're really describing is a lower standard of living, not merely a lower cost of living.

There is nothing about not having rent controls that prevents this from happening.

I'm in no way limiting their choices. I am merely discussing the limits that should be put to best utilize limited government resources. If they do not like those limits, they do not have to accept the aid.

The limits you think should be put.

A subsidised construction boom tied to population growth, for instance, would tend to help those on median to low incomes twice over. Once by keeping a lid on the cost of housing and secondly by providing a greater availability of reasonably well paid employment. It also helps those on higher incomes (as long as they are not those whose income is merely dependent on continually soaring house prices), both directly in lower rental costs and indirectly by reducing the cost of local services.

That doesn't address my basic point at all: what do they want for their lives?

Your base point is a question? I assume you meant that your base point is something we should do with the answer to that question. Could you please restate your base point so I do not have to guess what that something is?

My point is, what these folks want for their lives matters in a discussion concerning their lives.

You've said, ship 'em out! Retrain them! If they don't want to do those things, do nothing. What I'm going for is: ask them, too.

It makes very little sense to try to have a conversation about solving a community's problem without listening to members of that community.

>You've said, ship 'em out! Retrain them! If they don't want to do those things, do nothing.

It seems you have misunderstood my point. I'm not saying to load them up and ship them out. I'm saying that if they want help, the best utilization of limited resources will be in helping them move somewhere more affordable. But they don't have to accept help; it isn't being forced on them.

I'm saying offer options, not enforce demands.

And I keep saying, rather than propose a menu of options to the community without getting their input, get their input.

Our conversation is now going something like this:

You: If they want to move, move them, otherwise do nothing

Me: Ask them what they want

You: I'm not saying they have to move, just that that's what we can do

Me: Ask them what they want

You: You misunderstand, they don't have to move, but that's their option if they want help

Me: Ask them what they want

Are we going to keep going back and forth like this all day?

>Assuming government resources are needed to be spent to help resolve this

Many of the other fixes talk about changing laws, and my suggestion was basically in the scenario that those don't work. (I do grant that a law change would cost the government some money to implement, new permits, ect.; I just consider such costs when broken down per person help to be effectively zero and to, in large part, already be paid for by all the already hired staff.)

So I guess the question to you is... what about all the poor people in every other state. Have you asked them what they want to be done, so we can fairly allocate money? We could give those in need in SV ($TheirPoor * $BudgeToHelpThePoor)/$TotalPoor and let them spend it on what they want and if they run out, tell them tough luck.

On a side note, what happens to the average individual who wins big in the lottery?

It's equivocation really, because what they want, at the most general level, is not to be homeless. But they're the worst people to ask input from, because if they knew how not to be homeless, they wouldn't be homeless.

So sure, have a conversation and find out where they want to be in their life, but it's madness to think they'll give you insight into how to fix what got them there.

They might very well have insight into how to deploy resources they did not have access to to fix their problems.

Lets not forget that these people would be middle class anywhere else.

> Lets not forget that these people would be middle class anywhere else.

If they could magically keep their Bay Area income while being anywhere else, they might be.

But since they can't actually do that, I'm not sure what relevance that has.

This assumes all levels of income are inflated equally, which they are not.

No, it doesn't. It just assumes that people can't magically take their income with them when they leave. Even if the 10th percentile income is the same as in the Bay Area in some place where the average income and cost of living is lower than the Bay Area, that doesn't mean that someone in the 10th percentile in the Bay Area can move to that location and keep their income (or any income at all.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com