The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/12/the-silicon-valley-paradox-one-in-four-people-are-at-risk-of-hunger

by subpar • 9 years ago

151 217 9 years ago

aaron-lebo• 9 years ago

This seems to explain at least some of the UBI-love tech founders have. They live as billionaires in a community, that despite all their money and highfalutin ideas doesn't actually take care of its own, unless you have millions if not billions of dollars.

Of course to them the only solution is more money, that's the only solution they seem to know. They'd be more believable if they fixed their own literal and metaphorical neighborhoods first before continuing their personal campaigns of empire.

Sorry if it's whiny, it's just that the contrast between words and actions is stark.

NiklasMort• 9 years ago

But you gotta understand, they have no time, they have to make the world a better place with Snapchat&co...

brailsafe• 9 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-GVd_HLlps

rddemmer• 9 years ago

As long as these people are paying extremely high rent (and as a result need assistance in terms of food stamps) it means the trade off is worth it to them. That's what people don't understand about high rent: if you are paying high rent you are agreeing to it. It means it's still worth it to you. If you disagree with the high rent, don't pay it.

kevinburke• 9 years ago

Sure, but that's not really an interesting or useful observation. You can choose to live in a bad situation and still desire, either personally or at a policy level, to make it better. The alternative, at least in the profiles I've read of people living in RV's along El Camino Real, is to be unemployed in Stockton. People will take their chances with a job.

xg15• 9 years ago

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15920864

throwaway31231• 9 years ago

It's more than that. Money's value depends on everyone's collective attachment to it. The winners of a game remain so, only as long as a significant number of people are playing.

Ditto with USD, ditto with BTC.

UBI is one way to keep people playing; but I'm extremely wary of this idea. UBI without some sort of communal/anarchist/kibbutz-ian distributed structure binds society in yet another way.

'You're free as long as you do what I want', is not something we as a society should want, yet it is almost universally true. The US wants nations to be 'free' so that they do what it wants; it's only natural that this extends all the way down to the individual.

kazagistar• 9 years ago

We already have conditional UBI for certain classes of people and situations. UBI is an incremental step of progress, and holding it up based on worries about not being perfectly utopic seems counterproductive.

Kurtz79• 9 years ago

I like the idea of UBI in theory, but I cannot imagine it won't have any impact on the cost of living.

At the very least, it would force companies contracting minimum/low wage workers to raise wages substantially (because why work on a shitty job if I can have the same money for free ?), which in turn would mean a substantial increase in prices, which in turn would make UBI money not enough to survive for most people relying exclusively on it, and we are back at square one.

UBI seems to me the classic "easy solution for a complex problem", that in practice would create even more problems than the actual system.

sax0n• 9 years ago

I've never been to the US, so forgive me if I'm ignorant, but if the problem is poverty, surely the solution is more money? What's wrong with a UBI or some other mechanism to deliver that?

danboarder• 9 years ago

You're confusing poverty with lack of money. Poverty is measured more accurately by looking at social capital (community connections that lead to jobs, family stability, etc). The world bank measures poverty in terms of health/capacity to work, life expectancy, and other factors beyond access to money alone.

alexanderdmitri• 9 years ago

As a US citizen, I see just handing out cash as a terrible way to fix this poverty. With the way our society operates, I'd put my money that whatever UBI is distributed, most of it will be leveraged upwards in creative and manipulative ways without very many productive gains.

Poverty is a complex issue because there are so many different causes behind it and they are often intertwined. A few reasons off the top of my head: systemic oppression and social prejudices, mental health, desperation, poor self-perception, lack of opportunity, irresponsible handling of money, ineffective upbringing, bad set of cards, medical problems (and the often accompanying debt), terrible education, malnutrition, a system that largely blames the impoverished for being so, rich people who get to set their own definition of charity for financial gain, and the list goes on and on ...

It'll never happen, but I think a much better solution would be defining a set of basic needs where more money != better quality: healthcare, food, education, housing.

Sounds crazy, doesn't it? Especially that last one.

Cthulhu_• 9 years ago

The problem isn't poverty, it's exorbitantly high rent, caused in turn by huge demand for housing and huge incomes from the tech companies that all decided to settle down there.

The solution is to increase wages for the people that work there but can't make a living there. And for the tech companies to do their societal duties and spread work (and wealth) across the country instead of focusing it in that area.

gaius2• 9 years ago

No, the problem of "things are expensive because demand outstrips supply" cannot be solved with more money. Only by more things.

Dylan16807• 9 years ago

Fix their neighborhoods how?

If you don't want to use income, I guess you need to rezone the housing? That's also extremely impersonal.

There's not much you can do as an individual, unless you want billionaires to pick random neighborhoods to sponsor. And that does very little to fix the overall situation.

They could move their companies elsewhere but even if that helps the neighborhoods it's a lot closer to abandonment than fixing.

Bartweiss• 9 years ago

They'd be more believable if they fixed their own literal and metaphorical neighborhoods first before continuing their personal campaigns of empire.

How?

I'm serious about that - I think most of the tech billionaires who care enough to seriously support UBI are trying to fix their communities. Lots of people think their ideas like deregulation or more technology-focused schooling are counterproductive, but they seem largely well-meant. (The deregulation stuff in particular looks like a matter of principle; we have long-standing examples of what it looks like to push that selfishly.)

But all they have is money, really. The push for expanded housing has been choked by zoning boards and courts since Day 1. The tech industry has surprisingly little political influence because California is so large, and so entrenched with old-school Democrats. And "it came from tech" is basically enough to sink any kind of community initiative among anti-gentrification forces: low-cost annual bike shares were designed as a community good accessible to the poor, and the response was still to destroy all of the bikes as gentrification. "Throw money to people" is pretty much what's left to them, and UBI is a more stable approach to that than charity; even tech billionaires can't cover SF's housing costs alone.

I'm not even trying to defend tech billionaires here, particularly. I just don't want us to make all other change contingent on fixing San Francisco neighborhoods - because it seems like no one actually has an answer to that.

mjfl8• 9 years ago

Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right?

I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment was at 5% through the great recession. However, I find whenever I suggest that, people act like if they move there they will be lynched - as if the place is a primitive wasteland inhabited by backwards rednecks carrying pitchforks. In reality, it is a modestly wealthy area filled with dentists, insurance providers, accountants, and other mid-level white collar workers. You're more likely to die of boredom, but isn't that better than food stamps, and isn't boredom good if you want to raise a family? The people that read and write these articles don't seem to consider things like this.

mprev• 9 years ago

Even if you take that stance, it’s hard to square it with the fact that Silicon Valley needs more than VCs and startup founders to function.

mjfl8• 9 years ago

That is economically illiterate. If it got to the point where there was not enough people to fill necessary jobs around the city the wages would rise to attract more people. Right now the opposite is happening: there are too many people.

OfficialJoeGG2• 9 years ago

Sometimes that rent trap is to high. You pay three quarters of your paycheck to just living (even house hunting you still need a place to live). You then have one quarter to spend on food (for 2 people) & electricity, water, and heat (if your rent doesn't cover utilities)& maybe some extra things like hygiene products, bills such as car payments, etc... You have almost no left over to put in for moving.

So I don't disagree with your standpoint in theory, the logistics always muddy the water.

mjfl8• 9 years ago

I don't believe it. Say you find a place in Lincoln for $500-$600 (which is possible in Lincoln), just by using the difference between old rent and new to cover debt from moving expenses, a mover could pay off $15,000 of debt within one year.

d--b4• 9 years ago

How? How do you move to Nebraska when you have $100/week for food?

How do you find a job, when you have literally 0-day you can spend without working?

Are there really than many jobs for people who flip burgers in Lincoln, Nebraska?

And are people who flip burgers in Nebraska so much better?

mjfl8• 9 years ago

I have a friend who makes due on a customer service job for Comcast, pays about $300/month in rent, and still has time to be in a death metal band, travel (to other places in midwest). He's definitely not happy, but he's not starving either. 0% chance of a life like this in San Francisco.

b64• 9 years ago

How do you move to Nebraska when you have $100/week for food?

How could anyone here answer that question? It's not specific enough to answer. Could it be difficult to do? Yes. Are you trying to claim it's impossible, that people are actually truly trapped? It's not impossible, they are not truly trapped.

elgenie• 9 years ago

How do you move?

A train or bus from the Bay Area to Nebraska will run around $100. That’s around the same amount as Bay Area rent costs for just the time spent on the train/bus during the trip.

How do you find a job?

To start, “Help Wanted” signs and odd jobs in the usual places (e.g. Home Depot). Then, network or use free internet at public libraries to search for something better.

Are there really many jobs for burger flippers?

There are fewer jobs, but also fewer people attempting to get them.

Are people who flip burgers in Nebraska so much better?

Of course not. But they live in a place where population has held steady (graying) instead of growing wildly, where there’s plenty of land, and plenty of housing stock on that land, so housing takes 25% of the burger flipping paycheck instead of 75% (don’t forget commuting time in the cost of housing). As a result, their standard of living is higher.

The Bay Area, or any high cost area for that matter, is a great place in which to save 20% of one’s income and a terrible one in which to live paycheck-to-paycheck 0%.

lr4444lr3• 9 years ago

Oh please: how do the homeless streaming into NYC find their way over in the first place? But let's be charitable: we can fund a one-way ticket back, first class, to their state of residence at a vastly cheaper cost than for housing them on expensive land they will never be productive enough to work their way out of.

EDIT: (Because the preceding was hatsher than it had to be without explicit statement of the upside) The point is, if their skill set and ability to advance is little beyond flipping burgers, their cost of living will leave them far better off economically long term in middle American heartland than being forever at the margin of poverty, propped up by municipal welfare in high cost coastal cities.

Helmet11• 9 years ago

How? How do you move to Nebraska when you have $100/week for food?

You scrounge and save up or work odd jobs and get enough to move.

How do you find a job, when you have literally 0-day you can spend without working?

There are plenty of jobs. They're not very good jobs, or jobs that most people want to do, but life isn't always about doing what you want. If you cannot afford to live somewhere, you need to move.

And are people who flip burgers in Nebraska so much better?

My parents worked jobs equivalent to that in Washington D.C. It became impossible, so they moved to southern Virginia. You can live in southern Virginia on minimum wage jobs. There was food on the table every night, and a roof above our heads.

It sucked, don't get me wrong, but we managed.

drb912• 9 years ago

Well, lack of jobs, or lack of a hiring pool. Take your pick.

mjfl8• 9 years ago

Unemployment is at 2.3%. That's one of the lowest in the country If you do not have a job you will be snatched off the street.

stinky2• 9 years ago

There is a solution. At the moment successful EU countries such as Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark are struggling with aging population and not enough people to fill blue colar jobs.

I think EU should make it easier for US citizens who get any job here to move over. Americans in general are super hard working. Europe needs hard working people, while we can provide them with free universal healthcare, free university education, and way more upward mobility than they could ever dream of.

The deal could be so that you can move to Europe for any job, and if you work for 5 years then you are eligible for permanent residence. If you loose your work, and become unemployed for more than 6 months you have to move back to US.

Yes, there would be risks, but at the same time, it could also be a win win - hard working folk from USA would get a chance to raise their kids in a society that would allow them to put their kids through college without selling a kidney.

JoshMnem4• 9 years ago

It's already possible if you have technical skills. Just find a company to sponsor you.

I once emigrated to Austria. Permanent residency would have been offered after 5 years, but I came back to the US before that.

Tomte• 9 years ago

Would they want to move?

More importantly, would they be willing to learn the language?

lucaspiller• 9 years ago

One of the complicated parts about this for US citizens is taxes. If you are a US citizen you have to file taxes with the IRS for your worldwide income, even if you are living and paying taxes in another country. I assume most EU countries have a tax-treaty with the US, so you wouldn't have to pay taxes twice, but it definitely makes it more complicated.

martin_bech• 9 years ago

Thats actually pretty easy to do, if you are from the US, and can get a job in say Denmark, where you can support yourself. And your kids will get free college, scholarships and affordable daycare. You will need privat insurance for healthcare initialy i believe.

mseebach• 9 years ago

way more upward mobility than they could ever dream of

It's worth keeping in mind that it's relative upwards mobility - upwards mobility in the US conjures up some slightly different mental images. Top 10% in Denmark is absolutely unremarkable middle class in the US.

If you enjoy being relatively equal to your neighbours, then it's great, if you enjoy objective material wealth, less so.

stadeschuldt• 9 years ago

Unless you move into one of the bigger cities like Berlin, Hamburg or Munich you will be out of luck if you don't speak German. And especially if we are talking about blue collar jobs.

arkh3• 9 years ago

I think it would be a huge error. The US culture already pervades everywhere in the EU thanks to their medias. We really don't want them to invade us directly and out-birth our native population using our health care system and social benefits. They should stay in their country.

vadimberman• 9 years ago

I think EU should make it easier for US citizens who get any job here to move over. Americans in general are super hard working. Europe needs hard working people

Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, Russians want to have a word with you.

And no, Americans won't move to Europe to do blue-collar jobs. That's what East Europeans, Asians, Africans already do, Americans won't do it any cheaper. Heck, go to the South, compete with the Mexicans. Why do you think it's any different?

If you really, really want to move elsewhere, there are plenty of opportunities. You'll have to brush up on geography and languages first though, and start assuming nobody will grant you special privileges for being an American.

beojan• 9 years ago

I think EU should make it easier for US citizens who get any job here to move over.

Just as soon as the US does the same for EU citizens.

valisystem• 9 years ago

I think EU should make it easier for US citizens who get any job here to move over.

I'm pretty sure that any employable american can achieve that without hard efforts, and AFAIK most welfare is granted to salaried people, except for unemployment allowance. Same with education, some countries are equal (very low) tuitions no-question-asked.

For hardly employable 'hard worker' american, I'm pretty sure that are plenty of hard working immigration candidate to fill that. And there's no reason that low wages jobs will end better life condition for americans than others, and end up to the same problems that often comes with poverty : crime, social resent and injustice, just like home. If you think that americans will work harder and paid better that an struggling immigrant, I think you are highly delusional, low wages hard just enough to live, and nobody will pay more for the same job.

coldtea3• 9 years ago

I think EU should make it easier for US citizens who get any job here to move over. Americans in general are super hard working. Europe needs hard working people

Assuming the words EU, Germany etc mean anything more than plots of land (e.g. a culture, a people, shared history etc), then merely replacing a population with another from abroad is not a solution to EU's or Germany's problem of aging population.

It might be a solution to "working hands" needed, but not to the general problem of "how we ensure there remains something like Germany in 2500 and is not just some geographical boundaries".

Americans in general are super hard working.

Whereas Asians and Africans etc (common immigration origins into EU today) are lazy? In fact, as employers typically abuse them (based on their semi-legal status), they work hard even without all the benefits you suggest Americans workers would have (so from the perspective of the employers they're even better).

ebiester• 9 years ago

They already have the Turks there for precisely that reason, and have since the 50s.

nostrademons3• 9 years ago

"You're more likely to die of boredom, but isn't that better than food stamps, and isn't boredom good if you want to raise a family?"

That's pretty much it. The Bay Area gives you the chance to be on the cutting edge of change, which - for a certain personality type that tends to be overrepresented in the Bay Area - is often reason enough to live there. Most of the people who want a stable & boring environment to raise a family have already left. Most of the rest are from regions where boring != stable. (Seriously: I'm expecting a kid in the near future, and in the childbirth classes, there are literally no white people - the only people having babies in Silicon Valley are seemingly Indian and Chinese, along with a smattering of Mexicans and other immigrants. I have a bunch of white friends here, and of the ones who have had kids or are planning to in the near future, they fit into two groups: 50% have moved back to their hometown already, and 50% are planning to.)

There's also the issue where history has basically never been kind to groups of people who felt they could live a stable, boring existence while clinging to old ways and enjoying a high standard of living. Makes me a little scared for America, but that reckoning is probably decades out.

mjfl8• 9 years ago

If I should pay taxes to subsidize people that feel a fundamental need to be on "the cutting edge of change", I'm going to quit work and sit in an SF cafe all day so I can "ride the wave of change". You need to pay for me, because I need to be here.

madengr• 9 years ago

45% of births are paid by Medicaid.

Alex39172• 9 years ago

There's also the issue where history has basically never been kind to groups of people who felt they could live a stable, boring existence while clinging to old ways and enjoying a high standard of living.

As an interesting counter example, iirc one of the main groups of people who survived the Irish potato famine were the Celts, because they refused to give up the old ways of eating wild Clover and switch to growing potatoes.

Generally I agree though.

EDIT:

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1UJvl4JeCo

optimuspaul• 9 years ago

The Bay Area gives you the chance to be on the cutting edge of change

can we stop perpetuating this myth!? Sure a lot of innovation has happened that area in the past but so much innovation happens elsewhere in the world. It's not the only tech Mecca and definitely not the best.

danans• 9 years ago

the only people having babies in Silicon Valley are seemingly Indian and Chinese, along with a smattering of Mexicans and other immigrants. I have a bunch of white friends here, and of the ones who have had kids or are planning to in the near future, they fit into two groups: 50% have moved back to their hometown already, and 50% are planning to.

I have a feeling that you are seeing there a hyperlocal trend influenced by the particular local demographics. In the east bay from Oakland and north and in the mid peninsula, SF, and the North Bay, there are a lot of white families with kids (along with the other demographics you mention except perhaps fewer Indians)

JoshMnem4• 9 years ago

Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism?

You don't think that the influx of tech workers from places like Nebraska has any relationship to driving prices up for the locals?

If you're young, relatively new to the area (without a lifetime of friends and family here), and don't have kids, the prospect of moving away to some random, unfamiliar town is going to seem much easier than it really is for most people.

parenthephobia• 9 years ago

Lincoln, Nebraska. Population approx. 350k.

Do you imagine that adding an extra million people would not effect the cost of living or the vibrancy of the economy?

lr4444lr3• 9 years ago

I've been saying almost this verbatim for years about New York City. So much self-imposed misery by people who will never make progress financially on their current life trajectory by staying prevents them from living independently elsewhere in the wide expanse of the USA.

trentmb• 9 years ago

You're more likely to die of boredom

Who are these people? Having lived in both rural and urban environments, I don't think I've ever succumbed to boredom.

paganel• 9 years ago

Never set foot in the States, so is not a direct comparison, but as an European who prefers living in a big city compared to living in my parents' village, which borders the lower Danube, I can say that the village is certainly nice and dandy, but it doesn't have theater shows, doesn't have cinemas, doesn't have cafes, doesn't have bookstores, doesn't have (decent) sports teams, doesn't have countless streets on where one can lose him/herself walking, and, most important of all, doesn't have people. Yeah, rural life is indeed boring for many people until a certain age (I eventually plan to retire to my parents' village if I reach 60).

eloisant• 9 years ago

The funny thing is that if they all did that, you wouldn't have anyone left to cook your food and clean your office.

Then maybe the tech sector would realize they need to pay living wages for all the workers supporting their daily life. And a living wage in SV is much higher than the rest of the world.

verroq• 9 years ago

Clearly not enough are leaving because otherwise the pay will naturally rise.

samnwa• 9 years ago

That's what the coming robot force is for.

cantankerous• 9 years ago

He's right about one thing. You will die of boredom in Lincoln. There are plenty of other nearby Midwestern cities with character and interesting stuff to do (and people to see). Omaha and Kansas City are a couple. I'd probably pick Des Moines over Lincoln, too. It really is as described: sprawling new developments on old farmland in a (sort of) Big 10 college town.

A lot of folks in the Valley who are the hardest hit by these economic changes grew up in California. It's ironic to me that somebody from the Midwest move there and then criticize the residents for not moving to where they moved away from.

robert_foss• 9 years ago

Why? Because you need a job, and moving to a new place is expensive.

Who do you think serves you lattes at Starbucks? Millionaires? Low paying work needs to be done, even in SF.

dsfyu404ed2• 9 years ago

I find whenever I suggest that, people act like if they move there they will be lynched - as if the place is a primitive wasteland inhabited by backwards rednecks carrying pitchforks. In reality, it is a modestly wealthy area filled with dentists, insurance providers, accountants, and other mid-level white collar workers

If you get a better image the first people to move there will be the rich ones who want out of SV and then turn the place into where they came from. Look what happened to Denver.

julesqs4• 9 years ago

you're not addressing the people in article at all. It literally references a single mother that works in kitchens and you're complaining about upper middle class people that sneer at Nebraska? what's wrong with you?

People live where jobs are, and a lot of them have reasons to stay in the Bay. She has children and a life. She's not a fucking software engineer that can just pick and move.

stygiansonic• 9 years ago

Yep, you're spot on. It's unlikely the single mother referenced in the article could get a job in Nebraska that would offer a generous relocation package.

Helmet11• 9 years ago

Yes, she can move. If she cannot afford to live there, she can move. It sucks, but life sucks and sometimes it means you can't live exactly where or how you want to.

My parents worked as "pickers" for the Home Shopping Network near DC, making minimum wage. It became financially untenable, so they moved to southern Virginia to a place with good schools and where you can live and get by on low income salaries.

dragonwriter6• 9 years ago

Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less?

Because people who are food insecure don't have savings to relocate, or the ability to take the income they have with them, generally.

I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there

Lincoln has a population of 250,000; there are, per the article, 720,000 food-insecure people in Silicon Valley (and with California’s CoL-based poverty rate of 15%, ~4.5 million poor in California.) Aside from the previously mentioned considerations, that suggestion wouldn't be viable for making even a noticeable dent in the problem.

However, I find whenever I suggest that, people act like if they move there they will be lynched - as if the place is a primitive wasteland inhabited by backwards rednecks carrying pitchforks.

While not necessarily addressing Lincoln specifically, that's (while perhaps exaggerated) pretty consistent, at least for the non-whites overrepresented in Silicon Valley’s needy, consistent with what non-white (and white, the though it usually bugs them less) travellers have consistently told me: their worst experiences of in-your-face, constant racial/ethnic discrimination and tension in the US are almost always in the Midwest, both white v. non-white and between non-white groups.

isn't boredom good if you want to raise a family?

Not really. There might be some things that are good that very loosely correlate with boredom, but boredom itself is bad.

taway201712142• 9 years ago

their worst experiences of in-your-face, constant racial/ethnic discrimination and tension in the US are almost always in the Midwest

i'm asian american.

here's what life is like somewhere other than maybe 3 or 4 cities in the US:

1. constantly explaining to people why i am not white (where i'm from, where my parents are from, why my last name is what it is [it's anglo])

2. children are constantly getting the 'eyes pulled back' and other racist names/gestures at school, and all the adults (teachers/admins) think its hilarious too (it's just a joke! don't you love being the butt of jokes? why can't you just let everyone make fun of you all day and take it silently?)

3. name-calling 'chink', 'gook', etc are normal occurrences, not exceptional events.

4. the general feeling that nobody thinks you're really american. i.e. when discussing whichever asian country is in the news today they'll say "no offense".

5. oftentimes being ignored by people, even when you walk right up to them and ask them a question. for example when shopping in a store.

6. hyperawarneness of the hollywood situation (in tv and movies white people = gods, everyone else = a literal joke)

7. limited cuisine that you grew up with (although this one is changing)

basically it's just non-stop suffering. that's why everything is cheap in the midwest. it fucking sucks unless you are the 25% of the population that its designed for.

quite frankly if i had kids, i'd rather be STRUGGLING in california than outright RICH in the midwest, because i don't think you can be rich enough to actually buy your kids a good enough life to make up for racism. it's borderline child abuse.

the kicker of course is not only do i experience this kind of stuff in i.e. michigan, people visiting from the midwest do this to me in my own home city.

Helmet11• 9 years ago

Because people who are food insecure don't have savings to relocate, or the ability to take the income they have with them, generally.

B.S.

If they cannot afford it, they can move. My parents moved, I have moved, it f'ing sucks, but it's completely possible and feasible and the responsible thing to do.

workthrowaway273• 9 years ago

You realize he wasn't saying everyone should move to Lincoln, right? There are hundreds of other potential places these people could move.

zkms2• 9 years ago

Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right?

The "is doing %s a fundamental right?" argument works a lot of ways.

Is preventing other landowners from building high-density housing on their property (which would decrease the "$2000/month" rents, a blindingly obvious signal of low housing supply) a fundamental right? The crisis mentioned in the article would be quite lessened if minimum rents in the area were far lower; which they would be if NIMBYs weren't abrogating the property rights of others by preventing the construction of new dense housing.

closeparen6• 9 years ago

Many seem to think that the right to vote on zoning is embedded in real estate ownership.

newshorts4• 9 years ago

I find your opinion a bit harsh and generalized.

However you do have a point. If people simply left, it would put upward pressure on wages for lower income jobs. But it seems there’s a limit to supply and demand. At some point things become borderline predatory.

deadmetheny• 9 years ago

"Just move" is not a tenable solution. These people most likely can't afford to move to begin with. Then, on top of that, if their entire lives of friends and family are based there, why would they want to move? Who are you, a self-admitted (presumably tech industry) interloper, to tell them that they should just leave their home and go to the home that you yourself have forsaken? These people are far more likely to have lived there for their entire lives, making due with whatever they can make due.

I live in the Midwest, I like it here, and I would welcome people who want to move here, but this is telling them to come here for all of the wrong reasons.

emodendroket• 9 years ago

I feel like your experience easily leaving your hometown as a young man may not be easily generalizable to everyone, at every stage of life and in every family arrangement. And of course one wonders why, if it's so great, you're not there anymore.

ballenarosada8• 9 years ago

How many of these people do you think can afford to move? You're proposing to create a ghetto out of the Midwest, but the plan is stupid even on its own terms.

workthrowaway273• 9 years ago

Can they afford not to move?

ballenarosada8• 9 years ago

Why should longtime residents have to leave the Bay Area because of your ignorance/piles of money? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right?

newshorts4• 9 years ago

Some of us tech workers might be poorer than you think.

Foreign investment in housing is also putting upward pressure on cost of living.

As with most things, the problem is more complex.

nine_k2• 9 years ago

I did nearly that: I moved to a relatively small city away from technology centers, where my wages from a remote developer job were enough for quite comfortable life. No, nothing like a primitive wasteland, of course.

But that the next position offered to me, paying, say, 3x my then-current wage, was in NYC, full-time and on-premises only, so I moved, despite the cost of living.

Probably once communications improve in these remote areas, working from there will become a more widespread option for IT people. Most of my current team works remotely, from offices in other cities across the globe.

The other problem was getting education for children. Finding and affording it is an important cause for moving.

mcgrath_sh• 9 years ago

Define “remote area.” I can name a half dozen cities with cheaper cost of living within ~6 hours drive time of NYC. Pittsburgh. Buffalo. Rochester. Philly. Newark, DE. I don’t think communication systems are the problem. There are cities that have low(er) cost of living.

jpao792• 9 years ago

Maybe there could be a case for a YC startup focused on relocation. The idea is to simplify the process for non-tech people to discover options for employment, housing, culture, community, etc. in the various smaller towns and cities in the US.

The ability for people to do any product discovery (where the product is the city/town) prior to relocating is quite limited with huge ramifications/risk if you get your selection wrong.

A bit like a Lonely Planet/Tripadvisor/Yelp but for real life. It could crowd source ratings of cities by some basic quality of life score based on various attributes - housing costs, openness to new ideas, food scene, etc. It could verify residency by requiring you to provide GPS coordinates for a month before letting you rate. It could even be monetized by apartment providers, employers, restaurants, etc.

nostrademons3• 9 years ago

I know founders who've tried to do a relocation-financing startup. They failed to get traction and ended up running out of money. AFAIK, so did most of their competitors, as well as startups in the general "here are some nice other places to live" category you describe. (It was a pretty crowded space...you can bet that any market where there are Internet commenters saying "Why isn't there a startup doing X?" actually has several startups doing X.)

The root problem seems to be that the decision to move is basically emotional, and usually depends on life factors that no startup can influence. I'm here for two reasons: family and startup (my wife's family all lives around here, and I have a nascent startup where if it takes off, it'll be really handy to be close to investors). Among the other people I know who are thinking of leaving, or whom it doesn't really make economic sense to be here, what's keeping them is always similar things. They work for Google and there's no Google office near where the rest of their family lives. They grew up here and have sentimental attachment to the place. They really love the warm Mediterranean climate and can't imagine living in a place with snow or rain. When you dig into their lives, usually staying is actually the right choice despite the high expense, and it's more "Well, I wish I didn't have to put up with the cost of living and massive traffic snarls."

justifier• 9 years ago

But the most reasonable next step in the logic you yourself laid out is you should move back to lincoln to avoid having 'to pay increased taxes for [other's] ignorance/provincialism?'

You seem yet to have considered a thing like:'is living in San Francisco a fundamental right' for you?

d--b4• 9 years ago

It's a culture problem: with so many people being so rich in the valley, you need to be ruthless to be part of the rich people's club. It means that if you're at the helm of a successful company, you'd rather become a billionaire yourself than letting the poorer people you employ become wealthy.

Another factor is that a good chunk of the tech's business was about making things cheaper rather than making new stuff. Amazon is cheaper than bookstores, Uber is cheaper than regular taxi, and so on. Even if the tech helps make the costs lowers, it also often translates into lower worker wages, and doesn't create more value overall that what existed before.

jhoechtl• 9 years ago

Why is this called a paradox? It's a greed and winner-takes-it-all culture. What are the mechanism in place which would guarantee at least a mild version of wealth redistribution?

dalbasal• 9 years ago

This is a bit of a tangent but...

"Redistribution" is in itself a frame. Generally in modern discourse it means post earnings income redistribution. UBI, dole, income taxes, pensiins..

There is (just in terms of all options) also the distribution of earnings, the distribution/redistribution of wealth, and the distribution of wealth accumulation. All these affect the disparities and their trends. There are very few policies acting on these. Income taxes, not wealth taxes. Income support, not wealth building. There was some very controversial talk of pay caps or limits to ceo-janitor pay ratios... But this is outside of the main avenues of normal policies.

Most of what we (wealthy liberal democracies) "do" in this regard directly to affect disparities is post earnings redistribution and (substantially) distribution of consumption (public services like schools and health services).

..no concluding point... :)

Veelox• 9 years ago

The paradox is that Silicon Valley is one of he wealthiest parts of the country and yet >25% of the population is food insecure.

danharaj• 9 years ago

That's the 'paradox' of capitalism. But it's only a paradox if you take bourgeois conceptions of wealth and prosperity at face value.

junkscience2017• 9 years ago

Why is this a surprise? California is the #1 poverty state[1], spends almost the least on education etc etc. State tax receipts mostly just rewards CalPERs members.

1 http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/...

epistasis2• 9 years ago

Housing problem. There's not enough of it, and the people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here.

It's a completely artificial construct that drives up the cost of living and robs the poor with rent seeking.

All of California's inequality problems go back to that. High salaries for some people help make it stronger, but the greed of the NIMBY homeowners is a far greater cause of putting people at risk for going hungry, because they have been trying so hard to keep them out of housing.

gaius2• 9 years ago

people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here

Well that cuts to the very heart of democracy doesn't it? Why would the government of territory X not answer to the taxpayer-voter of X, over people who merely want to live there?

There are reasons why they might of course, enumerate those reasons and the real dynamic will come to light.

jdietrich• 9 years ago

There is a fine line between democracy and mob rule.

The Nash equilibrium for any sufficiently stable democratic system is for 49.9% of the electorate to be treated as subhuman. Democracy inevitably becomes tyrannical if civil institutions fail to defend the interests of the minority against the interests of the majority.

akgerber• 9 years ago

A big part of the issue is what level the decisions are made— in Japan, zoning is largely set by the national government, and in Ontario, at provincial level. In Silicon Valley (and most of the US), the decisions are made at the level of small suburbs consisting mostly of single-family homes, even though such decisions have can have huge impacts on the national economy.

epistasis2• 9 years ago

It also cuts to the core of property rights. If somebody is building something according to local laws, why should neighbors be allowed to stop that legal construction? That is what happens now, and it drives up construction costs dramatically, further driving up costs of the very very little new housing that gets built.

What rights go along with property? Does it include the right to stop your neighbor from changing and improving their property?

kafkaesq2• 9 years ago

It's a completely artificial construct that drives up the cost of living and robs the poor with rent seeking.

It's called "zoning", and it's a perfectly natural construct.

And if you're going to be fair, you'd acknowledge that ultimately it presents a set of tradeoffs, with both positive and negative impact.

All of California's inequality problems go back to that.

Inequality is a very complex problem, with many forces and actors at play. Any analysis that attempts to reduce it to a single causal factor will instantly fail.

nine_k2• 9 years ago

Zoning is not natural, the way the law of gravity, or even the idea of liberty, is natural.

Zoning is invented by people, as you correctly noticed, to balance several trade-offs. Maybe in 1950s it was adequate; since 2000s, the balance of trade-offs has shifted drastically.

Maybe it's time to rebalance things. The problem is that those who profited form it most (the old realty owners), due to that very fact, can also afford to spend most resources (as in time, money, and lobbying efforts) to resist it.

zkms2• 9 years ago

It's called "zoning", and it's a perfectly natural construct.

No particular implementation of zoning law is a "natural construct", and USian zoning laws have an extremely particular focus on preventing the construction of high-density housing (hell, some jurisdictions even criminalise roommates in pre-existing housing). There's nothing natural or inherent about that; and plenty of other countries have more sensical zoning laws that provide for adequate and dense housing supply while still having zoning (and they have lower rents and less problems with homelessness and housing-cost induced poverty, gasp).

frgtpsswrdlame7• 9 years ago

Housing problem.

Well this is part of what keeps tech workers from making as much as they'd like to and it definitely contributes to the plight of unskilled workers but not as much as this board seems to think it does. There's no realistic zoning changes in SV that are going to make a big enough dent. Unskilled workers will still be spending absurd amounts of their paycheck on shelter except now they'll be living under a restaurant exhaust system or above a noisy bar.

The real winner of zoning changes is going to be well-paid professionals who can buy up real estate with their savings and become the NIMBYs of tomorrow.

theoh• 9 years ago

There's a book from 2002 called "The Silicon Valley of Dreams" that seems never to have been mentioned on HN. https://nyupress.org/books/9780814767092/

It's about the environmental conditions around electronics manufacturing, and their disproportionate impact on immigrants and minorities. Maybe a bit too hardcore for the optimists here (I'd include myself), but it covers similar issues to this Guardian article and is worth being aware of.

bitL• 9 years ago

Most of SW jobs in Silicon Valley can be done remotely. Frankly, it's about time our industry embraces this instead of reversing the trend and adding insane "open office" spaces everywhere, killing productivity and happiness.

newshorts4• 9 years ago

Hyper local meritocratic neoliberalism

frk1206• 9 years ago

This is so so incredibly sad. I see people on this thread saying stuff like "this is how life is" and "suck it up and move" but the core of the problem is that we have literally institutionalized slavery by calling it a market force. This woman isn't a market operator, shes basically a modern day slave. Crucial to the functioning of the system (or Facebook doesn't have food) but somehow also expendable. This is not just a American but a worldwide issue. Whatever the market forces are it just doesn't make any sense that a cook is unable to make a living.

lacker2• 9 years ago

"Food insecure" is a very strange way of describing this situation. The people described are spending far more money on rent than they are on food. The real problem is that the rent is too damn high.

taurath• 9 years ago

Its kind of ironic and interesting to juxtapose this article with the post where Chamath Palihapitiya the former Facebook exec says "I want the fucking money" to increase his influence.

The economic output in sheer profit terms of Silicon Valley companies is probably enough to feed the continent. There are probably scores of individuals living there that could create a food program with 1/4 of their net worth that could prevent all hunger.

This kind of makes the point to me that the skillset to get somebody a lot of money is the exact opposite skillset necessary to care for their neighbors.

The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

Related Stories