[johndubchak]

Many are from the area and have lived in the area most of their lives. The current situation has evolved over the last 20 or so years to the point where it has become economically impossible to live because of the "outsiders", from large tech companies, coming in and displacing them.

How willingly would you be to pick up and move in this situation?

[sirakov]

These "outsiders" are themselves fellow Americans or immigrants who uprooted their lives in search of economic prosperity.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something but is seems foolish to me to sit in a single location and complain that the right economic conditions for my success are not at my current location and refuse to move (especially ironic since we live in a capitalistic market economy, jobs are constantly changing and resources moving around).

[johndubchak]

The article never mentioned they are complaining, IIRC. They are economically displaced. Where would they go?

This is a large-scale socio-economic uprooting. Many of them lack marketable job skills and the necessary finances to allow location portability.

We're experiencing a very large shift in financial wealth where the level of poverty in the country is increasing at rates not seen since The New Deal and that's the entire point: the Bay Area is an extreme example of this where economic disparity is so extreme. Add to that the socially minded nature of California and you have those people who "complain" of the lack of a social safety net at the Federal level or even a lack of a fair balance of distributing economic wealth fairly.

edit:

And our "capitalistic market economy" is anything but capitalistic, in fact it is predatory upon the poor and economically disadvantaged. [1],[2],[3],[4]

[1] http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/26/american-capitalism-vs...

[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

[3] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/making-money...

[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-c...

[harryh]

There is no meaningful data that backs up your assertion that the poverty rate in the United States is significantly increasing. In fact, the rate has been essentially flat for 50 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/...

[johndubchak]

Well, I guess we can cite statistics all day to prove each other wrong, but clearly in [1] from 1990 to 1992 it rose before a Clinton Presidency where it fell considerably (not crediting President Clinton directly but he did produce a large number of jobs during his presidency) before President Bush's contractionary policies started a large increase in poverty again in 2000 through 2010 in our worst recession since the Great Depression.

It did, this has improved, however it's structurally temporary. The effects of it are that it's also continually displacing larger numbers of the middle-class as our trade policies are moving what remains of our higher paying manufacturing base, what used to make up that lower to middle part of the middle-class blue collar workers, to lower paying countries.

So, if you think, with your single graph that poverty isn't increasing you're not looking at what's really happening structurally in the US economy and with all of the relevant data around you.[2]

We have College tuition that is unaffordable and an aging, out of work, unemployed, or underemployed workforce, with skills that have not kept up with the rapid change in the shift of American jobs and poverty truly is on the rise.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-s...

[2] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/03/jobs-s03.html (Uncertain how credible this site is)

[harryh]

1) Sure there have been some small short term fluctuations but the long term stability is pretty clear. And if you look back further than 50 years you'll actually see a steep decline in poverty. You can also see steep declines in poverty if you look internationally instead of just in the US.

2) You bring up a lot of other issues that are certainly real problems but they are mostly claims about what might happen in the future. That makes them speculation not fact. And sure, your speculation might end up being true and some of those speculations could lead to an increase in the poverty rate[A]. But you should be careful to frame what you are saying as a prediction about the future not a statement about something that has already happened in the past.

A. Personally I think you're wrong. But that's speculation too!

[rad88]

TFA describes a mom who is keeping it together for a family of five on a $11/hour wage (they lost the home when the dad got injured), and teachers who are commuting 2+ hours each way to get to work.

What evidence do you have that these people are too foolish to understand our economy? Or too stubborn to do what is needed in order to succeed?

[sirakov]

Primarily this statement.

"Several homeless families whose children attend local schools told the Guardian that they had considered moving to cheaper real estate markets, such as the agricultural Central Valley, but there were no jobs there."

Buy why not look evan farther? The US is much larger than California. There are places which much cheaper costs of living in the midwest and the south. Seems stubborn that you must stay in California.

[rad88]

They are at a disadvantage trying to find work on the other side of the country due to currently being homeless on the West Coast. People look for work starting nearby and then at increasing distances because that is the practical way to find work and minimize the risks and costs (financial and otherwise) of moving.

But if they were guaranteed a life in Illinois or North Carolina, maybe they would move? You and I don't know, but there is no reason to suspect they are simply being stubborn or foolish. It's entirely natural and rational to want to live, with your kids, in roughly the same region continuously.