Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by allochthon 4466 days ago
there's a lot of options, and it's disingenuous to frame it like this.

I do not think it's a disingenuous way to frame the challenge facing people who live in the area. Two-bedroom apartments should not be the privilege of those in a certain stratum of society and above. They should be something that is within reach of nearly everyone. Nor should housing in the San Jose area become the domain of a privileged minority.

3 comments

They are available. However, much like how your average Googler can't afford a two bedroom apartment on 5th Avenue in NYC, most people can't afford a two bedroom apartment in the city of San Francisco.

You unfortunately have to find a balance between location and luxury.

5th Avenue in NYC is a lot smaller than San Francisco, though. There are also a great number of apartments within commutable distances of 5th Ave. I have never been to SF, but my knowledge of American culture leads me to believe that there must be a Walmart somewhere in SF.

Where do the people working in that Walmart live?

There are actually no Walmarts in San Francisco. However that doesn't answer the root of your question; there are similar jobs (target, dishwashers, supermarkets, etc). Most would live in the east bay, sunset or South Bay -- about 25 minutes east, west or south of SF, respectively.

As to your first point, 5th Ave is smaller, but also more expensive. SF is bigger, but relatively cheaper. It's a sliding scale; both driven by scarcity of land compared to desirability.

Wow, I didn't know that. Being from Europe and having only visited the US once (East Coast), I had the impression they were everywhere.

New York has a working mass transit system, though. For poor people this makes the world of a difference. I remember that, when I lived in Madrid a few years back, I was impressed by how fast you could go _everywhere_ in that city with the subway alone. A cross-town morning commute in that 3Mil Juggernaut took about as long as the cross-town car-commute in a less developed 130K city I had lived in before.

They're much less common in urban areas because of the enormous cost of real estate that would be necessary for a store that large.
Walmart has some office space in San Bruno (engineers). I think the nearest Walmart is about 17.5 miles from SF (specifically, 101 meeting 80) in the outskirts of Oakland.

And actually there are more affordable rooms in commuting distance (BART or car) than it appears from popular opinion online.

There's a Walmart retail location in Mountain View near San Antonio Station.
Yes and a Target too. And the rent at the apartment towers next to it are $4000+. So, being next to a Walmart even isn't exactly a means of 'living cheaply'
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, its totally doable if not for crazy-backwards zoning/building regulations.

Either buildings can go up, or prices. They're not making any more land.

SF is actually pretty dense (2nd densest city in the US after NYC).
I'm not saying its not dense. I'm saying its typically difficult to build a building taller than ~4 stories in SF.
Sometimes downvotes are something to be proud of here.
Well said. I often get downvotes on comments that go against the "more women in tech" feminist agenda. You just have to ignore the hive mind and give your honest opinion, no matter what the votes.
Hear, hear! I propose we keep raising minimum wage until everyone's living conditions are comfortably above average!

Edit: In retrospect, I made a critical error; I can't tell if the downvoters understood I was loosely referencing Lake Wobegon, or if they thought I was just dumb

For the record, I just thought you were being sarcastic and using a dumb argument (but I didn't down-voted you) against the idea of minimum wage.
I have no beans with minimum wage, just the idea that everyone in the country should be able to afford to live in Manhattan.