Silicon Valley Is Ruthless To Old People

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Be honest, we all know people move to Palo Alto to be next to Mark Zuckerberg, not old people. Hell, even Mark Zuckerburg bought up all the houses around him so he wouldn't have to live next to undesirables.

Sometime in July 2012, Suzan Russaw and her husband, James, received a letter from their landlord asking them to vacate their $800-a-month one-bedroom apartment in Palo Alto, California. He gave them 60 days to leave. The “no-fault” eviction is a common way to clear out low-paying tenants without a legal hassle and bring in people willing to pay thousands more in rent.
 
Hard to feel that sorry for old people getting evicted due to rent control, almost like people not planning for retirement, even in pricey areas like here, when a house 35 years ago could be bought for about the cost of a non-luxury car today, sure it might not be the best of homes, but then 2 cars worth of house and you have yourself a really nice home.

Bottom line is Palo Alto is not San Francisco, there is no such thing as rent control there, caveat emptor
 
sfsuphysics said:
Hard to feel that sorry for old people getting evicted due to rent control, almost like people not planning for retirement, even in pricey areas like here, when a house 35 years ago could be bought for about the cost of a non-luxury car today, sure it might not be the best of homes, but then 2 cars worth of house and you have yourself a really nice home.

Bottom line is Palo Alto is not San Francisco, there is no such thing as rent control there, caveat emptor
Click to expand...

The article outlines why. Not everyone wants to move. It's not a concept I agree with, having moved all of my childhood, however, it is a sentiment I can understand. Home is home, and the community one grew up in can be very anchoring. The article also covers that angle from another POV. People plan for retirement, however, I know the reality in the bay area isn't clean. Too much wealth, too many people, and not enough land.
 
jeremyshaw said:
The article outlines why. Not everyone wants to move. It's not a concept I agree with, having moved all of my childhood, however, it is a sentiment I can understand. Home is home, and the community one grew up in can be very anchoring. The article also covers that angle from another POV. People plan for retirement, however, I know the reality in the bay area isn't clean. Too much wealth, too many people, and not enough land.
Click to expand...

That's my point though, if you grew up in an area your whole life... at least coming from the perspective of these people, then they should have been able to buy a home when they were affordable. Back when a home may have cost 2x the average salary, hell my parents house could have been bought with 5 years worth of minimum wage salary (which was $2/hr back then!) today you couldn't do that with the higher minimum wage with 25 years worth of pay.

Now I get that not everyone was smart, and that given other circumstances (conned/too stupid to realize a reverse mortgage is a horrible idea) but still the fact remains, many people who grew up in this area over the past 40+ years could have EASILY bought a home, then the whole getting evicted part wouldn't be an issue today, well except for eminent domain, a great uncle who lived in the Los Altos hills (think 8 figure homes today) lost his home back when it was a lot of farm land, because they wanted to put a road through his property, unfortunately he got market price at the time so sucks for him.
 
So.....you figure that if people don't want to be a home owner and would rather rent, that they planned poorly and deserve to be kicked out? Sounds to me like bullshit.

Though while I don't agree with any part of it, it's at the landlords discretion whom they want as a tenant. So I can't really fault them.
 
Nolan7689 said:
So.....you figure that if people don't want to be a home owner and would rather rent, that they planned poorly and deserve to be kicked out? Sounds to me like bullshit.

Though while I don't agree with any part of it, it's at the landlords discretion whom they want as a tenant. So I can't really fault them.
Click to expand...

It's not so much deserve, it's just a fact of renting that prices may go up. If you don't want to risk that, you have to do another option.
 
I figure people who live in an area for an extraordinarily large amount of time, decides (for whatever reason) to not be home owners, and lived through times when cost of housing absolutely skyrockets should expect to not be able to live in that area yes. You have to understand that the average rent of a 1 bedroom apt in Palo Alto is $2500/month, now I'm not sure of what Palo Alto's rent control laws are but I doubt they are particularly strong, so yeah the writing is on the wall when the average rent is over 300% of what you're paying, chances are you are not going to be living in that city for very much longer.
 
FTA :
Their landlord gave them a six-week extension, but it yielded nothing. When mid-October came, Suzan and James had no choice but to leave. With hurried help from neighbors, they packed most of their belongings into two storage units and a ramshackle 1994 Ford Explorer which they called “the van.” They didn’t know where they were going.
Click to expand...

Damn, these people have absolutely no planning skills. I have no sympathy for people who make zero effort to help themselves.
 
"That homelessness persists in Silicon Valley has puzzled me. It has an extremely wealthy population with liberal, altruistic values."

Lulz, this line made me laugh. What a bright eyed bushy tailed naivete this writer has. What a sack full of lies they utterly believe in. Oh they are wealthy, but their liberalness only extends as far as their vision goes past their noses at you. Beyond that, you are nothing. So much for all of that vaunted leftism and altruism. What a lie.
 
How many houses could they have bought over the past 60 years if they wouldn't have been renting?
 
just to add -- its not silicon valley that's mean to old people.... here in Texas, if I owned a piece of property I could fix up and rent for 3000-4000 a month, you bet your ass I'd be kicking those old people out.

Why should the property owner miss out on a great income stream because two old people were too stupid, or too lazy to plan their life a little better?
 
collegeboy69us said:
just to add -- its not silicon valley that's mean to old people.... here in Texas, if I owned a piece of property I could fix up and rent for 3000-4000 a month, you bet your ass I'd be kicking those old people out.

Why should the property owner miss out on a great income stream because two old people were too stupid, or too lazy to plan their life a little better?
Click to expand...

And it wouldn't be unAmerican either. Capitalism is the way of the land, morality aside. What we don't want though is a bunch of Martin Shekrelis running around though...
 
Wrecked Em said:
FTA :


Damn, these people have absolutely no planning skills. I have no sympathy for people who make zero effort to help themselves.
Click to expand...

You're a fucking asshole.
Don't hate on old, disabled people
I'm disabled MYSELF and I have my own issues where I may have to go.
I hope for YOUR sake that a misfortune doesn't suddenly befall you. Then maybe YOU will know what its' like to be a jerk.
 
jeremyshaw said:
The article outlines why. Not everyone wants to move. It's not a concept I agree with, having moved all of my childhood, however, it is a sentiment I can understand. Home is home, and the community one grew up in can be very anchoring. The article also covers that angle from another POV. People plan for retirement, however, I know the reality in the bay area isn't clean. Too much wealth, too many people, and not enough land.
Click to expand...

Same here, but most people I know live very close to where they grew up. I knew someone with a full scholarship to get a PhD at MIT and other elite colleges and he went to a state college, because it was close to home. Logically there was no reason not to go to one of those colleges, but a lot of people don't want to leave their area.
 
Falkentyne said:
You're a fucking asshole.
Don't hate on old, disabled people
I'm disabled MYSELF and I have my own issues where I may have to go.
I hope for YOUR sake that a misfortune doesn't suddenly befall you. Then maybe YOU will know what its' like to be a jerk.
Click to expand...

don't worry, he'll get old one day. be alone and beating by the elderly care nurses. :cool:
 
Methadras said:
"That homelessness persists in Silicon Valley has puzzled me. It has an extremely wealthy population with liberal, altruistic values."

Lulz, this line made me laugh. What a bright eyed bushy tailed naivete this writer has. What a sack full of lies they utterly believe in. Oh they are wealthy, but their liberalness only extends as far as their vision goes past their noses at you. Beyond that, you are nothing. So much for all of that vaunted leftism and altruism. What a lie.
Click to expand...

The guy who wrote that line doesn't understand modern liberalism. Most these ultra liberals don't give much to charity (as a percentage of income), and what they do give usually goes for something like save the whales, setting more natural land aside (so less new homes) or shopping carts for the homeless.

The bay area is the most liberal area of a liberal California, yet it also has the highest income gap, yet the poor keep voting for the same liberal politicians and wondering why things only get worse.
 
Falkentyne said:
You're a fucking asshole.
Don't hate on old, disabled people
I'm disabled MYSELF and I have my own issues where I may have to go.
I hope for YOUR sake that a misfortune doesn't suddenly befall you. Then maybe YOU will know what its' like to be a jerk.
Click to expand...

I don't see any hate in his statement, just an opinion.

Most people who rent do so because they can't afford to buy. The reason most of them can't afford to buy, is because they can't save up enough for a down payment.

Buying a home isn't cheap, but it locks in your housing costs as long as you are not stupid enough to do a cash out refinancing every time the value goes up. It can provide financial stability, and a low cost place to live once you retire. But, it take a level of planning and financial control that is beyond the ability some people.

I never wanted to get stuck renting, so I bought my first place when I moved out of my parents home a couple years after I got out of college. I save for 10 years and then moved up to the home I currently live in. With the current market, there is no way I could afford to buy a home in this area on my current pay.

I didn't cash out when prices went up, instead I refinanced at a lower rate and paid down the mortgage.
House will be paid off well before I retire. We might even move somewhere cheaper, and use the extra cash from the current house to retire earlier or to fund a nicer retirement.
 
Falkentyne said:
You're a fucking asshole.
Don't hate on old, disabled people
I'm disabled MYSELF and I have my own issues where I may have to go.
I hope for YOUR sake that a misfortune doesn't suddenly befall you. Then maybe YOU will know what its' like to be a jerk.
Click to expand...

True this ^^^. I am in a similar situation, 41 surgeries in the last 13 years. Prior to the recent healthcare legislation that basically did away with those of us labeled 'unisurable' and not being able to procure health insurance at any cost, I spent a small fortune f (in excess of $1,250,000, which is everything I had - with more than that still in arrears) - including all savings and investments; which is also the case for tens of thousands of others in the U.S. Sorry for the digression...the entire healthcare thing is fucked up :(
 
nutzo said:
The guy who wrote that line doesn't understand modern liberalism. Most these ultra liberals don't give much to charity (as a percentage of income), and what they do give usually goes for something like save the whales, setting more natural land aside (so less new homes) or shopping carts for the homeless.

The bay area is the most liberal area of a liberal California, yet it also has the highest income gap, yet the poor keep voting for the same liberal politicians and wondering why things only get worse.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that more conservative policies would have somehow prevented these people from being priced out of their town?

These places have a huge wealth gap becuase they are tech areas. They create high paying and highly desirable jobs that attract people from all over the world and that means prices go up on everything.

It has jack and shit to do with liberal/conservative.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Hard to feel that sorry for old people getting evicted due to rent control, almost like people not planning for retirement, even in pricey areas like here, when a house 35 years ago could be bought for about the cost of a non-luxury car today, sure it might not be the best of homes, but then 2 cars worth of house and you have yourself a really nice home.

Bottom line is Palo Alto is not San Francisco, there is no such thing as rent control there, caveat emptor
Click to expand...

Sure. And we all know shit never happens to people as their lives progress, causing many a course change financially. That's the stuff of movies and lore :rolleyes:
 
So the takeaway is instead of using their car to drive to a place with a lower cost of living they choose to live in said car and complain about it?
 
Having read this whole thread (Yep, the WHOLE thread :rolleyes:) I have come to one conclusion:

American's want both capitalism, and socialism, but want to pay for neither.
 
sfsuphysics said:
That's my point though, if you grew up in an area your whole life... at least coming from the perspective of these people, then they should have been able to buy a home when they were affordable. Back when a home may have cost 2x the average salary, hell my parents house could have been bought with 5 years worth of minimum wage salary (which was $2/hr back then!) today you couldn't do that with the higher minimum wage with 25 years worth of pay.

Now I get that not everyone was smart, and that given other circumstances (conned/too stupid to realize a reverse mortgage is a horrible idea) but still the fact remains, many people who grew up in this area over the past 40+ years could have EASILY bought a home, then the whole getting evicted part wouldn't be an issue today, well except for eminent domain, a great uncle who lived in the Los Altos hills (think 8 figure homes today) lost his home back when it was a lot of farm land, because they wanted to put a road through his property, unfortunately he got market price at the time so sucks for him.
Click to expand...

I think it gets complicated when you are a renter who was born and grew up in a boom town like Palo Alto/Menlo/Stanford: places that used to be affordable, but have been overrun with high-earning professionals. I've seen this many, many time in NYC where octogenarian tenants are pushed out (sometimes physically) because they can't pay the 500% rent jump. As for having enough money to buy a place, not everyone can do that (even when the prices have been comparatively low in the past).

I do have mixed feelings about rent control, but temper that with essentially forcing a person out of the home (and entire area) they've lived in for 40 years -- that's a problem.
 
Krab said:
Are you implying that more conservative policies would have somehow prevented these people from being priced out of their town?

These places have a huge wealth gap becuase they are tech areas. They create high paying and highly desirable jobs that attract people from all over the world and that means prices go up on everything.

It has jack and shit to do with liberal/conservative.
Click to expand...

No, just point out the hypocrisy of the left out here in California.
 
These are the quandaries faced by socially and economically free societies. Sometimes people make choices that put them in fragile situations. Sometimes other people make choices that serve their own interests without any concern for the affects on the lives of those with fewer options.

The article is, unsurprisingly for a leftist organ like the New Republic, written from the perspective that nameless, faceless powers and forces determine our destinies and all we can do is react. And we can all fill in the blanks that the woman and her husband had other, better choices that they chose not to make. "But I can't move away!" Yes, you can. "This is my home!" Not if you're homeless. "All our stuff is in two storage units!" Get rid of stuff until it fits in one. Etc. Etc.

But practicality and basic economic skills aside, the article is useful for showing the ruthless self-interest of the "good, upstanding citizens" of Palo Alto. We can take care of our own interests while mixing in at least a fig leaf of compassion. Be aware of what your fat-cat tech job is doing to affordable housing for people who didn't get to follow the same path you did. Let them have a place to live instead of trotting out the same tired NIMBY arguments and taking away every option they have, even the most pathetic ones.

"We'll show those no-goodniks! We'll turn off the showers at the one place where they can park their rolling flop-houses, then we'll get the cops to roust them out after 10:30 PM!"

"A church, private property, letting them stay at night? Never! Grab the torches and pitchforks!"

And on and on. Their main worry, stated again and again? "It might hurt property values." Might, in a city where property will continue to skyrocket as long as tech is booming. What, it may only be 180% overvalued instead of 200%? Cry me a river.

Those of us in the "normal" parts of America just look on in disbelief. In San Francisco, the smallest, cheapest houses (1-2 BR, 1 Bath,<800 sq. ft, a carport if you're lucky.) sell for $500,000. In my small-to-mid-sized Midwestern city, that buys you a 4,000 sq. ft. McMansion in any of the 4-5 nicest neighborhoods in town. People from California often sell off their cash cow houses and move here to live like kings on the profits.

From what the article says, Palo Alto doesn't even have to raise taxes to pay for more services. It just needs to allow already-funded projects to be completed, instead of fighting them at every turn. Just a sliver of perspective, balance, generosity of spirit. After all. it's Christmas.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
These are the quandaries faced by socially and economically free societies. Sometimes people make choices that put them in fragile situations. Sometimes other people make choices that serve their own interests without any concern for the affects on the lives of those with fewer options.

The article is, unsurprisingly for a leftist organ like the New Republic, written from the perspective that nameless, faceless powers and forces determine our destinies and all we can do is react. And we can all fill in the blanks that the woman and her husband had other, better choices that they chose not to make. "But I can't move away!" Yes, you can. "This is my home!" Not if you're homeless. "All our stuff is in two storage units!" Get rid of stuff until it fits in one. Etc. Etc.

But practicality and basic economic skills aside, the article is useful for showing the ruthless self-interest of the "good, upstanding citizens" of Palo Alto. We can take care of our own interests while mixing in at least a fig leaf of compassion. Be aware of what your fat-cat tech job is doing to affordable housing for people who didn't get to follow the same path you did. Let them have a place to live instead of trotting out the same tired NIMBY arguments and taking away every option they have, even the most pathetic ones.

"We'll show those no-goodniks! We'll turn off the showers at the one place where they can park their rolling flop-houses, then we'll get the cops to roust them out after 10:30 PM!"

"A church, private property, letting them stay at night? Never! Grab the torches and pitchforks!"

And on and on. Their main worry, stated again and again? "It might hurt property values." Might, in a city where property will continue to skyrocket as long as tech is booming. What, it may only be 180% overvalued instead of 200%? Cry me a river.

Those of us in the "normal" parts of America just look on in disbelief. In San Francisco, the smallest, cheapest houses (1-2 BR, 1 Bath,<800 sq. ft, a carport if you're lucky.) sell for $500,000. In my small-to-mid-sized Midwestern city, that buys you a 4,000 sq. ft. McMansion in any of the 4-5 nicest neighborhoods in town. People from California often sell off their cash cow houses and move here to live like kings on the profits.

From what the article says, Palo Alto doesn't even have to raise taxes to pay for more services. It just needs to allow already-funded projects to be completed, instead of fighting them at every turn. Just a sliver of perspective, balance, generosity of spirit. After all. it's Christmas.
Click to expand...


Well said!
 
harmattan said:
I think it gets complicated when you are a renter who was born and grew up in a boom town like Palo Alto/Menlo/Stanford: places that used to be affordable, but have been overrun with high-earning professionals. I've seen this many, many time in NYC where octogenarian tenants are pushed out (sometimes physically) because they can't pay the 500% rent jump. As for having enough money to buy a place, not everyone can do that (even when the prices have been comparatively low in the past).

I do have mixed feelings about rent control, but temper that with essentially forcing a person out of the home (and entire area) they've lived in for 40 years -- that's a problem.
Click to expand...

Of course it's complicated, but if you look at it, it really comes down to planning. Its akin to people who expect social security to meet their retirement needs... whoops kind of like these people. I mean my grand parents were by no means wealthy, but they came from the same era (a couple decades earlier though, since they would have been just over 100), and they put money away, they had jobs with pension plans, and this was for labor/manufacturing jobs, granted two things that don't exist today but did 50+ years ago in abundance.

Now sure, some people want to "not be tied down" with a home in one location, and I totally understand that and that's fine. However you make a choice like that then you better understand that comes with potential pitfalls and restrictions later on in life. When you're retired you better not decide you want to "settle down" because as these people found out, that's not going to be possible on the income they have.

Now here's the great thing, I don't need to feel sorry for them being homeless, because there are plenty of places in this country where a 1 bedroom apartment can be had for $800/month and plenty of places where it's WAY cheaper, their SS checks are still coming, so it's not like they're tied to a job that pays for their place here. So if they're homeless, it's either temporary or they're homeless by choice. Now there are plenty of emotional reasons for wanting to stay in an area, but if I had to make a choice between living on the streets of San Francisco with my wife and kid, or moving to someplace I might not want to live in but can easily afford to live, then I'm moving.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
Those of us in the "normal" parts of America just look on in disbelief. In San Francisco, the smallest, cheapest houses (1-2 BR, 1 Bath,<800 sq. ft, a carport if you're lucky.) sell for $500,000. In my small-to-mid-sized Midwestern city, that buys you a 4,000 sq. ft. McMansion in any of the 4-5 nicest neighborhoods in town. People from California often sell off their cash cow houses and move here to live like kings on the profits.

From what the article says, Palo Alto doesn't even have to raise taxes to pay for more services. It just needs to allow already-funded projects to be completed, instead of fighting them at every turn. Just a sliver of perspective, balance, generosity of spirit. After all. it's Christmas.
Click to expand...

A large part of the problem in the bay area (and much of California) is restrictions on building (land set aside for open space), zoning restrictions, excessive building codes, low income housing requirements and rent control (who is going to build more apartments if they are going to limit how many you can build and what you can charge for rent).

I've seen housing projects canceled due to excessive government requirements.
City/County/State: We'll let you build some houses on your land, but you have to leave half the space as open area, and 15% of the homes have to be low income housing that you sell for below your cost to build them. Plus you need to give us enough money to build a new school even though we are having trouble filling our current schools due to declining enrollment.


I live in Southern California, and while the prices are not as bad, a 30 year old, 2500 sq ft home with a 2 car garage in a decent area can still run over $800K. I don't know how people can afford them.
 
The article is kind of obnoxious on some levels. The old couple did in-fact have an income that likely could have sustained them in cheaper areas, they simply did not want to move away from the area that they knew. Well fuck, who does?

I also live in the SF Bay Area, and over the years I've watched as friends and in some cases even family moved away to shit-holes like Stockton (meth capital of California) or Tracy out of necessity. That is if they are even lucky enough to live within a few hours driving distance as those places still aren't cheap, despite how much it sucks to live there. Many have moved away to places like Arizona and Washington, where it's not even realistic to visit them more than a select few times per year.

Rising costs here have affected many. Take Oakland for example. It used to be known for it's large African American population, many of which were poor unfortunately. Today, only about 1/4th of the population in Oakland is African American. Compare that to Detroit for example, where about 90% of the population is African American.

Point is, most people here in the SF Bay Area are affected, either directly or indirectly, by the rising cost of living. The only thing different about this sob story article is that these folks were older, and stubborn about moving to a cheaper area. If the friends that I know who moved to cheaper areas had not done so, many of them would probably be homeless now also, but they did what they had to do. The premise that this is an issue that only affects older people is bullshit. It affects everyone here.
 
sfsuphysics said:
That's my point though, if you grew up in an area your whole life... at least coming from the perspective of these people, then they should have been able to buy a home when they were affordable. Back when a home may have cost 2x the average salary, hell my parents house could have been bought with 5 years worth of minimum wage salary (which was $2/hr back then!) today you couldn't do that with the higher minimum wage with 25 years worth of pay.

Now I get that not everyone was smart, and that given other circumstances (conned/too stupid to realize a reverse mortgage is a horrible idea) but still the fact remains, many people who grew up in this area over the past 40+ years could have EASILY bought a home, then the whole getting evicted part wouldn't be an issue today, well except for eminent domain, a great uncle who lived in the Los Altos hills (think 8 figure homes today) lost his home back when it was a lot of farm land, because they wanted to put a road through his property, unfortunately he got market price at the time so sucks for him.
Click to expand...

I still think the math is way off on this stuff. I don't think anyone back when I was a kid was saving and buying homes on minimum wage and I'll tell you why. For the most part, adults didn't work minimum wage jobs back then. Minimum wage jobs were jobs for kids, summer jobs for college kids. I worked at Red Lobster and the actual wage was sub-minimum wage except that you also had your tips and they made the pay average above minimum wage by a measurable margin. But the average grown adult earned above minimum wage. This is the first problem with the math and it's the same problem with discussions on minimum wage today.
 
Wrecked Em said:
FTA :


Damn, these people have absolutely no planning skills. I have no sympathy for people who make zero effort to help themselves.
Click to expand...

Well, there is that. With no home to their name, no roof to be tied to, it actually makes no sense to doggedly hang on to staying in an area that you have no reasonable hope to be able to remain in. At some point a person needs to face reality. their income would still provide them a roof elsewhere in the country. It sucks that things have changed, but there are a lot of good places to live that are far cheaper, safer, and just for their own sakes, a smarter decision.
 
Aireoth said:
American's want both capitalism, and socialism, but want to pay for neither.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that this morning. I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative (simplified). I like the social aspects of helping others, making sure people have a home, food, medical care, etc.. But, paying for it is the issue. I don't think taxing people that earned more money and given to those that haven't earned much is right. I don't like redistribution of wealth (take from the rich, give to the poor). So, I'm in a rough place. That social shit has to be paid somehow.
 
My landlord has been trying to boot me out for a few years now. I moved to NYC public housing in 1999 when I was in my late teens working on a McDonalds check. The rent was a measly $400 when I first got the place. My rent now is just under $1,300 (NYCHA MAX) for a two bedroom. That is high for " The Projects " but that is all you have to pay here. Everything is included in the rent. So obviously, considering that it's NYC, I refuse to leave lol. Enjoying the benefits of all of my electronic devices without a fat Con Edison bill coming in each month. Has helped me save a ton of money for other things like traveling around the world with the wife :D.
 
TechLarry said:
Sure. And we all know shit never happens to people as their lives progress, causing many a course change financially. That's the stuff of movies and lore :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That is why you buy term life and disability insurance. DUR If I'm knocked off or disabled, I know my spouse and children will be well taken care of.

But I do feel sad for the couple in the article. You can't predict what will happen to the area you decided to make a life in 10, 20 years down the road.

It's kind of silly they have rent control, but still allow the landlord to evict you for any reason. It sounds like the no fault eviction kind of defeats the purpose of the rent control laws.

As to the couple, they should be able to move to someplace cheaper and be able to afford to live off the $600/month in SS they get. Mississippi is incredibly cheap and still has access to the water.
 
I expected this article to be about ageism in Silicon Valley workplaces, which is also a problem.
 
lcpiper said:
I still think the math is way off on this stuff. I don't think anyone back when I was a kid was saving and buying homes on minimum wage and I'll tell you why. For the most part, adults didn't work minimum wage jobs back then. Minimum wage jobs were jobs for kids, summer jobs for college kids. I worked at Red Lobster and the actual wage was sub-minimum wage except that you also had your tips and they made the pay average above minimum wage by a measurable margin. But the average grown adult earned above minimum wage. This is the first problem with the math and it's the same problem with discussions on minimum wage today.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that goes back to the obliteration of manufacturing in the U.S. People who used to make your tidy whiteys don't work for Fruit of the Loom (at least not in the U.S.). Our clothes were almost all made in teh U.S. and those were decent paying jobs. Now someone in Sri Lanka makes it. That's good for them, but not so much for many in the U.S. That may not apply to Palo Alto, but on a macro level, it does.

Also, the Minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation and just in time scheduling also makes it hard for those workers to work more than one job (even though they don't work full time at that job)
real%20minimum%20wage.png
 
On one hand, I hate to see people pushed out of the place they have lived for so long.
On the other, I would hate to have to pay taxes on a property that's value has exploded, while I am collecting rents from when it's value was much less.

Buying a home is the best rent control there is. Your "rent" never changes and then one day, when you are old, you never have to pay rent again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top