Hacker News Reader

Comment by samstave | Hacker News Reader

People always say this...

But imagine that you have a family, youre established have kids - they have school you have you network of family and friends etc...

I think that the only people who actually ever make this argument are young singles with no kids that think "duh, its so easy to just commute farther!"

The rent difference in say Pittsburg CA to Oakland/SF is NOT that much different -- but the commute costs (time & money) are enormous.

What you may save in rent, you lose in every other aspect of daily life.

To make the argument of "just commute farther" is just too simplistic a view.

It reminds me of Bush saying how industrious and admirable it was for a single mother to have to work three jobs to support herself.

View on HN

Actually I have two kids. As I suspect many of the people on the 534 bus in LA did.

"What you may save in rent, you lose in every other aspect of daily life."

What you're suggesting is that you might value the other aspects in life over the money saved on rent. I agree with you there. I love spending time with my kids. But know that other people are also trying to place that same value themselves. When a majority of the people are reaching the same conclusion then the housing prices will go in the direction demanded by the majority based on supply and demand.

If the majority of people decided that commuting farther was worth the trade off then housing prices would ease up. And then more people could afford them. Eventually a market price would be established.

I feel like bringing Bush into the conversation is a red herring as many people will have a strong reaction to that in one way or another and lose sight of the conversation we are having.

Communities function better if people work and live in the same place.

Not having options is not the same as not having options you like.

No, options are situations that which work with all factors weighed in.

Got kids and have them at daycare like the person I replied to (and me)? You MUST pick them up by a certain time, but lets add two hours to my commute, and even if I can pick them up later now they get dinner later, bed later, my after hours work or routine gets later.

The commute farther argument is naive for many many situations.

You're only looking through a simplistic lens.

What you've just explained is that some options are very much preferable to others. What you haven't explained is how preferences means that less preferred options cease to be options at all.

By all means, call this a "simplistic lens", but please don't try to avoid that you have options.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com