They make a combined (rounded) $75,000/year. The real tragedy is that you can't afford to make it in the Bay Area on $75k/yr.
I don't think that's something you can blame solely on Facebook.
When I worked there years back, I recall chatting with a few cafeteria workers and learning that they were paid more than the average contract worker; the issue isn't that they're being paid poorly, but rather that the Valley is _so expensive_ to live in.
It should be more of a commentary on the state of California and the cities north, and including, of San Jose, rather than the tech companies that populate the region.
Regardless, from personal experience most of my colleagues would prefer to live in any large metro area but the South Bay (including friends in Mountain View, some of whom were told in the interview process that Google did not have availability in NYC, Chicago, or Pittsburgh). It's untenable for Google to hugely expand its Mountain View campus (http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeproj...) while its satellite offices, where many employees would prefer to work, are at a standstill. This is driving potential employees on the east coast into Mountain View, where they don't want to be, who end up pricing out working-class families from the bay who are desperately trying to stay there.
On the other hand, the population of Menlo Park has increased around 10% in the midst of a world-historical boom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menlo_Park,_California And neighboring Atherton is still well below its peak population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherton,_California This is because they've zoned out pretty much all new apartment, or even sometimes 2-story house, construction.
So instead more and more of those rising wages chase after the same houses.
You know we can walk and chew gum at the same time, right?
For the San Francisco, CA metro area (which in their model includes Menlo Park, where the family lives), they estimate that this "modest yet adequate" standard of living would cost ~$116K per year, inclusive of housing, food, child care, transportation, health care, other necessities and taxes. Even removing housing from the equation ($32K), that leaves about $85K to meet a basic family budget. So I think that their experience that their income is a real stretch to meet basic needs is not so far from reality as you might conjecture.
Also, mind that poverty has a role in poor economic decisions (payday loans being one of them).
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-br...
(edit: added some extra info)
Everyone knows the solution to that problem is to increase the supply of housing, yet little is being done.
Maybe soon enough, $100k/yr will be the new $75k$. What then?
I don't think "Facebook" is solely blamed. Facebook is used as a canonical example of SV companies.
This one might be a little unpopular but it needs to be said. I have an ax to grind / pet peeve here. What we need to do is get rid of means testing for entitlements and government services in general. I want to live in a world where the excelsior scholarship[1] does not ask how much your parents (or you!) make. If we can afford a program to feed the poor, we can afford a program to feed everyone (who meets residency requirements I guess if we are talking state or city level funding).
The real devil is means testing and nobody talks about it because we are essentially using it as a vote bank / scare tactic. "Don't vote for Republicans or they'll starve you and/or let you die without health care." we say.
tl;dr we should get rid of means testing.
[1] https://www.ny.gov/programs/tuition-free-degree-program-exce...
This isn't actually true, which is why means testing exists. If San Francisco gave every resident just $200/month for food, it would cost the city over $2 billion/year. And that's assuming only $200/month and no other assistance programs.
The only way to get rid of means testing while maintaining existing social services would be to drastically raise taxes.
Sure, on paper it would drastically raise taxes, but the net effect would be nil. The average taxpayer would have taxes raised by $200 and receive a benefit of $200/month.
And the raise should be substantially less than $200 because you no longer have to pay for the old food assistance program, nor most of the bureaucracy for it.
I don't know why you think giving everyone money is going to "substantially" reduce net cost, either. The bureaucracy isn't where most of the cost goes.
Will they ask? Sure. Will they rightly ask? Absolutely not.
I didn't mean to imply that eliminating (or as someone pointed out a gradual ramping down) means testing would save us money. That gets us to basic income territory and there are a lot of unknowns especially with whether "people with vulnerabilities" will be better off with a small amount of cash and a salute every month. I'm not saying most people will have trouble (I love basic income) but that it is not a one size fits all solution.
Back to the topic at hand, if we want to expand entitlements to cover more people then we absolutely need to either: 1. reduce what we cover 2. increase taxes on the wealthy. We have the most generous poor people in the entire world. The poor (yes, if a family makes say under $60k a year with two adults working full time I consider them poor) oppose tax increase on the wealthy.
Considering that we're discussing doing away with means testing and giving benefits to people who literally do not need them, it seems quite right for someone paying extra taxes to question this.
Ah, yes this is what the economists say. They are the delusional ones. Means testing breeds resentment and separates people. No, Scandinavians you don't get a say in this until you have as much "diversity" as we do in the United States.
Here is what I say to the economists (no offense to the news outlet): seriously, screw you. They have to disown Alan Greenspan before I will listen to a word of "logic" from the "economists".
We have two options: eliminate entitlements or raise taxes (or a combination of both). I am OK with either option. What I am not OK with is divisive politics, fear-mongering, hypocrisy.
Raise income taxes as much as you need to and/or lower entitlements as much as we can but let us agree to get rid of means testing. Let us aspire to what Barack Obama said in his speech,
> There is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America—there's the United States of America.
Thank you.
(PS I didn't flag you)
As you should be. I tend to be wary of absolutes as well. The "right" has been very efficient with dog-whistling and the window of discourse (Overton window) by taking things to the extreme and tugging on people's heart strings using fear and hatred as driving forces.
I am sure means-testing is good in a lot of scenarios. It is definitely more efficient than my crude "proposal"[1]. It makes "sense", right? Nobody has infinite resources so we should try to focus where we need it most. If humans were rational, this would be a good answer. Unfortunately, we are not rational, level-headed beings. We are emotional, irrational, overgrown infants living in our own bubbles.
What do you think?
[1] It is not actually a proposal, more of a thought experiment.
1/ State borders within the US aren't any sort of obstacle to commuting for work, so how big your state is is completely irrelevant (it's only a slight exaggeration to say that half of New Jersey is fully integrated suburbs of NYC).
2/ Even if it did matter, California is definitely not the largest state in the US.
I see prime real-estate near bart being squandered with these tiny little 2-4 story buildings - it's pathetic. From 580 you can see nothing but land in every direction - none of it being developed on at all.
Meanwhile, people are driving farther and farther to work to find cheaper housing, x10 the amount of traffic.
All due to politics - zoning and NIMBY.
By land, yes. If measured by population, your "exaggeration" is probably even an understatement.
Also, the coastline is seismically active, and does not pose as a great location for Manhattan-style skyscrapers. (For that reason, I have always found San Francisco's skyline to be underwhelming).
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California
So is Tokyo, yet there's plenty of high buildings.
That's so untrue. If some of the large open areas in the South Bay or east bay were turned into suburbs people would happily move in
I think they should.
Why shouldn't there be nice, exclusive areas to live in, just like there are exclusive schools to attend and exclusive companies to work for?
And it creates an urban form that induces long, high-emission solo driver commutes and fewer residents in a part of the country that requires very little HVAC— both of which lead to a lot of climate change.
And it maintains a segregated society, racially and otherwise, where the wealthy may ignore social problems.
And it's likely a significant drag on American GDP.
So, for all these reasons— it is an abuse of the a local government's police power to make it illegal to build apartment buildings.
It's a pain that I'd have to appear before the zoning board to get a variance for a larger garage on my property, but the alternatives are far worse, I think, and I like the idea that fellow city residents are the ones deciding our zoning and variance process.
What concretely do you propose to effect a fix for the problem that you see?
In other words, it will always be this way. Life is a competition for resources and genetic legacy, there are always going to be winners and losers.
>wealthy may ignore social problems
Yes, that's one of the best parts of being wealthy. Being able to enjoy life without constantly worrying about other people's problems.
>And it's likely a significant drag on American GDP.
Doubtful. Silicon Valley is pretty segregated and does pretty damn well GDP-wise.
>it is an abuse of the a local government's police power to make it illegal to build apartment buildings.
Zoning laws are police abuse? That's one I haven't heard before. You'd want no government intervention then? Can we build miles and miles of structures like the Oakland Ghost Ship in your fantasy society?
I think that we should be able to build miles and miles of apartment buildings that meet fire-safety codes, rather than laws that mandate vast swathes of a region's land are only usable for single-family homes, leading to sprawl and long car commutes.
Just because a society will never be perfectly just doesn't mean the status quo is particularly just— that's the is-ought fallacy. Do you think the state should use its power to ban things you dislike or find aesthetically distasteful, no matter its effects on others, when you're already wealthy and able to build yourself a pleasant life? Because that's the current usage of zoning law in the US.
I see we welcome immigrants sign on the homes of people who have driven out anyone making less then $100,000 a year. It's shocking to see so many want to slam the doors of opportunity and a better life in the face of the less fortunate.
Go have your enclave, but don't ask the state to help pay for your schools, roads, and pension costs while higher education support is massively cut.
That is why so many working class people see "big city" liberals as hypocrites.
>but don't ask the state to help pay for your schools, roads, and pension costs while higher education support is massively cut.
I'm not seeing the connection here.
They could pay their cafeteria workers better. Of course, it's not only Facebook that's a problem. I doubt many cafeteria workers make 75K/year.
That said, aren't social housing projects an option here?
Isn't that 75k the gross from both adults in the family? And the worker even mentions facebook is their second gig so that's at least three jobs to hit 75,000.
I don't think people working that hard should be living hand-to-mouth.
One reason I mentioned it is that requiring both parents to work in order to make ends meet limits their movement, limits their ability to change jobs and limits their ability to save for retirement.
> I don't think people working that hard should be living hand-to-mouth.
I imagine there are studies indicating this is bad for the overall economy.
You'll never be able to solely blame macro economic issues on a single entity, they certainly contribute to the to the issue however.
Back in the early 90s, my family temporary moved to a predominately white neighborhood in the more rural parts of Pennsylvania and got some death threats that very day. We only stayed a few months before we moved again, but that left some lasting memories for me.
It was a long time ago and I would hope in 2017 things have completely changed, but it still worries me. One of the best things I love about the Bay Area is the diversity and how much camaraderie there is between all cultures.
Of course I know the first generation immigrants still tend to stick to their own ethnic groups, but their kids definitely don't. And that's one thing that makes me very comfortable and happy.
I think you and your family would be fine in a midwestern city like Kansas City. But I also know there are risks. The Indian men who were shot by a racist, were shot in a suburb of Kansas City. However, the city as a whole was horrified by the event. And it's a very diverse city. Not as cosmopolitan as cities on the coast, of course, but every time I go to the city center, I see people of all types and frequently hear languages other than English & Spanish spoken.
I currently live in a rural Kansas town. Living in a place like this as an Asian would present some challenges, but the overall attitude from most of the people is generally "If you don't scare the horses, we don't care who you are or what you do." It's a different place than the American South (or rural Pennsylvania). Here people just want to mind their own business. I couldn't guarantee it would be a great place for you, but if you want to try being rural again, it wouldn't be a terrible place to look.
But when I was in the city full time, my favorite area was around 39th street just over the state line on the Missouri side. Walking distance to quite a few restaurants, coffeeshops, bookstores, and other funky shops.
Another fun place was the area around the Plaza. Some nice old apartments and houses. Walking distance from the Nelson art museum, the Plaza stores and restaurants, and fairly close to the bars in Westport. Westport is a fun place to hang out, but it's a little dodgy in terms of living there. Lots of petty crime, and a sad uptick in shootings of late. But when you're in your twenties, it's one of the most fun places in the city. At least it was for me.
One thing which changed after I left was the revitalization of downtown. Used to be dead, and now you can have a semblance of urban living there. Lots of lofts and townhouses available, and in walking distance of the new bar / restaurant district, plus the convention center and the new performing arts hall. Related is the River Market area. It's on the edge of downtown with lots of rennovated apartments & lofts. Has the main farmers market, and the usual bars, restaurants, and odd stores. And is very walkable. The new streetcars have a very limited route, but River Market and Downtown are covered (or will be).
The place I used to live now has a name: Crossroads Arts District. Stretches between downtown and the area around Crown Center. Has lots of art galleries, predictably enough, and all the other usual stuff. Holds a street art & food festival (First Fridays) once a month. Streetcar service will be coming soon-ish, but not quite there yet.
There's also the West Bottoms. Used to be a swamp, then was a warehouse / industrial district, then was abandoned (when I was there), and now is an up & coming area with the usual lofts and stuff. Used to be one of my favorite areas of the city due to the interesting abandoned factories and how quiet it was despite being in the middle of the city. Probably a lot of fun now.
I don't know much about the burbs. Johnson County (suburbia on the Kansas side) was great for big box stores but was otherwise a black hole for me. However, one great thing about Johnson County is that it has a Microcenter and it's glorious. Need a Raspberry Pi Zero + a handful of sensors for a project and need it now? Done.
Though speaking of the burbs, if you have a little extra money for buying, check out some of the inner ring suburbs. Places like Leawood. Some beautiful houses with old huge trees. Some of the more expensive neighborhoods in the city, but cheap compared to the Valley.
If you want to get off the beaten path, and are interested in fixer uppers, I always kinda liked Kansas City, Kansas. There are some neat old homes there on bluffs overlooking the Kansas River. And, last time I looked, many of those neighborhoods haven't gentrified, so there are bargains to be had. The neighborhoods are rough in spots, but there's something about the old blue collar neighborhoods that I always liked.
KCK and the area around Bonner Springs can also give you some country living on the edge of the city. There's still some farms left and still some acreage while being 10-15 minutes away from the city center. The only risk is that you buy your perfect quiet piece of land and then get swamped with development a few years later, but I suppose that's a risk for any city's edge.
Another good place for quiet small town-ish living while being very close to the city center is Parkville, MO. It's adjacent to the city. Probably one of the first KC suburbs. The town's center is Victorian and has a vibrant downtown with the typical Main Street USA feel. Also has a huge riverfront park on the Missouri River. The latter is quite nice because in much of KC, they've turned their back on the river and there's not much in terms of waterfront parks. This will be changing in the upcoming years with parks planned. But for now, there's not many.
One last place to mention is Lawrence, Kansas. It's about 30-40 minutes away from the city, and is the home for Kansas University. It's an absolutely wonderful place to live. Reminds me of Austin but without the crowds and high prices. Very vibrant downtown and music scene. Low crime. Very walkable for both the neighborhoods and in terms of hiking trails that start in the city. Tons of interesting old houses. Extremely laid back. Surprisingly hilly. One of my favorite places on earth.
Didn't mean to write a novel but that should give you some places to start looking. I spent much of my twenties in KC before heading out west in the dot-com boom, and then came back ten years later when I wanted some quiet times. I would sometimes be jealous of other larger cities, but KC was in many respects perfect for me. Unpretentious, unjudgemental (outside of the burbs, of course), and was a live and let live place from every angle. The biggest downside of KC is that a car is essential. I've tried to point out walkable neighborhoods, but public transportation is mostly limited to bus. No metro, no light rail (beyond a couple of miles of the streetcars). And a level of sprawl which is enormous. I suppose with Uber / Lyft these days, a personally owned car isn't quite so required now. But it was mandatory in my day.
On the plus side for cars, traffic is usually not too terrible outside of rush hour. And if you end up living in the city center and working in the suburbs, there's a good chance you'll be going opposite to the huge traffic flow, and even rush hour will be easier. That's what happened to me.
If you end up coming here, I think you'll like it. If I can help any further with your search, just let me know.