As temporary housing, it beats a tent. Maybe even a van. Are you against camping?
This is eye opening to me how the housing situation is viewed by the SF upper class. I have always considered it a dystopian nightmare when the workers have to sleep in a coffin and work full time. It seems not many people in SF share my view.
As to what he deserves, I think he deserves to decide for himself without other people second-guessing it, and also to be able to change his mind and do something else if it gets old.
It seems like you're going off-topic, since the article isn't about minimum wage workers in general. But to address that, yes, rents are very high in San Francisco and it's no place to try to live solely on a minimum wage.
Why do you think minimum wage workers should not be allowed to live in SF? If everyone is writing code, who would make the food? Who would deliver the packages? Who would clean the workspace in your office? They don't deserve a place to live near you even though they are providing you with all kind of services? Genuinely asking here because I can't fathom what you were saying when you said SF is not for minimum wage workers.
And this is from the article to which I quote:
>I need quite a jump, really, in all honesty, in order to be able to afford the traditional apartment here.
So yes, it is not the typical housing in SF, because it is born out of the dysfunctional "typical" ones and many people have no choice but to take it. I criticize the system that let the situation get to this point and the people who are so apathetic and disconnected they saw no problem with this "atypical" condition even when they acknowledge that it is not typical.
What I’m doing here is refusing to speculate. Yes, other people go off-topic and speculate all the time, but that doesn’t mean it’s useful.
It’s not particularly useful to speculate about other strangers who write comments on Hacker News, either. Are they apathetic or disconnected? Maybe, maybe not? I don’t know them.