What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty | Hacker News Reader

What It's Like to Live on Low Pay in a Land of Plenty

npr.org

63 pointsbrown9-2108 comments

I never know what to make of these articles. I started out with low pay in Silicon Valley, too; I took a job at a startup in 1999 making $15/hour doing IT desktop support. In 2002 (edit: this was 2002, not 2001), when I quit to do consulting and start my own company, things were miserable in the Valley--and my salary as a developer was still only $49,500/year then.

I am a college dropout. By traditional standards, then, this guy has more than I do: He has a college degree. Working at a tech company, he had to see that the developers/sysadmins/computer folks made more than he did.

I find this juxtaposition interesting because, certainly, a similar article could have been written about me in 1999. $15 an hour was a terrible wage then in the Valley, too.

Faced with something similar, I asked several of the developers at our company to teach me development. They were amused at this young 18-year-old girl asking them what a "for loop" was. But they taught me.

It took me a while to pick up Linux system administration, bash shell scripting, Perl and PHP (this was in 1999-2000.) When I dropped out of school in 2001, my parents cut me off financially, so I shared tiny apartments, slept on couches, and made ends meet.

Now, at age 32, I've bootstrapped a startup to a 7-figure sale and am now the CEO of a funded startup.

For most of my life, I've dealt with depression and believing I was not "good enough." In that way, I empathize with Manny. If he's reading this, I would like to say to him: I stand here as proof that a minority with no college degree and no formal education can make it in this world. You live in Silicon Valley. If you really want to pull yourself out of poverty, all doors can be open to you. The first step is believing that you can do it.

> things were miserable in the Valley--and my salary as a developer was still only $49,500/year then.

You were making $50k - (in 2001?) - that's $65k in 2012 dollars.

This guy is making $16,800 ($1,400/mo). That's 4 times less than you were, and you think you're comparable?

I started out doing desktop support for $15/hour. (I actually think I started out making less, but I'm not sure how much "less" was--perhaps $12/hour? so I quoted the higher number.) $49,500/year was after I spent over a year learning development, and our startup got bought out by a huge company, and I interviewed into a role at the big company as a developer.

I also started out working for a subcontractor, much like Manny in the article. Indeed, I do think it's comparable.

Manny also has lower expenses than I did, since he lives with his mom, and in a traditional way of looking at things, he has more "opportunities" open to him since he has a college degree and I was a dropout.

> I started out doing desktop support for $15/hour.

$15/hour * 40 hours a week * 52 weeks = $31k in 2001 dollars = $40,000 in 2012 dollars.

That's still more that double Manny's income.

> Manny also has lower expenses than I did, since he lives with his mom

A person living on the streets has lower expenses than you too, but that doesn't mean it's by choice or a good thing.

I didn't work full-time when I started there. College student, remember? I didn't have a full-time gig until I dropped out of college in 2001. BigCo refused to bring on part-time workers, so I quit school and interviewed into the developer role, which was FT and necessitated me dropping out of school.

Edited my previous post to reflect correct timeline:

1999: Moved to Valley; got a job doing desktop support at a startup

2000: Startup gets bought by BigCo

2001: BigCo says they won't hire PT employees. I quit school to take $49,500/yr FT dev job at BigCo

2002: Quit dev job and started working on my own stuff (I had paying customers for my company in 2001, but 2002 was when I finally quit and went into consulting and web hosting full time.)

Ok great, so become a developer to make more money. What if he doesn't want to be a developer? What if he doesn't have the talent to become one? Then he has no right to complain? Is being a developer more noble than being a security guard?

You have to realize we're lucky to be talented in a field that pays really well.

Is the solution for everyone to be a developer? What would that world look like?

The world still needs people to do jobs like security, burger flipping, and stocking shelves until everything is automated.

It's not even necessarily the pay level that is exploitative. It's the lack of job security and benefits that was once commonplace when a large percentage of the workforce was union.

Implicit in your reasoning is the suggestion that a security guard doesn't deserve a dignified living wage. I disagree with that -- I think in a civilized society he should be able to afford his own place, provide for his daughter, give her rides as needed without sacrificing job security, etc. As the other poster mentioned, we /need/ such people... we need people who mow the lawns, people who flip burgers, people who shovel snow. We shouldn't think of them as humans that don't deserve a respectable living wage.

re: luck, and making it in the valley

Consider the fact that if there was someone quite like Bill Gates, same skillset, same personality, etc. starting out today, how far he'd be able to get. I would assert that it's unlikely that he'd be able to maneuver the SV world today and be able to get more than about 300k. But the real-life Bill Gates has some 60 billion dollar worth... so what's the issue? Clearly luck is a big factor.. you have to be at the right place at the right time, with the connections, with the money, etc. I have known way too many poor people who work unbelievably hard... so I just couldn't disagree more with what you have to say.

I would like to respectfully suggest to you that you take some time out and maybe volunteer at a soup kitchen so that you are made more familiar with the real battles a lot of people face today. People like you and I, but without the social support, without the coveted connections and networks, without the job security, without the time to be able to learn a programming language without external pressures (like the pressure to just make money for this month's rent, so your daughter still has a roof on her head). It's very tough for them out there, and getting up is not as easy as you think it is.

"In a civilized society one should be able to afford his own place, provide for his daughter, give her rides as needed without sacrificing job security, etc" - should society provide a place for a person in a location of its choosing?

Should the door in the location of your choosing have a guard?

Two questions, same answer.

I don't see how this question fits anywhere in this discussion.

Desktop support has and always will pay more than being a security guard in a parking lot. I did desktop support in the nineties as well and made decently more than my roommate who, oddly enough, worked in a parking garage.

There is nothing comparable about a contractor who does desktop support versus a contractor who does security work in a parking lot. I don't think you really believe these are at all the same thing. They are a very different set of skills.

^This.

>"You feel like you're different," he says. "Even though you're working in the same place, you're still like an outsider. And it's weird because you're actually protecting these people."

Because you are different. You aren't an employee; you're a contractor. When I'm a contractor, I don't expect to be treated as an employee by the organization contracting me ... because I'm not.

If you really want to pull yourself out of poverty and you’re very lucky, all doors can be open to you.

Not everyone will be as lucky as you were.

I'm genuinely curious as to why people believe that it is 100% up to "luck" that some people are successful and others are not.

If it was "luck", wouldn't CEOs be evenly distributed amongst minorities, men, and women? Or at least per the population distribution? Or are white males just that much more "lucky" than women and minorities?

If you think answering those questions is tough, you and I are on the same page--that's why I don't ascribe this to "luck."

It's luck because plenty of people do exactly the same thing as you and me. Work hard, take what they can get, have ambition and yet still don't make it.

If you want to see this in it's purest form look at music and art. Plenty of amazing hardworking musicians that will never make a dime. Plenty of hacks who will.

Why do people always reference hard work?

Ditch diggers work hard. Migrant farm laborers work hard.

So what?

Hard work should have value and should be rewarded with a wage that one can live on. While the person in this article is living, they are still not earning enough to support themselves and their family without supplementing from a food pantry. Because this is a contract position they are not allowed to work more than thirty hours a week.

I would argue that this shows that this is not a living wage.

And the person featured in this article is not living?

> Hard work should have value

No it shouldn't, at least not because the work is hard. I could spend 16 hours a day 7 days a week digging holes in the Sahara desert which are of no use to anybody. I would be working incredibly hard, but I would be producing no value, so I do not see why I should be rewarded anything. I only will and should be 'rewarded', in the sense that someone else is willing to pay me for my work, if my labor produces something of value for someone else.

What should have value is how much "service" you render to other people. It should not matter whether providing this service comes hard to you or not - it's all up to you.

Ditches need to be dug. Farms need to be tended to. People need to eat.

The laborers should be paid for the value of the work instead of receiving the slimmest of margins from the fruit of their labor.

Because the argument often is that those who make the most worked harder than anyone else.

My point is that most people work hard so it's not by any metrics and explanation for why some people do really well and others don't.

The name of the University you go to however. Now that matters a lot.

>Because the argument often is that those who make the most worked harder than anyone else.

I don't think that I've ever heard that argument made in my life.

Then you haven't been listening.

[citation needed]

You want me to find citations for other peoples claims about hard work as a reason why some people make it and other don't?

You don't have to believe me, but just because you haven't heard that I am not going to spend time finding citation.

But a quick look around this thread should point you in the right direction.

>You want me to find citations for other peoples claims about hard work as a reason why some people make it and other don't?

I want you to find someone who's claimed hard work was the reason for their success.

That was not what I said.

I think you're misunderstanding Stephen's point. He's not saying that all it takes is luck to be successful. I think it was more a comment on the rarity of income mobility from parents to children.

Look at the calculator in the middle of this NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-incom...

If you look at the median income of a child born in San Jose to parents who were making $20k/year, only 11% of them make it into the top quintile. Only 1/4 of them will make it into the top 40% of the income distribution.

This skewed mobility is what people ascribe to 'luck' when people work their way out of poverty. Obviously it's a complex issue that is somewhat trivialized by calling the successful ones 'lucky', but it's a shortcut to describing the rarity of upwards mobility from parents to kids.

There are a number of people who are CEO of this-or-that because they are smart, skilled CEOs with the proper credentials. And there are some that lack credentials and make this up by being smarter or better. And some who are pretty dumb and inept but make up for it by having really great credentials.

You're comment asks why people believe it's "100% up to 'luck'" and I'd argue that there are few people making that argument. Rather, the argument goes, luck is a component of getting a high-paying CEO salary. I don't think this is in any way arguable.

The argument that there's no luck and it's 100% skill on the part of the CEO is equally silly. Even if skill was the largest success predictor, credentials would still need to be evenly distributed throughout the population to achieve your utopian vision.

What is the converse to "luck" in your argument? Is it effort, or work, or something like that? If so, it seems that you are saying that white males just put more effort in than other people. I'm not convinced that that is true. In my opinion, when averaged over the population, a significant component of individual success is "luck", that being the opportunities that are presented to certain individuals, and not to others.

It starts with a belief that you can be one of those successful people. That you can do this.

If you believe you are lucky, you are more lucky. Here's the study behind that (PDF): http://richardwiseman.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/the_luck_f...

I also believe that, in a similar manner, people who believe they have what it takes to be successful (whatever that is in their minds) are more likely to be successful.

I went through most of my teens/20s with pretty bad beliefs about myself. I was a college dropout, a woman in a male-dominated industry, fighting with depression and (then-undiagnosed) ADHD. When the tech industry crashed in 2001-2002 I couldn't even get an interview for a job. I did not believe I could be successful.

Slowly, though the years, I started changing those beliefs, and as I did, more opportunities opened up for me. Now, I'm able to mentor others (especially women) who want to get into development. One of the things I always work with people on is believing that they can do it with what they have, that they don't need to be or do something that is "more" in order to be successful.

My inner outlook changed my external life. I had to change my beliefs before my external reality changed. Sitting where I was in 1999, I'm not sure I would have believed that--but I do now.

"What is the converse to "luck" in your argument? Is it effort, or work, or something like that?"

There are more inputs than hard work and luck. An obvious example would be the decisions one makes in life.

For instance, having a child at 20 years old, outside of a stable relationship has long been known to have different results than having a child at 25 in a stable relationship.

Decisions themselves have lots of inputs, so it's a complex issue. For instance, family and culture have a big impact on decisions, so those with different backgrounds would be expected to make different decisions, and therefore have different results.

It would be quite a surprise if different families and cultures produced the same results, after all.

Note that I'm certainly not saying that cultures are better or worse than other cultures. They may have different measures of success, for one thing; and even on one measure (like financial success) the rankings of various cultures might change radically if the environment changes.

I guess you could say that it's "luck" to be born into a family and culture that encourage the kind of decisions that are best for the environment you're in, or something like that. But that just doesn't seem to usefully inform any policy proposal.

If bad decisions are a major factor in bad outcomes, it might be more effective to encourage better decisions than to try to deal with the consequences after bad decisions are already made.

Nobody thinks it's 100% up to luck, but luck does play a huge part in it if you call "luck" all those things which are beyond your control and which you can take neither credit nor blame for.

The simple fact is that a desire and willingness to succeed is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for success. There are many people who are successful because they were born into the right families and given the right opportunities, and there are many more who struggle all their lives in poverty for lack of same, despite a sincere and demonstrated desire to succeed and more hard work than the vast majority of the people on this site will ever know.

    "Or are white males just that much more "lucky" than women 
    and minorities?"

I take exception to this because I have advised a bunch of non-technical people on how to get into coding, probably about a dozen or so. White males simply ask more. That's what "luck" is here. Asking, then doing.

Among all those people I've had one black African ask me. I sat down with him for a while giving him tons of advice and corresponded a few times more after that until I got swamped by work.

I've had only one woman ask me (recently, just this past week), but only superficially. She had recently picked up a book on generative art because she fancies being able to do that. Ironically, we have the same exact book at the office because I work with one of the best generative artists in the Bay Area, Reza Ali, so I actually had some decent advice on where to start if she was serious. The conversation was shallow and brief before she got into general discussions about life with my girlfriend who was also in the room. It was simply a qualitatively different way of asking for advice which isn't likely to lead to success. Not all women are like this, I know. But I only have on anecdote thus far and I'm disappointed by this. I'd personally love it if more women coded so I could nerd out about programming with both men and women equally.

The above are only anecdotal (and the plural of anecdotes is not data). Maybe I only have many more male white friends, but my girlfriend certainly does not and her friends are all aware of what I do for a living and I do have a decent amount of contact with them. Near as I can tell from above, the number of minorities that ask for help is roughly in line with base rates. The number of women who ask is not. Women are roughly 50% of the population. If they want to learn and do this kind of thing, they need to ask and then do. This definition of asking and doing for women is "luck". Woman do not lack contact with people that can help if they just asked.

For minorities, it's a bit more sinister in that luck also has an element of propinquity that is far more outside the control of an individual. A minority in a poor neighborhood in the Bay Area is unlikely to come in contact with me or someone like me, so they will never have an opportunity to ask. The guy in this posted article on the other hand does have the luck of propinquity. All he needs to do is walk up to Google employees either before or after his shift and ask a few of them if they are an engineer and if they can offer him advice on how to learn to do what they do. I'd be surprised if he didn't get actionable advice that can get him out of the rut he is in in about 2-3 years.

The thing is that there are plenty of people who did everything you did and still didn't have any luck, just as there are people who did it the "right way" and still didn't luck out.

You are 100% the creator of your own happiness, not your financial success in life.

It's not clear to me how your life experience in Silicon Valley is at all comparable to the experience of the man in this story. You mention that he has a college degree and, in my opinion, imply that he should be doing better than he is. The article clearly states that he recently finished college (this semester) and has already moved on to full-time work. So he is doing better and has already left this part-time position. I couldn't find any reference to this man's interest in software development or administration in the text.

Minimum wage was still insufficient for this person to support themselves and their family without supplementing with a food pantry. I suspect that in 1999, this was also the case.

Further, the point is also made that this large and wealthy company is saving money by dividing their workforce into two classes: employees and contractors. Certainly this is nothing new but it is an important point, for instance, below is an article about how Amazon is agressively hiring more and more contractors.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/01/week-amazo...

I don't really believe you were trying to say that anyone with sufficient drive can be a CEO with a seven figure salary, but that is how it came off. Clearly there are not enough CEO positions for everyone that would like one, regardless of their skills or credentials.

Inflation-adjusted 1999 $15 is $20.98 today. Conversely, today's $15/hr is $10.72/hr in 1999 dollars.

Also note that he's not allowed to work over 30 hours, so even at a somewhat comparative actual rate, he has an upper limit on weekly income.

The article did say he was going to work at a non-profit. This article could have come just as he starts to work his way up.

I don't know, maybe some people who lives there might find some sense in the story, but to me it just doesn't make any sense (I'm east European living in London). Seems just like another try to blame someone else for his own choices how to live a life.

In the end, if you want to be equal with other employers, maybe it is time to consider what makes them being more equal and try to reach it yourself instead of just telling the world how unfair the world is.

But that just my personal opinion, maybe now it is considered O.K. to act like that.

I dislike the implication that external contractors are basically second-class employees that are being exploited by the hiring company. Google has no idea what this person makes. Google hired a security company to perform a service. Event/site security is not Google's core competency.

I am well aware of the external contractor dynamic. I work at a small company that provides services to $Fortune_500_company. My access badge is a different color than $Fortune_500_company employees, and I am not allowed to partake in certain employee perks. In fact, $Fortune_500_company is very clear that despite working on their computer, having their email address, having an assigned seat at their campus, and being on their phone system, I am not an employee of theirs. I am OK with this.

There are plenty of ways to be screwed in your career. Your contractor/staff status should be considered an unrelated byproduct.

> Google has no idea what this person makes.

They can certainly find out. Just like ethically sourced coffee beans are a thing; ethically sourced menial labour can be a thing. It's hip and cool to use ethically sourced labor that isn't toxic to the society you live in. :-)

How would you define an ethical wage for menial labor?

How about a wage that was at least a decent amount above the federal poverty level?

Why?

1. Federal poverty level isn't a term [1]... >The poverty guidelines are sometimes loosely referred to as the “federal poverty level” (FPL), but that phrase is ambiguous and should be avoided, especially in situations (e.g., legislative or administrative) where precision is important.

2. Government instructing market isn't in the constitution, nor is it in Free Market Capitalism, nor the concept of a Democratic Republic...

[1] http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

By most measures the man in question does earn a rate higher than the "federal poverty level". It seems like the issue is that he doesn't work enough hours.

The federal poverty level isn't particularly relevant if you are in a place that is considerably more expensive than average. Also, its not that he does not want to work enough hours, his employer doesn't allow him to work more. Plus, by that token, I could argue $7/hour is a livable wage, as long as you work 100 hours a week.

Enough to live with dignity; within walking/biking/transit distance of the job.

With dignity implies; not starving, not being housing insecure, not being unable to afford health care.

Note that it does not imply that you can afford a vehicle, television or an internet connection; although the latter might be worth adding to the former.

I personally think that companies that deliberately structure employment relationships to deny workers full-time status should be pursued as tax evaders.

It sounds like his job could easily be replaced by a computer program and camera. I have a feeling left to Google they would get rid of the job completely.

"Google hired a security company to perform a service."

That's kind of a cop out. Like saying Apple isn't responsible for the treatment of the workers in Foxconn in any way (though I am sure there are some people who agree with that point of view).

Does anybody see a link to this guys github profile? I wonder how far along he is on any side projects that he's working on. Surely he must hang out at any of the many coworking spaces in SF on the weekend, right?

I don't mean to be crass here, but...there are SO MANY programs available for this guy to learn to code, and then get the employee benefit of taking home free food from his employer (seriously? He's upset they don't let him take free food?)

I don't really buy the excuse anymore that people are just being held down by "the system", especially in tech.

I've tried with /so many/ people who are in similar "woe is me" situations to teach them to program. I've bought VPSs for them, I've set up curricula for them, I've invited them to hackathons, offered to work on projects with them, etc. etc. etc.

And they don't take it.

One friend, who I got a job with my employer as a part time support person, needed help building his resume. At the time, I was building a new mail server for us, and I told him I wanted him to help me with it so that he could add some linux sys admin work to his resume.

Did he accept it? Nope! He spent his time at home watching Netflix and playing WoW, or age of empires or something.

A month later these people are on facebook complaining about how the evil wealthy people are holding them down.

He's working 30 hours a week, and lives with his mom. C'mon, man, you're being handed the ability to learn to code and build a github profile of a freaking golden platter. Get to it! Or...stop complaining about making $18/hr and only getting to /eat/ the free gourmet buffet, when you wish you could take it home.

Furthermore, move out of the bay area, man! That's one of the most expensive places to live in the country! Go move to Iowa, or North Dakota. Those places have high qualities of life, good wages, and low costs of living.

The Bay is one of the most desirable places in the WORLD to live. I'd love to have sympathy for a guy making $18/hr and living the San Jose, but I just can't bring myself to.

Fair point but remember its possible that he knows he will never make the grade at programming. He can know that from trying similar things before again and again. Some 'nerds' will never make the grade at football. They don't need to keep trying in order to know that and if you keep pushing it on them they find it insulting and possibly even humiliating.

If your solution is for all of the security guards to become programmers, who will be the security guards?

Or perhaps you just want enough poor people to move away/up until there's high enough demand for low skill jobs that their income increases. Sound Economics 101, but much more nuanced in reality.

Update: I was just informed "/s" means sarcasm. Mea culpa.

> The Bay is one of the most desirable places in the WORLD to live.

It's unfortunate you believe the hype so completely.

Hundreds of millions of people living in developed countries wouldn't move to the The Bay if you paid them to. You might not know it, but most of us think living in the USA sucks.

(I'm a Software Engineer - I lived in CA for a while. I would never, ever want to have a family or buy a house in the USA. Life there is not very nice.)

Furthermore, move out of the bay area, man! That's one of the most expensive places to live in the country!

Whenever I see these articles, I think about what makes the Bay Area expensive. The key factor is housing prices.

There's a limited amount of land available near the centers of SV because of mountains and natural areas. Supply is strictly constrained and demand is very strong because of industry growth. The result is spiraling prices far above what would seem reasonable elsewhere.

Supply constraint isn't really a natural limit, though. Bay Area housing is spread out, low density, even sprawling. Even San Francisco is only half the density of Brooklyn. San Jose and San Mateo county mostly look like a suburb of Omaha.

Market demand would indicate big profit opportunities for anyone who can buy up a subdivision and build a neighborhood of three story flats on wide sidewalks and two lane streets. That would be over double the density of San Francisco and ten times the density of a typical San Mateo subdivision. You could easily afford to buy up property, knock down current buildings and carry away a huge profit. But you can't get permission from planning boards.

Or you could build like Tokyo, which is a little less dense than Brooklyn. You'd make free standing two or three story single family homes with very little yard on 15' single lane streets and small blocks. That's the same density as Brooklyn, 2.5 times San Francisco.

Or you could even build like San Francisco, but in San Jose. That's efficient enough in land per housing unit to make big money.

But it's all prohibited.

The Bay Area has chosen to be unlivable and unpleasant by its choice of public officials. Those city officials have prohibited the practices that make city living affordable. The result of bad public officials is an unhappy public.

> The Bay Area has chosen to be unlivable and unpleasant by its choice of public officials.

You seem to confuse "high density" with "livable" or "pleasant". I don't think that makes a lot of sense.

> Those city officials have prohibited the practices that make city living affordable.

San Francisco -- whose development policies you suggest would make San Jose more affordable -- is more expensive to live in than San Jose. Tokyo and New York City -- your other comparators for the Bay Area -- aren't exactly bastions of affordability.

The profits for developers if your proposals were adopted are, of course, clear. The mechanism by which "affordable", "livable", or "pleasant" come out of them is far less clear.

I, for one, think that "low density" is exactly what makes Silicon Valley so nice and pleasant to live in.

I've seen dense pleasant and unpleasant and rural pleasant and unpleasant and most possibilities in between. I don't mean to equate the one axis with the other. It is very challenging to build mid-density pleasant surroundings without making car traffic impossibly nasty, though. The DPZ architecture firm in Miami has proven that heroic effort can answer even that challenge.

San Francisco is more expensive than San Jose because more people want to live in a city built like SF than one like SJ. Building more SF and less SJ style will make people happier and produce more housing per acre.

Tokyo and New York City ... aren't exactly bastions of affordability

Correlation isn't causation.

The laws of supply and demand show that more supply will lower prices and less supply forces prices up. Building more quality higher density neighborhoods will make housing more affordable.

Historically very desirable areas became expensive which led to denser construction so more people could afford them. Now the denser areas that were so desirable are often still desirable and still expensive. It wasn't the density that led to the expense, though; the density is mitigating the expense.

There is a limit to what you can do with density to mitigate expense before things get unpleasant and Manhattan is near the limit. Tokyo is not. San Jose is nowhere near the limit.

> San Francisco is more expensive than San Jose because more people want to live in a city built like SF than one like SJ.

No, its more expensive than SJ because it has a major port (driving commercial value) and substantial beachfront, and because groups attracted directly by those two things also, themselves, produce additional indirect demand.

California communities with even one of these things that are built more like San Jose than San Francisco are often more expensive than San Jose -- and even can be more expensive than San Francisco.

> Correlation isn't causation.

But the absence of correlation is pretty clear disproof of causation.

> The laws of supply and demand show that more supply will lower prices

Sure, more housing supply will lower housing prices -- and the resulting increase in population will increase the demand for everything else that plays into affordability of living in the city. What do the laws of supply and demand say about that?

> Sure, more housing supply will lower housing prices -- and the resulting increase in population will increase the demand for everything else that plays into affordability of living in the city. What do the laws of supply and demand say about that?

Yep. You're exactly right. Population is increasing, driving demand, raising prices. Problem is, population will continue to increase for the projected future. Since it's unconstitutional to prevent people from moving somewhere, this needs to be accommodated.

Building more housing will induce demand. But it will also mitigate against a future where growing demand and fixed supply raise rents even more.

The _ONLY_ way to substantively lower rents is to increase supply or decrease demand. Nothing else will solve this. And for what it's worth, rent is about 65% of my monthly budget; lowering rents would substantially increase affordability/cost of living in this area

There is an opportunity for new types of thinking here. Turn Treasure Island into an arcology suitable to house a half-million people in style and comfort...

> Furthermore, move out of the bay area, man! That's one of the most expensive places to live in the country! Go move to Iowa, or North Dakota. Those places have high qualities of life, good wages, and low costs of living.

Yea, he should probably abandon his daughter.

Not everyone is a programmer and even if everyone could program well, there wouldn't be a market large enough to support it. Communities need to be able to support people in different occupations and income ranges.

So let me get this straight. This guy got a girl who wasn't (or isn't anymore) his wife pregnant when he was 20 and didn't have a college degree. No shit it's going to be hard to get along. For fuck's sake, you can get FREE condoms from Planned Parenthood or another local health clinic. The sense of entitlement people have is just astonishing to me.

A sense of entitlement that is not present in the article in any way. In fact, this man worked hard and recently graduate college; he has moved on to a full-time position. He's concerned with his older co-workers and how they will manage to get by.

  But he says many security guards are much older, and 
  it would be hard for them to find another job.

Hard working, moving forward, concerned about his fellow man... I'm not sure where this "sense of entitlement" you mention is coming from.

I think you're forgetting the phrase "shit happens". There is no way of knowing what happened to the mom or their relationship. And I don't think it matters either. How would his having a wife have any impact on his situation? If she didn't work, it would be another person to take care of. If she did work, they'd have the same childcare problems mentioned in the article. He seems like he's working hard to take care of his kid but like most people wishes the huge company he works for would help a little more. Where's the entitlement?

> I think you're forgetting the phrase "shit happens".

Oh come on. There is no excuse for not using contraception when you're not financially, emotionally, and maritally prepared to have a child. I don't know about this particular man's case, but 95% of unwanted pregnancies are due to failure to use contraception or use it properly [0], which is nothing more or less than sheer irresponsibility on the part of the future parents.

> How would his having a wife have any impact on his situation?

Seriously? It's much easier to raise a child when both parents are present. It gives you more flexibility in terms of work, even if both parents are working. You save a lot of money because you're not paying individual rents. You save money on food as well. You get tax benefits from the government. If one of you has a job with health insurance that includes dependents, then the other gets it too. The list goes on and on.

> He seems like he's working hard to take care of his kid but like most people wishes the huge company he works for would help a little more. Where's the entitlement?

He irresponsibly had a child when he wasn't prepared to raise one, and is now expecting others to help him out. That is entitlement.

0: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/05/09/ImprovingContracep...

"I don't know about this particular man's case..." followed by "He irresponsibly had a child...." [emphasis added]

Do you even read your own writing from one paragraph to the next?

How in the fuck do you have any clue whatsoever about what happened to "this guy" before and at the time he had his child?

The only "entitlement" here is you making really amazing, shitty assumptions. Over and over.

> Do you even read your own writing from one paragraph to the next?

Do you even use any semblance of common sense? Even if his daughter was one of the 5% of pregnancies that resulted from failure of contraception, the mother should have gotten an abortion. Not all pregnancies have to result in a birth.

Regardless, my argument isn't specific to this individual. On the whole, 95% of unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsibility. And over and over, we see articles like this one about people who have children when they're too young to financially support them and then complain about how they're not getting paid more. That is entitlement.

> How in the fuck do you have any clue whatsoever about what happened to "this guy" before and at the time he had his child?

Regardless of what "happened to" him, he shouldn't have impregnated a woman at the age of 20, and stopped the birth if it happened on accident. That much is clear.

> but 95% of unwanted pregnancies are due to failure to use contraception or use it properly [0], which is nothing more or less than sheer irresponsibility on the part of the future parents.

He made have made sure that she was using contraception, and not known that she was doing so incorrectly. Or maybe she had some medication interaction that no one warned her about. Or maybe they were one of the 5%.

> He made have made sure that she was using contraception, and not known that she was doing so incorrectly.

This is also being irresponsible. Don't stick your dick in crazy.

> Or maybe she had some medication interaction that no one warned her about.

Not sure what you mean by this, but if she had a latex allergy, there are non-latex condoms as well. Either way, there is no excuse for not using one.

> Or maybe they were one of the 5%.

Maybe, but then you can get an abortion. And besides, the real point of this article isn't about this one individual, but about the large segment of society that is in a similar position to him. And on average, 95% of those people who had unwanted pregnancies fall into the "lack of or incorrect use of contraception" category.

Female birth control pills have a variety of fail methods.

> Don't stick your dick in crazy.

What a vile comment.

Your statistics are for unwanted pregnancies. I don't see anywhere in the article that the kid was/is unwanted.

Couldn't agree more. Most of us started at the bottom and worked very hard to get where we are. Kids cost money, try refraining from having them until you can afford it. I'm sure his mom is loving the situation.

Let us get you straight.

"This guy" has a "sense of entitlement" in your little world....because he's taking care of his daughter, worked at a menial job to make ends meets and while he kept studyting and just got his college degree, programs on the side, just got a new job, and took the time and energy to try to improve conditions for his fellow employees....and then geniuses like you whine about "free condoms" and "entitlement"?

Please. Just delete your comment.

He's complaining about a job that's paying $16/hour an hour when the article clearly states that $16.50/hour is enough for a single person to live on in the valley. He says he has to turn down hours because of his daughter, which means he could probably make enough to survive if she wasn't present. Ergo, his current difficulties are largely brought on by the irresponsible impregnation of a woman when he was not ready to raise a child.

Please. Just stop spouting liberal claptrap for a second and use your head.

And if we just got rid of half the people on the planet, the rest of us could be twice as rich!

A sense of entitlement means you think someone owes you something you didn't work for. This guy is working hard and looking for ways to earn more which means he's not feeling entitled.

I don't think it's a bad thing that Google treats each employee differently.

There's no reason why contractors should have the same benefits as regular employees. Google is a business, not a charity. When Google gives engineers to-go boxes, they don't do it because they like them better than other employees, they do it because it's a competitive market out there, and they want to keep the best.

Besides, maybe letting contractors take food home is too expensive for the company. Maybe they couldn't afford free food at all if they give to EVERYONE.

If the security guard wants to earn more, he should either start a business on his own or improve his skills to get a better job.

People who make this argument tend to make it sound as if it were a discrimination issue, it's not. The reason engineers get paid better isn't because they're white, taller or prettier, it's because they're more prepared and thus add more value to the company.

> Besides, maybe letting contractors take food home is too expensive for the company. Maybe they couldn't afford free food at all if they give to EVERYONE.

It's because a company needs to keep a very clear distinction between employees and not-employees. If a to-go box is an employee benefit, and those boxes are given to contractors who are not employees, then there is the risk that a court will decide that the not-employee is indeed an employee. After that the employee says, "where are my retroactive stock options?" For reference, see Microsoft in the 90s.

Actually, at the Googleplex, when you see someone boarding an early shuttle with a stack of to-go boxes for their friends and neighbors it's most commonly a contractor.

> If the security guard wants to earn more, he should either start a business on his own or improve his skills to get a better job.

Part of the reason people are engineers is because they've been exposed to good examples and opportunities over a lifetime, not because they are especially or particularly motivated over anyone else. There are all sorts of factors which lead to people having the profession that they do. Work ethic is one among many, and probably not very high on the list.

And, being taller and prettier is absolutely a predictor for being better paid.

http://www.livescience.com/5552-taller-people-earn-money.htm... http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020368750...

It's interesting to note that this guy NEVER gets more than 30 hours. This is most likely to make sure the employee can't be considered full-time. I'm sure Google would rather hire 15 guys at 40-60 hours instead of 40 guys at 20 hours, but the sad reality is that the costs of compliance for a full-time employee are just not worth it.

but the sad reality is that the costs of compliance for a full-time employee are just not worth it.

My heart bleeds for these poor, hamstrung corporations.

Does it bleed for the human consequences of the very rational decisions they'll make in that environment?

Google hasn't hired anybody. The security company was awarded a contract to provide security services, which is fulfilled by employing some people at < 30 hours/week. If there is an issue with the < 30 hours/week loophole, the security company is where it should be addressed.

"But Google is benefiting from this exploitation!" you might say.

Yes. Google can pay less for security services because the guards ultimately cost less. If the guards worked 40 hours/week, the contract cost would have to increase, and another lower cost security company may have won the contract. The reality is that security services are only worth so much. Not every job (even at full time) can or should be expected to pay a livable wage.

What do you propose for those people who work these non-livable jobs (including security jobs, janitors, restaurant service workers, and whatever else) to allow them to, well, live? Because you can't just ignore it and say they should get better jobs: someone has to do these things.

I apologize for the late reply.

The truth is some jobs are simply not worth much to the employer. The minimum wage laws generally are designed to ensure a livable (albeit uncomfortable) income for a single adult working full time. In California, the minimum wage is $8/hr, and scheduled to increase to $10/hr within a couple years. This combined with government assistance programs will generally ensure that individuals with the will to work can afford to live near their livelihood ($500/month room with utilities in the bay area with BART access http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/roo/4250779898.html). Of course there are several other factors that impact one's ability to sustain themselves:

Dependants - There is government assistance available for dependant children.

Lack of work - The man from this article does not work full time. The availability of full-time jobs aside, it is not reasonable to expect a livable income on part time, unskilled work.

Major unplanned expenses - Things such as unplanned medical expenses or enormous college tuitions or loan repayments will be a burden to someone making minimum wage.

My point is, 1) I do not accept the assumption that certain jobs are non-livable by definition. For an individual working full time without dependants or edge-case financial burdens, you can generally get by in America. 2) "non-livable" jobs only exist when certain edge case financial hardships arise. In general, assistance is available in these cases, and we have systems in place to support people who fall on hard times. Whether these systems are working as intended is beyond the scope of employee compensation, although there is definitely a case for improving these systems.

There is a third, unspoken point about "non-livable" jobs. People who work these jobs are usually not expected to stay very long. Sometimes these are "stepping-stone" opportunities for the young and inexperienced. Other times these jobs act as a safety net for workers who have lost their higher-paying jobs and need to survive until they can be fully employed. I accept there are people who have no plans or hopes of moving on from these jobs, either due to a lack of marketable skills or even language barriers. I don't believe the answer is in regulating these jobs to pay better. I think the answer lies in educational outreach. Instead of bettering the job, let's try to better the individual so they can get a better job.

Finally, I agree that "someone has to do these things". The market will ensure that the things that need to get done are done. Assuming that everyone "gets better jobs", the supply of unskilled laborers will decrease. From economics, I would guess that a lack of supply for certain menial tasks will have one of two outcomes: the price for the menial task will increase ("non-livable" jobs now become more livable), or a substitute will eliminate the need for the work (automation).

>> costs of compliance for a full-time employee

I'm not sure this is the driver. Instead, the primary factor is likely the fact that hourly employees cost a 50% more the moment they cross 40 hours in a week.

>> Google would rather hire 15 guys at 40-60 hours instead of 40 guys at 20 hours

Not if they are paid hourly, they wouldn't. It would just be throwing money away.

In my way-back days working hourly jobs in retail/fast food/etc., we would game this by trying to get as many excess hours as possible early in the week, so that we could get to 40+ hours by the 5th/6th day. Then, we'd aggressively try to get extra shifts from people who called in sick, etc. But management always tried to prevent this.

Overtime laws definitely affect the cliff at 40 hours. That said, there's something to be said for reliable and consistent employees. I know that a lot of small business owners I know would rather have a few trusted employees than many not-as-trustworthy ones. There's a trust cost to adding each additional employee that may or may not offset the overtime costs.

True. That's partially due to Obamacare. If more than 30 hours, the employer has to provide coverage, which greatly increases the cost of that employee.

If only we could just make these people work for free and not provide any benefits, and just let them die in the street or go bankrupt because they got sick, the market would fix everything and the world would be perfect.

This is explored to a degree in a pop psychology book by Daniel Gilbert called "Stumbling on Happiness". There are certainly better sources, such as the papers Gilbert uses as his primary sources, but the book is an accessible way to learn about the high degree to which our happiness depends on subjective interpretation of our self-comparison to others.

There's a theory out there that we evaluate ourselves mostly against people we can reasonably consider our peers (e.g. college classmates or the kid who grew up down the street, not Barack Obama or Steve Jobs) because they are the best proxy for what our lives could have been like had we made different choices with the same starting point (e.g. medical school instead of starting a business). These peers represent our best experimental data given a world of singular outcomes.

The double-edged sword of you achieving success is that those hundred or so people you compare yourself to sit high up on an asymptotic curve of outcomes. That is, if your peer group all has advanced degrees and decades of experience, the outcome-difference between the least and most successful will be extreme. "Low success" peer groups sit at the flatter part of the curve, so peers you compare yourself to will "look more like you", thus avoiding the unhappiness of comparative failure when you judge yourself.

I'm forgetting whether this particular idea comes from Gilbert's book or another source, like perhaps "Status Anxiety" by Alain de Botton.

That was your takeaway from the article? Really?

I was attempting to introduce another, separate subject of intellectual interest to build on the conversation, not trying to provide my takeaway from this article. If my comment came across as a callous attempt to make the topic about the subjective happiness of the privileged rather than the objective disadvantages of those in need, it was not my intention. I'm sorry for my inappropriateness.

I did not think my takeaway from this article added to the conversation. Since I've been prompted for it, all I can say about the situation is that I'm appalled by income inequality and an apparent lack of empathy, but I don't know enough about the subjects of this article, or the people examining the article's subjects, to pass judgement. I can only empathize.

I work for a major telecom company doing field service.

I'm a contractor, I get a fair wage, but not much else.

Real employees get, company truck, 20% more pay, 100% paid benefits, company phone and a bunch of intangibles.

Like a good example when my manager goes on vacation even though I drive my own vehicle and am paid mileage, none of my mileage requests are paid, right now I'm floating about a month worth of mileage and other expenses, to the tune of 700+ dollars. If I were an employee, I would have a company vehicle, company gas card, company expense card, and it wouldn't be coming out of my pocket.

This is a sad consequence of the dynamism of the tech economy, and while no individual is directly to blame, it behooves us to do what we can to help out those around us. Pointing fingers at this guy, blaming him for his own mistakes, while possibly true (who's to say?) isn't worthwhile.

The rising inequality in the bay area is spurring the protests in SF aimed at tech workers, and are just the beginning of a turning point which will result in the tech elite becoming demonized at large[1], and by extension (and likely less so) your average tech worker.

Becoming involved in the community, expressing sympathy, volunteering at food banks, what have you, are all ways in which we can help avoid that fate.

[1] http://www.economist.com/news/21588893-tech-elite-will-join-...

Is it better to have """low pay""" in San Jose or low pay in Tijuana?

Depends on how low the pay is in Tijuana; the rent down there is much much cheaper too.

Tijuana. Is there any question?

I'd say yes, there is, if people are choosing the San Jose option.

The question is "What is the question?"

- Would you rather be on $24k/p/a in Tijuana?

- Would you rather be in the bottom 10% income bracket in Tijuana?

I definitely meant something like the latter!

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, more people have moved from the USA to Mexico than from Mexico to the USA in each of the past six years. The reverse flow was strong in the 1990's. That's one clue that maybe low pay in Tijuana is getting to be better than San Jose, at least compared to before.

I don't know of specific data between Tijuana and San Jose.

I do know recent college graduates in SF and Mexico City, though. It's clear that the average wage in relation to the cost of living is higher in Mexico City. My impression is that unskilled and low wage workers are probably a lot better off north of the Río Bravo, though maybe not at SF/SJ prices.

It's interesting you choose to compare a developed country to a developing country.

You're comparing a team that is supposedly in the A league to a team in the B league, then saying the former is good because it beats the latter. That's nonsensical.

For a real comparison, you must compare A teams to A teams.

The question should be: Is it better to have "low pay" in San Jose or low pay in Australia/NZ/UK/Japan/Germany/France/Netherlands/etc./etc.

Mexico is an OECD country, a member of the 'first world club.' It has a high level of literacy and education and economic output and public infrastructure. Comparing Mexico to the USA is an A-league to A-league comparison.

Sure, it's a St. Louis Rams to Seattle Seahawks comparison, but it's not so unfair as you suggest.

If everybody learns to code, who's going to be the security guard?

Well...just because someone learns to code, does not mean they will be able to do it full-time. I don't think we'll run into that problem anytime soon

You're right. But, to elaborate, it seems to me that the answer to 'these jobs don't pay enough' is 'get a better job'. The bottom line seems to be 'do what's hard and in fashion (coding), or you can't eat.' Reminds me of the Glengarry Glen Ross contest: 'First prize is a Cadillac, second prize is a set of steak knives, third prize is you're fired.' Is this really how we want to run a society?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com