Slashdot Mirror


In America's Big Tech Cities, More People Are Now Living In Their Vehicles (cbsnews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes CBS MoneyWatch: The number of people residing in campers and other vehicles surged 46 percent over the past year, a recent homeless census in Seattle's King County, Washington found. The problem is "exploding" in cities with expensive housing markets, including Los Angeles, Portland and San Francisco, according to Governing magazine. The problem of vehicle residency is national in scope, although its impact may be more "acutely felt in urban areas where space is more limited," said Sara Rankin, an assistant professor law at Seattle University and the director of Homeless Rights Advocacy Project, in an email to CBS MoneyWatch.
"Amazon, Microsoft and other big tech companies are in the Seattle area," notes Zero Hedge, adding "It is a region that is supposedly 'prospering', and yet this is going on."

Back in Silicon Valley, one Google employee slept in a truck in Google's parking lot for two years -- allowing him to save at least $48,000 that he would've paid in rent -- though many vehicle-dwellers apparently have non-technical jobs as plumbers, janitors, and even teachers. "A fair number of the 'vehicular homeless' in Silicon Valley are employed but are unable to find affordable housing," reports CBS, citing an AP article last November about "Silicon Valley's car people".

"Lines of RVs can be found near the headquarters of tech heavyweights such as Apple, Google and Hewlett-Packard."

281 comments

  1. In a Van Down by the River by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TROLLZ!

    1. Re: In a Van Down by the River by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why everyone has to be in one space? Silicon Valley is disrupting the world, right, everything is electronic, right?

      Lol I made a lot of money living in a flyover state and flying around if face to face was necessary, and now I live in Jupiter, Fl, near a fuckton of pro athletes. Never once sacrificed the dignity it would take to live with the plebes in SV

    2. Re: In a Van Down by the River by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because your lack of dignity and plebe pro athletes and, well, florida....

  2. How many of them are sleeping in Teslas? by mmmVenison · · Score: 0

    Are they roomy and comfortable? Or should one go for something a little larger?

    --
    Offended? Find a safe space and cry yourself to sleep.
  3. more rent control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need more rent control and UBI. That will make things SO much better!

    Or rent control is a way for landlords to lock people out and UBI is a silly idea where employers can pay you less and you get to pay more for everything.

  4. "Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ... and we all know how that games ends.

    >> "Amazon, Microsoft and other big tech companies are in the Seattle area," notes Zero Hedge, adding "It is a region that is supposedly 'prospering', and yet this is going on."
    > As the gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase, the middle class is steadily eroding.

    7 years ago, when those smelly Occupy Wall Street hippies were protesting rampant income inequality, they were derided by conservatives and libertarians. The right-wing party line was something like "Any amount of inequality is just and tolerable, as long it was achieved through pure capitalist means".

    1. Re:"Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Right-wing party line, eh? Know what else is the right-wing party line? Here's a 2015 exchange between Ezra Klein and Bernie Sanders that is highly relevant:

      Ezra Klein
      You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing ...

      Bernie Sanders
      Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.

      Ezra Klein
      Really?

      Bernie Sanders
      Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. ...

      Ezra Klein
      But it would make ...

      Bernie Sanders
      Excuse me ...

      Ezra Klein
      It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?

      Bernie Sanders
      It would make everybody in America poorer â"you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

      You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?

      I think from a moral responsibility we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer.

      Ezra Klein
      Then what are the responsibilities that we have? Someone who is poor by US standards is quite well off by, say, Malaysian standards, so if the calculation goes so easily to the benefit of the person in the US, how do we think about that responsibility?

      We have a nation-state structure. I agree on that. But philosophically, the question is how do you weight it? How do you think about what the foreign aid budget should be? How do you think about poverty abroad?

      Bernie Sanders
      I do weigh it. As a United States senator in Vermont, my first obligation is to make certain kids in my state and kids all over this country have the ability to go to college, which is why I am supporting tuition-free public colleges and universities.

      https://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:"Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7 years ago, when those smelly Occupy Wall Street hippies were protesting rampant income inequality, they were derided by conservatives and libertarians. The right-wing party line was something like "Any amount of inequality is just and tolerable, as long it was achieved through pure capitalist means".

      There’s nothing stopping those Occupy Wall Street retards from moving to a place with a much lower cost of living.

    3. Re: "Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody cares about Bernie or his blather.

      Now the guys who literally convinced a state to sell off its public assets, that is another story.

    4. Re:"Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialism is when Monopoly becomes law.

    5. Re:"Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The right-wing party line was something like ...

      So housing shortages in the SF Bay Area are caused by the "right-wing"? Who knew?

    6. Re:"Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >> In America's Big Tech Cities, More People Are Now Living In Their Vehicles
      > "Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism, and we all know how that games ends.

      That's why I always choose the car when I play Monopoly.

    7. Re:"Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right-wing party line was something like ...

      So housing shortages in the SF Bay Area are caused by the "right-wing"? Who knew?

      If we just got government out of the way and let the corporations and ultra-wealthy do whatever they wanted, the working class would be able to afford housing.

    8. Re:"Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by MellowBob · · Score: 1

      Right wing party was like if you can afford an iPhone, inequality is jack shit.

    9. Re: "Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Occupy Wall Street wanted to take from the rich and give to the poor. And by "rich" they meant the middle class too.

    10. Re:"Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by MellowBob · · Score: 2

      Hitler is why we have a housing shortage. Elect an albino Hispanic native american with XYQZ chromosomes that identifies as an RV. Anything else means millions will die from pollution, rising sea levels, and STRAWS!

    11. Re:"Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by MellowBob · · Score: 1

      The ultra wealthy would have built dozens of buildings with dozens of stories each for the over paid Amazon/Goggle office lackey. With the over paid Amazon/Google office lackey in an over priced 100 story apartment, the poor will not be crowded out by them in the rest of the housing market.

    12. Re: "Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Some of it ia just the way we talk about it. Both sides hated the bank bailout and wanted to do something about it, but the right said, "if my tax dollars are going to banks, I'm definitely paying too much taxes" and the left said, "me paying money to banks is the result of inequality.". The because each side expressed the problem differently, they fought against each other and they banks kept getting paid.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re: "Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, allow uncontrolled immigration or all the poor corporations will die of too few profits!

    14. Re: "Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Has this Ezra Klein bootlicking clown ever actually been to Malaysia?

      Forget the dollars to ringgits exchange rate sophistry - look at standard of living. Workers in Kuala Lumpur are NOT worse off than workers in Detroit.

    15. Re: "Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      The way you say it is rude and mocking. (It's common for the lumpen to deride the working class for their very willingness to work.) Nevertheless there's some truth to the economic proposition you ridicule.

    16. Re: "Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      +1

      What we need us more solidarity. 99% of us are all on the same side.

    17. Re:"Monopoly" Is A Model Of Capitalism... by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Except things like language barriers, immigration laws, and having no money to actually pay for it.

  5. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by psmoot · · Score: 4, Informative

    For all Apple's influence in Cupertino, I doubt they could get the city council to approve an apartment complex that size. The NYMBYism out here is pretty intense.

    We seem to be building 5-story apartments and condos all over the place these days. I've watched three, or maybe four, high-rise apartments get built in downtown San Jose in the last few years. That's not enough but it's more housing than I've seen be built in years. The question on everyone's lips is traffic. The roads already seem crowded, will this make it worse? I wonder if the new homes will be filled with people who already work here. If so, this will just shorten their commute and traffic will get better. If this lets companies hire more workers, it's going to make traffic much worse.

  6. Hmm, so when's Musk releasing a van? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because at 97 ft^3 of interior space no one's gonna be 'living in a Model 3 down by the river'.

  7. just like the slashdot PT Cruiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except there probably won't be vaseline smeared all over your ass when you wake up. Unless you're in San Francisco.

  8. And yet there are whole zipcodes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where houses stand empty, or rather fall apart slowly as nobody will even bother to squat there.

    Nobody cares. Nobody does anything. We've reached the point of despair.

    1. Re: And yet there are whole zipcodes by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      There's no work in those places, my brother.

      Large swaths of the United States have been in a state of economic collapse for several decades.

      But shhhhhhh, it's super politically-incorrect to say that.. and probably illegal to say it on TV.

  9. Poor in prospering state by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    TFA says:

    Amazon, Microsoft and other big tech companies are in the Seattle area," notes Zero Hedge, adding "It is a region that is supposedly 'prospering', and yet this is going on."

    Indeed, economy metrics such as GDP can be good, but people can still live poor in a rich state, because wealthy individuals and big corporations managed to dodge taxes

  10. Comming soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    California to charge you with 'property tax' for owning a vehicle.

    (captcha:mooned... holy shit. thats.... freaky. ca gov moonbeam made this mess)

    1. Re:Comming soon. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      California personal property tax is why Arizona, which has only one natural lake, has the nation's largest number of small boat registrations.

  11. update: gargoyles in london by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the goyles appear to be pushing the cement statues of them off the churches, banks, & other buildings, & taking up 'perching' on the vacated spots.. more later.. truth+mercy=justice for all..

  12. So much for Remote Work by locater16 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Back in the late 60's Arthur C. Clark predicted networked computers would make remote work possible for everyone.

    Ironically, the people least allowed to work remotely appear to be those that allow increasing amount of people in other industries to do exactly that. Sure, that website's employees can all be remote and there can be no actual HQ to even speak of, but hell forbid that anyone working for Evil Tech Inc. work anywhere but at HQ where they can be properly monitored and recorded!

  13. Timely article for me by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm going to go look at a bus tomorrow. It's cheaper than we paid for a high-top Sprinter and has half the miles. It's only partly about the cheap housing, and partly about fires. If you have to bug out from a fire, it's a lot nicer if you can take your whole house with you. The house we lived in for the last eleven years just burned down (two months after we moved out!) in a small fire in Lake County, CA, which even people living under rocks know is currently massively ablaze. We live in a redwood forest clearing in Albion at the moment...

    The plan is to title it as an RV, at which point you don't need any special driver's license to operate it as long as it's under 40' in overall length, bumper to bumper, regardless of whether it's got air brakes or what the GVWR is. RV insurance is also incredibly cheap, while commercial vehicle insurance is credibly expensive.

    If you give up fixed addresses, you can essentially make yourself a resident of another state, which has all kinds of advantages. South Dakota is one very popular option, because they have lax requirements for housecar registration, a low tax rate, and cheap registration fees. And you never even have to go there at all in order to accomplish your registration, get mail forwarding, etc. This is only my backup plan, though. I'm in contact with a registration service which claims it can accomplish the title conversion in 2-3 days.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Timely article for me by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      I'd love to get an RV. As a consultant I can spend long stretches on the road. But they are "holy fuck are you kidding" expensive in most cases. Who the hell is paying $400,000+ for these things?!

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:Timely article for me by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Build your own. Used "step-vans" and short buses are cheap. Not that expensive to install a bed, aux heat-A/C ysstem, chemical toilet, range top, and water tank/sink.

    3. Re:Timely article for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $10,000 for a bus and $20,000 for upgrades makes for a livable space.

    4. Re:Timely article for me by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Get the step-van, and make sure to paint it so it is innocuous.
      https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/i...

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:Timely article for me by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd love to get an RV. As a consultant I can spend long stretches on the road. But they are "holy fuck are you kidding" expensive in most cases. Who the hell is paying $400,000+ for these things?!

      Retirees with way too much money and no desire to do their own conversion. But you can get a 40' (or smaller) bus with less than 200,000 miles for less than $10,000, and you can plausibly convert it for less than $10,000 again. The requirements are minimal (Depending on state, you need approximately a permanently-affixed toilet which is either composting or attached to a black water tank, a sink with fresh and grey water tanks, a cooker, something to sleep on, and not too many seats) and buses are built way better than RVs. School buses in particular are built with safety in mind for obvious reasons; since the 1990s or so, somewhere between most and all of them have integral roll cages built into the bodies. This is not exactly uncommon in transit buses, either.

      I've been seeing credible school buses recently taken out of service (meaning recently maintained) sell for around $3000, some with decent tires on them. I've been seeing good-looking transit buses sell for around $10,000. School buses are lighter and slightly cheaper to run; transit buses are built heavier and tend to have at least front air suspension, for a better ride. The air suspension can also be adapted for use leveling the coach. Some of the school buses and many if not most of the transit buses have wheelchair lifts, which are of interest both to the disabled and to people who want help lifting heavy stuff into their bus.

      I have a lot more to say about conversion, choosing the right bus etc. but I'm saving it for a blog post, and I am working on a business plan that involves bus conversions but I am not at all planning to share it until I either give up on it or actually move forward on it. The only other thing I'll say now is that if you see rust, run away. There are enough buses to where you don't have to mess with that. Arizona has signaled their plan to spend their Volkswagen settlement money on new, more efficient school buses, so there will soon be absolutely piles of surplus vehicles on the market.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Timely article for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When South Dakota goes, where will you run to next? You can't run away from these problems.

    7. Re:Timely article for me by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      How good are transit buses on the highway, considering they're usually designed to spend most of their time running between 0 and 30 mph?

    8. Re: Timely article for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just convert a cargo van. Way better stealth. Been using one for five years now. 3-4 days a week in the city, home in the country on the weekends. Nice life

    9. Re:Timely article for me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How good are transit buses on the highway, considering they're usually designed to spend most of their time running between 0 and 30 mph?

      It depends on the final gear ratio, and how many gears are unlocked on your transmission. It's not uncommon for transit buses to spend some time on the highway. Anything around 4.11:1 or higher will be fine. Anything with six gears will be fine. Most buses with five gears will be fine, too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Timely article for me by BigDukeSix · · Score: 1

      You have been an important contributor in this space for many years. Thanks for your time, and I am very sorry to hear about the loss of your home. I will be looking out for your posts on this life-hack.

    11. Re:Timely article for me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your time, and I am very sorry to hear about the loss of your home.

      Luckily, it's a rental which we don't own, and it had a mortgage so the owners were insured. But thanks for your kind words!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Timely article for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of repair costs are there on buses for normal maintenance on turbos, etc.?
      From what (little) I've seen it's basically it's the same as a semi, $10k+ bills are common.

    13. Re: Timely article for me by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's much much cheaper to get a travel trailer and a truck. Not only that, they are separable fr the vehicle, so if your truck needs repairs, you don't need to bring the whole house to the repair shop. You still have a place to live while the thing is being repaired.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Timely article for me by WolfgangVL · · Score: 2

      I grew up in a tour bus. I was a straight up bus when my old man bought it. 90s Silver Eagle to be exact. We spent a summer pulling out the seats, installing propane, solar panels and a water system. Back and fourth all over the country every summer after that. We even turned the bottom luggage area into a little garage for the Harley.

      He used to say ,"We're playin gypsy" when we had to move every night to avoid getting a ticket, but we had a ton of fun, and it paid for itself in saved rent money. This was in Western WA, so weather was not much of a concern, and MS was just starting to spin up the east side. We saw a ton of tech workers in the campgrounds, living out of converted vans and school-buses, even back then.

      It's defiantly doable on the cheap if you're determined and handy. Just takes a little getting used to, and a little more resourcefulness. Laundrymats are shitty, and scavenging for showers sucks. You still need to buy a night every week or two at a campground to dump your tanks and reup the water. When your ""Playing gypsy" everybody knows whats up after a day or two, and from time to time people call the cops if you stick to the same block or two.

      My point is, you don't have to start with the 400k monstrosity. A used bus or large van/box-truck can be made livable for almost nothing- as long as the weather holds. Go for it man!

      Having grown up like that, I would never do it with a family though. It was just the two of us, but living like that was pretty rough on teenage me.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    15. Re: Timely article for me by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      There are $1MM RVs that sell used for about $400k sometimes....very nice.

      I would opt for a Sprinter based B class so I could live in wal-mart parking lot if I wanted. More than two people is not realistic in a class B though.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    16. Re:Timely article for me by c · · Score: 1

      Who the hell is paying $400,000+ for these things?!

      A very typical retirement plan is for people to sell their house, buy an RV, travel for a few years/decades, and when they start to get tired of the nomadic life they buy a condo wherever they find themselves spending time.

      If you sell a $1.5m house, a $400k RV isn't a bad deal...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    17. Re: Timely article for me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I am my own mechanic. This is why I prefer Cummins. The tools are cheaper and most of the larger engines are wet-sleeve and can be rebuilt in-frame. The 5.9 is native bore, though, so I want an 8.3. Also, a big travel trailer (over 10k gross) requires a noncommercial class A licence; an RV can be operated on a class C regardless of GVWR. Finally, travel trailers are almost universally built like hot garbage compared to buses. They are more prone to leaks because they shake themselves apart as you transport them. The same objection applies to RVs. They are not constructed like buses and are neither as safe nor as sturdy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Timely article for me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's a good question, but a turbo rebuild is a job I would likely do myself. I've done it before. You can get an entire rebuilt engine installed in your bus for $10k, though, even paying someone else to supply the motor and do the job, so no. $10k+ bills are not common. Also, RVs are not emissions tested, and don't require a DPF or even DEF. You're still not allowed to remove that stuff, but you also don't have to retrofit it. In fact, if the bus didn't have DPF originally, you can remove it and sell it to a core buyer for $500+.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re: Timely article for me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Also, hate to double-reply, but let me just say that it is NOT cheaper to buy a trailer and a truck. A decent tow rig costs about $10k used. A decent trailer can cost much more than that; it's a challenge to find a used one that isn't leaking, and the prior owners are not necessarily forthcoming with that kind of information. I am just not interested in travel trailers, I've been down that road already.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re: Timely article for me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I would opt for a Sprinter based B class so I could live in wal-mart parking lot if I wanted. More than two people is not realistic in a class B though.

      Just two people might not be realistic, if one of them is me. I'm 6'7" and currently weigh 280lb. Getting up to piss shakes the whole van. You can get leveling jacks, but finding good places to put them on a part-unibody vehicle with a front subframe like a Sprinter is not necessarily realistic. Also, my lady has a tendency to toss and turn in her sleep. Finally, a cab-chassis Sprinter camper costs big, big money. Not as much as an RV, but easily twice as much as a cargo sprinter. We do have a cargo sprinter, and it does have a bed in it, but this has turned out to be the reality. Van living is only really realistic for small couples. That's why all the people you see posting "van life" videos to the tube are slender little waifs. There is plenty of room for one person of more or less any size, and even I can almost stand up in it... but not quite. And I hit my head on the roof bows.

      Sprinters are great vehicles, but they also have their problems. T1Ns are somewhat prone to the "black death" (google it,) but are otherwise pretty solid; Bluetecs are unfortunately unreliable and fiddly. Problems with the DEF system are commonplace. The vans in between seem OK, but none of them are as fuel-efficient as the T1N with the 2.7l 5-cyl diesel. Simple jobs like ball joint replacement require special tools, because Mercedes. I was able to make a fixture that would let me press out T1N ball joints out of a conveniently-sized Audi A8 suspension link, by cutting a groove in it that would let it grab onto a boss on the A-arm, but my 12 ton press would only get one of them out and I had to take the stuff to my local shop and have them press the other one out for me on their big pro unit. Of course, you can just buy arms preloaded with new ball joints, and they're pretty reasonable, but still much more expensive than just replacing the joint. All the door hinges need rebuilding, I just replaced the side door rollers and the side door works pretty well, but all the other doors squeak and/or rattle. The handling, however, is phenomenal if you put on good rubber. We got Cooper AT3s.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Timely article for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you give up fixed addresses, you can essentially make yourself a resident of another state, which has all kinds of advantages. South Dakota is one very popular option, because they have lax requirements for housecar registration, a low tax rate, and cheap registration fees. And you never even have to go there at all in order to accomplish your registration, get mail forwarding, etc. This is only my backup plan, though. I'm in contact with a registration service which claims it can accomplish the title conversion in 2-3 days.

      So here we have drinkypoo, a Progressive, wanting fewer regulations and lower taxes for himself. Heh.

    22. Re:Timely article for me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "So here we have drinkypoo, a Progressive, wanting fewer regulations and lower taxes for himself. Heh."

      If I were making any kind of real money, I wouldn't mind paying taxes. You can complain about the free information if you want, though. The California DMV is a leech which provides almost no value to the people. I don't know where the hell they spend that money. It sure as hell isn't on personnel. On the rare occasion they are competent, there still aren't enough of them. Progressive doesn't mean I like paying to be abused.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. subsidized housing ? by Archfeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the companies would put up buildings and subsidize their own workers and then provide shuttle service it could attract qualified workers into very high cost of living areas, while not contributing as much to the local traffic. One problem I did not see mentioned but I've encountered in downtown apartment/condos is parking. I would love to see a building that had apartments, a supermarket, restaurants, a medical facility and maybe a day care/school all combined. No doubt the corps would turn this kind of company district into a for profit trap, but the idea seems solid up front.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:subsidized housing ? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      If the companies would put up buildings ...

      Many Silicon Valley companies would LOVE to be able to build housing for their employees. Probability of them getting permits to do so: 0%.

    2. Re:subsidized housing ? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would love to see a building that had apartments, a supermarket, restaurants, a medical facility and maybe a day care/school all combined. No doubt the corps would turn this kind of company district into a for profit trap, but the idea seems solid up front.

      It's even got a name, coined by architect Paolo Soleri: Arcology . His project Arcosanti broke ground in 1970, and construction continues today. It is not very financially successful, but it doesn't have any mainstream business, either. Arcologies have nonetheless remained a science-fiction trope, as they continue to be seen as a plausible projection of existing trends. Corporations in certain industries regularly build housing for employees, in locations where no such housing exists; less regularly, they build housing where it is simply scarce. However, in the latter case business interests tend to not be located in residential areas, and building the housing separately requires no rezoning — which keeps costs down.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:subsidized housing ? by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      What ever happened to those Google barges? Just set up some floating dormitories and anchor them in S.F. Bay. Maybe just off the beach at the Presidio. Right in you know who's view.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re: subsidized housing ? by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's got an even older name; a company town.

      They got a bad rep for a number of reasons, like the fact that they gave the company way too much control over workers lives. Companies could set arbitrary prices on goods, charging whatever they wanted. Plus if you got fired you not only lost your job, you also got booted out of your house.

      Also if the company went tits up so did the town, which kinda sucked.

      Turns out they weren't that great of an idea after all.

    5. Re:subsidized housing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One problem I did not see mentioned but I've encountered in downtown apartment/condos is parking. I would love to see a building that had apartments, a supermarket, restaurants, a medical facility and maybe a day care/school all combined. No doubt the corps would turn this kind of company district into a for profit trap, but the idea seems solid up front.

      No need to be a 'company town' building, imagine that in a regular building. If not a supermarket maybe a bakery and a butcher and a convenience store. This is what happens in countries that don't have excessive "zoning".

    6. Re:subsidized housing ? by mikael · · Score: 1

      They did that in Canada (Mississauga). Condo apartment blocks have communal concrete underground car parks - mainly to protect cars from the cold. In the downtown city, other Condo units are built on top of Metro stations and shopping malls. Metro stations link together so you don't need a car or to even go outside.

      In Trondheim, Norway, there is a place called Solsiden which does what you suggest. There are supermarkets on the ground levels, a shopping mall with hairdressers and shops. You don't need a car.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    7. Re: subsidized housing ? by hoofie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Company Towns still exist in Western Australia especially in the Iron Ore mining region of the Pilbara.
      It makes financial sense for companies like Rio Tinto to build housing etc. as the remoteness means it is very, very expensive to fly workers in and out and house them onsite.

    8. Re:subsidized housing ? by MellowBob · · Score: 1

      When NYC got crowded, it built 100 story buildings.

    9. Re: subsidized housing ? by Ichijo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's a good description of the H-1B program also. If you lose your job, you get booted out of the country. How's that for modern day slavery?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    10. Re: subsidized housing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Check out Saltaire, a UNESCO world heritage site and company town in England.

    11. Re:subsidized housing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Sierra Club - CEO's and executives who got a special permit to build log cabins in the mountain forests, and then campaign against any further development of tract housing.

    12. Re: subsidized housing ? by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 2

      Companies could set arbitrary prices on goods, charging whatever they wanted. ... Turns out they weren't that great of an idea after all.

      Maybe I'm older than I think. Don't y'all remember this phrase? Link "I owe my soul to the company store" at 0:51

      Sixteen Tons" is a song ... based on life in coal mines The line, "You load sixteen tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt," came from a letter ... Another ... from their father, a coal miner, who would say, "I can't afford to die. I owe my soul to the company store."

      I'm sure, just like Wal*Mart, they've always got the lowest price.

      Link: Regulators forced "Mr. Sam" [Walton] to modify his slogan of "Always the lowest price" to the hedged "Always low prices!"

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    13. Re:subsidized housing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    14. Re: subsidized housing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course, the people getting “booted out” aren’t citizens of the country in the first place, and got the H1-B visa for the specific intention of coming here to work...

    15. Re: subsidized housing ? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Yes, please continue.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    16. Re:subsidized housing ? by psmoot · · Score: 1

      If the companies would put up buildings and subsidize their own workers ...

      I'd much rather companies just paid me a higher salary and let me figure out where I want to live. For that matter, I'd rather they gave me a higher salary and got their nose out of my health care too.

    17. Re:subsidized housing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      google is building a huge employee village in Moffett Field. Space was originally set aside for a university.

      The tractors are getting lined up to tear down the current government tractors.

      pretty much all the property off of 101 to the runways.

    18. Re: subsidized housing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... when job ends, residency ends. The end.

    19. Re: subsidized housing ? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      you load 16 tons.. what do you get?

    20. Re:subsidized housing ? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      You can't build those in an earthquake zone, but San Francisco Bay would be an ideal place for barge housing.

      This is what happened to the Google Barge: https://www.pressherald.com/20...

      It wasn't housing, but a product demo site that, like so many other good Google projects, was abandoned before it really got going. But since there is nothing specifically Googlish about the idea of barge apartments, why isn't anyone building these? This would be housing that could easily be moved from place to place as needed.

    21. Re:subsidized housing ? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      It's even got a name, coined by architect Paolo Soleri: Arcology . n.

      The place to build one of these should have been downtown Tokyo, not whatever empty spot in central Arizona where Paolo Soleri and a band of hippies could buy cheap land.

    22. Re: subsidized housing ? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      No, a company town is a town built by and owned by one business, to house its workers in the middle of nowhere. That's why it's coercive. If an arcology is built in a dense existing urban area, people can choose to live there.

    23. Re:subsidized housing ? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      We have one of these too, called Minneapolis.

    24. Re: subsidized housing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a fleet of autonomous sprinter vans to live out of. You could let them roam the streets if you like to sleep in a moving car or park them at the company parking lot. Weekends have one drive you to a place far away as you sleep.

      Or just ask if you can work remotely

    25. Re:subsidized housing ? by PPH · · Score: 1

      why isn't anyone building these?

      Because there is nothing that will trigger the seething rage of waterfront property owners like having someone slip their own 'house' in front of them.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    26. Re:subsidized housing ? by PPH · · Score: 1

      100 story buildings

      You can't build those in an earthquake zone

      Evidently, someone didn't get the memo. What they really meant to say was "You can't build those in my view."

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    27. Re:subsidized housing ? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The tallest building in town is the Salesforce Tower at 61 stories, and it was blisteringly expensive to satisfy the city earthquake code at that height. The situation is rough;y the same in Tokyo.

      Parenthetically, why is the tallest building in every city suddenly the Salesforce Tower? What are they doing that's all that important?

    28. Re: subsidized housing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The White House is a terrorist organization too. Perspective is everything.

    29. Re: subsidized housing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subsidizing their own workers is what the coal companies did with coal miners. We're trying to stay away from that.

      One of the core hopes of a free market is freedom of choice. When an employee's employer owns everything an employee has, meaning that an employee who leaves the company does so with the shirt on his back, that significantly raises the cost to switch jobs. Primarily because it is so rare.

      It is likely to stay rare, because even if one employer does such, what other company would want to add such a large budget item to their bottom line? Especially when their employees are content to live out of their vehicles to save their employer money on housing.

    30. Re: subsidized housing ? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      If you look out from the 50th floor in Shinjuku, you can see highrise towers as far as the horizon. Earthquakes definitely have not stopped the Japanese from building Tokyo up up up.

    31. Re: subsidized housing ? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a great way to ensure supine obedience and drive down local wages.

    32. Re: subsidized housing ? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Another day older and deeper in debt.

      And black lung, of course...

    33. Re: subsidized housing ? by MoaDweeb · · Score: 2

      You also were paid in 'company scrip', money that could only be spent at the company store to purchase the shovels etc. needed for the mining. At inflated prices of course.
      Company scrip was not legal tender and most countries ( in NZ it was the Wages Protection Act 1880~) enacted laws requiring payment in legal tender so that a modicum of competition could be allowed. Or at least envisioned.
      See the movie Matewan (1987) for an example of a company town, based on historical events.

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    34. Re:subsidized housing ? by Contract+Gypsy · · Score: 0

      How could you even think of doing something that terrible to Pelosi? How dare you! I believe the better approach would be to go Wizard of Oz on her, but instead of dropping a house on her, drop a barge! I'd just love to see those red and white striped socks shrivel up and disappear under the barge. But then I'd have to say something mean to her remains... the slippers are mine bitch!

      --
      Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
    35. Re: subsidized housing ? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Still nothing taller than in San Francisco. When I lived there in the Seventies the tallest building was 55 stories, and there is still nothing over 63 floors. The tallest structure in town, Tokyo Skytree, is a broadcasting tower with a restaurant and observation deck, like the CN Tower in Toronto.

    36. Re: subsidized housing ? by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      Just because the housing was subsidized doesn't mean that non employees couldn't live there as well, but that it might be in the interest of employers to be able to offer prime accommodations as an incentive to attract potential employees to a very expensive area. I understand your point about company housing and company towns in general though, and it is a good point. If company A stole a bunch of employees from company B because they offered housing options that weren't available it might cause a wave of competition that could only help the workers.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    37. Re: subsidized housing ? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Don't you call me St. Peter cause I can't go...

    38. Re:subsidized housing ? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      You don't need to building anywhere near that tall to make a difference. Paris is less than a quarter of the area of San Jose, yet it has more than twice as many people, and only one residential building over 400 feet tall. The vast majority of buildings in the the city are in the range 6-10 stories tall.

    39. Re: subsidized housing ? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      The US military still essentially runs company towns. A relative of mine and his family were living in one when he was unexpectedly separated. They were notified on a Thursday and had to be out of their home by Monday.

  15. This isn't Monopoly by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    it's oligarchy. Occupy Wall Street was shut down by a coordinated effort between the FBI and local law enforcement made possible by the Patriot Act (something they pinkie swore would never happen).

    I think folks have figured this out, but after 50 years of gerrymandering, voter suppression and the anti-Democratic effects of our Senate and Electoral College I'm not sure what can be done. The Unions being allowed to die with the manufacturing base hurt too. The working class is completely disorganized. The ruling class doesn't have that problem.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please. it was shutdown when the feminists joined up. There's not a progressive movement around that they don't get attached to like ticks, injecting their disease ridden ideology into the host movement until it falls ill and dies. Feminism is parasitical. It's also cancer. Feminism is cancerous parasites.

    2. Re:This isn't Monopoly by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      How did the Left go from protesting NAFTA to loving it the moment Trump was elected? Do you all really have memories that short? Seattle *burned* over NAFTA.

      The Democrats gutted welfare at the same time they exploded the prison population, called black people 'super predators', at the same time they did NAFTA. Then they deregulated Wall Street, which crashed the economy within 10 years. That's what Democrats did. Democrats did things that Ronald Reagan could only dream about, in his wet dreams. George HW Bush couldn't pass NAFTA. It took Bill Clinton to do it. Bill Clinton gave the cover to the other corporate Democrats to go along with it. That was the beginning of the end for the working class in America.

      Then the Democrats wag their finger at people with no money and no power, for not voting for a corporatist warmonger like Hillary Clinton. Why do you think the people in Michigan wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton? Maybe because she put half of them in fuckin' prison? Because she passed NAFTA, and Barack Obama was trying to sell TPP at the top of his lungs, at the same time she was trying to get working people to vote for her? They knew what the fuck was going on! That's why half the country didn't vote. But you're going to wag your finger at the people who actually do vote? Who come out and vote their conscience? You know what voting for the lesser of two evils gets you? Donald Trump!

      --Jimmy Dore, formerly of The Young Turks

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:This isn't Monopoly by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What is needed is a completely decentralized revolution of labor without meeting places (or indeed, meetings) or leaders. And the basis, of course, must be strong crypto. You must be able to know that the person you're communicating with today is the same you were communicating with yesterday.

      We need an app for that

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The working class is completely disorganized...

      Bread and Circuses; nothing new here.

    5. Re:This isn't Monopoly by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Occupy Wall Street was shut down by a coordinated effort between the FBI and local law enforcement

      Nope. OWS faded away because they had no organization or leadership, no coherent goals or objectives, and were completely ineffective at catalyzing change or allying with existing politicians or electing new politicians.

      Contrast OWS with another organization formed around the same time: The Tea Party. Both were created in reaction to the financial crisis and the bank bailout. But the Tea Party didn't fade away. They were organized. They had coherent, specific, and realistic goals. They formed alliances and endorsed politicians. The ejected incumbents, and elected a tidal wave of new representatives.

      OWS has faded away, and may someday merit a small footnote in a history book.

      The Tea Party has revolutionized American politics, and is now running the country.

    6. Re:This isn't Monopoly by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I think Alibaba is working on one. It's very secure. All the best crypto America can conceive.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    7. Re: This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://tuantengku.blogspot.com

    8. Re: This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is almost as if many of the democrats of THEN aren't the same as many of the democrats of NOW.

      Many of us moderates are now democrats, because republicans are what you see on TV now and for the last decade.

    9. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the basis, of course, must be strong crypto. You must be able to know that the person you're communicating with today is the same you were communicating with yesterday.

      No, no, no. What you need is a government that you aren't afraid of. I thought freedom of speech and assembly was a big deal for Americans...

    10. Re:This isn't Monopoly by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. What you need is a government that you aren't afraid of. I thought freedom of speech and assembly was a big deal for Americans...

      Yeah, but how do we get from here to there? Because right now, our votes don't count, and even where they do, they don't all count the same.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:This isn't Monopoly by MellowBob · · Score: 1

      Well, the tea party did fail to eject enough incumbents or to elect a new tidal wave. That is why we have Trump.

    12. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats haven't been "left" since Jimmy Carter. NAFTA was Slick Willy's baby and any elected dem that claimed to not support it was only playing lip service for votes from the actual left who didn't know that they where being played by the right wing dems.

    13. Re:This isn't Monopoly by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Fuck no. No conspiracies required, right in your fucking face activism. Not happy, tell them to fuck off. Your political representative not representing you, drop them a line telling them you will campaign against them at the next election. A corporation fucking with your democracy, well, fuck with their marketing caimpagns, forums and reviews. Talk politics with your friends and neighbours, it is a corporate PR=B$ lie that it is bad to discuss politics, don't discuss politics and it can kill you and yours, straight up. The more you ignore your government the worse it will get, so pay attention, discuss it, become politically active, it can save your life and the lives of those around you.

      Only evil hides in shadow, man up and loudly and clearly tell them to fuck off with their insatiable psychopathic greed and drive the corruption politicians from office. Look what they did in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., to let you piss their courage away. They demonstrated their bravery and many were murdered by their own government at the behest of the psychopathic business executives of the day. Look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and you suckers are still falling for the same shite to this day. No unions in the US and workers will be fucked and to start them up again many workers will die, take action before having to do it the hard way again. Right in their fucking face action, right in their face union organising, right in their face selecting and supporting new candidates in the primaries, right in the face writing of new laws and let them see you when you force their arrest and prosecution for all their corrupt actions.

      No conspiracies, be a public minded citizen by ensuring political leaders are no longer elected, only political representatives are allowed, the electorate leads the fucking politicians follow, no go damned Boss Hog https://www.youtube.com/watch?..., foolish empty headed Americans turned a sitcom into reality.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because Democrat politicians are horrible lying fucks doesn't mean the Republican politicians aren't as bad. The really nutty ones are easily worse, they plot to bring about the apocalypse. I'd much rather be stolen from and ripped off by a Democrat, than the world burned to ashes. (assuming it's an either-or choice. right now it feels like both happens at once)

    15. Re: This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days ANTIFA happily fights for Google, Apple and other globocorps.

      No nations, no borders is good for Bug business, or so they think.

    16. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      The tea party is funded and controlled by a few billionaires...

    17. Re: This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems big money and globalists corporations are already scared to hell by the election of an unsanctioned potus. Just look at the utterings of their press whores.

    18. Re:This isn't Monopoly by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The tea party is funded and controlled by a few billionaires...

      Yes, it was disgraceful how the Koch brothers were able to just buy the presidency for Jeb Bush.

    19. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tea Party is just Koch Brothers astro turf. They have no coherent policy, they started in 2010 saying Obama's saving the economy put the US in too much debt. Now Trump is cutting taxes so much even if the economy does well, the amount of national debt will increase substantially, and thats best case. Tea Party doesn't say shit about that because Koch brothers told them to go along. Tea Party is a joke.

    20. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Both the Rs and Ds are gibbering away about their favorite apocalypses right now while still being wholly owned by major lobbyists. It's time for a new party.

      I would like to see one built around not denying science - any of the disciplines - while at the same time letting engineers build the discoveries science makes, this being what motivates us to spend money on it.

    21. Re: This isn't Monopoly by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      It seems big money and globalists corporations are already scared to hell by the election of an unsanctioned potus. Just look at the utterings of their press whores.

      Now what we need is an unsanctioned POTUS who has a coherent strategy of his/her own. Nominations, anyone?

    22. Re: This isn't Monopoly by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Comrade Stalin really loved science and scientific government. No, he really did - read the history.

      Corollary 1: Stalin wasn't a cartoonish monster, even tho his agricultural policies lead to the premature death of millions.

      Corollary 2: Science has fucking zero answers to the hard questions of government.

    23. Re: This isn't Monopoly by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      It won't be a revolution in the old style. It will be a creeping communism, a slow but inexorable change in social structure wrought by changes in the productive relationship of capital to labor. There was never a unified "capitalist revolution", but nonetheless capitalism completely supplanted feudalism. FOSS is the harbinger of the new productivity. Far from a complete and stable system - merely a glimpse of the future.

    24. Re: This isn't Monopoly by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. OWS was forcibly suppressed by coordinated nationwide police action. I was there.

    25. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. OWS was absolutely infiltrated by FBI and law enforcement.

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

      The success of the Tea Party is a clear indication that they have done little to threaten neoliberalism or the status quo.

    26. Re: This isn't Monopoly by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      So what researchable facts about the universe, specifically, are you not going to allow the people to know about?

    27. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The Russians clearly had more resources and get their man nominated instead.

    28. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may have failed to take over the presidency, but they were pretty successful in taking over Congress.

    29. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both the Rs and Ds are gibbering away about their favorite apocalypses right now while still being wholly owned by major lobbyists. It's time for a new party.

      I would like to see one built around not denying science - any of the disciplines - while at the same time letting engineers build the discoveries science makes, this being what motivates us to spend money on it.

      Outside of Slashdot, autisitic STEMlord failures aren't actually that common. This is why what you want doesn't exist and never will.

    30. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump stealing the Koch audience by dispensing with the dog whistles doesn't have anything to do with the Tea Party being a blatant Republican shell game to wait out the fallout from the W. Bush administration. The Tea Party got support from Fox advertising their headline tax day protests, while the whole "liberal media" cheerfully labeled OWS as disorganized rabble, and shook their heads ruefully at what monsters they were when that one guy pooped on a cop car. Not to mention how the cops dispersed Occupy Atlanta after seeing a guy with a gun in the crowd, while the Tea Party got a free pass to open carry en masse. OWS had their own genuine problems, like their refusal to engage with Democrats as you noted, but don't pretend that the deck wasn't stacked against them.

    31. Re:This isn't Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OWS guys were herded onto a bridge then carted to a FEMA slave camp.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2011/oct/03/occupy-wall-street-brooklyn-bridge-arrests

    32. Re: This isn't Monopoly by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      I want information - all of it - to be free & open.

      But I don't think science has very much interesting to say about the direction of public policy. Historical attempts to implement "scientific government" - like Stalin's agriculture policies, or for a less extreme example, "urban renewal" planning in 1960s America - have typically failed.

  16. Company town and a company store by sinij · · Score: 1, Insightful

    More things change, more they stay the same. We need strong unions back or everyone's quality of life will keep going down.

    1. Re:Company town and a company store by supernova87a · · Score: 0

      oh fuck off with that bullshit. Unions won't do a goddamn thing to solve the housing crisis in tech cities.

      If anything, they'll advocate for bullshit political bandaids like rent control, inappropriate raises which are all they know how to do, or some other tinkering around the edges.

      In fact, most of the city governments responsible for this housing crisis are the kind of politicians in the pockets of unions in the first place who pander to their demands, and do nothing to solve what is really needed -- basically a doubling of the housing stock needed in these cities.

    2. Re:Company town and a company store by MellowBob · · Score: 1

      Let the billionaires make housing for the upper middle class, let the millionaires make housing for the rest of us. Prevent those guys from getting paid and you get SF and Seattle.

    3. Re: Company town and a company store by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's that bootleather taste, broham?

  17. Affordability in HIGHLY-DESIREABLE locations by nadass · · Score: 1

    Less so in San Francisco proper but greatly available throughout Silicon Valley and even Seattle proper, there is PLENTY of property (rental and for-purchase) available... except they are in "undesirable" parts of town, along a major highway, tucked in an area with lots of low-income/no-income tenants, etc.

    So there are options, it's just that most want a ready-made mid-level (or higher) semi-luxury palace next to a Whole Foods and a hopping nightlife. Like a Suburbia++ if you will.

    Those options are always fewer and those prices are affected by supply-and-demand economics, but to believe nothing reasonably affordable exists is truly misleading. Want proof? Just check the property values of properties in "slums" and "dangerous hoods" and recognize how little it would cost to buy/invest in the same manner a professional developer would.

    1. Re:Affordability in HIGHLY-DESIREABLE locations by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      there is PLENTY of property (rental and for-purchase) available... except they are in "undesirable" parts of town, along a major highway, tucked in an area with lots of low-income/no-income tenants, etc.

      Yeah, the thing is, those areas are undesirable because they are shitty places to live. I lived in Bernal Heights (in SF) and my IROC got stolen because it's up the hill from an outright ghetto. The ghetto itself is right next to the highway, which means you have all kinds of pollution to deal with, including noise pollution (which has been proven to have actual health effects.)

      Those options are always fewer and those prices are affected by supply-and-demand economics, but to believe nothing reasonably affordable exists is truly misleading. Want proof? Just check the property values of properties in "slums" and "dangerous hoods"

      Oh yeah, that's just where I want to live. In a shithole where I will get jacked regularly. Why did no one think of this before?!?11??

      and recognize how little it would cost to buy/invest in the same manner a professional developer would.

      What? A professional developer would have the money to buy a property, tear it down, and build something people wanted to live in. The average person can't afford to do that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Affordability in HIGHLY-DESIREABLE locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what IROC stands for? Italian Retard Out Cruising.

    3. Re:Affordability in HIGHLY-DESIREABLE locations by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You know what IROC stands for? Italian Retard Out Cruising.

      You know what it stood for when I bought it? $500 in cash. And it was a phenomenal runner that got a then-impressive ~25 MPG on the freeway. The L98 350 Chevy with tuned port injection was the LS motor of its day.

      Granted, the car was a bit of a pile, and the front end would start to lift off at high speeds, but it was still worth every penny. One is not permitted to travel that quickly on public roads in America in any case.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Affordability in HIGHLY-DESIREABLE locations by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the thing is, those areas are undesirable because they are shitty places to live. I lived in Bernal Heights (in SF) and my IROC got stolen because it's up the hill from an outright ghetto.

      And don't forget to apply San Francisco logic. if you refuse to move into the ghetto, you're a racist. If you do move into the ghetto and fix a place up to make it livable, you're a 'gentrifier', therefore a racist.

    5. Re: Affordability in HIGHLY-DESIREABLE locations by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      San Francisco is by far the most racist city in America. It's almost as racist as Europe.

  18. tired of them by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Informative

    These problems are of these cities' own making. And continued by their inaction.

    They need to stop with bullshit around the edges like rent control, legislating where people go to lunch, living wage, etc, and attack the core of the problem which is that people want to live there and the housing stock needs to double.

    All these city councils are so preoccupied with "oh, the people living here can't be forced out" or "oh, we don't want to change the neighborhood", etc. Sorry, but you don't get to control everything and act as if you can have some kind of imaginary paradise with high housing prices, affordable costs, good wages, and low density. When you have people coming for the jobs, you have to give somewhere (unless you restrict people moving here which we don't in this country).

    I for one side with the people who don't get to vote on these policies, who are trying to start their lives in a new place, and are the future to be invested in. Not the people who are retired, rich, and complacent in the houses they bought 30 years ago because they got lucky on the draw.

    1. Re:tired of them by mikael · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. We should get rid of all legislation governing housing density and apartment size. Then we can get the population living in converted drain pipe "coffin homes" like Singapore:

      https://www.theguardian.com/ci...

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:tired of them by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      That can all be corrected.
      Have a city use it police to move parked RV on.
      Clean up the streets removing waste and drug use.
      Remove tents.
      Want to camp? Want to stay in an RV? Then people have to find a RV park, campgrounds.
      A city can then function as a city again.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:tired of them by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      How about living and letting live unless there's an actual hazard to health or safety?

    4. Re:tired of them by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      The crime, drug use, waste, tents and RV are going to make moving around a city a risk to skilled workers.

      Having waste left out in streets, drug use, having to respond to crime starts to get a city a bad reputation.
      After a while much better US states with low opera prices, educated populations and police forces are going to become more attractive.
      Then the tax rates will have to change as people move to better states and cities, taking their wealth with them.

      Parts of the USA will start to offer clean streets, no crime, as good internet, lower housing costs, hydro/solar power with less city "tax".
      No getting told by a government about the use of employee cafeterias.
      No strange new tax rates imposed by a city to cover their spending.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:tired of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, it says hongkong in the title.
      Singapore has ridiculous planned residential condos.

      My friend who moved into his condo told me that the mrt train station n elevated tracks was built some 10 years before, and activated last year as the condos were completed. The empty lots next to the station is for future more expensive condos.

      Does that sound like they do less planning than sf?

    6. Re:tired of them by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Yep. The cowards who need a nanny state to keep things clean will move to suburban Kansas City. Good on them...

    7. Re:tired of them by MellowBob · · Score: 1

      90% of the mega rich are Dems... so you obviously side with evil.

    8. Re:tired of them by MellowBob · · Score: 1

      Obviously all regulation is bad, so you say we should get rid of all regulation, Only Sith deal in absolutes.

    9. Re:tired of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doubling the housing stock has the tendency to....double the amount of people. I think if you polled most cities and asked if they were in favor or doubling the density of people they'd say "fuck no". So the question is, if the citizens don't want it, why should the democratically elected government enable it? Does the city government work for the voters, or out of staters who want to move there?

    10. Re:tired of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the people who are retired, rich, and complacent in the houses they bought 30 years ago because they got lucky on the draw.

      Lucky? Draw? Never even occurs to you that these might be people who built their own luck, does it? The possibility that there are so many high-paying jobs now is because it was a cheap crap hole 30 years ago and these people worked hard to build companies, careers and the city; that never occurs to you either, does it? Maybe if you get off your moaning arse, move to somewhere cheap and start a company or work hard to built a career, in 30 years time you too can have a nice house that you don't want to sell and entitled idiots moaning about you.

    11. Re:tired of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once these cities are remotely close to the density of Hong Kong we can worry about that. Presently, Seattle (where I live, so I know the situation the best, but it isn't hugely different from the others), well over half the land is zoned for only single family detached homes, not even allowing an ADU (e.g. basement to rent separately). The housing shortage in these areas is because the government is actively forbidding housing from being built where there is plenty of space for it.

    12. Re:tired of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parts of the USA will start to offer clean streets, no crime, as good internet, lower housing costs, hydro/solar power with less city "tax".
      No getting told by a government about the use of employee cafeterias.
      No strange new tax rates imposed by a city to cover their spending.

      Just a reminder - your libertarian fantasy is literal fucking dogshit and so are you.

    13. Re:tired of them by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Opera? Is this satire? Or are you some kind of drug addict?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:tired of them by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      No "satire" but it was the result of neat modern software that had its own charm.
      It was to be power prices but auto correct made it so much better :) So "opera" had to stay :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  19. We need the free market to fix this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As it is zoning laws and construction codes keep the number of houses limited. Doo goodnick liberal subsidized housing laws give crappy houses to people that would otherwise be blighting the neighborhoods of upper middle class liberals. We need to abolish zoning laws, construction codes and section 8 housing to fix the problem.

    Also do away with all the property laws. Let the strong take over the houses of the effette rich gentry. Might is the only right. The founding fathers would agree.

    Societal laws are not put in place to protect the masses, they are put in place to protect the effette and decadent upper rulling class liberal elite from the deluded masses. After all it is not the homeless people writting the laws. It if the liberal elite writing the laws to ensure the homeless get swept up every so often and placed in section 8 housing or prison. They do this under the guise of helping them, when in reality it is them helping themselves to the money of the diminishing middle class conservatives, so they can fund their billion dollar tax payer housing and urban redevelopment plans.

    End the tryanny of the law.

    1. Re:We need the free market to fix this. by psmoot · · Score: 1

      As it is zoning laws and construction codes keep the number of houses limited. Doo goodnick liberal subsidized housing laws give crappy houses to people that would otherwise be blighting the neighborhoods of upper middle class liberals. We need to abolish zoning laws, construction codes and section 8 housing to fix the problem.

      I was with you until you started ranting. Yes, relax zoning laws and make it easier to build new homes. Doing so will only reduce the price of housing (that pesky supply and demand thing). If rich gentry move in, they had to move from somewhere and now a house in that somewhere is available.

      The second order effect is that if you start building more housing, you might also drive up demand ("Yay, more SF apartments, I can think of moving there now!"). I don't know which effect will dominate. Personally, I'd love to think about living in SF except (a) I'd hate my uber liberal neighbors and (b) I can't afford it now.

  20. Vehicles are roomier than 30 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a two bed, two bath car.

  21. How do you dig ditches remotely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you patrol a beat remotely? How do you conduct an orchestra remotely? How do you mug someone remotely?

    Not everyone has jobs programming. Most jobs have to be done in person.

    1. Re:How do you dig ditches remotely? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How do you patrol a beat remotely? How do you conduct an orchestra remotely? How do you mug someone remotely?

      Drone, robot, robot. Wait, that's about a robot getting mugged ;) But seriously, it's only a matter of time. Battle bots are a thing. With the right one, you could mug someone. Or perhaps just a robotic mobile gun with a hopper on top into which your victim deposits their valuables.

      Not everyone has jobs programming. Most jobs have to be done in person.

      Service industry jobs have to be done in person. You can't repair someone's washing machine remotely. Yet. But it is inevitable that just as cars are designed to be assembled by robots today, all kinds of things will be designed to be maintained by robots tomorrow. If your appliances were designed such that all the goodies could be accessed from the front of the machine and manipulated easily by robots, then they could conceivably be repaired first by telepresence, and later by an autonomous robot. A car designed to be assembled by robots could also be shipped to a central facility (ironically, probably on a train) and repaired by robots.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:How do you dig ditches remotely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't have to be a programming job. Consider sales people. They mostly talk on the phone, in an office. They'd still likely have business trips, but don't need to be physically present. Similarly, most tech support work can be done remotely. Client analysts can also do their jobs at home. Artists and writers can work at home.

  22. You can almost do anything in your Tesla... by ClarkMills · · Score: 3, Funny

    We will very shortly have camping mode in our Teslas as well as gaming... if only there was a toilet mode in the next software update (and electrically tinted windows)...

    1. Re:You can almost do anything in your Tesla... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Buy a luxury vehicle today, you will need it to live in during your retirement!

  23. whats the problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that the cost of housing is so high that living in a camper is a viable option.

    So I work for a tech company in a high cost of living area. Covering the rent is not an issue. yeh, it sux that it is that much I deal with it. But when I started here, we had a coworker live in a camper van. He saved so much money every month.

    I have to admit that it is very tempting. If I did not have a family and a dog, I would keep that option on the table.

  24. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Yeah, seizing assets of gainful corporations in the name of entitlements won't drive businesses out of the united states or anything.

    How about we leave the fantasy land schemes behind for a while?

  25. I know a guy like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of my co-workers at a top of the field type STEM company is living in a box truck in the parking lot. He eats out a lot, showers at work. Housing is simply too expensive.

  26. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

    The housing problem is 100% due to NIMBYism. People that are already here can vote, and benefit from rising housing values. People that don't live here, but want to, don't get a vote. So the politicians represent the wishes of the voters and block new housing construction.

    The "traffic problems" is a totally backwards excuse. As people are forced further and further out into the exburbs, their commutes become longer and traffic gets worse. At rush hour, figure two hours from Gilroy to Mountain View. More high-rise housing in the core of Silicon Valley would be a great relief to traffic congestion.

    Some economic analyses have concluded that "progressive" restrictions on growth and housing contribute to inequality as much as regressive conservative tax cuts. The rich see their million dollar houses soar in value, while the poor are squeezed out of economic opportunities.

  27. Please show your appreciation by hwihyw · · Score: 3

    Housing prices we're going to normal after the 2007 bubble and the resulting 2008 market crash. Then the politicians and the Federal Reserve decided to fix it through home buyer tax-credits and 0% interest rates. Now house prices are back to record levels. Thank you for fixing the problem of low home prices, low rent, low property taxes, and low home insurance rates. Thank you. *Slow clap*

    1. Re:Please show your appreciation by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Till the next crash -- interest rates are going up, going up, going up. 4.5-5% 30 year loans might not seem high, but starting from a low level of 3.5%, they will have an effect.

    2. Re:Please show your appreciation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there will probably be another crash at some point, realistically, housing prices are going to continue to have a general upward trend until there's a major political change favoring affordable housing over housing as an investment. The political discussion around housing in the United States is almost always focused on worries about house values going down and rarely on worries about housing being unaffordable when, naturally, the two are fairly directly related. As long as the expectation is that a house is an investment, policies that make buying a house affordable will be unpopular with anyone who believes they will ever make money on selling a house. And the latter group has more money and votes a lot more.

  28. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build 50 stories underground and 5 above - oh wait, earthquakes.

  29. And People Wonder Where... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that 20lb bag of poop in San Fran came from.

  30. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just stupid and wrong. Blaming voters in the city for the housing crisis is like trying to blame white people for the Worlds problems.

    They moved into the city and brought this problem, not the people already living there. The community is simply sending them a message, "We don't want you here".

    It's funny because I live in a small community in a similar situation where corps and lobbyist keep trying to push in a vote to build an 8 lane highway through our community and build apartment blocks which benefits us with nothing but more traffic. They pay news media outlets trying to make us as the perpetrators of their problems and how vile we are for not voting right..

  31. Seems pretty smelly by johanw · · Score: 0

    I mean, I've never seen a car, not even a camoer, with a shower ort bath. How do these people wash themselves? I wou;d be fired after 2 weeks for smelling so bad that my colleagues would not want to work with me anymore.

    1. Re:Seems pretty smelly by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I've never seen a car, not even a camoer, with a shower ort bath.

      Truck campers can have a shower. Conversions can have a shower. However, a common approach is to get a gym membership. This not only gets you a place to shit and shower, but also includes access to gym equipment, and maybe even a pool.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re: Seems pretty smelly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wet wipes work but you can usually shower at work or get the gym membership.

    3. Re:Seems pretty smelly by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      At work, at a gym.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Seems pretty smelly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have bike facilities at work with showers, lockers etc.

    5. Re:Seems pretty smelly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who would have thunk that IT people actually had to concoct an idea for a place to visit their Egyptian friend, "Musthaveacrap". Just move to a better area. Texas doesn't have these issues. Granted, it's not California, but things are affordable here, and I don't see people living in the parking lot in campers, etc. Rent here in the Houston area is cheap, jobs are plentiful, no state tax, cheap gasoline, the right to bear arms without the nanny state crapping themselves, and so much more.

      What more and more people are doing here is buying a couple of acres of land and a manufactured home. Total, this will set you back less than 100k. You own it all and the property taxes are a pittance. If you live outside of the city limits, you can get your place zoned for agriculture by have some goats, which solves your problem of mowing and weed whacking, and you can breed them and sell their offspring for meat at $50 a shot. Make money while doing nothing. Plenty of people do this.

  32. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is because we are doing things wrong.

    Businesses should be required to have enough housing for all their full time employees and their immediate family.

    Most employees would not need a vehicle, and thus the transportation issue is solved. Connect these campuses with hyperloop or subways (not shitty light rail LRT) to keep the transit issue from being amplified.

  33. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have been banned from r/latestagecapitalism

  34. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by MikeMo · · Score: 1

    You know they don't actually have a trillion dollars, right? That $1T is the value of all of the stock owned by all of the people and mutual funds around the world, not cash in Apple's bank account.

  35. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes! Yes!!! Open Floor apartments

    Open Floor apartments with genderfree communal asstoilets!

    Gay apple devs shitting into open-floor communal toilets, together!
    It's so progressive!

  36. But low unemployment ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If unemployment is at RECORD lows then why has this statistic increased? Seems counter intuitive

  37. Dumb fucks by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ....here's a tip: MOVE.

    The entire midsection of the country is facing unemployment levels the lowest they've been in 20 years. Real wages are going up, and the cost of living is HALF (or less) than it is on the coasts.

    Find out what REAL "quality of life" means when it's not measured in Starbucks per square mile. Where you can actually see the stars?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    Actually, better: no. Please DON'T move to the midsection of the country. It's terrible here. Much better to live in your car.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Dumb fucks by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 0

      Or just move to the San Diego, Central Coast, or far Northern areas of California. Most of the benefits of CA (good weather, beaches) without having to live in a landlocked, hyper-religious nightmare.

    2. Re:Dumb fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice place if you want to live with a bunch of inbreed hicks.

    3. Re:Dumb fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than living with retard faggots in California.

    4. Re:Dumb fucks by drsquare · · Score: 1

      But what about minorities or homosexuals? You can't expect them to move to places they'll be stared at just for existing.

    5. Re:Dumb fucks by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Actually, better: no. Please DON'T move to the midsection of the country. It's terrible here. Much better to live in your car.

      Having grown up in the midsection of the country, I would agree. So would all my friends who also moved from the midsection of the country and are now on the coasts.

    6. Re:Dumb fucks by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Good riddance.

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re:Dumb fucks by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unemployment is not at all low, and the article you linked even alludes to this fact. What do those people do for a living, he's fortunate to have a job.

      Time for you to educate yourself on unemployment rates.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Dumb fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Texas, my mortgage on 150k sqft house is $800/mo.

  38. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    It's funny when people oppose a project because the developer isn't building enough parking, then they oppose it because of the traffic all that parking will bring. Seriously, you can't make this up!

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  39. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You’re not entitled to your area. I have every fucking right to move into a place force you out.

  40. Hey, if they offer showers onsite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not?

  41. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know they don't actually have a trillion dollars, right?

    Yes. Apple only has a mere $250 billion or so in cash. Clearly that isn't enough to buy/build more than 3 or 4 houses in SanFran.

  42. Re:But low unemployment ? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    More people who can start moving towards renting their own place - but there simply aren't enough places. The cost of housing has skyrocketed to a point where it is difficult to live near where you work. With rent in Santa Monica and San Francisco pushing past $4000 per month for a 500 sq. ft. apartment, most low-mid wage jobs simply do not pay enough.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  43. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please. The traffic in San Jose isn't even worth mentioning. Try commuting in a real urban area with poor planning like Washington DC. You can't afford to live near work, which means a 10 mile commute than takes an hour or more. To improve things, we are getting congestion pricing on the roads so that wealthy are inconvenienced.

  44. Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leftist totalitarian socialism always does the exact same thing. But for some reason the American communists (AKA democrats) cannot understand the simplest theories of economics. They always think they will never run out of productive people's money

  45. Feed the Cats by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    What a steaming pile of dung. During the same time period, homelessness decreased in California. Seattle elected 2 socialists to the City Council. It's a veritable bonanza of freebie handouts. Mobile heroin shoot up clinics, open air drug sales even on City hall steps, no chase/no confront policies, refuse to ticket or tow stalled/broken down vehicles in streets. Seattle PD is completely hamstrung and unable to enforce laws.
    https://www.kiro7.com/news/loc...
    Note from the article: 2 hours for PD to respond to a 911 call - hope you don't have any life threatening issues...
    Seattle, population $714K has 1400 officers. Boston, population 690K, as over 2000 uniformed officers. The City refuses to spend where it's needed (like $12M per mile bike lanes). Along that same socialist thinking, just last week, the Seattle City Council did an about face and pulled $180M targeted for upgrades to the Mariners Stadium - and want's to put that $180M for homeless housing. even though in 2020, when the stadium is paid off, 30% of the $35M in bond payments no longer needed are already earmarked for homelessness. Consequently the Mariners won't sign the lease renewal. (Anyone want a major base ball team?)

    1. Re:Feed the Cats by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1, Troll

      Cops not harassing consenting adults for what they choose to buy or put into their own bodies? Cops not being greedy and ticketing someone double parking to unload their car after two minutes? Cops not ticketing people who already had the misfortune of their car breaking down? Avoiding high-speed chases that endanger the public, and not confronting people who aren't hurting others?

      Sounds what the REST of the country should be doing. Then again, I'm not an authoritarian nannie-stater who thinks that a bunch of bullies in blue are the solution to every problem.

    2. Re:Feed the Cats by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also: organized sports? Let the teams pay for their stadiums themselves or go piss off. Seattle can live without a baseball team. Better to spend the money on people who actually need it, not fat cat sports managers.

      Actually, the NFL is the worst offender -- teams threatening to leave unless a city builds them a lavish athletic palace. San Diego did the right thing in telling the Chargers where to stuff it -- let them move to L.A..

    3. Re:Feed the Cats by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Seattle hasn't had a baseball team since 2001, at least in any effective way.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    4. Re:Feed the Cats by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      There's a couple of things - First, Seattle PD was taken over a couple of years ago by the Feds because of how they were handing things specifically several high profile shootings.
      Second - there's a huge difference between double parking and living in a broken down vehicle illegally parked on the street. The latter is where homeless people have caused fires that can result in damage to critical infrastructure:
      https://www.seattletimes.com/s...
      http://mynorthwest.com/1034801...

    5. Re:Feed the Cats by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      A better use of the money would be to not take if away from citizens in the way of taxes in the first place.......

  46. Re:But low unemployment ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If unemployment is at RECORD lows then why has this statistic increased? Seems counter intuitive

    No, just a consequence of economics. Unemployed people can live anywhere (i.e. wherever they happen to be; they can't move easily even if they want to) but those with jobs tend to prefer to live close to where they work, hence they're more likely to move in that general direction. However, because employers want to keep wages low and home owners/leasers want to increase their profit, there will be people who get/have a job in one area but aren't paid enough to live there comfortably as the markets change. This is one of the reasons that suburbs exists.

    Most people can't up sticks and move their home easily, but they still need/want to work. Depending on the state of the job market they may be able to find work near where they live... or they may not. In areas with cheap and fast transport, living far from one's place of work isn't really a problem but even so the cost of travelling to work compared to the home one can afford with one's income rises to a point where it makes sense for some people to skip the latter entirely.

    tl;dr Housing costs compared to wages mean that some percentage of the workforce cannot afford to commute, and most people can't move home and/or job easily. Increasing housing costs increase the percentage, and the total employment increases the absolute number of people affected.

  47. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, seizing assets of gainful corporations in the name of entitlements won't drive businesses out of the united states or anything.

    We often hear this argument against regulation, but how often does it actually happen? Any sane company with a 10% margin will always take 5% over flouncing out of the country and making 0%. If we could agree on tax arrangements for multinationals we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

  48. Re:But low unemployment ? by mikael · · Score: 1

    Because there are more people that there are properties. Those who have a home cannot trade up to something bigger because that would involve a longer commute, paying more in property taxes (set at 1% of purchase price - $500,000 home = $5000/year). So they upgrade and extend their homes. That pushes up the prices further. Then there are property speculators from China who want an "investment". If anyone sells up, they move out of state and push prices up elsewhere.
    Some areas are too dangerous too live in, so they are off the property market. Other areas are too expensive. So there is nowhere left.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  49. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They claim that they will only consider recruiting people who are already in the area.

  50. Dumb broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is this the same part of the country that can't get proper "it's a human right" broadband? I thought all the geeky elite pinky sweared they're not going anywhere they can't get internet (like one's vehicle really has that). Also I noticed on that list "plumbers" which the last Slashdot article swore had better job security than all those with "hamburger-flippin" degrees (https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12419342&cid=57041152)?

    1. Re:Dumb broadband by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      In my experience the Broadband is pretty widely available in cities and their suburbs. Frequently you can even get it on the fringes of those places. Usually it's when you get out among the farm fields that you have a problem finding a provider.

  51. Everywhere progressives rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's entirely predictable.

    They get elected using the money of their oligarch friends and by buying the support of the malfunctioning members of the lower classes to whom they promise free stuff with no judgement.

    They cannot tax the rich whose money they need (they have NEVER actually gone after the wealth of George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Tom Steyer, etc). They'll never force Bezos, Zuckerber, etc to reduce the billions in personal profits in order to bay their workers better, or force Cook to stop using Chinese slave labor to assemble his iPhones and instead give good jobs to unemployed bay area people.

    They can do nothing about the druggies, to whom they offer free needles.
    They can do nothing about the illegal aliens who push down wages and benefits while driving up costs of the social safety net - because they got the support of their friends and relatives by being "sanctuary cities".
    They can do nothing about people pooping in the streets, because they promised to be "non-judgemental" and to not impose values on them.
    They cannot inspire land owners to build more affordable housing, both because they are beholden to the environmentalist and zero-population-growth nuts and also because they implement "rent control" policies that reduce the profits a landlord can get from a rental unit.

    There is simply no mystery to this stuff, and these people are politically incapable of solving any of these problems; they only things they are politically capable of are taxing the middle class, and throwing more money at government workers' unions.

  52. Timely conversion for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That integral roll-cage sounds like it would make some conversions more difficult, like were the sides expand out or roof raises, while camping to make for more space. One may also want to go with diesel because while the fuel cost more, the MPG is better. I've also seen designs that fill the roof with solar panels.

    1. Re:Timely conversion for me by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      For a roof "tent", you only need to cut a relatively small hole in the roof for "access."

    2. Re:Timely conversion for me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That integral roll-cage sounds like it would make some conversions more difficult, like were the sides expand out or roof raises, while camping to make for more space.

      Sliders may be nice, but they're also sources of leaks. Raising the roof is not meaningfully more difficult with a cage; you just extend the cage. Everything hangs on it, so it actually makes maintaining structural integrity while raising the roof easier. I don't plan to raise the roof, though. I want to keep it low for clearance (trees more than bridges etc.)

      One may also want to go with diesel because while the fuel cost more, the MPG is better.

      Yes, one absolutely wants diesel. The fuel doesn't cost that much more, and the MPG is vastly better. It's worth mentioning that one absolutely wants a turbo to go with their diesel. Turbo diesels pollute less, and get better MPG.

      I've also seen designs that fill the roof with solar panels.

      Yep. It's more convenient on transit buses than most school buses because they have flatter roofs. Solar is definitely on the roadmap, so to speak.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Timely conversion for me by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Slideouts also tell the world it's a home. You want something like this to be as anonymous as possible.

    4. Re:Timely conversion for me by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The bus I looked at today has two roof hatches. They pop up for ventilation, and also open fully as emergency exits. Most buses seem to have at least one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  53. I can at least speak for California by Sydin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It all comes down to one problem: Proposition 13.

    In a nutshell, Prop 13 artificially lowers property tax to an insane degree, and keeps it artificially low until that property changes hands via sale. What this means in practice is that if you own property in California, you don't want to sell it because until you do it is taxed at a way lower rate than it should be. This means lots of people hold on to their property, which raises the value of property overall. In turn, those who hold on to their property now find their property values skyrocketing because demand is nowhere near supply, and all of their personal wealth gets tied up in said property value. So for them to keep that wealth, the best thing is for as little property as possible to enter the market, to keep their values high. Hence, the NIMBYism you see rampant across California, particularly in SF, LA, SJ, etc.

    Barring Prop 13's repeal or a complete collapse of the California economy triggering a wave of panic sellers, property value will continue to inflate as more people and businesses want to operate here but less and less people are willing to sell.

    1. Re:I can at least speak for California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because being able to afford living in your house after you retire is such a dick move.

    2. Re:I can at least speak for California by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      I lived in Orange County when Prop 13 was passed. It doesn't lower property taxes, but just limits the rate at which they can be increased until you sell the property, whereupon the assessed valuation is marked up to current market for the next owner.

      It was passed because at the time property taxes were rising to an insane degree. Now other taxes are rising to an insane degree.

    3. Re:I can at least speak for California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the homestead exemption in Florida, where in your tax rate locks in when you purchased the property and only increases by a fraction of the normal amount. This is also why you have to be careful purchasing propery and looking at the current tax rates on the county's property appraisers site. The rate the current homeowner is paying can be significantly lower then you will be paying if they have owned said property for 20-30 years

    4. Re:I can at least speak for California by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      The alternative is what one sees in NJ. $10,000+/year property taxes on 1000sq/ft capes on 50x100 lots. Good luck selling with that tax bill if the town has lousy schools.

  54. subsidized arcologies ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not quite. While a company town CAN be an arcology, not ALL arcologies are company towns. In fact the size an arcology would have to be to make it economically viable is much larger than most towns.

  55. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Democracy doesn't work that way. In theory, all citizens should be treated equally. But residents can vote themselves privileges that are not extended to future residents. Using permitting restrictions and zoning regulations to inflate the price of housing is one way. Tax laws like Prop 13 are another way. In California, two families living in adjacent identical houses can pay vastly different tax rates. New residents sometimes pay 300 or 400% more than incumbent residents, who are usually wealthier.

  56. Re:Poor in prospering state by MellowBob · · Score: 1

    The ultra wealthy, like Trump, would love to build 100 story buildings for the over paid tech guy. When the over paid tech guy living in a 100 story building, us mortals can afford the crap they left behind, Why does Seattle have no 100 story buildings?

  57. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

    The dumbest thing they do is prevent building housing, but allow building office space. The obious result is that there are lots of people commuting in with now place to live. It's not hard to estimate the number of new houses that you will need when you build an office.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  58. Honestly this has been a problem for a long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    15 years ago when I worked at a call center - there were a number of people living in the parking lot. They aren't doing this anymore because the call centers have all moved offshore.

    This only made the news because its starting to creep upwards in the social classes.

  59. The USA is a third world country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USA is a third world country wearing a pretty dress and makeup.
    The American dream is believing the entertainment industries bullshit portrayal of this country.

    Income inequality.
    Multiple crisis events in cities with drinking water and sewage.
    Corporations abusing the welfare scheme while taking advantage of legitimate welfare recipients.
    Private prisons, with what is essentially slave labor for large businesses.
    Health care. Pay up, suffer, die or become a long term debtor to the financial system.
    Economic protectionism at the expense of the populous : Big pharma, Bank bail outs, subsidies for other highly profitable business.
    Organised sports taking precedence over education, even in schools.
    Decaying infrastructure, have you really looked at the roads? Seriously.
    Homelessness: The number of homeless in U.S cities is shocking. We actually give colloquial names for areas that the homeless congregate and form their own communities.
    Highly militarized and poorly trained police.

    We are living in a futuristic distopia, and it is just..... boring and sad. There will be no great hero coming to save us in this story.

    1. Re:The USA is a third world country. by mikael · · Score: 1

      They had this problem in medieval Europe. That was solved by an plague outbreaks. Then the shortage of workers gave the peasants the upper hand in demanding better working conditions. If they weren't treated with respect they would simply leave the landowner and go elsewhere.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:The USA is a third world country. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Well fucking move to Sweden then. I'm sick of whining fucks that think the US is shit. Go the fuck on then to paradise in Europe. I lived there for years and it's got more than it's share of problems. And that was in the 80s, I can imagine what it's becoming with the Jihad moving in.

    3. Re:The USA is a third world country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yours was a poor rebuttal to the voicing of some quite valid systemic problems in this country.

      This article is written as if this was a new phenomenon. The truth is the author and the community this article is written for is having a case of NIMBY and shock that problems seen all over the country are surfacing there.

      No-one said Europe was a paradise , they surely have their own issues. They don't have as much of the population homeless , living in trailers or without access to affordable health care. They haven't had large scale problems with lead or pollution in their drinking water for decades.

      You are an aggressive blind ostrich, keep burying your head in the sand.

  60. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by mikael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Building campuses, offices and business parks brings in tax revenue. Building family homes costs tax revenue for schools, community hospitals and police departments. Thus the existing residents don't want further growth especially when they have a fixed income and property tax.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  61. Homeless, O RLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my neck of the woods, the "homeless" are really human traffickers. They like to camp out in vehicles and encampments near public parks & scope out any potential new recruits. For example: https://www.camphopeyakima.com..., right next to the Greenway, https://www.yakimagreenway.org...

  62. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by psmoot · · Score: 1

    FWIW, I live 24 miles from my office and it averages 60 minutes to get there in traffic. 90 if it rains. That sounds better than DC but I'm still envious of my colleagues in Durham.

  63. CHINA!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China!!! China!!! China!!!

  64. I did this at PayPal for a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was an engineer at PayPal in San Jose for a while. I got tired of rent eating up all my salary increases (and then some sometimes) so I bought a van and slept in then parking lot for a while.

    Eventually the security goons there kicked me out so I started parking on the street at an apartment complex nearby. I spent my days either staying at the office late or hanging out with friends. The PayPal offices have showers (via the company gym) and I did laundry elsewhere.

    This was all a temporary measure for me. By the time I moved into the van, I had already decided to leave. I was biding my time until I could find a better job elsewhere. Once I did, I was gone. Now I own an embarrassingly large house in a low cost of living area working at a company that isn't obsessed with Scrum.

    Sometimes the grass really is greener on the other side.

  65. Re: But low unemployment ? by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    I would live in a class B camper out there. It is an automobile essentially, so it can park anywhere. Roll to KOA if you need to dump....plus you can take your home with you on vacation. Bike stored on the back. Fuck $3000 a month shitholes.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  66. Re: But low unemployment ? by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the national parks that are the size of some states.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  67. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course it'll make traffic worse. It'll put very small downward pressure on housing prices, more people will move there, more people will drive at a given time, and traffic thus gets worse and the housing prices go back up shortly after. Oh, so the solution must be to make even more apt complexes!!! Which will bring more people, more congestion, and only slightly delay the ever increasing price of houses. But that's ok, we'll just build more after that right? We don't mind turning every city into massive urban density.

  68. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    The dumbest thing they do is prevent building housing, but allow building office space.

    Nope. That is the smartest thing to do. It pushes up demand for housing, while constricting supply, thus driving up prices. I am a property owner in San Jose, and the value of my house has quintupled since I bought it 20 years ago.

    Development policies based on localized greed are not in the best interests of America, or low income people, or humanity, but they are certainly in the best interests of the property owners that vote for them.

  69. Re: But low unemployment ? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    The weather is nice enough too, so you can live in an RV all year around. Only old timers remember snow in Silicon Valley. Nice outdoor weather and lots of affordable restaurants means you can take a quick walk if you don't feel like cooking in your RV.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  70. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I take 50 minutes to get from East San Jose to Santa Clara, a trip of 14 miles. If I go on a Sunday it's less than 15 minutes, 12 if I don't hit any stop lights.

    Just a whole lot more people on the roads in San Jose than there were even 5 years ago. The only real difference between San Jose and "real" urban traffic is the rush hour is only bad for a few short periods a day. People who can pick when they travel don't have too many problems. But the worst traffic is when parents are picking up kids and then running them to various after school activities. The area has almost no school busing.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  71. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Then we shall say, it is the most selfish thing to do.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  72. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by psmoot · · Score: 1

    Amen brother. I'm with you on all of that.

  73. Agree with OWS disagree with tea party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened to OWS was not only what you said but in addition 1) the local politician did not see any way to co-opt and take over OWS whereas 2) they co-opted and took over tea party. The reality is not that tea party took over incumbent and was elected, the reality is that some politician saw an opportunity pretended with populist bullshit to be tea party and used that to gain power and get elected. In fact see at the congress and senate make up : same old crowd.

  74. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Katatsumuri · · Score: 1

    What, America is discovering that apartment houses are more efficient and affordable? There will be riots for another 100 years at least! What next, public transportation? Damn commies!

  75. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not enough but it's more housing than I've seen be built in years. The question on everyone's lips is traffic. The roads already seem crowded, will this make it worse?

    California's despicable, racist hyper NIMBYism is world renowned.

    Does CA also lack planners to study these things and make necessary infrastructure improvements? Or does everyone assume size and configuration of roads remain static forever assuming nothing ever gets approved anyway?

    Everywhere but CA proper planning prevents piss poor performance. In California all that matters is not pissing on someone else's paradise while they dodge homeless peeps in the streets.

    If this lets companies hire more workers, it's going to make traffic much worse.

    This logic is indistinguishable from Trumps mindless bitching about how "illegals" are stealing "our" jobs.

  76. Obamaville by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obamaville, I tell you what.

  77. FACT : Pay Rates are TOO LOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple fact, even among the 'tech giants of silicon valley' the corporations pay the people too little to live on. FIX this and you fix the country. It is systemic and pervasive and MUST END before the system craters.

  78. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by DethLok · · Score: 1

    Why don't you ride a bicycle?

  79. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    In the next city over they are living in tents...at least they have a car.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  80. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Better yet, make them turn their space ship campus into apartments.

    The renters would still bitch about there not being anywhere to plug in their 1975 model headphones.

    "Duh...wazzat blue teeth thing?"

  81. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Then we shall say, it is the most selfish thing to do.

    But nonetheless, that is the entire motivation for those anti-housing laws. They are dreamed up by people who own existing housing in an area, clothed in whatever "environmental" swill they think will appeal to simpletons, and passed by reflex action.

  82. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Build 50 stories underground and 5 above - oh wait, earthquakes.

    Actually, the safest place to be in an earthquake is a man-made underground structure. The most dangerous place to be is in a natural cave.

  83. Seattle leaders are at fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The city has control of what housing can get built. If house pricing is a problem, it is the local Seattle government at fault and they likely want it that way.

    If housing prices are too high, make it cheaper for builders to build. But all Seattle wants to do is tax as much money that they can from the big businesses that will solve nothing.

    This is what happens when you don't allow Capitalism to work. Government needs to stay out of the way to Capitalism.

  84. Solution lies in vertical integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So far, USA is about horizontal integration, i.e. 1-storey houses, rather than high-rises common in densely populated areas of Asia. What West Coast technology locations needs, are precisely 20+ storey high-rises.

  85. You're NOT speaking for California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason Prop13 was passed was because property taxes were driving people out of their homes. Property tax assessments changed at least once per year and did not reflect market value. Local governments assessed whatever amounts they wanted, whenever they wanted, without even pretending to have any kind of restraint. It was making people homeless.

    There is an effort to abolish Prop13 by thoughtless people who have no clue as to why it was passed, who have no sense of history. Seems most proponents either are too rich don't even own property in California that would be taxed, or see all property owners as evil people.

    Get rid of Prop13, housing costs rise drastically and even Sillycon Valley execs will become homeless. And business will leave.

  86. "For Rent: Mobile Studio Apartment" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually seen on Craigslist.

    There have been several housing/apartment listings on Craigslist in the SF Bay Area for vans and small RV's put up for rent as "mobile apartments" that you, as the renter, can park just about anywhere. No kitchen, bring your own water. Bathroom options are usually a bucket and bag of quicklime or none at all.

  87. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, your 'murkin greed comes through loud und clear. how narcissistic of you.

  88. So the new houseing fad is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Living in a van down by the river

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv2VIEY9-A8

  89. Living in an RV isn't being homeless by guruevi · · Score: 1

    It's called a mobile home in Europe. I've owned houses that are worth less than a modern RV. Homeless means living on the street or in shelters.

    These people are choosing to be "homeless" to save 25k/y in mortgage or rent. When I was young I chose to sleep in my car over renting a hotel. It's a valid choice if you have a temperate climate and a pimped out van, my grandparents lived that way for a while too after retirement in order to travel but they weren't poor, they weren't considered homeless, moreover it wasn't a problem.

    This is not a problem that needs fixing, the market will fix itself when people demand to work remotely from a more parochial town where they have a family. Perhaps companies will start spreading (like Amazon has been trying) and setting up in smaller sites in remote places. But as long as people choose to live this way and are happy, I don't see the problem.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  90. Re:Poor in prospering state by bjwest · · Score: 1

    They're not poor in a prospering state. They're poor in a location that's inflating housing costs because there are more higher paying jobs. It's not the employers fault the landlords are raising rent because people are willing to pay $2000/month for a dwelling worth a tenth of that.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
  91. Re: But low unemployment ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Santa Monica is US$1,000 per month for a room,if you luck out in finding cheap diggs. You share kitchen and bathroom with a couple of other people.

  92. Re: But low unemployment ? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    Yeah - fuck nature. Let's build suburbs in Yellowstone!

  93. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    That's why the rich are all "Progressives" and the proles and lumpen from whom they extract their wealth are "deplorables".

  94. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    Ever tried that for a long distance in San Hoe? Do it, and you'll understand why. Personally I prefer the Subway, old & derelict tho it is.

  95. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    The term you're looking for is "California Apartheid".

    It predates President Trump (PBUH) by many, many decades.

  96. Re: Poor in prospering state by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    Permanent renters == overpaid?

    Suuuuuuure. I bet you resent longshoremen and steelworkers too? Keep up the infighting, the oligarchy loves it.

  97. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    Howâ(TM)s about we incent the big companies to stop their anachronistic policies of requiring employees to live in the silly valley and other tech ghettos?

  98. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Why don't you ride a bicycle?

    I don't to die. About once a year one of my coworkers die.

    Also there is an airport in the way, so there is not a very good way between my home and work on surface streets. There is a light rail stop only 3 miles from me, but it runs north-south when I really need to travel west-east.

    But other than those logistics riding a bicycle is very nice in San Jose, it's very flat.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  99. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    Well yes. If we don't let this progress out of control, they'll never create the sanctuary districts and the Bell Riots will never happen and Star Fleet will never be created. So, we've got to not fix this problem until these events occur.

  100. Useless tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these 'wonderful' technologies and people working in IT still have to be physically in an office. Stupid times we live in.

  101. Re:Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    correction:
          I don't [want] to die.

    Also, I'd like to amend my earlier statement about once a year. I checked and only 2 coworkers have died in the last 7 years while commuting by bicycle. Some others died while on bike trips. And one other died while commuting by motorcycle (great guy, really helped me out in my new role. And he rode the same make motorcycle that I do).

    PS- I seem to have a lot of trouble using /. from my smartphone. I think the autocorrect thing causes me to skip over entire words. I'm barely coherent when I use that stupid thing. (smart phone makes you stupid? or at least sound stupid)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  102. Re: Seize Apple's trillion dollars for housing by DethLok · · Score: 1

    Nope, I've never even been to your side of the planet :)
    But for about 8 months of the year I ride my bike to work, 14.5km (so not 14 miles, no) and it's a pleasant ride, even if I do get hit by the occasional summer storm.
    Of course, I'm on bike paths for 90% of the ride, and I'm on roads well before peak hour for the small portion I am on the roads.

  103. I believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the apartment complex in Portland raised my rent by 50% - and my lawyer said that practice was legal in Oregon, I knew I couldn't stay in the area. Thank god I got out a few years ago.

    I can't imagine what the place is like now.

    captcha: innovate