Nothing scares me more than comments like that from government officials. A law that is selectively enforced is effectively an invitation for police harrasment. Either the law makes sense, or it doesn't. If individual civil servants get to decide when to apply a law, you've got a big problem.
The flipside is that if people gradually move into parking overnight in industrial areas, and nobody there cares, then homeowners are happy and people saying in their vehicles still have a (perhaps less convenient) place to go. Yet trying to get a rule passed explicitly allowing that in areas zoned industrial would be a lot harder than a rule that sort of evolves on its own.
The bottom line for selective enforcement is that the police recognize that there is a priority structure in laws. They have limited resources and cannot enforce every law, everywhere, every time. While I would rather see this law unmade, the second best thing that can happen is exactly what is, which is the police only getting involved if an actual legitimate issue is raised.
EDIT: A second pertinent example is noise ordinance, which this is similar to as a "public nuisance" law. The law is not worded that it's OK as long as all your neighbors are OK with it. In your world, police would be walking around neighborhoods with a decibel meter and fining every non-compliant house, regardless of whether you cleared everything with your neighbors, or even if your neighbors are the ones making all the noise at your party!
Random rant: my limited experience of police treatment of homeless people in San Francisco leaves quite a lot to be desired. I've spent about one month in total there and I saw police hassling homeless people quite frequently. Anything that makes that easier is bad in my mind. Sure - poor people are an "irritation" by some definitions but they remain people even if their existence is inconvenient to some.
Edit: it is often more of an invitation, however, if you are a minority or poor.
All that being said, I'm not sure what the point of making criminals out of homeless people is. No reason to kick people when they are down.
But the issue is the same even for those who end up homeless through no fault of their own.
Moving for the homeless has many hidden costs, including the time and effort required to rebuild the local network of support one has built over many years.
Another thing that bugs me about the moving advice is this: It is good advice for an individual or a family, but it becomes extremely problematic if too many people do it. Many of the places where living expenses are low are also places were the public finances at the local level are in a catastrophic state. "Unemployment tourism" can be the deathblow for the municipal level if, as is the case in many places here in Europe, the municipal level has to finance much of the social infrastructure.
"He was laid off [...] The next year, his wife died at age 55. [...] He turned down an offer from his brother to move to Illinois. He wants to stay in Palo Alto, he says, because it has been his home for so long and because he feels safe here. [...] He said he stayed in Palo Alto in large part because of the memories of his late wife."
I agree with you. But... humans don't act rationally. I can imagine how heartbreaking it would be to have to move away from where I spent an entire life with my wife while coping with the loss, even if it would absolutely be the right thing to do financially.
But what really bothers me is that he's the poster child in this story. He's easy to ignore. "Should have saved more...", "he should move...", it's all his fault. But what about the folks for whom it's _not_ all their fault?
There are tons of LTVA (Long term visitor areas) in southern CA and AZ that he can spend months in his RV for under $200.
I agree with this point that you said. The rest I think is pretty unfair; we know very little about this guys' life and how he spent his money (or the reasons he spent his money the way he did - "no excuse" I think is a false statement). The fact is, there are people who aren't making anywhere near $150,000 annual and these people will inevitably run into the same problems this man is facing (outside of Palo Alto - wherever you prefer). Ultimately, he did move out of his $2,150/mo rental, anyhow.
1. Worked in tech for 30 years (which implies pretty good salary) along with actual number of 150k for at least some of those years.
2. We have a first-hand account from his step-son that says he was really bad with his money.
3. Then we have irrational behavior staying in a place that he most definitely can't afford and choosing to be homeless in expensive area instead of not homeless in more reasonable area based on his SS income.
> The fact is, there are people who aren't making anywhere near $150,000 annual and these people will inevitably run into the same problems this man is facing
Yes, people who don't make a lot of money will have more problems than someone who does make a lot of money. That's why I said kicking them while they are down doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean that the guy who made a lot of money and pissed it away isn't responsible for his current situation.
He's a software engineer in SV... By all the common stereotypes, he should be in the winner circle and living the life. Agism is definitely an issue in tech, but it's likely that he is not up to date with some of the more modern languages or techniques, resulting in lack of employment.
If he lived there since the 70's, he could have had a paid off place. (Typical mortgage is 30 years term.) If not save by paying off the mortgage, he could have also saved via 401k or something similar. It probably never really occurred to him that employment might be so hard to come by or that things would get so pricey. Coming from an eastern european background, I was conditioned that if you have a paid off place, you can withstand a lot of up and down swings in the economy and the world.
As a society, we should really be focusing on helping people properly market themselves and acquire/update skills needed AND re-enforcing the need to plan for the future. Not really sure how we'd go about implementing the latter without annoying people though...
Why do you suspect that he is likely not up date? The first part of your sentence mentions ageism, although the second part sounds a lot like it.
The guy profiled was tech worker for 30 years, but allegedly "not good with money." If you're in your 20's don't be that guy. Live within your means, save for those future days.
Basically, spend as little money as possible until your dead. It's surprisingly good advice.
* Save at least 10% of your income. "At least," because you want both long-term/retirement savings, and a "rainy day" fund for unexpected expenses. * Minimize your debt. If you have lots of debt, prioritize paying it down. * If you aren't good at the first two items, create a budget, and stick to it.
Also, if you want professional advice, ask around and find a good financial adviser, particularly if you are looking for an investment strategy for long-term savings.
This is also a good general post by someone who now writes about business for Bloomberg http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/03/10-quick...
At the big picture level though, it's mostly about living within your income and putting some money away on a regular basis. (Someone else mentioned at least 10%.) At some level, everything else is keyhole optimization assuming some sane diversification of savings--don't put it in Bitcoin or all in your company's stock. It's useful to get other things right but they're much less important in the big picture than outflow < ~.9 * inflow (after tax).
I used a simple table with columns date, account, value, purpose. "account" helps getting a sum total for each bank account and for cash, to check how my table compares with reality (ie. bank statements and the content of my wallet).
Simply by tracking money flow you already learn a lot about your habits, while collecting data that helps you optimize it if necessary. I also found that making spending a conscious matter like that already reduced impulse buys.
After that, the other ideas are good ones - and you'll know if they're achievable for you and how.
1) Housing tends to be the biggest expense. So try to share an apartment with flat mates until you're sick of it, or even stay at your parents place for a few years (if that's possible).
2) If you need a car, buy a used one in good condition and keep it that way for many years. Make sure you change the oil and filters at recommended intervals.
3) If you like to travel, learn to do it cheaply! Long and wonderful trips in south-america or asia can easily be had for 1000$-2000$ a month - sleep in hostels, eat what the locals eat, don't drive/fly around to much, travel slowly. :-)
4) Learn to cook.
5) Learn to make and fix basic things around the house: installing fixtures, plumbing, wall painting, furniture (fixing and making), etc. Doing things yourself is more satisfying and saves money.
All designed to keep my 'burn rate' low.
I'm sure others can give you more common sense advice.
Debt is evil. Unless you can get a higher rate of return than the interest rate of your debt, pay off the debt as soon as possible.
Have at least 6 months of expenses in an easily accessible, liquid place like a bank account. Once you've got that rainy-day fund in place, plow the rest (at least 10% of income, 20% is probably a better target) into investments and take any tax advantages possible:
Traditional IRA + Roth IRA ($5500 combined max/year)
Traditional IRA contribution is tax deductible if you aren't covered by a work retirement plan or if you're under a certain earning threshold.
Take advantage of 401(k) if your employer offers it, contribute at least enough to get any matching they offer. These are pre-tax dollars, but some plans have shitty investment options, so YMMV. $17,500 max/year.
Put the rest in an individual brokerage account and invest regularly (monthly or quarterly) in low-cost, broad-market index funds or ETFs like VTI, VOO, or QQQ.
The rest is your fun money...you're young, so make sure you're also investing in yourself by going on trips, having fun experiences, etc, just keep the future in mind and don't go TOO crazy!
esplanner.com
It's, among other things, a consumption smoothing modeler (i.e. make sure that you don't oversave or overspend). It will tell you about how much you need to be saving each year, given a bunch of variables like how much you make, how much you plan to make, etc.
If you are not crushed by debt, just try to make your spendings increase much slower than your pay.
"Um, could you please be poor some place else? This is Palo Alto - we have a prosperous reputation to uphold."
I'm curious what the prevalence of work-from-home software jobs will do, over time, to the ridiculous swell in cost-of-everything in the bay area though. I realize that, like Manhattan for finance, there's some status associated with being in tech in the bay area, as well as legitimate opportunities. But there are high-paying tech jobs in places where you can live much more comfortably.
You're right that status is a big part of it. Manhattanites look down on the "bridge and tunnel" crowd.
(This place is awful for many other reasons, but this just reflects the general mindset.)
At the age of 70, after a long -- and I'm assuming successful, based on his highest salary -- career, having only a "meager" savings is no one's fault but his own.
I sympathize with him. I do not intend to save since there is no point when the future of the country is so uncertain.
Making laws to make the neighbors feel safer! Fantastic! "Don't be poor around me, I don't feel safe."
This is one of the worst forms of NIMBYism. And treating the disadvantaged as dangerous is a form of prejudice. How unfortunate that people only seem to care about racial prejudice.
I would say that it's a fallacy to dwell on why Mr. Smith is living in an RV or what he could have done to prevent himself from landing there. After all, it doesn't answer the question of why the state thinks it ought to so finely dictate the comings and goes of a person or where it is that one should choose to sleep. To seek shelter is as much a natural right as any of the others and to deny someone easy access to readily available public shelter should come with the same level of concern as restricting speech.
I think it's more interesting that we choose to allow those who do own or can afford to rent property to dictate and bully others for the convenience of their avoiding a "nuisance." Since apparently choosing to reside in a house grants you greater worth than choosing to reside in a car.
Yep, that's exactly the incentive they need to not be homeless. /s
Companies who have HQ's in Palo Alto: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_P...
Not one of those companies, some of which are valued in the billions, could pick up the cost of sponsoring another ten emergency beds? Another five, even?
Saving 10% is borderline enough to retire on if you do not make stupid financial moves (like moving out of market in 2007 or living in most expensive area in US). It's not enough to be financially secure - you need to save 20-25% for that (totally doable on software engineer salary).
I am not at all familiar with the SF/Valley rental market, other than hearing how it's exorbitantly expensive and rents keep growing. I'd have to think there would be somewhere where rents are not so expensive. I have a hard time believing a standard suburban studio or one-bedroom apartment would cost $2800.
As for the article, it sounds like the man profiled here isn't really making rationale decisions, so it's difficult to tell how bad the situation, outside of this anecdote, actually is.
As far as FREE places to camp with an RV, no absolutely not. You have to drive hours to get to a campground where you might be able to camp for free or close to nothing.
