Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States IT

58% of Silicon Valley Tech Workers Delayed Having Kids Because of Housing Costs (chicagotribune.com) 209

Posted by EditorDavid from the planning-parenthood dept.
An anonymous reader quotes the Mercury News: Though some residents blame the area's highly paid tech workers for driving up the cost of housing, data increasingly shows that these days, even tech workers feel squeezed by the Bay Area's scorching prices. Fifty-eight percent of tech workers surveyed recently said they have delayed starting a family due to the rising cost of living, according to a poll that included employees from Apple, Uber, Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, Lyft, and other Bay Area companies.

The recently released poll, was conducted by Blind, an online social network designed to let people share anonymous opinions about their workplaces. Blind surveyed 8,284 tech workers from all over the world, with a large focus on the Bay Area and Seattle. Blind spokeswoman Curie Kim said the findings were "really surprising. In the Bay Area, tech employees are known to make one of the highest salaries in the nation," she said, "but if these people also feel that they can't afford housing and they can't start a family because of the rising cost of living, who can....?"
The average base salary for a software engineer at Apple is $121,083 a year, the article notes, yet the company also had the largest percentage of surveyed tech employees who said they'd been force to delay starting their families -- 69%.

"Anywhere else in the country, we'd be successful people who owned a home and didn't worry about anything," said one 34-year-old in a two-income family. "But here, that's not the case." While her husband helps Verizon deploy smart devices with IoT technology, they're raising two daughters in a rented Palo Alto apartment, "only to experience a $500 rent increase over two years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

58% of Silicon Valley Tech Workers Delayed Having Kids Because of Housing Costs More

58% of Silicon Valley Tech Workers Delayed Having Kids Because of Housing Costs

Comments Filter:

  • Tech companies don't care (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Saturday September 15, 2018 @05:42PM (#57320614)

    If tech companies cared about families, they would locate more jobs outside Silicon Valley.

    • Re:Tech companies don't care (Score:4, Insightful)

      by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Saturday September 15, 2018 @06:15PM (#57320728) Journal

      If tech companies cared about families, they would locate more jobs outside Silicon Valley.

      Probably not. I'm not a SV resident, but I'm a londoner for possibly many of the same reasons. It's much easier to attract people for jobs when there are lots of alternatives available, the person's spouse can easily get or keep their job and they don't have to move. I'm in London because my spouse has a career here. We kind of settled on that because we knew it would be easier for us to both get good jobs than just about anywhere else.

      I'm guessing SV is pretty similar in that regard.

    • Think having children will make you happy?

      https://thepsychologist.bps.or... [bps.org.uk]

      BPS = The British Psychological Society.

  • So, move somewhere else (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Saturday September 15, 2018 @05:49PM (#57320648)

    Anywhere else in the country, we'd be successful people who owned a home and didn't worry about anything,

    The solution is obvious: move somewhere else.

    There are plenty of tech all across the "flyover states." Garmin is in Oklahoma, Boeing is in Kansas (along with a number of other aviation companies), Motorola and T.I. are in Austin, NASA is in Houston, 3M and Target are in Minnesota, etc.

    You will probably earn a little bit less, but the cost of living will be much lower and the quality of life will almost certainly be much higher. Especially if less commuting and less traffic are appealing and if you want to be able to afford to have one parent work only part time or even not even be employed in order to parent full-time.

    • Correction : TI proper is in Dallas (on Greenville Ave) Other semicon companies in Dallas - Maxim Integrated, ON Semiconductor, Qorvo, and a few more. As for Austin, everyone's there (Intel, AMD, Broadcom/Avago, etc.)

    • The solution is obvious: move somewhere else.

      I thought folks were living in their parents' basements these days . . . so that would mean that you would need to convince your parents to move somewhere else.

      In addition, if you are already living in your parent's basement . . . where will your children live . . . ?

      I guess you will need to dig another basement, below your parent's basement. This is probably what The Boring Company's real goal is . . . it's going to be basements . . . all the way down.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Moving is harder than you think (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday September 15, 2018 @07:15PM (#57320996)
      especially if you're going to up and move to a 'flyover' state you've never been to. Plus living in a big city isn't just about the amenities, it's about having ready access to work when you're job goes away (which they seem to do a lot these days). Buddy of mine moved to a small city for a nice job, worked it for a few years, bought a house, put down roots and then the whole thing got shipped overseas. He got trapped. He couldn't make enough money to get out, nobody would buy his home (thanks, housing bubble burst) and he ended up in a succession of dead end jobs.

      I lost track of him when I did the opposite and moved to a bigger city for the more stable working conditions. If I hadn't I couldn't afford my kid's college expenses. I'd prefer to go back to the small city I came from but there's no work there to speak of. At the end of the day workers go where the jobs are. And one or two employers isn't enough.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by grep -v '.*' * ( 780312 )

      The solution is obvious: move somewhere else. There are plenty of tech all across the "flyover states."

      Good God, don't encourage them; Keep your SJWs there. I just read on slashdot earlier today a smug guy laughing that "Everyone is moving out of CA? SURE they are."

      If I hold a door open for a lady and she starts screaming about it, I'll slug her because she certainly ISN'T a lady. To quote my mom: "I'll give you something to scream about."

    • Does it really make sense to move to a place where there's only one good job in the city or the state? In SV you can walk out a job in the morning and have another one by lunch time. In the flyover states if your one-company town becomes a no company town you're fucked. You can't even sell your house because the local market collapses.

      A little bit less pay? It's a lot more than that. Plus the lesser amenities, no options for eating out other than chains and diners, no stores other than Walmart, the racism,

      • Some people live to work, others work to live. Kudos to you if you can find happiness there, but I have found people are a lot happier in places where they are not all competing to pay for a small plot of land. Personally I don't like crowds and so I find sporting events and concerts not worth the trouble. There are restaurants everywhere. Perhaps the racism is less because I am in Canada, but I can't believe every small place in the US is that bad. I chose a place to live where I can have a large priv
      • I might add, it is also nice living somewhere you can sent your kids downtown alone and not really have to worry about anything happening.

        • Small town kids don't go anywhere alone, they're driven everywhere, that's why they're all fat. And a lot of these small towns don't even have a downtown, just lots of parking lots and strip malls.

    • The solution is obvious: move somewhere else.

      The single variable solution is obvious. The multi-variable solution is far less so. When you move somewhere else are you going to be moving into a place where tech companies are falling over each other to recruit? Are you going to be getting the same money or will your new living place come with a new $60000 average yearly income instead of what you had?

      You will probably earn a little bit less, but the cost of living will be much lower and the quality of life will almost certainly be much higher.

      Probably is an understatement, and the quality of life can be a huge overstatement. Quality of life is determined exclusively by those people living it. Pe

  • Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) * <slashdot@nosPAm.jawtheshark.com> on Saturday September 15, 2018 @06:01PM (#57320682) Homepage Journal
    Cry me a river. There are decent tech jobs elsewhere.

    • Cry me a river. There are decent tech jobs elsewhere.

      But are there? Basic economic theory dictates there are not, at least not without considerable downsides.

      • Well, then perhaps basic economic theory is too basic to explain this.

        • Not judging by the plenty of other comments in this section from people who have lived in an out of the bay area regarding how easily they found work and relative pay grades.

          • Perhaps their expectations were out of line? You have to realize that "having a good life" is not necessary equivalent to the lifestyle in Silicon Valley. You also need to realize thar you probably won't be working in a startup type company with a startup type culture. Put water in your wine, if your goal is to live nicely and raise a family.

            • Perhaps their expectations were out of line?

              So what you're saying is there's an economic downside to not being in the bay area? At least you agree with my original point which was: downsides to not living in the bay area.

    • ... if you don't mind having to have your food flown in, and not having educational opportunities for any kids you might have.

  • I started working in Bay Area tech in the 70's. Most tech workers, myself and my ex-wife included delayed having kids until we had a house and established career, which was in our early-to-mid 30's.

  • BS (Score:2)

    by kenh ( 9056 )

    "Anywhere else in the country, we'd be successful people who owned a home and didn't worry about anything," said one 34-year-old in a two-income family. "But here, that's not the case." While her husband helps Verizon deploy smart devices with IoT technology, they're raising two daughters in a rented Palo Alto apartment, "only to experience a $500 rent increase over two years."

    BS. Anywhere else in the country you'd make 25-40% less - you have to go to SF to get your 6 figure salary, that salary doesn't follow you to MS when you change jobs and move to MS.

    • Re:BS (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Saturday September 15, 2018 @08:45PM (#57321318)

      Not really a big deal unless the only reason you need a " six figure salary " is for bragging rights.

      Lemme break it down..

      You need to make $160k in San Francisco to enjoy the same purchasing power as you would have in Houston, TX at only ~$80k
      ( Pick any Salary Calculator online to see the results for yourself )

      Here are a few reasons why:

      Groceries 31% less
      Housing 71% less
      Utilities 4% less
      Transportation 28% less
      Health Care 27% less

      If someone is truly concerned about raising a family, why would they choose to live in one of THE most expensive places in the US ?
      ( We can't have a child darling ! We pay $5k a month in rent ! :| )

      Basically, one needs to choose between their ego and their family.
      The fact this article even exists tells me all I need to know about what choice they've made.

      Protip - You can't have your cake and eat it too. With the exception of the extremely wealthy, most folks will need to choose one or the other.

      • Because 1, you want equity in a million dollar house not a 200k house, 2, you don't want to raise a family in a giant, city-wide parking lot, 3. you don't want to eat out exclusively at diners and fast food chains, 4. you don't want to have to drive everywhere, and raise fat children.

      • Houston is a fucking hole though. It’s cheap for a reason.

    • I got the company I worked for in Sunnyvale to pay the moving expenses for me to relocate to a field office in Illinois and kept my original salary while getting to enjoy half the cost of living.

  • Don't you guys have laws that limits the rent increase to a percentage of the current rent?

    Unless the limit is around 10% and they're paying $5000 per month for a freakin' apartment... are they?

    • I think San Francisco rent stabilization is only for the current occupant. Once you move, the apartment "resets" to current market rent.
  • Techworks, in general make more money than most people.

  • "Anywhere else in the country, we'd be successful people who owned a home and didn't worry about anything," said one 34-year-old in a two-income family. "But here, that's not the case."

    Well, then move. It's a free country.

    And maybe if Apple values you enough, you can even continue working for them.

  • There are plenty of places in the country that would likely be very nice to live where the cost of living is reasonable. The company could pay employees less giving the employee more income after expenses. The company could actually make more money as a result.
  • Move to San Diego. $300k gets you a nice 2-bedroom or 2.5 bedroom condo. Not a palace, but enough to raise a family comfortably. Low energy (HVAC) costs due to favorable climate. Good cultural diversity, nice beaches, well-paying biotech, tech, and engineering jobs. And it's amazing that you can be in another country in an hour or two, depending where in SD Co you live.

  • Work elsewhere (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    There are plenty of good paying tech jobs outside of SV.

  • I can understand why people wouldn't want to have kids. There are far too many people having kids that should never have been parents as it is. You have to have a certain type of patience to properly care for kids; you need to be there for them and not sit them in front of a TV or let your relatives take care of them. Myself, I pretty much always knew I wanted kids and my life would be very empty if I had not had them.

  • Have them while you still live in a crappy apartment. If you wait until you can afford that 2 million dollar home with nice furniture they're just going to ruin it anyway. Kids are messy and break things.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Have them while you are still too young to really grasp the realities of:

      1) You will be giving up basically everything you like, including sleep, for them for years.
      2) They will dominate your spending even long after they stop dominating your time. And still they will require a lot of your time.
      3) They are really disgusting, and they bring home diseases and keep you sick all the time. That combined with the lack of sleep and the stress really takes its toll on your health.
      4) The spouse of your dreams...ye

  • The information stated is no surprise at all. We all know the cost of living out on the west coast has gotten insane. Tech companies desperately want to hold onto that clout of having an HQ in the heart of Silicon Valley, but it's only doable as long as young, singles want to work there so badly, they'll take what amounts to these massive pay cuts due to high housing costs and more.

    Even on the other side of the country, you deal with the same struggle to some extent in the DC metro area and anyplace around

  • The people who are going to be responsible parents look at their lives, their jobs, their finances and they thoughtfully consider whether or not they can afford to have children, and whether or not they can provide that child a good life.

    On the other hand, all too many people 'accidently' have kids and don't seem to care about the consequences because they know that the social services safety net is there for them. And at the extreme end of the spectrum, you have mothers living in poverty who are literally

  • It's not going to improve anytime soon (Score:3)

    by Allen Akin ( 31718 ) on Saturday September 15, 2018 @10:26PM (#57321670)

    Tech companies are driving unmeetable (for now) demand for new office space. As a result, lease rates are about 56% higher (last time I checked) per sq ft for offices than for Peninsula-area rental housing. You can see why financiers and developers prefer to build offices rather than housing.

    It's fashionable in some circles to blame the jobs/housing imbalance on zoning restrictions, but that doesn't seem to be consistent with the ground truth. There are many millions of square feet of new development going on right now, and in many cases these are mixed-use projects with the freedom to build lots more housing, but the mix is overwhelmingly dominated by offices because of the difference in rates of return.

    Construction costs are also a factor. Land is expensive and in short supply, of course, but high-rise construction is also expensive. High-rise flats are about 2.8 times as expensive as row houses for equivalent units, and therefore likely to be expensive to lease and not as likely to be profitable for the developers. They're surprisingly candid about this problem; for example, see https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/01/construction-costs-could-limit-where-san-jose-homes-are-built-google-adobe-diridon/ "Construction expenses have pressured developers severely enough that new market-rate apartments are profitable in no more than two districts in San Jose... Even worse, downtown San Jose — seen as a cornerstone of the city’s economy — is one of the sections where development of new housing is unlikely to produce profits for developers..."

    Transportation is arguably more important than housing, but it's received little attention so far. The road network is saturated now at enough times and places that additional housing wouldn't always be viable in those places. The population distribution makes rail systems unusable in much of the Peninsula.

    If the occasional Marxist analysis doesn't bother you, or if you can put it aside temporarily, chapters 5 through 7 of Richard Walker's "Pictures of a Gone City" offer a tremendous amount of useful data on the situation.

    Silicon Valley arose in part because of conscious decisions to distribute strategic industries geographically. (See Margaret O'Mara's "Cities of Knowledge" for a good synopsis.) Silicon Valley is hyper-expensive, earthquake-prone, water-poor, transportation-poor, and at risk from sea-level rise. Learning from past experience and distributing some of the growth elsewhere might be a smart move.

  • obligatory - Idiocracy movie beginning

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • With how overpopulated the earth is becoming, isn't fewer people having children a good thing?

    And isn't people waiting until they are more financial stable to have children also a good thing for society?

  • Most clever people delay having kids! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TJHook3r ( 4699685 ) on Sunday September 16, 2018 @09:46AM (#57322960)
    Seen the film Idiocracy? Thing is, when you're smart you start to look at implications of decisions. By any measure, having kids is not a solid investment and will likely impact your career and life choices considerably... if you're going to do it you may as well wait until career is off the ground and enjoyed some travelling, partying, multiple partners... If you're not smart you have kids in your teens and let someone else pay for it.

  • When Silicon Valley got its start, the high developer/engineer salaries it created allowed nerds to mate and marry for the first time. With the bidding up of California housing, the same forces are now preventing them from having children.

    Enjoy your future of lawyers and politicians.

    • My Electrical Engineer father got married thanks to drunken parties at college, not his salary. In fact, his income was largely unreliable in the early days of Silicon Valley due to all of the start-ups that failed. Although, maybe that aspect hasn't changed much. Kids were what held the marriage together, not income. The thing that convinced my Mom to pursue a relationship with my Dad over all the other frat-boys was his ability to hold onto something without dropping it while drunk.

      Unlike the movies, frat

  • Since between 20 and 30% of people will never have children, that means that only 1-2% of "Silicon Valley Tech Workers" have such high incomes, or such lack of consideration of realities that they don't consider housing costs before disabling their contraception devices.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close