Technology

60052 readers

3048 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

574

San Francisco says tiny sleeping 'pods,' which cost $700 a month and became a big hit with tech workers, are not up to code (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

168 comments fedilink hide all child comments

San Francisco says tiny sleeping 'pods,' which cost $700 a month and became a big hit with tech workers, are not up to code::The pods, which are 4-foot-high boxes constructed from wood and steel, made headlines after tech workers praised the spaces.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And living this way isn't new there, either, it's an "evolution".

I can recall a story over a decade ago about google employees renting uhaul trucks to live in, parked on the google campus parking lots. The same article also followed some engineers who were illegally living in rent-a-storage spaces.

So compared to that, it makes these pods look like luxury living, even though they're all pretty depraved.

Being a software dev myself, I'll gladly take a lower salary in a low cost-of-living city if it means I can own a house (and not be mortgage poor, either).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

All valid points. Thanks for mentioning, "mortgage poor". It's amazing how many people think that's the solution to rent....when you're typically agreeing to pay, essentially rent, for 30 years.

An everyone who gets a mortgage, with rare exception, OF COURSE, believes it will be paid off well before they are anywhere near 30 years. Seemingly forgetting that health issues, social issues, weather events, etc are likely going to stop that from happening.

This post just keeps getting more bleak, lol....

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

30 years of payments. Mostly consistent, during that time, the money is going towards paying off the loan of an asset and building equity. In the long term, I'll have something to show for the money I spent. 30 years of rent, on the other hand, and I'll still be renting.

If I decide to move, or something comes up, I have an asset I can leverage. Or I can sell the house, pay off the mortgage and have cash to use for rentals or a new house.

It comes with a lot more responsibility though. It's on me to maintain the house, upgrade, fix, landscape, etc. That's where a ton of money goes to keep the value of the house. I also have more liability. If something happens, that's my house that could burn down or flood. Then I'd be screwed. Or if I were to get sued, that's an asset that would be used to settle that.

There is no mistaking that 30 years is likely the minimum time to make payments. Those super lucky might put extra money into it early. But there is also a good chance people take a second mortgage or refinance and extend the mortgage with lower payments at some point.

But even with that, it's still a more sound investment for those that want a house than renting a house.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I did my internship in San Jose. Even back then it made sense. The cost was insane and from what I am reading has more than doubled since that point. I knew three interns staying in a single cheap motel together.

They need to finally start building.