At 700$/month you can also afford to live outside of SF 3 days a week. These are basically just individual dorm rooms with communal living spaces. Perfect for someone working 4 days who can commute well outside the city for the other 3.

I think they just sleep at it and there's huge common areas they can actually live in for the most part like a Navy ship.

Well, I don't entirely disagree with you (about it overstepping the mark). But I also think you are exaggerating the negatives here.

I would like to see SROs updated. This is not that.

> More than a step, this oversteps the mark by quite a bit. A human being shouldn't have to live in a space that small. I can't imagine it not screwing up anyone's mental health when just looking at a picture of it is giving me an anxiety attack.

It works well in Tokyo. These are common housing for kids who might only have part time jobs at convenience stores.

> It works well in Tokyo. These are common housing for kids who might only have part time jobs at convenience stores.

By this logic, homeless encampments under freeway underpasses work well in the US. They are common for people who can't afford anything else so why fix what's not broken?

Actually housing, even if small, works better than homeless encampments. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

Then why do so many people use homeless encampments instead of houses?

> A human being shouldn't have to live in a space that small.

The moral instinct that opposes renting out beds like these, but has no reaction to people sleeping on the street (because no one gets paid) is fascinating!

That's making a pretty big assumption about the poster and their views.

The assumption is that people have thoroughly thought out positions on things that aren't full of contradictions. Something like this challenges each of us to figure out how to square the circle on our world views with how things are and how things should be.

I don't know the poster specifically, of course, but this is a very common view.

It's known, at least by its opponents, as "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics".

Automation and AI are going to destroy the value of human labor (physical and mental) over the next several decades, and under capitalism, the market value of a person translates directly to the amount of calories they can eat and cubic feet of shelter they can afford. When your value to society is all but nil, it makes sense that your allotment of space is little bigger than a coffin.

This is a quirky neo-bohemian thing for techies now but I can see it becoming commonplace under a pay-as-you-go no contract rental system in the future. Although I also think homelessness is going to be normalized in the future as well so this sort of thing won't look nearly as bad as the alternatives for most people when the climate change apocalypse really hits.

Shouldn't have to pya $5k in rent either but here we are. People should be allowed to make tradeoffs that they deem beneficial.