It can be easy to forget given how heated the tech industry is, but it is not so simple to just move and find another job. Moreover, moving anywhere else in the bay could have your not-substantially-lower rent offset by transportation costs anyway. There are lots of other reasons that these people are making this choice. Honestly, who would choose this if they didn't think it was their best option?

My thoughts exactly. I don't understand why they feel forced to live in such terrible, expensive conditions. Sure it may be temporarily inconvenient and difficult to move, but wouldn't they be far better off somewhere else?? I just don't get it.

If you are an immigrant with kids, presumably with very limited education, I can imagine you would make choices that aren't the most logical from the world view. Fear can be a powerful factor, however illogical they might be, perhaps they know the area or they can't drive or they have a support system, etc

If the mother is an immigrant then she probably works in some form of unskilled labor that provides little pay and even more-so little job stability. Chances are if she was ever late she'd be fired. Living in the Mission provides proximity to the job which for many immigrants are gained through personal relationships alone.

So, moving to a new area means that she'll now have to add an expensive and long BART ride into her budget which will probably negate any savings. Plus, she'll loose any childcare resources she currently has established with friends that live in the area. There may/may not be jobs in the new area but she won't be able to get any of them there because she lacks the personal relationships with the immediate surrounding community to get a new job.

Moving is also an expense she can't afford, hence the SRO that doesn't require a deposit. If she had moved in the past it probably was from an SRO to another SRO with most of her belongings being things that could be gathered into a friends car or walked down the street.

Also, living in SF provides a /much/ better future for the children over Oakland where a residence in her budget would probably be unsafe to walk outside at night.

This is really offensive and condescending toward people who are leading far more difficult lives than any of us on HN. Do you really not think the choices poor people make are "logical" for their circumstances? Charities like GiveDirectly are premised on the very fact that poor people know better than anyone else how to spend their money.