It sounds like the $700 covers more than the pod itself — renters also get access to a coworking space (and obviously, bathrooms and common areas. What is the going rate for coworking space in SF? To me (or rather, single me from many years ago), the key remaining question is what the bathroom situation is like. If you have to wait in line for bathrooms/showers with dozens of other residents, I'd pass. But if they have sufficient facilities, and they're kept clean, I could see giving it a try.
And I could go to a super rural area and get something even cheaper. People also pay even more than this for super tiny claustrophobic apartments in NYC and HK. Cities provide value in all kinds of ways, and it turns out they’re popular. Having cheap options that allows a wider range of people to take advantage of it sounds like a great idea to me.
I guess it's kind of hard for me to imagine any city so amazing that people are not just willing but grateful to live in a literal pod. I've worked remotely for SV companies and I just don't get the appeal in the internet era. To each their own, I suppose.
To some extent, it's just numbers. People who work in tech in San Francisco are compensated well enough that living there is not a burden; the numbers are big for both housing costs and salary. Personally, I think the high cost of living areas work out in your favor. If the prevailing rent and food cost is $1/month, then it's going to be hard to ever find a salary that can pay for an iPhone. If prevailing rent and food costs are $5000 a month, whatever % they give you over the bare minimum will cover costs that are the same everywhere more easily. (As a corollary, keep in mind that rules like "only spend 25% of your take-home pay on housing" are not written with software engineers in high cost of living areas in mind. I pay 43% of my take-home pay on housing and the other 57% is a lot of money.)
The biggest cost of living issue that software engineers face there is 1) not working for FAANG but competing for housing with people that do (double if you have kids; remember that both parents can have FAANG salaries, and they will spend them both to get their kids into a good school) and 2) trying to save 20% for a down payment on a house while also paying rent. #1 is kind of a San Francisco thing; everyone wants to live in downtown Mountain View so they can bike 5 minutes to work, and Google pays better than the other companies nearby, so... if you don't work there you probably won't live there. Apartments in Mountain View are more expensive than Manhattan. My take is that the Bay Area really suffers from existing to serve one major industry; everyone else has the same job as you, and gets paid the same for it. There's also some personal preference involved; "I won't do algorithm interviews", "I want a 4 day workweek", "I want to work remotely" are all going to reduce your earning potential. Whether the upsides are worth it is up to you to decide, but you will be bidding against people that work in person 5 days a week that mastered the software engineering interview. As for #2, it takes time. Save as much as you can and you'll get there soon enough.
I could get something for $150/month in Thailand, maybe even near the beach. I can’t imagine being stuck in middle America paying $700/month for something similar.
Not ideal, but a step in the right direction. We used to have SROs -- Single Room Occupancy -- units for singles, childless couples, retirees. We've torn down about a million of them since WWII.
We need to update the concept and bring it back in some fashion. If your life is online, you don't need that much space.
You don't need rows of bookshelves when you can download kindle books. Founders of online businesses are notorious for dressing down and often have no need to dress to impress.
More than a step, this oversteps the mark by quite a bit. A human being shouldn't have to live in a space that small. I can't imagine it not screwing up anyone's mental health when just looking at a picture of it is giving me an anxiety attack.
These are basically just individual dorm rooms with communal living spaces. At 700$/month you can also afford a place outside of SF. Perfect for someone working 4 days a week who wants to commute well outside the city for the other 3.
> 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?
> 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!
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.
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.
Also parking for vans. A van is an awesome way to live if you can get parking. If you make the rent like 1000 a month for the space, it will keep the riff raff out. Put up a workspace and a
some showers.
If something like that happened it would start a movement.
This reminds me of the “Architect from Pluto” scene in Jodorowsky’s Holy Mountain. The architect reveals his new efficient apartment design: a matrix of coffins. He received a thunderous applause from his investors. [1]
“A man doesn’t need a home. All he needs is a shelter. If we can sell him on the idea of a shelter, we’ll make millions.”
> Just the trailer - it's a 5 hour film and hard to find the specific scene on youtube
Wow. some time ago that film connected with me for some reason (why, I have no recollection), so I have a VHS copy (because it was unavailable in any other format). That cut is much shorter.
Wenders filmed scenes in Japanese capsule pod hotels of the time ... it's relative to be sure but IMHO these are closer to the rentable pods depicted in the article than the scenes from the Jodorowsky movie.
The motivation here was admittedly to respond to one arthouse film drop with another.
I'm kind of old and while not in the film and TV business I've been tangential enough to work as an extra, tech runner, location support etc for various productions - notably in Berlin for Wings of Desire and in Australia (where I live) for some of the central Australian location work for Until the End of the World.
Bit player in a cast of thousands .. but of course I'll take all the credit! (Not! :-) ).
Aussies get about, a classmate of mine from the time had a bit part in a Nicole Kidman film and ended up giving black hole lectures at the Royal Institution of Great Britain along with being twice in the running for the Lucasian Chair.
That sort of things does wonders for your Erdős-Bacon number!
If your life is online you don't need to be in SF. There are plenty of third world countries to move to where Americans won't be ashamed to call you a compatriot.
SROs became airbnb private rooms listings, which were hilariously neutered in SF only after marginalized hosts in low income neighborhoods started getting a piece of the tourism pie.
I scorned the SF tech scene growing up, and now that I'm getting older, it seems foolish that I didn't live there for a few years and try to fleece some VCs to build a crappy product and exit with millions, or at least take one of those cushy $350K jobs and bank most of it for a decade. Could be retired at 40, instead I'll be saving for retirement until 68.
Run the numbers, those salary numbers aren't as good as you think once taxes and CoL are factored in. And for every big VC payout there are thousands with worthless monopoly paper options. You're probably farther ahead than you think.
CoL is the big one, along with lifestyle inflation. It depends on the numbers, is a smaller percent saved off a bigger paycheck more than a bigger percent off a smaller paycheck? Too many variables to ever really say, so the thing to optimize for is hygge.
100% on the money (pun intended) and also something people forget is how trapped you are if you take a $350k job.
That salary puts you square in the top 3% of wage earners in the country. Finding another comparable job becomes stupid hard so you end up trapped.
Granted if you're an engineer from a top school or have MS/PhD you'll be OK but that's always my fear - getting a good job and then losing it and not being able to take another because of that horrible lifestyle inflation.
My favorite story, possibly not true, about alternative sleeping quarters is from the days of sailing:
Sailors who were too drunk to make it back to their ships after a long evening at the tavern would to a room in the back of the tavern,
In that room would be two ropes stretched from wall to wall:
1. about waist height
2. just below armpit height.
The top rope was slightly offset, horizontally, from the bottom rope.
Apparently the idea was that you would walk up to the bottom rope, lean forward and drape your head and arms over the top rope. The top rope would sit under your armpits and would hold you up while you slept off the night of boozing.
Maybe I’ll sound like the old out of touch rich guy (I’m 40 and won the startup lottery), but isn’t it great there is a way for people who are broke but have hustle to get their chance?
When I was an intern at Goldman Sachs me and my roommate rented an apartment in the Tenderloin for $600 a month. I slept in the closet. We stayed at the office 24/7 and focused on work. My former roommate is now a GP at a major growth equity fund.
I opted out of finance and instead of getting a banker salary I lived in another closet for a bit and a shed with no shower or bathroom (I had to walk to the main house).
I lived off $700 a month and pieced together a seed round in 2009 and things slowly got better from there.
Now I have a public company and can say I’m one of the few founders to get my investors a unicorn exit.
I know I am the outlier of outliers and had more luck than anything else, but god damn don’t disdain others who are willing to sacrifice to give it a go.
> I know I am the outlier of outliers and had more luck than anything else, but god damn don’t disdain others who are willing to sacrifice to give it a go.
This is a red herring. Nobody is showing disdain for people who are forced to sleep in capsules for a chance at winning the lottery. It's profiting off pushing lottery-players to the brink that is coming across as problematic.
And another reply to your comment is justifying it for minimum-wage workers, who clearly don't even get a ticket.
We can still distain worsening living conditions. These folks are paying more for less space than a closet. And starting up in an era of more entrenched incumbents with higher interest rates. So looks like worsening odds for more expensive lottery tickets, at least from the outside looking in.
50 years ago, in most places in the US, people shit into pits in the ground covered by a shed with a crescent carved into the door. They had lots of land, and they lived in drafty wooden shacks with, at best, a wood stove to keep them warm. 100 years ago in cities like new York most new immigrants lived in rickety stick buildings and took a shit in shared privies. The fact that it is considered the norm today for every individual to have their own toilet and closet full of clothes is a borderline miracle. A sanitary bed to sleep in, air conditioned, and a living area, that's not good enough for a single person because the bunk isn't queen sized and the living area is shared? I'm not convinced that this is some travesty.
Apples and oranges? Thread is about SF. Having known someone who lived there ~50 years ago, not to mention the parent poster, they described better living conditions for less money.
OK... If this had been an option 50 years ago, and proportionally cheaper, would people have taken this cheaper route? I think probably. It's not any different than a hostel except that it's monthly instead of nightly, and cheaper. The issue here then is the cost of living in SF, not the particulars of this arrangement.
The piece seems pretty exaggerated to generate clicks. "Hacker houses" have been a thing in Silicon Valley forever. You share a large house with a bunch of like-minded people and get a tiny space of your own to sleep in. For someone in their early-mid 20s, what's the harm? It's the perfect way to build a community and have a blast.
"Build community" is not to be undervalued! Having mentors is great, but just having someone to tell your problems to, and have them just have them be facing the same problems, and have no solutions, doesn't seem like it would offer much support until you've experienced it. I didn't understand that when I was younger. The community you make at a hacker house is worth putting up with a lack of personal space for a time.
But as the article points out- some of the people are techies trying to network and find success in SF's tech scene, and others are people struggling to get by working at Carls Jr...
Looking through this thread, it is surprising that there are actually people who consider this "acceptable". Like it is not something out of a dystopian hellscape.
Amazing how much a person can be conditioned into accepting a terrible situation. And no, there are ways to fix this, there is just no will to do so, partly because of the people who see nothing wrong with it.
I'm honestly confused about which part specifically you find unacceptable.
Do you think it should be illegal to sell housing smaller than a certain minimum size? Do you think the price is too high? Do you think the location is awful?
Someone working full time should at least be compensated enough to have a proper living condition.
A box is not a proper living condition. For a minimum wage worker, $700/month is basically at the limit of what they can afford for rent. And yet this is all they can get? And people are cheering for it?
You skipped the core of the question though. Define "proper living situation." There was a time when travelers would sleep in a big bed piled on with other people in the back of a tavern, without giving it a second thought. Not too long ago whole nations of people native to north america lived in tents made of animal skin from cradle to grave, and were perfectly satisfied.
Someone has a backpack full of belongings and that's all they need, many of these people don't even need a kitchen because they never cook. They're social, they want their days spent in shared spaces. How is this worse than a hostel?
I think the idea of "proper living condition" is as varied as the number of people you ask. I wouldn't live in one of these shared spaces, but I do live an equally unorthodox lifestyle and my housing situation would be considered inadequate by many, and I love it. I can understand why someone would want the minimum private space to sleep and a shared space bustling with activity and full of like minded people. As long as people have sanitation and aren't sharing diseases and bedbugs and what not I don't see a problem with any mode of living and sheltering, and that's what it really is all about, shelter.
I think we need more options like this which reduce prices for people in expensive areas everywhere. Would you rather people be priced out? I’d rather have a bigger mix of people in any one metropolis.
I would rather have a tumor be cut open and removed than having a band aid put on it and left to fester.
If the housing situation in a place got so bad that a person has to pay nearly 1/3 of their monthly income just to get a closet to sleep in, it is not a livable place. A slum has a big mix of people but would you really consider it a great "metropolis" where you can have a life and raise a family?
Again, this is 1/3 of minimum wage for as much space as a closet. It is basically priced as high as it could to best exploit the poorest among us. Maybe it is a different in value between me and those who grew up in SF but I consider it inhumane to treat someone who is working full time like this. If you don't think so, let me ask you this: would you let your family, your spouse and your children, to live like this? In a box? Or would you do all you could to get them something better? Not everyone can do better than minimum wage, but it doesn't mean they deserve to live like this. That is what I mean.
There are solutions to the housing problem that is not this band aid on a festering wound. But it seems this kind of situation is perfectly fine to SF people. To which I have nothing else to say but amazement at how can a city priding itself on economic abundance and human right progress can also be utterly indifferent to the suffering of its fellows and even justifying it.
Scrappy people solving problems is the only way problems are gonna get solved.
Also living in a dorm is not the hardship you seem to think it is. It’s better accommodations than 90% of people in history have ever lived. Watch Les Miserables for a reality check.
Better to direct anger at the landed gentry who made this possible.
The apathy is what I am angry about. The sentiment that "this is fine" is what allowed this to happen. Laws and regulations need to be adjusted to enable better housing for more people. But they get blocked because those who hold the means don't see any problem with people below them living in squalid conditions like this.
Make no mistake, I see this as a terrible living situation. Just because some war time refugees 100 years ago lived worse doesn't mean one of the richest cities in the world should have the same. It is a terrible and dishonest comparison.
As far as I can see you are the apathetic one here. Complaining about NIMBYs won't actually solve the problem. We need realistic solutions, especially short term ones, and these rooms are absolutely part of that. When the alternative is homelessness these units are unequivocally good.
Why do you think it is temporary? You don't seem to understand how much is $700 to a minimum wage worker. Even in SF, that is nearly 1/3 of their income. If we take the common requirement of 3x the rent then this is basically the most a minimum wage worker can afford. Sometimes, people can't do any better than that. Are you saying that even if a person work full time, they don't deserve a better living condition than a box?
This is eye opening to me how the housing situation is viewed by the SF upper class. I have always considered it a dystopian nightmare when the workers have to sleep in a coffin and work full time. It seems not many people in SF share my view.
I think it's temporary because in the article, he is quoted as saying he's "living in a $700/mo pod at Mint Plaza for the next 30 days." That seems pretty temporary to me?
As to what he deserves, I think he deserves to decide for himself without other people second-guessing it, and also to be able to change his mind and do something else if it gets old.
It seems like you're going off-topic, since the article isn't about minimum wage workers in general. But to address that, yes, rents are very high in San Francisco and it's no place to try to live solely on a minimum wage.
The article to me is about the cost of a box to sleep in SF. The person they interviewed was just one of the renters. There are all sorts of people living in that place. Most I would wager are the people who cannot afford anything better.
Why do you think minimum wage workers should not be allowed to live in SF? If everyone is writing code, who would make the food? Who would deliver the packages? Who would clean the workspace in your office? They don't deserve a place to live near you even though they are providing you with all kind of services? Genuinely asking here because I can't fathom what you were saying when you said SF is not for minimum wage workers.
The article is about one renter in one building that offers some rather unusual accommodations that aren't typical for SF. It's not about SF housing issues in general. That's what you decided to talk about.
Have you seen this entire thread? The housing situation in SF in general is what everyone else is talking about. Look to me you are of the few trying to keep it specifically about the experience of just this one individual in the article. Why is that I wonder?
And this is from the article to which I quote:
>I need quite a jump, really, in all honesty, in order to be able to afford the traditional apartment here.
So yes, it is not the typical housing in SF, because it is born out of the dysfunctional "typical" ones and many people have no choice but to take it. I criticize the system that let the situation get to this point and the people who are so apathetic and disconnected they saw no problem with this "atypical" condition even when they acknowledge that it is not typical.
The journalist only talked to one person. We don’t know anything about anyone else who lives in that building or what other choices they had. This person had the choice to go home and chose not to, because they liked the AI scene in SF I guess? None of us know what their true situation is since they’re a stranger.
What I’m doing here is refusing to speculate. Yes, other people go off-topic and speculate all the time, but that doesn’t mean it’s useful.
It’s not particularly useful to speculate about other strangers who write comments on Hacker News, either. Are they apathetic or disconnected? Maybe, maybe not? I don’t know them.
Poverty is the most profitable investment that man has ever conceived. Decades of dehumanization has erased all empathy and turned people into cold and calculating machines.
Honestly if I were in my 20s and wanted to grind like this, these would be perfect. I wouldn't sleep that much, anyway (because of the grind), and when I wasn't sleeping or working, I probably wouldn't be "home".
Plus, if this guy's startup moons, he has an awesome "story" about how he slept in a coffin to chase that hustle.
I’ve actually lived in a coliving space here in LA with a similar coworking and sleeping setup during a transitional period in my life between marriage and separation. The community was great and really supported me but it is definitely a young persons game. 41 is a little old to be sleeping in a pod next to 20 year olds, doing 20 year old things.
In dotcom days, I used to work in SF with a developer from Australia. He liked to stay in youth hostels in SoMa. They were cheap and offered easy commute to downtown. He got to hang out and socialize with traveling expats and save a ton of money.
It was inconvenient by conventional standards (had to vacate and rotate rooms every few days) but he enjoyed the lifestyle. In the winter time, he went up to Tahoe and became a ski instructor while still freelancing tech projects.
With all the extra money he sent home, he ended up buying a house there while in his 20s. I lost touch but heard through mutual friends he was doing well.
You can sniff at pod housing, but when you're young, footloose, and chasing a dream, it's a pretty good deal.
I wonder why we hear about this type of space more often than micro-apartments or micro-studios.
I think the reality of the number of homeless people, as well as the popularity of options like dorms or pods, especially in areas like California, demonstrates that the requirements for living space size that are intended to keep up people's living standards, are not working out.
I wish that truly micro-studios with balconies were popular thing in big cities. If I could have my own bathroom, small fridge, microwave, bunk bed with desk underneath, and just enough room to play a slightly restricted VR table tennis, along with a mini balcony. I would rather live in a city.
Literally like 12x16 feet could be adequate. It would be better than just a bunk for private space. And you could still have some nice shared facilities.
The reaction to this was generally pretty negative, so I’m pleasantly surprised that the top comments here were mostly positive.
It’s important to understand there are two floors of working spaces and a private office that’s usually open. It’s not just the pod, and that’s just for sleeping.
This is the lowest-cost way for me to be in SF, and it’s been an insanely net positive trade so far. I was in central IL trying to build a startup before this.
And to be honest, it’s pretty cool waking up and knowing my friends will be downstairs, and I can talk to them about whatever I’m working on that day etc. I like it way more than I thought I would, it’s beyond “bearable.”
It’s not luxury living by any means but it’s not this awful thing that people are taking it as.
Sounds like a great way to convert old banks and other unused commercial buildings into sorely needed housing.
I had read that such transformation was costly in the past. Maybe the fact that rooms and water features are separate makes this feasible, where hotel room conversion would cost a fortune.
Yikes, I’d definitely bring a CO2 monitor with an alarm if I found myself sleeping in such a pod. I’m sure the ventilation can be handled correctly but I wouldn’t be blindly confident that the landlord was on top of it.
Precursor to capsule hotels in large? Also, most apartments amenities are just a price burden - I don’t care about the shitty gym or ransacked game room.
Still quite big. But this is clearly the future we will be all forced into to combat climate change. Just imagine how much will we save in emissions by forcing everyone to live like this.
I wonder how feasible it is to have overnight guests. Aside from the size (and the lack of impressiveness…), it seems like the close quarters could make sound an issue.
That's just begging an entrepreneur to import the idea of love hotels from Japan (where presumably they serve much the same purpose, given the propensity for building walls out of paper).
>Crustaceans are very distantly related to "bugs,"
How do you figure? What makes them not a bug? Generally the distinction I see is that people consider pretty much all arthopods bugs unless they're big and live in the sea and cognitive dissonance doesn't want them to think about that they like eating bugs. Sure, they're not /insects/ but neither are spiders or centipedes. Heck, I think most people consider "Pill Bugs" to be bugs, it's in the name. Those /are/ crustaceans. Don't know how they taste, though.
Scientifically, "bugs" refers to hemiptera, not crustaceans.
As for flavor, second hand account indicates that bugs taste like chicken, while first hand account indicates lobster doesn't taste like chicken, at least not to me.
Contextually, we're downstream in a conversation caused by someone saying they will not eat bugs. If you had to guess, do you think someone yelling they won't eat bugs would eat fried crickets? Or popcorn pill bugs? Shrimp fried bees? Chocolate cockroach crunch cereal? None of those are hemipterans. I imagine those are all pretty well covered by the "I will not eat bugs!" statement.
All that's true also, but since he said "scientifically" I thought it was important to point out that it wasn't the case. And more directly that lobster really isn't very similar to cricket at all, so even though people like to gross each other out by saying it's the same, it's really not. Cockroach is much more similar to grasshopper than lobster. And yet plenty of people eat grasshoppers, but very few eat cockroaches. Therein lies the nuance. Lobster is so different from "bugs" that we shouldn't be grossed out by the false claim that it's the same thing, any more than someone would want tomatoes on their hamburger, simply because they like pickles.
The correlation is very accurate. Lobsters were once considered so low-quality that they had to be force-fed to prisoners. Anyone complaining about "eating bugs" on principle is being foolish. If you don't like bugs for the taste, that's one thing (I've tried crickets before; they're unremarkable). But if anyone thinks that eating bugs is inherently any worse than eating, say, pigs, or octopuses, then that's simply incoherent.
Cut the BS. Lobsters used to be ground up, shell and all. The people eating them didn't know how to cook them corredtly. It was a recent innovation (like 19th century) to keep them alive, boil them, deshell, and douse in butter which made them delicious.
It's not accurate. Scientifically, "bugs" refers to hemiptera, not crustaceans. Nomenclature isn't typically determined by the quality of nutrition, nor the economic class to which an animal is fed. But this is interesting, nonetheless.
Not upset. Just correcting you. Bugs are hemiptera, which is an order of the class insecta. Lobster is not in that order and it's not even in that class. If you say "scientifically" then you're especially wrong.
'Bugs' is also an idiom for arthropods and it's pretty clear from context that this is how the word was being used. I understand some people have more difficulty than others picking up on idioms but that's no reason not to take all the poetry out of everyday speech. Linguistic drift is a beautiful thing! Just embrace it.
How do you know? I was offered fried scorpions and grass hoopers once, but I was too chicken to try. My friends thought they taste normal, it sounds plausible at least.
Honestly, eating scorpions isn't even as weird as half the things you can buy from a good butcher. Give me a choice between scorpion and rocky mountain oysters, and I'll take the scorpion.
If you round them out with Mangrove worms and snails and throw in a few Witchetty grubs you've got a tasty smorgasbord - good easy food when you're on the move and the nearest shop is at least a few 100km away.
The half-homeless protagonist of the Treasure of the Sierra Madre had at least a cage where he could lock his suitcase in. 2020's San Francisco is objectively worse than 1920's Tampico.
In Tokyo you can lock your luggage still in various places. And you can get a cheaper and higher standard cubicle type of room superior to these beds, with more valuable free or cheap amenities. I believe there’s a “nomad visa” in the works as well
Living like the homeless and poor of most US states and foreign countries... Just for the privilege of being in SF?
When I came to the US to work in tech, I made sure that I'd never live in a worse situation than my supposedly 3rd World home country, but this is way, way worse than what I could have had working in tech back home.
>It’s comfortable enough for Lewis, who is 5 foot 9. (Lewis jokes that I should report that he’s an inch taller so that he can boast about it on the dating apps. I do not oblige.)
I think something got lost in translation here. In SF online dating app culture, 5'10 is the minimum "not short" height. Note that it's specifically not considered "tall". Why 5'10? I don't know. How do I know this? Way too many overheard conversations with coworkers, housemates, and countless acquaintances of the above over the past eight years of living here as a tech worker. The result is lots of men rounding 2-3 inches up to reach 5'10. I hesitate to call it lying, because there's a reality distortion field that results from enough people doing it. Lots of people are convinced that they or their partners are actually a taller height. I can't find it at the moment, but I saw a post a while ago about how this becomes a real problem for things like ski rentals, where inches in height difference actually matter.
Then 5'10-5'11 guys who previously wouldn't have rounded up to 6' are forced into doing so, because the expectation is that a guy who puts 5'10 is shorter than he really is. Then the 6' guys have to put 6'2 for the same reason. At 6'2 it doesn't matter anymore, since it's officially tall. Yes, this is really dumb. But the point is that it's not about "boasting", which sounds silly.
