401–410 of 663 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am getting giddy at the opportunity to making dumb stupid money again. It will be like 2008 with 30% returns per month. Oh how I miss those days!
> 30% returns per month Care to share how you did that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even more likely - hiring comes to a screeching halt. That's what brings the rental market down. There are a lot of new apartments being added to the market and bam, oversupply of rental units if the hiring slows down or stops.
Just clarifying, are you speaking of SF, or the US more generally...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tech employees making $200k+ are the only ones who can afford a $4k per month apartment in SF. If salaries drop then rent drops. I don't see this being a bad thing.
> If salaries drop then rent drops. I don't see this being a bad thing. Maybe I'm being irrational, but I suspect that the drops won't be proportional and the housing isse in SF will just get worse.
In the rental market a big driver of the landlord decision cycle is needing, at a minimum, to have a reputable tenant and to cover the cost of carry of the asset (mortgage, etc). In many cases if their cost of carry is met (and that's often a low bar....many landlords in both NYC and SF own their apartments outright, or are paying tiny monthlies on a refinanced mortgage that was originated in the 90's), then the priority is getting a reputable tenant who won't destroy the place or create drama.
If the above paragraph is confusing, basically what I am trying to say is that a landlord often prefers, for example, $3000/month from a tenant who they think is 98% likely to be an "easy tenant" to $3500/month from one who they think is 80% likely to be the same. In other words, there's a market premium on reliable tenants, especially in places like SF that have aggressive tenant-protection laws which make landlords even more antsy.
As layoffs start happening (as they did in the nine months before we signed our lease back in '09) landlords of reliably-paying, drama-free tenants start getting antsy about keeping their current tenant or finding a suitable replacement.
As such, what drives prices in markets like NY/SF isn't just supply-demand equilibrium; there's also a significant behavioral economics angle aspect to it as well, as landlords are willing to pay a premium for peace of mind.
Therefore, I would expect a significant drop in SF rents if layoffs start coming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LinkedIn changed its mind and decided that you should connect to anyone you're barely acquainted with This was all in the interest of keeping the numbers going up which is obvious. And that's fine if that is your business model. But the business model here seems to be showing growth for the sake of wall street as opposed to growing the business in a meaningful manner. Linkedin does serve a purpose it allows people…
> But the business model here seems to be showing growth for the sake of wall street as opposed to growing the business in a meaningful manner. Welcome to the world. Version 2.0. Codename: pointless.
Honestly I am feeling a bit of joy watching LinkedIn take a hit. Not because I think their product is terrible but because of the endless spam emails I keep receiving from them, despite how many times I click unsubscribe.
I have literally several hundred request from random people to become a contact. Linkedin (years ago) lost what it had which originally attracted me to the service. That was some kind of real and exclusive way to have contacts that you either knew or you felt would be beneficial in some way. The biggest joke is the entire concept they have of using a connection to connect you to someone else who they know. Which of c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tech employees making $200k+ are the only ones who can afford a $4k per month apartment in SF. If salaries drop then rent drops. I don't see this being a bad thing.
Two engineers with average compensation could split at apartment at that price, and many do. So do married couples with dual incomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My speculation is that without any comparable competitors, there's nothing to force LinkedIn to change the negative aspects of their service. If there were two competing services, we would see users gravitating towards the service they prefer and the other service desperately trying to correct itself. For example, when Yahoo introduced suggested searches, Google noticed and picked up the feature too. Alternatively, w…
> There's nothing to force LinkedIn to change the negative aspects of their service Yeah there is: a $10 billion drop in their stock valuation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tech employees making $200k+ are the only ones who can afford a $4k per month apartment in SF. If salaries drop then rent drops. I don't see this being a bad thing.
Eh, you exaggerate. Me and my girlfriend make about $160k together and we can afford[1] a $3.5k apartment in SF. If we made $200k+ each, or if even just one of us did, $4k wouldn't even be worth thinking about. [1] by "afford" I mean that there is money left at the end of the month.