Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

tomtunguz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 417 posts

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#71

Post by OkGoDoIt »

_delirium wrote: post #45
stale2002 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. And the best way to fix Bart overcrowding is to build apartments near where people work so they don't HAVE to commute.

Can BART overcrowding be addressed in part by improving BART itself? It'd be one thing if it were already moving such large numbers of people that it'd be infeasible to expect higher capacity, but its current ridership isn't even all that high. The Chicago "L", for example, has a similar number of track-miles (though more stations), but moves twice as many people on an average day. How is BART moving half as many and…

Yeah, especially coming back from China where you don’t have to worry upon missing a train since the next one will be there in a couple minutes. BART trains come extremely infrequently, it’s especially annoying when you just missed the train and you’d almost rather get out of the station and walk/Uber but you’ve already paid.

What is the reason for this? Do they not have enough trains? Is it a safety issue? Do they not have enough conductors/drivers/personal? Is it an engineering problem, a money problem, something else? Seems like increasing train frequency would alleviate a lot of the stress on the system and be relatively inexpensive.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#72

Post by toephu2 »

timothycrosley wrote: post #63
Houshalter wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Move where exactly? So many people want to live there for a reason. If moving to another city saves you $1k a month on rent, but you lose $1.5k in income, it doesn't make any economic sense.

Seattle. Lose ~2-5 thousand a year in income on average as a Software engineer, save 1-2 thousand a month on rent, and no income tax: https://www.codementor.io/blog/best-cities-software-engineer...

Every city has its pros and cons. Seattle is no exception. You move to Seattle so you can save a couple bucks, okay so what? Then you get seasonal depression because its overcast all the time.*

*except during summer when it's beautiful

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#73

Post by seanmcdirmid »

toephu2 wrote: post #72
timothycrosley wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle. Lose ~2-5 thousand a year in income on average as a Software engineer, save 1-2 thousand a month on rent, and no income tax: https://www.codementor.io/blog/best-cities-software-engineer...

Every city has its pros and cons. Seattle is no exception. You move to Seattle so you can save a couple bucks, okay so what? Then you get seasonal depression because its overcast all the time.* *except during summer when it's beautiful

Eh, I've been in LA for a year and it's too darn sunny. I can't wait to move back to Seattle and get some good pine scented rain again.

But I get your intention, and it's been our strategy for a few decades now: over exaggerate seattle's rain problem to keep Californians from moving up and driving housing prices up even further. Unfortunately, it's no longer working, Seattle just keeps getting more popular and more pricey every year.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#74

Post by timothycrosley »

toephu2 wrote: post #72
timothycrosley wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle. Lose ~2-5 thousand a year in income on average as a Software engineer, save 1-2 thousand a month on rent, and no income tax: https://www.codementor.io/blog/best-cities-software-engineer...

Every city has its pros and cons. Seattle is no exception. You move to Seattle so you can save a couple bucks, okay so what? Then you get seasonal depression because its overcast all the time.* *except during summer when it's beautiful

Sure that's true. I take Vitamin D, and have a light that I use during the winter. However, it's really both the Spring and Summer that are beautiful IMO, which is half the year. I make sure to take my vacations during the other half. I also tend to get more work done during that half, since staying indoors is conducive toward it. But, per the article I posted: it's not a couple bucks, on average - you end up after paying your rent, and taxes - having double the money left over living in Seattle over San Francisco. And it will probably only move more in Seattle's favor, as Seattle keeps on building: http://www.spur.org/news/2017-06-15/keep-building-oakland. Vitamin D pills are cheap. Living in San Francisco is not.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#75

Post by WalterBright »

timothycrosley wrote: post #63
Houshalter wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Move where exactly? So many people want to live there for a reason. If moving to another city saves you $1k a month on rent, but you lose $1.5k in income, it doesn't make any economic sense.

Seattle. Lose ~2-5 thousand a year in income on average as a Software engineer, save 1-2 thousand a month on rent, and no income tax: https://www.codementor.io/blog/best-cities-software-engineer...

Seattle just passed a city income tax.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#76

Post by collyw »

stale2002 wrote: post #30
aphextron wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost comical how overcrowded BART has gotten at rush hour. Embarcadero and Powell stations become standing room only. I live deep in the east bay, and the new apartment building going up across the street has 1 bedroom layouts starting at $2800. Something has to give, or people will simply give up.

Correct. And the best way to fix Bart overcrowding is to build apartments near where people work so they don't HAVE to commute.

Even simpler, let people work remote.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#77

Post by WalterBright »

_pmf_ wrote: post #48
stale2002 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. And the best way to fix Bart overcrowding is to build apartments near where people work so they don't HAVE to commute.

> And the best way to fix Bart overcrowding is to build apartments near where people work so they don't HAVE to commute. Why not build businesses where people live? Apple can spend 5 billion on its new campus in the middle of nowhere, but the public has to shoulder the cost for transit. 90 percent of Google's and Apple's domestic workforce could probably do at least 70 percent of their work from home. Apple prides it…

Apple should have build a couple apartment towers next to it.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#78

Post by amelius »

vidoc wrote: post #22
aphextron wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost comical how overcrowded BART has gotten at rush hour. Embarcadero and Powell stations become standing room only. I live deep in the east bay, and the new apartment building going up across the street has 1 bedroom layouts starting at $2800. Something has to give, or people will simply give up.

> Riding BART into and out of SF as a commute is ridiculous at a new level nowadays. Especially given the shocking number of uneducated people who insist on keeping their backpacks on their shoulders despite the train being packed. Totally pisses me off!

I like those backpacks. They provide a nice buffer between me and the next person, allowing for some breathing space.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#79

Post by timothycrosley »

WalterBright wrote: post #75
timothycrosley wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle. Lose ~2-5 thousand a year in income on average as a Software engineer, save 1-2 thousand a month on rent, and no income tax: https://www.codementor.io/blog/best-cities-software-engineer...

Seattle just passed a city income tax.

Yes. With 3 important caveats: 1) similar things have happened in the past and got overturned, because it's against the WA state constitution. A challenge has already been mounted and the income tax isn't even in effect yet. 2) There is a very very small number of Tech Employees this would actually affect as it's only a 2% of income tax on income over 250K for individual, and 500K for married couple. 3) It's only on Seattle proper, independent of where you work, so you could literately live one block outside of Seattle and not pay. Most people who make that much already do live outside Seattle in Medina or Bellevue.

It's really just a symbolic gesture, to appease the base of those in office, that will most likely be overturned.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#80

Post by timr »

pcwalton wrote: post #62
fatbird wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should give up. People should leave the area. They should move where they can find a job and a cost of living that's reasonable. The fact that people don't give up is why landlords can afford to charge $2,800/month for a 1 bedroom. You can't rent at $2,800/month if no one will sign the lease.

The simple fact is that there are a lot of people who need to live in the Bay Area. Wishing people would just leave is what the NIMBY organizations have been trying for decades. It doesn't work, and it inflicts undue hardship on everyone who wasn't one of the lucky ones who bought in early. The only thing that does work is confronting the fact that a lot of people need to live here and encouraging housing supply to m…

"Wishing people would just leave is what the NIMBY organizations have been trying for decades."

...and yet, this crisis is only about 5 years old. Between 2008 and 2012, San Francisco rents were going down, not up. San Francisco's population declined in the 1980s. Say what you will about construction rates, but this is an acute housing crisis, brought on by an asset bubble, instigated by historically low interest rates.

One way to look at the current situation is to get upset and say "how dare this community not overturn its way of life to accommodate our industry!", but another, equally valid viewpoint is to acknowledge the simple fact that it's painfully stupid to try to cram the entire tech industry in a 49-square-mile patch of land (or realistically, a 20-square mile patch; nobody in tech believes there's life west of Divisidero or east of Embarcadero).

So no, people don't "need" to live here. There's no practical reason that the tech industry couldn't be spread all over the world. It was actually always kind of dumb and impractical to found startups here. But it's trendy for 20-something tech bros to live here right now, and therefore, everyone else is expected to move aside and make room.

Post reply on HN