The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups • Hacker News Board

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#121

Post by Retric » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:05 PM UTC

afpx wrote: post #116

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.

I stay here because I've not found any place on Earth that's as good for working in technology. And, every year, this area creeps even further ahead. It's just an amazing place. So, I tolerate the pain for the opportunity to enjoy my career to the fullest.

Odd, I find the bay rather stagnate. It's constantly chasing last weeks fad and a few years behind cutting edge research.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#122

Post by javiramos » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:10 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #115

This is excellent opportunity for anyone who wants investment from west coast VCs but doesn't want to deal with San Francisco, Oakland or the bay area. San Francisco frequently has human feces on the sidewalk in many areas right near the city center, high housing prices and a combination of startup bros and angry hard left outrage culture folk. The bay area is a cultureless void and Oakland is still dangerous. Better…

"San Francisco frequently has human feces on the sidewalk"

This did it for me. I stepped on a big mound of human feces when walking along Market Street on my way to a job interview. The dichotomy of SF was perfectly portrayed in that 15 minute walk: expensive cars driving on Market street (most likely driven by a tech person) while homeless people were openly shooting up and defecating on the street.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#123

Post by briandear » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:10 PM UTC

mattm wrote: post #86

timr wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ra…

AirBnB is a huge factor. Take a look at http://insideairbnb.com/san-francisco/ and the chart under Activity and see it go up after 2012.

AirBnB doesn’t cause 3 bedroom tract houses in Cupertino to cost $2 million. There is AirBnB in Houston and it has almost an unmeasurable effect of prices. I don’t know if the Bay Area has rent control, but those types of policies (along with planning commissions and other bureaucracies have more deleterious impacts than a thousand AirBnBs.

The simple fact is that if you own a Bay Area home, you will oppose increased supplies because it makes your home less valuable. Homeowners are simply attempting to protect their equity. If housing prices dropped 20% because of increased supply, suddenly tens of thousands are now upside down on their home.

I know the actual reason, but I still can’t help but wonder why Hong Kong/Seoul/Shanghai style high rises are not more of a thing in the Bay Area. There seems like a ton of good spots along the 280 from San Bruno to Woodside.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#124

Post by jostmey » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:11 PM UTC

kevinburke wrote: post #6

Both top-level comments have mentioned housing prices. I grew up in the Bay Area and want to stay here and I am trying to work to change policy to help build more housing. Unfortunately due to law, bad policy and NIMBY's the market is not going to solve this problem on its own, without political change rents and housing prices will keep increasing. Here are some political actions you can take to help: - call your Sta…

or vote with your wallet and leave

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#125

Post by sulam » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:15 PM UTC

fooker wrote: post #109

aaron-lebo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are massive swaths of the US with much cheaper living than SF and better infrastructure, markets, and basic rights than Russia, China, or Brazil.

And very few people. So, this works only if you develop apps or a cloud service.

Even then you need to be able to hire engineers. It's no accident that the companies located in that vast swathe hire a lot of remote employees.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#126

Post by revmoo » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:16 PM UTC

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…

> The simple fact is that there are a lot of people who need to live in the Bay Area.

Nope.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#127

Post by briandear » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:18 PM UTC

chrissnell wrote: post #69

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.

As someone living in the Midwest and telecommuting to SFBA, that's almost unbelievable to me. I pay less than that for my brand new and quite nice 5/4 house on almost half an acre of land. With all of the remote work available, why would you stay here? I manage a team with two remote-friendly job openings currently. You could work for me and go live in Telluride, CO for less than that East Bay 1br and still have mone…

I work remotely for a company in the Cupertino area while living on 2 acres in the south of France – my entire “estate” cost less than a 2 bedroom apartment would have cost in SFO. Even commuting monthly for two days of meetings is still cheaper than living in the Bay Area.

I would like to live in the Bay Area but it’s financial suicide.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#128

Post by deepGem » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:19 PM UTC

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've seen the same behavior in London tube and Singapore MRT as well, despite display boards that indicate removing backpacks in crowded trains. Mumbai locals handle this in the best possible way, you simply cannot get on the train during peak traffic if you have a backpack. I mean you probably can wiggle in, your backpack might not :)

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#129

Post by Naritai » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:20 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #117

kevinburke wrote: post #6

Both top-level comments have mentioned housing prices. I grew up in the Bay Area and want to stay here and I am trying to work to change policy to help build more housing. Unfortunately due to law, bad policy and NIMBY's the market is not going to solve this problem on its own, without political change rents and housing prices will keep increasing. Here are some political actions you can take to help: - call your Sta…

Why does everyone have to squeeze into San Francisco and the peninsula? Can't you tech workers gentrify West Oakland at least? Guess a few street thugs are a force more powerful than million dollar home prices. I bet those guys are really proud of the chaos they create that forces all of you to avoid their neighborhoods.

Did you miss the part where BART is packed every commute hour? There are huge numbers of people in Oakland and the rest of the east bay. But the most efficient transportation system is one that doesn't have huge rush hour stresses, i.e. ones where people live close to where they work. So if the offices are getting built in SF, then so must be the housing.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#130

Post by vonmoltke » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:23 PM UTC

sulam wrote: post #104

timothycrosley wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on what viewpoint your coming from, but from that of a software developer there are many alternatives that have been much better than San Francisco for years, especially Seattle https://www.codementor.io/blog/best-cities-software-engineer... , which is also set up for future success as it keeps building http://www.spur.org/news/2017-06-15/keep-building-oakland . Honestly, I think what we are seeing, is a shif…

There simply aren't enough engineers in Seattle, especially what I will call "startup" engineers. You're competing against Amazon, Google, and Microsoft (Facebook to a lesser degree) and the engineers in Seattle tend to prefer these established companies over startups. A large chunk of the Bay Area engineering community won't work at Amazon (Facebook and Google are another story) and came there to do startups. It's a…

How does this jibe with the complaints of "talent shortages" in the Bay Area? How does a concentration of engineers benefit you if you need to woo them away from someone else?

Also, why are you looking exclusively at the local market? I spent years trying to leave Dallas for greener pastures, only to be ignored by almost everyone out-of-hand except Amazon and Google.