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

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#231

Post by edoceo » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 4:33 PM UTC

posguy wrote: post #89

timothycrosley wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree. We are doing better than most tech cities right now, but that's unfortunately a low bar. I want us to build so much that anyone who wants to live or start some crazy business here can without hesitation.

Yeah, I'd much rather see an apartment or condo building go up in the city limits rather than up in say Bothell. Dense complexes where a 3bed/2bath is in the low $1600s shouldn't be held 15 miles outside the city limits, there is no reason beyond terrible zoning that that couldn't be built in Ballard or Magnolia or the Central District.

There are over a dozen new buildings, five story, 100s of units built over the last few years. Large and small units all over the place. And they are full!

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#232

Post by mcguire » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 4:38 PM UTC

0xB31B1B wrote: post #145

nailer wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

npm and uber are in Oakland. Edit per comment below: uber Oakland office was going to 3000 people, but yeah, now it's been reduced to a few hundred: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/20/uber-scales-back-initi...

Uber is in SF, Palo Alto and Seattle, oak office is very small and hasn't opened yet.

So housing prices aren't that big a deal?

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#233

Post by s73ver » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 4:39 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…

Honestly, another thing that could be done is that VCs could start funding things outside of Silicon Valley. There is precisely zero reason why they all need all of their companies to be right there.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#234

Post by kec » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 4:43 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…

How does any of that help when the real issue is the distorting effect of prop 13 on the market? Insane housing prices are being driven by an illiquid market, adding more housing isn't going to change that.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#235

Post by davidw » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 4:47 PM UTC

kec wrote: post #234

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…

How does any of that help when the real issue is the distorting effect of prop 13 on the market? Insane housing prices are being driven by an illiquid market, adding more housing isn't going to change that.

Politics is about "the art of the possible" and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. First the low-hanging fruit, then you keep going.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#236

Post by pascalxus » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 4:48 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…

There's not much remote work available. Those jobs are the most desirable and also the very hardest to get. In the past 10 years, i've received 100s of calls from desperate recruiters looking for Software engineers: and every single time, it's because they're looking to fill positions of companies in Palo Alto or San Francisco. Anytime, I ask them to find a position outside of the penninsula or SF, they turn up empty handed (east bay).

Companies can learn from this as well: there's a difference between # of workers working in a field and labor supply vs labor demand.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#237

Post by weston » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

kevinburke wrote: post #203

CodeCube wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so then build the offices in oakland ;)

Uber tried this and backed off of it because their employees didn't want to move.

Couldn't a company that big add a second office in Oakland?

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#238

Post by mcguire » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 4:49 PM UTC

readhn wrote: post #66

It's a self correcting cycle. Money pours in - salaries and living expenses go up - real estate goes up. Money flows out - everything shrinks. What goes up must come down. Everything is cyclical. SF economy is no exception.

In a sense, I think you are right.

This is a comment from a recent thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14763198

Is seems to me that the problem is the amount of money flowing into SF and once that dries up, housing prices will go with it.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#239

Post by potatolicious » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 4:51 PM UTC

RobertoG wrote: post #100

randomdata wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economic need will, of course, compensate for higher housing costs by providing higher compensation, which ultimately makes housing costs a moot issue for anyone providing value to the local economy. As someone from outside of the region, what reasons necessitate that a lot of people be in the Bay Area that is beyond the economic need?

maybe they were born there and their family, community and network is there? or is that a nonsense thing to say in the States? In some places of Europe that would be a pretty normal feeling.

> "or is that a nonsense thing to say in the States?"

It's a nonsense thing to say in front of the educated American elite.

Most of America agrees with you, but as we've seen, there is a disturbing trend amongst American elites to mock anyone who is unwilling to sacrifice their families, communities, and networks in the name of career development/personal advancement.

I'm not into most aspects of the populism that is sweeping the US right now, but the elite dismissal of basic family- and community-building is IMO completely real. The brutal policies that result - of forced displacement, of people adrift without support networks - are one of the very real reasons why anti-elite sentiment will continue to increase.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#240

Post by vedanta » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 4:55 PM UTC

abalone wrote: post #166

vedanta wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also YIMBY orgs almost everywhere. The south bay YIMBY twitter account has updates on what you can do as well. From following the YIMBY movement ( http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2017/06/yi... ) it's hard to not take the YIMBY position. More needs to be built, but we can have ~10% BMR requirements as ways of increasing diversity in a neighborhood and preserving some local control/culture.…

10% is way low. SF has been negotiating for 25% and up.[1] BMR isn't just about culture and diversity. It's about teachers and service industry workers and everyone a functioning city needs. The gap is so large between market rate and affordability, and there are so many richer people still wanting to move into SF, that it is likely wishful thinking that market rate development will be "enough" to solve the problem.…

BMR-renting makes sense at 25% or more. You can kick someone out in a yr. if they've started to earn more. You can rent at-cost, and not lose money like you would in a BMR sale.

Wouldn't you rather be using the loan/tax subsidy to house 10 people in rentals instead of 2 in a BMR condo? Asking for 25% BMR is holding back development and the marginal number of units built in each development. 10% is good compromise for service jobs (though service jobs do pay competitively in the bay area for the most part, teachers make 100k+, cops make 150k+). I'm not saying end BMR completely, just a compromise for which valid reasons exist, with the aim of hopefully someday eliminating it.

How long has SF had a BMR program? and rent control? I think they've both hurt more than help. Possibly even by design.