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

341–350 of 417 posts

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#341

Post by kevinburke »

scelerat wrote: post #326
e40 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Four large apartment buildings in the East Bay have been burned by arsonists (likely the same one or group) in the last year. One in Uptown a few weeks ago. One, in Emmeryville was burned down twice . I agree, we need to build more housing. It seems it's not quite that simple, though.

NIMBYism is merely one of the theories why the buildings in Emeryville to which you refer were set ablaze. Another begins with the phrase "follow the money..."

I guarantee you that the developers would rather have the housing built than the insurance money.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#342

Post by sqeaky »

kevinburke wrote: post #341
scelerat wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NIMBYism is merely one of the theories why the buildings in Emeryville to which you refer were set ablaze. Another begins with the phrase "follow the money..."

I guarantee you that the developers would rather have the housing built than the insurance money.

There are people other than developers. There are plenty of other people who might benefit from housing prices not going down.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#343

Post by kevinburke »

jostmey wrote: post #124
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

Among other reasons this is impractical, my parents are here, my girlfriend's here, the companies I want to work for are here, everyone I went to high school with is here. Not clear where I'd go or how my life would be better.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#344

Post by epistasis »

amyjess wrote: post #249
epistasis wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you paid no attention to that happened in the past century? The sprawl and traffic and unsustainable scaling? Why should cities not be allowed to change and have their density spread? The heart of a city is its density and population mass. It didn't become the perfect amount of population when the current residents arrived, never to be changed again. A city that does not change is dead.

I live in Dallas where everything is suburb outside of a very tiny urban core, and I absolutely love it here. I adore sprawl, and I want more of it. The only reason I'm even considering moving out of town this year is because the state legislature is becoming increasingly hostile to trans people (and being trans myself, this personally affects me), and even then I'm planning on moving to either SoCal or Vegas, both o…

Good for you, glad you like it! People who share your opinion have a plethora of places to choose from! It's not for me.

For those of us that want to live in particular cities because of the city itself, supply is far below demand. Some of current residents are trying to keep supply low. That's what we're objecting to.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#345

Post by askafriend »

jpao79 wrote: post #65

A few questions for HN: 1.) Do you think San Jose will ever become "a thing" for tech startups? Is there enough to do there? There is a WeWork and San Pedro Square in downtown San Jose. Or is a waterfront view what make San Francisco, Seattle and Portland what they are? Also, if you did want to live in San Jose there where are the up and coming places for HNers to live? 2.) Cupertino used to be cherry orchards and su…

I would rather leave California than move to San Jose.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#346

Post by hossbeast »

richardknop wrote: post #88
hossbeast wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know they're uneducated?

He meant "uneducated" on how to behave in the tube. We would say the same thing in Europe if somebody is walking on the wrong side of escalators or similar, it doesn't mean we are literally saying they are uneducated.

Thanks, I'm unfamiliar with this usage. It was an honest question, don't know why I got downvoted.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#347

Post by mercutio2 »

timothycrosley wrote: post #221
mercutio2 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re looking at $100-150k total comp, and expect to max out there, you should definitely move to Seattle. If you’re interested in earning $300-400k/year after working for a BigCo for 4-5 years, Seattle isn’t going to work out to a better net savings/year. I think it’s perfectly fine to max out at $100-150k. You’re still extremely rich by any standard. And startups in The Bay Area will pay you vastly less regardl…

The same people who make 300-400k in San Francisco, also do so in Seattle. I don't know where your getting your information from, but all existing stats disagree with you for a reason.

And your source for this is... Glassdoor?

I have hired many people who worked for Seattle BigCos, and I know many people who have gotten offers from Seattle BigCos trying to lure them away from the Bay Area.

And I’ve chatted with people doing competitive analysis on what offers to make to engineers.

The Bay Area generally has 20-30% higher total comp after the first 2-3 years.

Somewhat amusingly, the headline salaries are pretty similar, which makes people think total comp is similar. It’s all about the bonus and RSUs.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#348

Post by vedanta »

ubernostrum wrote: post #327
marme wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BMR units should not be required by private developers. This is a public problem that private developers are being forced to solve and many are just refusing to build more housing because they cant make a profit. Instead of requiring them to build BMR units just require all apartments to rent out 25% of units to section 8 housing and the city can subsidize the rent of low income people. The more barriers to housing y…

This is a problem which will eventually leave shortsighted developers holding the bag if they're not forced to deal with it. Think of it like overfishing: you could just as easily say overfishing is a public problem that private fishermen shouldn't be "forced" to solve through quotas. Some fishermen used to believe that, too, right up until the day there weren't any more fish for them to catch because they'd destroye…

This would make sense if there was naturally 'cheap' housing and 'expensive' housing. There isn't. It's just housing. The fish analogy just doesn't work, we're talking about increasing supply of a durable good, not a natural resource. The only way is to make more. I'm sure tons of developers who don't bother playing the bay area would come back if cities lowered their BMR requirements. Leading to better designs, and more units. That plot of land that's designated mixed-use and has a gas station and a strip mall in the sunset isn't getting re-developed because developers know they'd have to do 25% BMR. With 0% BMR, that plot of land gets re-developed into 5-10 housing units. You're counting on prices being high-enough for redevelopment which is another self-fulfilling prophecy, instead of just building normal units. You can have 10% BMR and still get redevelopment quicker.

I would agree about the in-elasticity of the labor market, we're finding out right now. I see plenty of hiring signs around.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#349

Post by vedanta »

abalone wrote: post #337
vedanta wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> teachers make 100k+ You're way off. The median annual Teacher Elementary School salary in San Francisco, CA is $69,389, as of June 28, 2017.[1] Cities also need a large number of service industry workers that make even less than this. [1] http://www1.salary.com/CA/San-Francisco/Teacher-Elementary-S...

I would say most bay area and CA cities pay their public sector employees rather well (with pensions). It's the artists, private-sector service employees, and other low-income jobs that are squeezed the most.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#350

Post by [deleted] »

marme wrote: post #286
abalone wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 units should not be required by private developers. This is a public problem that private developers are being forced to solve and many are just refusing to build more housing because they cant make a profit. Instead of requiring them to build BMR units just require all apartments to rent out 25% of units to section 8 housing and the city can subsidize the rent of low income people. The more barriers to housing y…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN