The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

Post by crawshaw » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 11:31 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #303

crawshaw wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many do. The cost to society is enormous. If housing and labor markets were entirely elastic, and those are the only two factors your people need to consider, then "go away" could be a reasonable government policy. But people are more than their income and their cost of living. Consider a recovering opioid addict making minimum wage. Medicaid for health care. They are recovering, not relapsed, because of great suppor…

Moving obviously doesn't work in all cases. But urbanizing doesn't permanently remove the problem, it delays it. Ultimately any plot of land has a maximum carrying capacity. If some of these issues are not solved, what's to say that a decade after we urbanize, we won't be right back here with this same problem? Personally, I have definitely noticed many people who have convinced themselves they have to stay despite t…

Post by nradov » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 1:51 PM UTC

s73ver wrote: post #233

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.

Post by Decade » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 4:44 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #328

pcwalton wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am much less interested in what "should" happen in a macroeconomic sense than what is happening: lots of people need to live here right now . It's worth remembering that the people most hurt by NIMBY policies are not, by and large, the tech workers making six-figure salaries. The victims are the teachers, firefighters, artists, nurses, secretaries, and everyone else who isn't a programmer. Yeah, it might be nice if…

"The victims are the teachers, firefighters, artists, nurses, secretaries, and everyone else who isn't a programmer." OK...but that's also an argument for creating public policy that discourages tech companies from locating in the city. We could start by eliminating the mid-Market tax incentives. The "yimby" movement is at least as much about tech companies who have invaded and now want to change their environment, a…

Post by Hydraulix989 » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 8:18 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #309

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If someone in a low-cost area has a gross income of $30,000, and expenses of $25,000, then someone in a high-cost area with a gross income of $150,000 can take on expenses of $145,000 without being any worse off." I disagree: $5,000 has a lot more buying power in the low income area than the high-cost area.

I guess that ultimately depends on what you want to do with your discretionary money. The day-to-day costs are already accounted for in our hypothetical examples. Someone in a low-cost area may want to travel to the city to take in the entertainment and amenities available in the big flashy city, in which case that money is being spent in a high-cost area. Similarly, someone in a high-cost area may want to travel to…

Post by Draco_Au » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 8:58 PM UTC

nwatson wrote: post #44

hossbeast wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know they're uneducated?

In Spanish and Portuguese "mal educado" == literally "poorly educated" is used to mean "someone with poor etiquette ... doesn't know how things should work" ... writer probably means in that sense.