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

Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable housing strangles hiring

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 694 posts

Re: Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable housing strangles hiring

#451

Post by refurb »

city41 wrote: post #133
xtacy wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expanding on the comment below, it's an unfortunate combination of many prevailing issues. 1. One of the things Prop 13 does is to cap the maximum rate at which a property tax grows per annum to 2%. However, due to housing demand, the property values grow at a much faster rate (7% is not unheard of). The property tax can change when there is a sale. 2. Bay area prices have skyrocketed. 3. The peninsula topography and…

The flip side to that is without prop 13, families like this would quickly find they can no longer afford to pay the taxes on their house and are forced to leave. Which is also not a great situation.

Why not just have the state put a lien on the property? Taxes aren't payable until either own dies or the property is sold.

It's not very fair to give someone a break on their property taxes and then when they die/sell get an absolute windfall.

Re: Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable housing strangles hiring

#452

Post by salviasloth »

pc86 wrote: post #400
noonespecial wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they don't understand that the house they bought for 80k in '86 Is now acting as a defacto million dollar savings account. It is quite easy to get along on 60k when you've already banked a megabuck.

To be fair whether your house is worth $100k or $10MM doesn't mean much unless you sell it, especially in SF where your taxes don't change with the increased value. Yes, you can spend more of your earned income if you plan on leaving as soon as you retire. But it doesn't mean $60k is easy to live on.

Isn't the largest contributor of COL recurring living expenses. I imagine 60k is probably what someone making a 100k has left over after paying their rent. Not to mention the peace of mind that comes from knowing that you can always sell off your home and move somewhere cheaper to live like a king.

Re: Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable housing strangles hiring

#453

Post by humanrebar »

lisper wrote: post #356
CyberDildonics wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could not be further from the truth. There are lots of cheap places to live in the US that are still very nice, you just don't want to live there.

> There are lots of cheap places to live in the US that are still very nice For example? > you just don't want to live there. Obviously, it's not just me. If lots of people wanted to live in these supposed cheap, nice places they'd all be moving there instead of norcal.

> If lots of people wanted to live in these supposed cheap...

It doesn't have to be "lots of people", just the executives that build and lease office buildings and set remote work policies.

Most people could be ambivalent-to-averse to living in the Bay Area but if the high paying and attractive (1) jobs are there, they'll end up moving there anyway.

(1) That is, jobs working for companies who consider technology a competitive advantage, not an expense.

Re: Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable housing strangles hiring

#454

Post by softawre »

wil421 wrote: post #217
tytytytytytytyt wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hardly insane for a house in a large metropolitan area! That's actually pretty reasonable, and lots of apartments in SF are 50% to 100% more in rent. If you look at current, or anything within maybe 5 years, house prices in Seattle I doubt you'll find much if anything within a 15 minute commute to downtown Seattle for a 900/month mortgage.

Absolutely insane. Going to buy a house with a 15 minute commute by train downtown. I’m looking to spend less than ~350k for a house with around 1500sq feet and fenced in yard. I will be spending less than $2k total a month. West coast is crazy.

I just paid 290k for a 3500sq-ft home with a big yard in a great school district. Indy aint so bad.

Re: Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable housing strangles hiring

#455

Post by damnyou »

lisper wrote: post #444
damnyou wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are democratically elected governments and Soviet-style planning mutually exclusive? Democratically elected governments do all sorts of horrible and unjust things. For modern examples see Erdogan and Duterte. The land itself is privately owned, sure, but undeveloped land is not very useful.

> undeveloped land is not very useful I love hiking in redwood forests. I love peace and quiet. I love not having to deal with traffic. So I think undeveloped land is very useful.

You are free to buy the redwood forests, pay a yearly land value tax on them (which goes up as demand increases, unlike Prop 13) and then restrict access as you wish.

But redwood forests are a distraction. The main problem is SFH which can and would be replaced with duplexes and fourplexes if the market were allowed to work.

Re: Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable housing strangles hiring

#457

Post by chenpengcheng »

Double income $500K/year (common among folks who work for the Internet companies) can borrow up to $3mil (6x income). There are still many homes affordable to such folks. For listings below $2mil, there are usually 8-10 offers. For the hot ones, there can be 20 offers.

Re: Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable housing strangles hiring

#458

Post by AndrewBissell »

nerfhammer wrote: post #381
AndrewBissell wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The runup in real estate prices is fundamentally driven by the huge amounts of money printing by the Fed earlier this decade. The Bay Area has just been the canary in the coal mine on this because the strong job growth and self-injurious housing policies caused the price pressures to show up earlier than elsewhere, but it will become an undeniably nationwide phenomenon soon enough. High real estate prices & rents are…

Why do you need this indirect theory when much simpler numbers like the disparity between increase of population and lack of increase in housing units are available?

Because there's not the same dynamic at work in other metro areas, like those cited, where real estate prices are also ramping higher.

Re: Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable housing strangles hiring

#459

Post by hpcjoe »

nerfhammer wrote: post #404
hpcjoe wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did a similar analysis with more relevant (for me) numbers for BA recruiters that wanted me to move. Their responses were ... well ... sad. I don't blame them. Or the companies. I was amused by the offered salaries, after I explained the basic economics to them. Pointing out that the net income after taxes/expenses is so low as to effectively put me and my family into poverty. The smart ones responded positively to…

> Ponzi scheme nitpick: Ponzi scheme = fraud, giving people fake investment accounts, like Bernie Madoff's operation. It's more akin to a pyramid scheme, greater fool theory, speculative bubble, etc.

I stand ... er ... sit ... corrected ...

Re: Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable housing strangles hiring

#460

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

pc86 wrote: post #400
noonespecial wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they don't understand that the house they bought for 80k in '86 Is now acting as a defacto million dollar savings account. It is quite easy to get along on 60k when you've already banked a megabuck.

To be fair whether your house is worth $100k or $10MM doesn't mean much unless you sell it, especially in SF where your taxes don't change with the increased value. Yes, you can spend more of your earned income if you plan on leaving as soon as you retire. But it doesn't mean $60k is easy to live on.

I could live on $60k very easily if I didn't have a mortgage.
Post reply on HN