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

San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 195 posts

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#121

Post by ericd »

nostrademons wrote: post #114
Cyclone_ wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at salary data from several places, even a $200k base seems pretty rare, most developers are not making that much in the bay area. People in the bay area are going to have less purchasing power than developers in most other places around the country.

$3690/month * 12 months = $44280. If you're making ($44280 - current rent in your city) more for a SF job, you net out ahead, even without considering stock options. (It's also significantly more reasonable in the South Bay - my family pays about $2650/month for a 2BR, and most of the fat Facebook/Apple/Netflix/Google salaries are in Silicon Valley proper.)

I'd definitely keep in mind that those are after-tax figures, though. At the higher income levels, CA+Federal taxes hover around 50%. So, roughly double that rent difference to get the salary offset needed.

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#122

Post by AnthonyMouse »

nostrademons wrote: post #114
Cyclone_ wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at salary data from several places, even a $200k base seems pretty rare, most developers are not making that much in the bay area. People in the bay area are going to have less purchasing power than developers in most other places around the country.

$3690/month * 12 months = $44280. If you're making ($44280 - current rent in your city) more for a SF job, you net out ahead, even without considering stock options. (It's also significantly more reasonable in the South Bay - my family pays about $2650/month for a 2BR, and most of the fat Facebook/Apple/Netflix/Google salaries are in Silicon Valley proper.)

That's if you only consider the housing cost. But if housing costs more then so does everything else, because everyone providing everything else has to pay the housing cost too, both for commercial real estate and higher costs per employee. Then you have the tax implications, i.e. all the extra money required should be calculated as after-tax at your marginal tax rate, both federal and state, and California has the highest income tax rate in the nation.

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#123

Post by olalonde »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #104
olalonde wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've heard it's very difficult to develop new housing in San Francisco due to various regulations. Apparently, you even need to apply for permits to change your windows. Having lived in Hong Kong and Shenzhen, San Francisco does feel like country side.

> Apparently, you even need to apply for permits to change your windows. Needing a permit to install windows is a thing everywhere. Because if you want a really good way to ruin a house, installing windows wrong is a great way to do it.

Everywhere in the world or everywhere in California? If the former, I find it amazing that house owners ruining their house by replacing windows is a universal problem and that requiring permits solves it.

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#124

Post by rcpt »

ksec wrote: post #56

Excuse my ignorance. SF doesn't look anywhere like Hong Kong, possibly the most crowed places on earth, and it is not close to Tokyo or Seoul. It has plenty of Spaces, for many coming from Asia, most part of SF is like country side so to speak. What cant there be more housing development on the edge of SF, or taller building with many smaller apartments etc. Underground packing lot? Edit: Ok, is it because it is in a…

Because of Prop 13.

http://projects.scpr.org/prop-13/stories/housing-shortage/ has a good write up.

Because land isn't taxed based on it's current value landowners have little incentive to develop their land in order to get the most out of it. They simply bank land as much as possible as it's the most surefire way to turn a profit. It's why we have golf courses* in city centers and dilapidated shacks* next to Google's global HQ.

Additionally, prop 13 gives landowners every incentive to lobby for policies that restrict development in order to drive up prices instead of fighting for the right to build 4 story apartments on their property.

Slashing property taxes always floods the market with speculators and destroys housing affordability. Look at Vancouver, or Malta, their housing shortages rival SF despite low wages and comparatively small economies.

* https://www.planetizen.com/node/93284/la-country-clubs-takin...

* https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/15/google-ca...

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#125

Post by almost_usual »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #16
askafriend wrote: post #2

On one hand, it’s a very high price. On the other hand, no one is entitled to a one bedroom unit in the heart of one of the human epicenters in the world. Many people here have roommates or alternate living arrangements. There are several reasons why the prices have gotten so high (lack of supply, politics, etc). But don’t expect to move your Texas ranch or Midwestern single-family-house lifestyle to SF with no compr…

Gotta ask, because this issue comes up in many major cities: And what if the service workers who make substantially less than the higher earners who so rely on them? Does the cost go down that much for a 4 bedroom split between four people on minimum wage? In a lot of places it doesn’t.

Chances are you know someone who is on rent control and you’ll pay $700-$800 for a room. Not too many service workers move to SF if they don’t know someone there already..

Hell I know someone paying $850 for a one bedroom in Duboce.

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#126

Post by ascar »

joshuamorton wrote: post #69
oleganza wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the downvoters: I moved to SF/BA 3 years ago after living 8 years in Paris (France) and before that 20 years in St. Petersburg (Russia). There is noticeably more culture and diversity in both Paris and SPb than in SF/BA.

What is "culture" in this context? (I mean this sincerely)

Not parent, but I would define it as "Monuments" to visit (e.g. Eiffel tower), history of the area, culture entertainment like museums or theaters (i.e. not just movies, but opera, plays, musicals or concerts) and maybe regional activities (e.g. surfing in CA, but Octoberfest in Munich).

I haven't been to SF yet, but based on that Sankt Petersburg, Paris or NY seem more significant than SF.

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#127

Post by [deleted] »

nostrademons wrote: post #119
moftz wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the cost of living is so high there that the inflated salaries are pretty much required to bring anyone out there. A company wants to have competitive hiring so they offer a little bit more than competition so what was a $200k job is now $220k. Prices increase to what these inflated salaried workers can afford and the cycle continues. It will be incredible to watch when SF finally starts to allow for more high de…

This gets causality backwards. Employers don't give a shit about whether employees can afford housing - if they did, we wouldn't have such a big homelessness problem, and our teachers/firefighters/policemen wouldn't live over the mountains in Pleasanton. Employers pay enough to prevent employees from going to a competitor. The reason FANG salaries now hit $300-400K is because Facebook refused to play ball with the wa…

[deleted]

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#128

Post by [deleted] »

nostrademons wrote: post #114
Cyclone_ wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at salary data from several places, even a $200k base seems pretty rare, most developers are not making that much in the bay area. People in the bay area are going to have less purchasing power than developers in most other places around the country.

$3690/month * 12 months = $44280. If you're making ($44280 - current rent in your city) more for a SF job, you net out ahead, even without considering stock options. (It's also significantly more reasonable in the South Bay - my family pays about $2650/month for a 2BR, and most of the fat Facebook/Apple/Netflix/Google salaries are in Silicon Valley proper.)

[deleted]

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#129

Post by ericd »

gotocake wrote: post #79
bpye wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tokyo is certainly an earthquake zone as well so I don't think that explains it.

Tokyo is an earthquake zone in a country with a total liveable land mass that could comfortably fit inside a single US state. In fact the totality of all land in all of Japan, including mountains, is smaller than California. A lack of options will drive people into close quarters, but no such pressure exists in San Francisco. Wanting to be close to venture capital isn’t as compelling an build a megalopolis as some pe…

Sorry, why does the fact that your grandparents lived in a place have any bearing on whether you have a say on what a neighbor should be allowed to build on their land?

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#130

Post by nostrademons »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #122
nostrademons wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$3690/month * 12 months = $44280. If you're making ($44280 - current rent in your city) more for a SF job, you net out ahead, even without considering stock options. (It's also significantly more reasonable in the South Bay - my family pays about $2650/month for a 2BR, and most of the fat Facebook/Apple/Netflix/Google salaries are in Silicon Valley proper.)

That's if you only consider the housing cost. But if housing costs more then so does everything else, because everyone providing everything else has to pay the housing cost too, both for commercial real estate and higher costs per employee. Then you have the tax implications, i.e. all the extra money required should be calculated as after-tax at your marginal tax rate, both federal and state, and California has the h…

"But if housing costs more then so does everything else"

That's not really true. Restaurants are more expensive in the Bay Area. Fresh produce is not, if you know where to shop - actually, when I go basically anywhere else in the world, one of the things I miss is the ability to fill a whole shopping bag with 10-15 lbs. of vegetables for The point about tax rates is true for rentals. You can do the math yourself on whatever offer you happen to get - figure on housing in SF being ~$40K/year, meals out costing about $20/person, grocery food being about the same, public transportation being a few dollars a trip, and gas being negligible because you'd have to be pretty crazy to want to drive (and park) in SF.

Post reply on HN