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

San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 640 posts

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#121

Post by sjf »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #90
burlesona wrote: post #51

I would say the city being “closed” is the major driver. Among my group of ~40 coworkers, about 30 (including me) have left the city. As far as I know all but one were renting. Everyone who left gave the following rationale: - we can work remotely so move wherever or nomad now - SF is not very fun during the pandemic - WFH in my tiny apartment is much less enjoyable than when I was working in the office and didn’t sp…

Compared to other big tech-hub cities, I'd think SF would be one of the better ones to spend the pandemic in. There's great parks like Dolores, Lands End, etc, and they'll still be comfortable to be in during this winter. Is there more to it than that?

The positives have to out weight the negatives of high crime, a large homeless population, high rents, small apartments, etc. Having nice parks is not unique to SF.

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#122

Post by vikramkr »

mdgrech23 wrote: post #107
sitkack wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like for things that are inelastic, we should find ways (on both sides) to maintain a buffer if we want to have stable systems.

Inelastic just means consumers aren't sensitive to price. The classical example is prescription drugs. Consumers are not price sensitive b/c they NEED those drugs. As such the seller can raise price and not see a drop off in sales. I think a good example of a highly elastic good is hamburgers. Is McDonalds raises burger prices by 300% there a ton of other options for consumers to switch to and sales will drop.

A better example is brand name prescription drugs. State substitution laws end up meaning that when generics come on market, a lot of consumers become proce sensitive by law since the pharmacy must fill the prescription with the lower priced generic. However, anyone who is still buying the brand name at that point is highly inelastic - they really want the brand name only for whatever reason. Thats why the brand name version of a drug usually spikes up in price when a generic enters the market - theres no way to compete with the generic folks on price so at least get as much out of your smaller remaining market segment that you can by using their price inelasticity

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#123

Post by vincentmarle »

I live in downtown SF: streets are filthy, homeless situation is worse than ever before, everything that I would want to do outside is closed, there’s no reason to live “close to work” anymore, I only go outside for groceries and laundry. I’m moving to LA in 3 weeks.

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#124

Post by toomuchtodo »

mxcrossb wrote: post #115
zdragnar wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counter anecdote, I know three people from the bay area who moved out during covidtide, but had already planned the move beforehand. (This is a very high percentage of people I know from the bay area, hence the anecdote). All had the same rationale: taxes and housing were simply far too high when they could work remotely and live anywhere else. Sure, you don't get the same outdoors, food or retail scene, but ple…

This is the mindset I really don’t understand though. Sure your company can say “we’re all remote” today, but they can just as easily say “everyone has to come back” in six months. Or “everyone doesn’t have to, but those who don’t are the first laid off next time”. I’ve been fully remote since March, so I’ve been weighing this for awhile”

Many companies have publicly stated they will allow permanent work from home [1]. Many others have said so privately to their workers. As more companies adopt this, this provides more options to those who relocate and whose employer tries to pull them back.

Keep a long runway in an emergency fund, keep your professional network warm, always be ready to bounce if your employer tries to change your quality of life for the worse (mandatory return to an office somewhere, for example). (Disclosure: This is how I operate, and have worked from home for over 7 years.)

[1] https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/companies-switching-remot... ("27 Companies That Have Switched to Long-Term Remote Work")

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#125

Post by halfnormalform »

chrisseaton wrote: post #43
themark wrote: post #2

Not surprised. I have been seeing a lot more SF city parking stickers on cars in San Diego.

Is there a big difference between San Francisco and San Diego? They're both Californian mega cities.

San Diego is more conservative, generally speaking. Lot more military folks, too.

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#126

Post by dylan604 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #118
dylan604 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been a few articles lately about the number of west coast people moving to Texas to the point that Texas will be considered a purple state after the upcoming election. I'm from Texas, moved to CA for a number of years, and have since returned to TX. Things like no state income tax and lower sales tax are major attractions, add to that the dirt cheap prices of property in comparison to CA. There are other thin…

I think it's worth keeping in mind that this is not a reflection of low prices in TX but of insane prices in CA. Tons of states have costs on the order of TX.

Maybe so, but they aren't TX, so you got to discount them for that. ;-)

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#127

Post by woodgrainz »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #90
burlesona wrote: post #51

I would say the city being “closed” is the major driver. Among my group of ~40 coworkers, about 30 (including me) have left the city. As far as I know all but one were renting. Everyone who left gave the following rationale: - we can work remotely so move wherever or nomad now - SF is not very fun during the pandemic - WFH in my tiny apartment is much less enjoyable than when I was working in the office and didn’t sp…

Compared to other big tech-hub cities, I'd think SF would be one of the better ones to spend the pandemic in. There's great parks like Dolores, Lands End, etc, and they'll still be comfortable to be in during this winter. Is there more to it than that?

If you want access to parks and nature, you don't need to spend SF prices to get it. Other places on the west coast are warm during the winter and have parks.

And you're discounting the fact that they will still be living in a tiny apartment compared to other areas with much lower housing prices.

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#128

Post by whimsicalism »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #76
jeffbee wrote: post #15

Like a few lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, that's a good start, but it should be city and state policy to chop another 80% off the price of housing, to get it back to historical norms.

Historical norms included much higher interest rates and women not participating in the labour force.

> Historical norms included much higher interest rates

And that impacts rental pricing... how?

Re: San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S.

#130

Post by brogrammernot »

mxcrossb wrote: post #115
zdragnar wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counter anecdote, I know three people from the bay area who moved out during covidtide, but had already planned the move beforehand. (This is a very high percentage of people I know from the bay area, hence the anecdote). All had the same rationale: taxes and housing were simply far too high when they could work remotely and live anywhere else. Sure, you don't get the same outdoors, food or retail scene, but ple…

This is the mindset I really don’t understand though. Sure your company can say “we’re all remote” today, but they can just as easily say “everyone has to come back” in six months. Or “everyone doesn’t have to, but those who don’t are the first laid off next time”. I’ve been fully remote since March, so I’ve been weighing this for awhile”

As another poster said, companies aren’t going to risk lose talent in troves if they enact a work from office policy.

When you got major companies like Twitter, google, Facebook, and others already saying WFH is a permanent option that’s put pressure on others to figure out how to make it work.

Talent is needed at many, many companies and if the talent is a.) needed and b.) good enough the company will make “exceptions” to the rule.

Enough companies make enough exceptions and it’s a mainstay policy.

Overall, the other part is that companies that now offer remote work as a permanent option may not have to pay SF salaries so that’s a bonus to the company. It’ll go both ways, the company can say I’m not requiring you to live in high COL area and we have an office in X city, we pay 10% above the market average of ~35-40 cities so they’re still competitive on pay (assumption being that most companies move to this model, FAANG may overpay still but that’s always been the case) so now what do you do?

Post reply on HN