141–150 of 640 posts
> The figures underscore how the pandemic has roiled property markets and changed renter preferences. With companies allowing employees to work from home, people have fled cramped and costly urban areas in droves, seeking extra room in the suburbs or cheaper cities. I am skeptical. Yes a lot of Bay Area companies are allowing work from home for now, but are people really weighing that so heavily that they’re moving?…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) 'Marginal buyers' could explain it - but it might be something else. There is a smaller group of buyers, investors, of the inelastic type - who if they run away, will cause a market to plummet. They are the opposite of price sensitive, they're maybe from overseas snapping up property at 'above asking' because they need to get $1M out of their countries and they're looking for any kind of return that's reasonable.…
The "yellow peril" theory that Bay Area housing bubbles are caused by foreign money laundering is popular on Nextdoor but I think on HN you're going to need some evidence. Prior to this pandemic 97% of dwellings in San Francisco were physically occupied by actual living people. Nobody is parking money in empty SF condos. It's true that investors are attracted to Bay Area real estate, because the government has dedica…
My aunt in West Seattle had people make unsolicited bids for her house (that wasn’t in the market), but these people were Indian (and they could have as easily been Chinese, Russian, American, etc...).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The problem we have then is that it's getting paid for by insurance, and we don't have a good mechanism to distinguish between essential things and merely new things. If somebody comes up with the cure for cancer, letting them soak the insurance companies for 20 years is a fair trade. If somebody comes up with a pill that does the same thing as the combination of two pills that had been standard practice previously, but can convince doctors to prescribe the new thing, letting them soak the insurance companies for 20 years is some kind of regulatory failure.
That title reads super awkwardly. Anyway, on the flip side, the trend seems real from my observations. I live in a mountain town in North Central Washington. The real estate market has seen around a 35% price increase, homes are selling in hours all cash and almost every builder is already booked through 2021. It's almost exclusively people bailing from Seattle.
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?
My particular unit-type, on another floor, has fallen ~$700... I was a fool for renewing the lease.
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.
This is what leases are for, they fix prices for a year or so by adding cost friction to moving (usually a few months of rent). Which, in theory, act as a buffer to stabilize prices. The problem is that the cost savings of moving is so great that it was cheaper to pay to break the lease than it would be to stay. We saw the reverse of this before: when landlords were paying people $8,000 to move early because rent inf…
What's the law on this? I've read that the landlord is required to make a good faith effort to replace you, but if they can't (or if they can't recoup the costs), you are on the hook.
So if the cost is 32% lower and the landlord can only find a tenant willing to pay that much, it seems like you are responsible for the 32% for the remaining months of the lease - which is no better than if you just hadn't moved. And that's not even including the fact that the place might be on the market for months.
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?
I think they're leaving for places where lower land prices mean homes with more space - which could mean the suburbs, smaller towns, or could even mean moving back in with their parents.
I know people, in London, where three 20-something couples were renting a three-bedroom house, living 2 people to a room. They barely had room to set up comfortable desks and chairs for everyone, let alone things like exercise equipment. Some of them decided temporarily moving back in with their parents wasn't such a bad idea after all...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…