San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater Up to 31%, Most in U.S. • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by yourapostasy » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 4:29 PM UTC

jojo2333 wrote: post #241

JamesBarney wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in oil and gas, by no means the epicenter of innovation and many of these companies are talking about a moving to a mostly remote work force to save on real estate expenses.

I don't buy the "cost savings" narrative. By a long shot, the largest expense for large companies in employee salaries - rent, by comparison, is a drop in the bucket. What follows is that companies should be most concerned about employee and team productivity rather then office expenses.

> companies should be most concerned about employee and team productivity rather then office expenses.

Can companies measure productivity of knowledge workers to that granularity?

Office expenses make a relatively small fraction of employee overall expenses. Say 10% to be extremely generous. NYC five-borough average back in 2015 was around $15K per year [1]. A fully-burdened employee expense is around 2X base salary, so a $100K salary position clocks in around $200K fully-burdened, or around 7.5% of that 2015 NYC average figure. I don't currently see companies wholesale changing employment strategies for 10% differentials.

I'm not sure companies can measure productivity down to that expense detail level for knowledge workers.

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-much-your-compan...

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

#262

Post by rgbrenner » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 4:29 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #244

rgbrenner wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The magnitude of that demand will never reach the same height. The US is expected to add 80m people in the next 30 years. So that seems very unlikely, even if there is a shift in behavior. Edit: reduced the population estimate with newer numbers from the census bureau.

But those 100m are going to grow up in a world where remote working is the norm.

Even during the lockdowns only 40% of the US workforce worked from home. Here’s another stat: only 33% of the us population has a bachelors degree or higher.

Step out of your bubble and think about all of the people making the goods you order, maintaining your roads, construction workers that fix your home, the workers at the grocery store, the person that delivers your packages, the warehouse workers, etc etc etc.

The world runs on people being physically present working jobs that can’t be done from home... that must continue so that you CAN work from home. Until robots can do those jobs, it'll always be the minority that works from home.

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

#263

Post by dyingkneepad » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 4:30 PM UTC

asah wrote: post #189

Dating - the #1 app for cities.

But, as an outsider: is it the case for Bay Area?

I mean, tech companies have way more males than females, I would expect that areas full of tech employees like the Bay Area would not be ideal for males trying to find partners due to the bigger competition.

Is that the case? How is the male/female ratio in those areas?

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

#264

Post by mercutio2 » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

tarsinge wrote: post #137

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…

> food or retail scene In my experience this is becoming less and less true, smaller cities are really catching up, it's not 2010 anymore. My pet theory is that social networks like Instagram have done a good job spreading fashion and food experiences/expectations that were previously exclusives to big city centers.

I keep reading people make this claim.

I haven't found it to be even remotely true for the food my family is inclined to eat. Every time I've gone to visit hip small college towns for the last 5 years, I've eagerly sought out the talked-about eateries, and they were all... distinctly mediocre compared to NYC or Bay Area or LA food.

You still can't find anything but Americanized Asian food, even the California-cuisine upscale places are decidedly mediocre, and the food trucks are... fine.

Certainly, it's better than it was at the margin, but it really depends on what your baseline is.

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

#265

Post by JxLS-cpgbe0 » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

kyleblarson wrote: post #111

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.

> That title

I was trying to figure out how something "craters" up

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

#266

Post by geebee » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

sjf wrote: post #121

PascLeRasc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

no... but neither is having a problem with street addiction and mental illness. SF has it bad, no doubt, but on recent (<5 years) to Seattle, Portland, Nashville, Los Angeles, and Milwaukee, I did see the extent to which this isn't purely a SF problem. NY was actually the best of the bunch, remarkably, though last time I was there was 6 years ago, and things have deteriorated remarkably in SF even in the last 10 years, accelerating in the last 5, so this may be less NY vs SF and more 5+ years ago vs now.

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

#267

Post by OldHand2018 » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

bgorman wrote: post #159

joshgachnang wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WFH is a huge part. Just moved from a tiny 1 bed near downtown LA to a 3 bed place in Chicago with lower rent. My girlfriend and I both get our own offices, we have a yard, and enough places that are half open nearby that we're pretty happy.

Please report back in February after experiencing a -40 day :)

Spend a few hundred dollars on some quality winter gear and don't worry about it.

Wear layers. A scarf makes a huge difference. Probably larger than you would think.

Chicago will probably get a "polar vortex" in February or March. It will be a week of really cold weather and then it will be over. You'll probably find that November and December are warmer than you expected. January is a bit dreary, but only because of the reduced daylight hours (compared to LA). Chicago is just a bit further north than NYC, but compared to Paris or London it gets a lot more winter daylight.

The think I've noticed about winter since moving to Chicago is that the really sunny days are the coldest and the cloudy days are warmer. If you've got large south-facing windows, you might need to close the shades or even open the window slightly when it is really cold. That sun can be intense!

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

#268

Post by almost_usual » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

gfxgirl wrote: post #139

issa wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would counter that proximity to work is a huge influence on where people decide to live. There are (or will be) bars and restaurants everywhere, which means if you can work from home, there is significantly less incentive to live in a small, overpriced apartment.

The bars are restaurants available in most cities in the USA do not compare to the bars and restaurants in cities like SF, Los Angeles, NYC, Tokyo, Paris, etc..... I mean places like Flagstaff Arizona, or Temecula California, etc.... In the cities listed in the first paragraph there are, unique bars (not sure what word to use) and interesting restaurants. In most cites there are just places like AppleBess and the loc…

Most of the interesting bars and restaurants in SF are closing as we speak. As the pandemic drags on expect it will continue. Who do you think will have the money to replace these places?

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

#269

Post by quicklyfrozen » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

notherthrowaway wrote: post #215

corytheboyd wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess as to what will happen, for the sake of playing along with the hypothetical simply because it’s fun. Destination cities will still be desirable, however there will be a very slow rebuilding of demand. The magnitude of that demand will never reach the same height. The entire world was forced to work from home for an extended period of time, introducing those from industries that would scoff at the idea to a d…

==This general shift in attitude will make it far more realistic to work where you actually in your heart of hearts want to live.== Will young people suddenly not want to live in close proximity to other young people? Will that become another luxury item for the well-connected?

Some will want to stay in proximity to the young people they already know.

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

#270

Post by whimsicalism » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #256

whimsicalism wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cost savings of moving is so great that it was cheaper to pay to break the lease than it would be to stay 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…

All of my leases had buy-out provisions, usually one or two months of rent. I've never lived in SF, but I'm going to guess that tenant-friendly laws in California combined with historically good price growth provided landlords with an incentive to make it easy for tenants to break leases. I know more than a few people from SF who were paid to break their leases. More churn means more "market adjustments" for rent pri…

You're confusing a few things. Because SF (until recently) has disproportionately been a sellers market, leases are written such that they benefit the landlord.

Buyout clauses are not symmetric and are uncommon in SF.

In the context you described, both the tenant and the landlord have incentives: the landlord wants to pay you to break the lease so they can charge higher prices, the tenant might want to accept the money. The landlord doesn't have to have any clause in the lease whatsoever to make this offer because you aren't obligated to accept it.

On the other hand, in the current market the landlord has no incentive to accept an offer that is less than what they feel like they will lose by you leaving. Since the market has collapsed, they'll lose quite a bit.

I don't see the math adding up to making money by breaking out of the lease in SF - unless the prices fall considerably more.