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.

#321

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #314

lotsofpulp wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are other things that are cheaper that just make day-to-day life easier. Not having any protections or laws supporting laborers help make things cheaper too. No parental/sick leave, no per day overtime maximums, no mandatory break times, no non compete ban, lower minimum wages, etc. Not that it’s the only reason, but I notice it to be a trend in “low cost” states. The exception seems to be WA, which has decen…

More labor protections also tend to cause higher unemployment rates. The unemployment rate in Texas is currently about half the rate in California. No one wants to see desperate workers exploited by employers, but if we increase worker protections too much then we end up hurting the people we meant to help.

Only because other states are offering cheaper labor by not having those protections, much like other countries offering cheaper labor by not having worker/environmental protections.

Theoretically, I agree it's possible to have too much worker protection, but it's a laughable notion in the US where pretty much all but a handful of states have no protections and "too much worker protection" is not even a remote concern.

I have a family member complaining that they cannot eat and have to stand for 8+ hours straight, a pharmacist because who is enslaved by their student loan debt, and are on the wrong side of supply and demand and there is no law that says employers need to give their employees the ability to pause and eat. So they snack on junk food in their pockets while they work.

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

#322

Post by ryandrake » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

brogrammernot wrote: post #130

mxcrossb wrote: post #115

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”

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 “exceptio…

As someone who has worked both in the Bay Area and outside of it, I moved here because of the job market, not because of the salary. I would take a salary cut any day to move away, but I want to stay with my current company AND keep access to the SF Bay Area job market.

Literally the only thing keeping me from listing my house right now and moving to a different area is that not enough Bay Area companies have committed to permanent WFH yet. Once that happens, I'm gone.

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

#323

Post by borroka » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

almost_usual wrote: post #311

borroka wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends how good looking the techie is

Might be true for dating in the short term but not the long term. Once you start meeting family and lifelong friends there’s a good chance peer pressure causes the relationship to splinter. There’s a “you’ll never be one of us” sentiment.

It happened to me exactly once (and the sample size is big enough) that a date was turned off by me being in tech. It happens. And it happens much more frequently when being in tech is part of your identity, like being actively in politics, or saving the oceans. A strong proposal is likely to cause a strong reaction, sometimes negative.

But while I understand why being "political" may be part of someone's identity, I am more skeptical it is needed for a techie to have "tech" as part of their identity.

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

#324

Post by sergefaguet » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #301

sergefaguet wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And SF is the worst large city for dating in the world.

I'd say LA is worse, but not by much. Every date is a 75 minutes away and then 75 minutes back. SF is only 72 minutes ;)

LA has cool, attractive people. Which, especially for a straight guy, SF really does not.

Plus if you are in Santa Monica or Venice the traffic to get to other cool places is not that bad.

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

#325

Post by sergefaguet » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

fredophile wrote: post #294

sergefaguet wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of my friends who own large companies are explicitly saying they will never rent offices again. As a founder/CEO this is an obvious move.

Is it an obvious move? I can work from home, and currently do, but much prefer working in an office. I'm more productive when I'm in the office. It's easier to get into and stay in a more focused headspace. There's also a lot of relevant context and info that I pick up just by being around the office that I don't have when working remotely.

There are many people who feel differently. Which is enough to change the market significantly since real estate prices are highly demand-elastic.

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

#326

Post by dllthomas » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #44

colanderman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Crater up to" is not its own phrase. The title would be better written as: "San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater, up to 31%" meaning, the rents fell drastically, by as much as 31%.

> The title would be better written as: > "San Francisco Apartment Rents Crater, up to 31%" No, it wouldn't. The comma makes the “up to” phrase bizarre and detached, and does nothing to improve things. It would only make sense if it was trying to say the rents both “cratered” and somehow went up (though what the % would be measured against in that case is hard to understand.) As a sentence, it would read better with…

I'm always amused by "up to" in advertisements and such. "You mean you promise me there won't be any discount over 40%? Good, I was really worried you might give me 50% off in some cases."

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

#327

Post by georgeecollins » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 7:25 PM UTC

corytheboyd wrote: post #191

notherthrowaway wrote: post #154

I think people are asking the wrong questions. We know that people moving back in with their parents is up about 3 million due to COVID [1]. It would follow that studio apartments are the mostly likely to be rented by those same young people, thus the demand has dried up. The question we aren't asking is, what happens when the economy recovers and these people move out of their parent's homes? Will they go back to th…

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…

>> The magnitude of that demand will never reach the same height.

Growth of cities and the increase of wealth of cities is 5,000 year trend, that includes in its history pandemics and plagues.

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

#328

Post by fredophile » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 7:26 PM UTC

sergefaguet wrote: post #325

fredophile wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it an obvious move? I can work from home, and currently do, but much prefer working in an office. I'm more productive when I'm in the office. It's easier to get into and stay in a more focused headspace. There's also a lot of relevant context and info that I pick up just by being around the office that I don't have when working remotely.

There are many people who feel differently. Which is enough to change the market significantly since real estate prices are highly demand-elastic.

I'm aware that there are people who feel differently than I do. However, I believe there are a reasonable number of people on both sides of this. That's why I don't think going completely remote is an obvious move. Not having offices will eliminate some people from the applicant pool. Not offering remote positions will eliminate other people from the applicant pool. It's okay for a company to do either of these but I don't agree that the choice to go remote only is obvious.

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

#329

Post by legerdemain » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #71

mxcrossb wrote: post #26

> 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?…

Bay Area is insane. I pay $850/mo for a 4B/2BA house in upstate NY. I work locally and telecommute now, but I used to commute regularly to the Boston and NYC metro areas with commute times similar to what I hear about from some colleagues in the Bay area. 2 hours on Amtrak (+10m drive) is much more pleasant than 90 minutes in the car to me. The haul to Boston was truly awful, but the pay was too good to pass up.

Wow! My mom lives in a small, dated apartment in an unexciting suburb of Rochester away from colleges, with paper-thin walls and ceilings, and pays about $1000 in rent. That seems standard for the area. About 20 years ago we paid $650 a month for a tiny two-bedroom. How does your upstate New York cost less than one fourth of that?

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

#330

Post by georgeecollins » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 7:29 PM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #301

sergefaguet wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And SF is the worst large city for dating in the world.

I'd say LA is worse, but not by much. Every date is a 75 minutes away and then 75 minutes back. SF is only 72 minutes ;)

As someone who grew up in SF and went to school in LA, all this talk of where it is hard to date seems silly. People always like to complain about things like that but the truth is dating can be hard for some people anywhere.