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

561–570 of 640 posts

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

#561

Post by kelnos »

onecommentman wrote: post #526
throwaway4715 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ones that want that already do.

All of them? Your response suggests that. I’d counter that many young people permanently leave their “hometown” for financial opportunities that are currently only available away from that “hometown”. For privileged young folks who are “amenity migrants”, your statement would be admittedly true. It might be a bit classist to extend that assumption to all young people.

I'm not convinced that most people will want to move back to their hometown after being away for any non-trivial amount of time. I certainly wouldn't. My old high school friends are different people who I don't know anymore (save for a few who who I'm still close with, who coincidentally also don't live in our hometown and wouldn't move back). My friends are mostly people I've met in my new town, and I wouldn't want to leave them without good reason.

Sure, people who grew up in $COOL_PLACE but moved to $OTHER_PLACE for a job might want to (and be able to) move back to $COOL_PLACE now, but I don't think that generalizes to most of America.

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

#562

Post by iancmceachern »

tristor wrote: post #501

Unsurprising. I don't know why anyone would actually want to live in SFO. Most people live there because they had to for work. Now that they don't, it just makes no rational sense to stay. I'm surprised it's not more, to be honest.

I live here, and love it. I'm from Colorado, and have lived in NYC, Sacramento and in the Denver area and traveled extensively. SF is my wife and Is favorite. The combination of culture, food, art, weather, natural beauty and outdoor space, dog friendly beaches, and robust employment market for me (I design medical devices) is unparalleled.

Name another major city where you can get amazing food, have a bonfire on the beach with your dog, and enjoy views of the ocean and bridges like you can here. Its really the most European of the US cities.

It is expensive. It is dirty and dingy in places. It does have a homelessness problem (what major city doesn't?). It is all these things and still one of the most desirable places to live in the US. It must have a lot to offer to outweigh all those cons - and does.

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

#563

Post by cnst »

01100011 wrote: post #390
bgorman wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In the north central US, you have to stay indoors for a while because it's too cold. In the sunbelt, you have to stay indoors for a while because it's too hot. In CA, you have to stay indoors for a while because of the poor air quality. Take your pic. CA folks seem to think the rest of the world is an inhospitable wasteland. Sure, CA is a bit more mild, but it's not perfect.

Air quality is getting to be a national issue. I think even Wyoming had some issues this season?

The problem is environmentalists don't want to do planned/controlled burning anymore, hence, the things burn by themselves on their own schedule now, out of our control.

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

#564

Post by _4570 »

georgeecollins wrote: post #327
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…

>> 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.

How much of that history includes jobs that can be done remotely? I'd say that's a significant change for certain cities that have a significant such workforce.

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

#565

Post by kelnos »

iso947 wrote: post #466
rgbrenner wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

Vast majority of those jobs don’t rely on the network effects of major SF/NY/Seatle hubs. There’s little difference To prospects to someone working as a plumber in a town of 30k people vs a city of 3m people.

Sure, but you need a lot more plumbers in a city of 3M people than you do in a town of 30k. And those plumbers create demand for housing.

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

#566

Post by onecommentman »

packetlost wrote: post #94
standardUser wrote: post #21

A good start, let's hope it continues. Rents are still roughly double what they were 15 years ago, when decent studios in central neighborhoods went for under $1000/mo.

I live in freaking Madison, WI and you can't find a studio for under $1000, there's no way you're going to find that in SF.

Wonder if it is because it is a University and Government town. Stable mostly higher-paying employment means more people in a position to buy their home, so less land for apartments. Also the captive market of students that had continued to grow puts upward pressure on prices for studios. Shrug.

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

#567

Post by kelnos »

Pokepokalypse wrote: post #537
colinmhayes wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not saying wfh is as productive as in office, but the tech stack needed to make wfh work became available only very recently. Skype didn't cut it.

I would flag github as a more crucial requirement. We've had various im/irq platforms for decades. They weren't really a substitute for video - but video is only a tiny fraction of team communications, and simple chat satisfies most of those requirements.

You're thinking too small. A tiny fraction of the people in the US use GitHub. Even a relatively small fraction (certainly under 50%) can use Zoom to do their jobs.

Remote collaboration tools like GH have been crucial for remote work for software developers, but that's a really small slice of the pie.

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

#568

Post by fulafel »

fulafel wrote: post #292
etrautmann wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep - rent is the quintessential example of inelastic supply. A tiny shortage of housing can cause a huge jump in price.

Elasticity features depend on the specific housing market but in the basic mental model housing supply can contract in the medium term when demand contracts and vice versa. Demand is also elastic at least in the sense that people get bigger houses / move on to their own earlier / get roommates depending on the situation. And geographically people spread out further if prices get high or move in from neighbouring loca…

BTW the price elasticity of supply equation is always discussed as how the price affects supply. Anyone know how economists think about changes in supply affecting the price, is the same equation used? Eg destruction or creation of housing units.

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

#569

Post by mrgordon »

rcpt wrote: post #334
mercutio2 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's true that you can't buy a whole jackfruit at the grocery store in most of the US but I've always been able to find good restaurants of some variety with minimal effort. It's real hard to justify SF prices based on food options.

I often end up spending more for distinctly worse food in other American cities. It is sometimes hard to swallow paying premium prices for food and then immediately realizing after the first bite that the ingredients are subpar or there is more focus on making it Instagrammable than actually delicious

From that perspective, eating out in SF always felt like a good deal because for $15 you can get some truly exceptional farm to table food.

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

#570

Post by _AzMoo »

cnst wrote: post #563
01100011 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the north central US, you have to stay indoors for a while because it's too cold. In the sunbelt, you have to stay indoors for a while because it's too hot. In CA, you have to stay indoors for a while because of the poor air quality. Take your pic. CA folks seem to think the rest of the world is an inhospitable wasteland. Sure, CA is a bit more mild, but it's not perfect.

Air quality is getting to be a national issue. I think even Wyoming had some issues this season? The problem is environmentalists don't want to do planned/controlled burning anymore, hence, the things burn by themselves on their own schedule now, out of our control.

I can't speak for the US, but in Australia this argument has been used as an untrue talking point being pushed by climate-change deniers. A cursory google indicates to me that in CA prescribed burns have actually been increasing over the last few years, so I suspect it's probably the case in the US as well. In Australia it's clear that the higher frequency of catastrophic wildfires is a direct consequence of climate change.
Post reply on HN