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

S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 465 posts

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#61

Post by gotoeleven »

jeromegv wrote: post #35
javajosh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What is the conservative solution to this issue?

The solution is to not tolerate drug use, petty crime, vagrancy etc etc

Homeless people aren't stupid. They find a way to get to where it is most comfortable to be homeless. In SF you can do drugs all day and night and get free needles and poop on the streets and no one will bother you. In other places you will not be able to do this.

Why are people surprised that places that go to great expense to subsidize homelessness have a lot of homeless people?

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#62

Post by [deleted] »

mr90210 wrote: post #38
somethoughts wrote: post #10

I think in the two scenarios you can focus on either the positives or the negatives. When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; negative - rent is spiraling upwards out of control When population goes down: positive - rent is finally affordable; negative - the area is falling apart existentially I think the media in general has found the negative spin sells better.

As a non-US citizen, sometimes I ask myself how did California end up like the country where I am from, which is located in the so called third world.

[deleted]

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#63

Post by acchow »

librish wrote: post #60

SF is probably hit the hardest by WFH. If you lived and worked in the city you probably had a pretty good commute, so you're not getting the biggest benefit. And while I know it's a less common preference on HN, a lot of people enjoy going in to a lively office and occasionally grabbing drinks with your coworkers after work. It's a great way to make new friends. But with WFH there's a prisoners dilemma where no-one g…

On the other hand, SF has a significant tech population that has been living in the city but taking shuttle buses for an hour to their offices down south. I imagine flexible WFH for 2-3 days/wk will enable a larger number of people in the future to live in SF

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#64

Post by jmyeet »

SF is expensive and horrible. The only reason people in tech live there is because of employers in the area and it beats living elsewhere in the Bay Area which is expensive and dull.

There's really no other reason people would put up with an hour (or more) commute each way every day.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#65

Post by [deleted] »

darth_avocado wrote: post #28

Ridiculous rent for houses/apartments in a very bad shape, rising crime and eroding faith in the justice system (you could argue that the data doesn’t support this, but the reality is that the data doesn’t support this because a lot of crimes these days go unreported), school district going to shit, bad city governance (which trickles into bad transportation, more homelessness, filth in the streets, businesses closin…

[deleted]

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#66

Post by PragmaticPulp »

peckrob wrote: post #19
_fat_santa wrote: post #5

I think remote work is often understated in reasons people move away. When you go into the office every day, it's pretty obvious that you have to live in whatever city you live in. But with remote work, the question becomes "if I don't have to live here, do I want to keep living here". For many (including myself), the answer was a definitive NO. Sure many headlines and news segments make it seem that it's the crime,…

I don't know why it isn't being mentioned. I am not in the Bay Area myself, but about half of my friends there have relocated in the last couple years. A bunch to Washington or Oregon, some to Texas, one to Nashville, and a few others to places mostly in the northeast. All of them cited cost of living as the primary reason ... but all also mentioned full time remote work is what finally made it possible to move. When…

I actually know several people who used this as an opportunity to move into the Bay Area. The sudden drop in rents made it more attractive and they jumped.

They both work in industries where face to face communication is a competitive advantage. It’s easy to forget that not every job is naturally compatible with remote work like it is for those of us who type on computers all day.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#67

Post by hyperpl »

Anyone know stats on NYC? I'm having trouble understanding the current true state wrt to apartment rental pricing: many people left during Covid but I'm not quite sure if many of those in fact returned.

Furthermore, it would seem as though rental inventory is quite low or at least demand is through the roof (typically one needs to be ready to sign on the spot) with little to no room to shop-around. Prices are also quite high, I understand we have been in a recent high inflation regime but I just can't help but think the apartment rental market isn't as transparent as it was say, 3+ years ago.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#69

Post by themitigating »

anm89 wrote: post #45
anm89 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree but I think this also understates the importance of just how messed up SF has become. I don't want to come into contact with human feces as part of my daily commute. I'm going to leave no matter what once that is the case. Especially when the equity in my two bedroom apartement is enough to buy the nicest house ever built in some other smaller city.

Just pointing this out. This post was quickly up +4 and then instantly went down to -1. Someone seems to be brigading here.

He doesn't live in San Francisco but is claiming that if he commuted to work he would always see human feces on the ground. He provides no evidence, not even a personal experience

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#70

Post by toomuchtodo »

gamechangr wrote: post #44
peckrob wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why it isn't being mentioned. I am not in the Bay Area myself, but about half of my friends there have relocated in the last couple years. A bunch to Washington or Oregon, some to Texas, one to Nashville, and a few others to places mostly in the northeast. All of them cited cost of living as the primary reason ... but all also mentioned full time remote work is what finally made it possible to move. When…

I second this My friends seem to be moving to Washington, Florida, and other parts of California (away from main cities)

I see far more California vehicle tags in Central Florida than I would've expected.
Post reply on HN