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

411–420 of 465 posts

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

#411

Post by wfhordie »

jeromegv wrote: post #17
999900000999 wrote: post #13

With even hybrid work models your living a better life living up in Sac and driving down once a week. This is a good thing. People should vote with their feet.

Problem is when hybrid becomes 2, and then 3 days. That commutes starts becoming a nightmare.

That’s when you buck up and let your boss know you mean business. Sorry to be crass, but fuck this hybrid bullshit. Commutes are a massive waste of time and doing it even once a week is unacceptable.

I’ll quit before hybrid. It’s a great market to change jobs.

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

#412

Post by wellthatsawrap1 »

ido wrote: post #391
CSMastermind wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just moved NYC to Florida and I've been shocked how many other people have done the same. Florida is doing a relatively good job of attracting high end tech talent as far as I can tell. Texas is the other place I hear mentioned a lot.

Assuming you’re moving long-term, aren’t you worried climate change is going to make Florida (especially coastal southern Florida) a lot less attractive?

Yes climate change. It's going to be bad. Please don't move to Florida

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

#413

Post by wellthatsawrap1 »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #278
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…

This is so sad to me. The fracturing of the community because of capitalism. All these people that are moving away from their friends they are shortsighted. When they really need people no one’s going to be around them. Sad.

People are moving because of gross mismanagement by democrats.

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

#414

Post by DragonStrength »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #224
DragonStrength wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but most who leave SF will choose a smaller metro area, not a rural area. What I have found in my time in the Bay Area is a general ignorance of how many smaller metro areas have developed more vibrant urban centers over the past 10 years. The people from these cities who went home for the first time in a decade are finding surprisingly livable metros waiting for them, closer to aging family.

I've definitely thought about finally leaving the Bay Area, previously I'd written off a lot of places because I want to be close to the coast and I love the relatively mild weather. More recently I ended up talking with a park ranger about life out here (he's from Truckee). He was real attracted to the Oregon coast but aghast at the white supremacy issues that are still ripe up there. There's always a catch. Now? Po…

Yes, you’re certainly wrestling with a different circumstance than many others, if not most, if you’re from the area.

For someone from a place most people from the Bay Area would never deign to visit, I’m more than happy to go back and do the hard work to make it better. Work politicians and voters in California are incapable and unwilling to do.

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

#415

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

sammalloy wrote: post #187
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20-30 years ago San Francisco was considered... a nightmarish hellscape. Until the first dotcom boom the city was in decline, or at least that's how the story goes. My understanding is that at that time it also had a booming art scene and was going through an awesome counter culture phase that birthed Burning Man. Maybe that's what's ahead now that everyone is leaving? Videos showing the drug problem are terrifying t…

> 20-30 years ago San Francisco was considered... a nightmarish hellscape. Not true in the slightest. There was little crime, you could walk everywhere safely, day or night, and the food was still incredible, and cheap. Major parts of the city were on a roadmap towards revitalization before dotcom was ever a thing. Yerba Buena Gardens was competed in 1993, for example. No disruption required. > Until the first dotcom…

Sorry, I never experienced it in 1990's - I just heard that's what people thought of SF at the time.

My point was a bit more optimistic but not well expressed - usually when places are considered 'bad' or 'poor' they often rebound with an awesome vibrant scene and culture. What I wanted to say was more along the lines that 'negative' reputation is usually a great cover for something special going on.

I personally do believe SF has a boom/bust cycle in it's DNA. When I was in my early 20's and living there around the late 00's, people were talking about how 'SF is over'. I vividly remember an older fellow telling me that he's been hearing that line since the 60's, and yet somehow the city always manages to evolve into something new and 'legendary'.

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

#416

Post by michaelcampbell »

corndoge wrote: post #372
mlindner wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do know that if you don't fill out the census form they come knocking on your door, and if you refuse to respond they ask your neighbors and go based on that.

Is that a statement or a question?

Yes?

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

#417

Post by urthor »

CSMastermind wrote: post #358
jdhn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you look in the cars, are they older people? Where I live (western Florida), it's generally older people and not the demographic that you'd expect to find on this site.

I just moved NYC to Florida and I've been shocked how many other people have done the same. Florida is doing a relatively good job of attracting high end tech talent as far as I can tell. Texas is the other place I hear mentioned a lot.

The hypotheses I'm seeing are interesting.

On one hand, lots of tech workers with kids move there for big yards and good weather.

On the other hand, the universities are not up to scratch. And for college graduates and the young, moving to Florida isn't going to provide you with much if any career safety.

I'm very interested in the future of Florida in a few years. It can go either way.

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

#418

Post by urthor »

wellthatsawrap1 wrote: post #413
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so sad to me. The fracturing of the community because of capitalism. All these people that are moving away from their friends they are shortsighted. When they really need people no one’s going to be around them. Sad.

People are moving because of gross mismanagement by democrats.

Keep in mind that the politicians in charge of this... are extremely local.

They are Democrats, but not the kind you'd think. It's a very small world in local politics.

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

#419

Post by urthor »

nineplay wrote: post #292
cbozeman wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because leadership is failing. The correct response of leaders is to ignore wealthy citizens attempting to prop up their multi-million dollar 3bed4bath properties and let them know, "We're going to zone more areas for residential development, sorry. 2500 square foot homes shouldn't be $3 million in any area in America." And all these rich liberals - and they are liberals - use the same bullshit line over and o…

> let them know, "We're going to zone more areas for residential development, Why? This may seem deliberately naïve but in the context of the current discussion, why should more areas be zoned for residential if people are leaving the Bay Area? If there are residents who hate the Bay Area, can't afford it, and are no longer stuck there now that they can WFH then it sounds like they are cheerfully leaving. The wealthy…

Because human beings have a right to live in an affordable home.

There's no reason that, given increased construction, Bay Area prices cannot DECREASE.

Imagine that. Having your monthly home payments go down by 10% a year, due to increased supply.

Treating land as a source of wealth, even for the 4 bedroom 3 bathroom middle class, is highly immoral.

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

#420

Post by [deleted] »

ihumanable wrote: post #311
DragonStrength wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but most who leave SF will choose a smaller metro area, not a rural area. What I have found in my time in the Bay Area is a general ignorance of how many smaller metro areas have developed more vibrant urban centers over the past 10 years. The people from these cities who went home for the first time in a decade are finding surprisingly livable metros waiting for them, closer to aging family.

I think one thing that keeps me in the Bay Area is economic opportunity, although it remains to be seen how larger macro-economic forces will effect this. For the last decade though, if you write code in the Bay Area, there is just this massive backstop of companies looking to hire. I've lived here since 2011 and worked for all of 3 startups that entire time, so this isn't so much about job hopping. Instead, because…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN