Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

tomdale.net

81–90 of 458 posts

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#81

One of the things that I love about living in Tampa while doing technology consulting traveling around the country is the cost of living. The cost of living is so low that I can afford to do anything that I want to do while still having a lot left over for savings.

This was by far the best thing about living just outside of Orlando (and, in the long run, the only good thing). I spend more now to live in Minnesota, and the tunnel vision exhibited by Silicon Valley and San Francisco residents is an ever-nagging reminder of how vastly different perspectives are within just this profession, and how difficult it can be to see solutions when you're mired too deeply in the problem.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#82

I don't understand why the author would move to Portland when we've got our own affordable, culturally rich, tech-friendly cities in the East Bay. Come to Oakland. It's beautiful here. The weather is better than San Francisco, you can ride your bicycle anywhere, public transit is good, and it's easy to get to SF as well as Silicon Valley (which I do regularly). There's no need to leave the entire Bay Area just becaus…

Yeah I just bought a house in El Cerrito last week and while we paid above asking, it was 1/3 the price of what my friends on the peninsula are paying for a great place. The fact that people seem completely unwilling to commute 30 minutes for a life changing job is pretty bizarre to me.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#83
post #30

I've got a possibly great job offer on the table from SF/SV, but may turn it down. I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. The real estate market is certifiably, utterly bat-dookie insane. NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively…

I regret that I have but one upvote to give you for this.

Here, have an Indignation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtCiP8B2xpc#t=7s

In the long term, Silicon Valley and SF is eating its young. It's a city built on young entrepreneurs coming there and doing new stuff, but if nobody who hasn't already made it can afford to live there what happens then? The other problem is that these high costs soak up everyone's spare time and money, leaving them with the requirement to work like crazy for other people to afford to live instead of on their own innovative projects. It sucks away the marginal "play time" when innovation really happens.

Someone said to be about Austin, "everyone in Austin does 3 things". There's something to that. For just one example, Austinites aren't afraid to work for the enterprise or in something less sexy than local/mobile/flavor-of-the-month because you're not expected to go all-in on one job at a time (then burn out after 14 months and replaced by another chump). This creates the cross-pollination and breadth of knowledge that generates innovation.

Bay Area people are terrified to go anywhere near an unsexy industry because they live in a culture where your job is all you do. In Austin, where 9-to-5 seems to be more tolerated, people are more willing to explore unsexy problems and hear people out in other industries-- and you learn a lot from that.

San Francisco and New York seem more fixated on a "do one thing, go all-in, and do it very well" ideology of work. That's fine after you have some good ideas but it's terrible at generating new ideas. You need the more relaxed, open approach when you're young and getting ideas (plus learning from other peoples') is more important.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#84
post #76
post #30

I've got a possibly great job offer on the table from SF/SV, but may turn it down. I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. The real estate market is certifiably, utterly bat-dookie insane. NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively…

> NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively the NYC metro area is actually much more affordable. You can find places to live that are nice, friendly to someone older than 25-30, and at least sanely priced. It's crazy, isn't it? I was looking at housing prices recently, for places within a 30-35 minute train commute of work (I refuse to make a car p…

Yeah that's the other thing. $1 million for houses in a plain vanilla suburb. I mean, Silicon Valley minus its admittedly awesome tech/science scene is not much different from the duller parts of Orange County and is at least twice as expensive. OC has better weather and nicer beaches and parks too.

It's just http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13608503/Daffy_Screwball....

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#85
post #64

I don't understand why the author would move to Portland when we've got our own affordable, culturally rich, tech-friendly cities in the East Bay. Come to Oakland. It's beautiful here. The weather is better than San Francisco, you can ride your bicycle anywhere, public transit is good, and it's easy to get to SF as well as Silicon Valley (which I do regularly). There's no need to leave the entire Bay Area just becaus…

houses are impossibly expensive in Oakland also.

My wife's close friend was only able to purchase a house when she had (1) enough to offer a cash purchase, and (2) the emotional ability to put in an offer sight-unseen.

Ugh.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#86
post #30

I've got a possibly great job offer on the table from SF/SV, but may turn it down. I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. The real estate market is certifiably, utterly bat-dookie insane. NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively…

> real estate hyperinflation in general is a social ill that deserves to be tackled directly as such.

How do you stop house prices from going up? You can't put a cap on property values without turning bidding into a lottery and screwing owners out of asset appreciation. You could make it easier to afford expensive houses by increasing the money supply, but our interest rates have been pegged at effectively zero for four years. You could build more houses but that seems unlikely given the political climite in SF. Perhaps though you can geodiversify an industry, which actually this guy is doing by leaving SF. I'm not sure how you can regulate that though, except by capping the number of jobs in a given industry, kind of like with taxis.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#87

I don't understand why the author would move to Portland when we've got our own affordable, culturally rich, tech-friendly cities in the East Bay. Come to Oakland. It's beautiful here. The weather is better than San Francisco, you can ride your bicycle anywhere, public transit is good, and it's easy to get to SF as well as Silicon Valley (which I do regularly). There's no need to leave the entire Bay Area just becaus…

Yeah I just bought a house in El Cerrito last week and while we paid above asking, it was 1/3 the price of what my friends on the peninsula are paying for a great place. The fact that people seem completely unwilling to commute 30 minutes for a life changing job is pretty bizarre to me.

Love El Cerrito, and even Richmond. Contra Costa County is way overlooked by the tech community. But sorta hope it stays that way for a while, in case I want to buy a house in a few years...

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#88
post #8

The reason for San Francisco's high rent/home price is very simple, despite how others like to complicate it more: 1: Its desirable for most people to live here. Possibly the most desirable place in the USA, depending on your tastes. As a result, people are willing to pay more to live here. There are jobs, culture, food, art and much more all in this great city. 2: Rent Control. I wont get too much into it, but my ta…

The main reason why people don't want new residential development is because it will feed into gentrification and push people out because they can no longer afford to live in SF. NYC has been and is going through this problem right now and it is not pretty. EDIT: There are a lot of comments about increasing supply as a way to make housing/apartments cheaper in SF. This is not at all well demonstrated, as in NYC new r…

> increasing supply as a way to make housing/apartments cheaper in SF

Decreasing overall rent isn't a good goal, for much the same reasons as deflation isn't good. Rather the goal of building new housing is to control inflation, as rents going up 50% year over year is even worse.

And building new luxury / high-end housing does help with that. New luxury housing reduces the number of wealthier tenants considering older housing, which reduces competition over said housing, reducing the rate of rent increase over existing housing.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#89
post #50
post #3

> The recent BART strikes are just a single data point in a larger trend: we’re alienating everyone who isn’t in technology. I'm not from SF but from an outside perspective: Taxes have increased 33% in the bay area since 2008 [1] and BART is "running at a surplus"...but BART transit workers have not had a pay raise since 2008? Can someone explain to me why the SF tech community are the bad guys here? ...Besides a few…

Specifically on the subject of transportation, many wealthy tech companies have deployed private buses that benefit only their employees and not the community. I don't think it's evil by any means, merely rational (at least in the short-term), but also still a missed opportunity to strengthen the community by covering employees' public transit passes, encouraging employees to live closer to work, or moving work close…

I think if all the Google/FB/Yahoo/Ebay people who are on buses took Caltrain, people would be complaining that they were late to work because there was no space on the train.

Also, none of those places are right next to a Caltrain station so the company would have to have buses shuttling people back and forth at much worse fuel economy than shuttling them from SF.

Google does have a SF office but as mentioned in other comments, real estate in SF is not cheap and it would be a fool's errand to uproar the campus in MTV.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#90

Cry me a river. San Francisco is expensive. It's not the tech workers fault. Nobody owes you a home in San Francisco. The American dream is not home ownership. Where'd you hear that? A countrywide home loan commercial?

Why do you feel that it is okay to dismiss someone's opinion outright? He's not suggesting that home ownership is a right, but merely that it would be nice to be able to have the possibility to own a home. Those are two very different things.

The dream of home ownership is largely a manufactured one, like the desire for diamond rings, from William Levitt [0] and his Levittowns during the post-WW2 suburban boom. Before that, most Americans were quite content renting for their entire lives. Even today, countries with standards of living otherwise close to that of the US (western Europe, Australia) have much lower rates of home ownership with no reduction in quality of life (many would say it's an increase). Those countries never experienced the push for private living driven by homebuilders and carmakers in the US in the 1950s.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levitt

Post reply on HN