San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by scilro » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 8:09 PM UTC

hayward2 wrote: post #98

king_jester wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software engineering is not a very middle class occupation, as you can easily earn amounts more than the average middle class family as a single worker, even in areas that are not tech hubs. > I don't understand why tech workers in the Bay Area feel guilty about receiving 'high' salaries of $100 - $200k/year. This is not a lot of money... People on Wall street laugh at these amounts. 100-200k a year is a lot of money…

I'd agree with you if I was referencing some mysterious elite who lucked into their positions or had ivy league connections. I'm talking about my friends from college who had average grades at a top 30 small private school on the East Coast. Several of the ones who went into finance make more than I do, and some a LOT more. I have friends who frequently clear $300k with bonuses in very average wall street jobs. They…

As someone who went to a small northeastern private school as well... I find it strange that it isn't abundantly clear to you that even our educations were a privilege that the vast majority of the country can't afford.

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

#172

Post by peferron » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 8:09 PM UTC

fingerprinter wrote: post #18

My wife and I made a very conscious decision to NOT move to SF when we were looking to move back to the US from Australia. Frankly, SF and the whole valley were not where we wanted to raise our three kids (6, 2.5 and newborn). Doing cost comparisons, quality of life and education we just couldn't justify SF over other places. This is, by all accounts, a career limiting move for me (I'm in tech, but I work remote righ…

Out of curiosity: I've often heard that Australia is a great place to live. Did you move back to the US because you were missing "home", or was there anything in Australia you felt unhappy about for raising a family?

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

#173

Post by potatolicious » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 8:09 PM UTC

hindsightbias wrote: post #129

potatolicious wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about stopping prices from going up, it's about stopping them from going up at an uncontrollable rate. Many desirable neighborhoods are seeing market rents increases in the double-digit percentages, every year . Some parts of SF are experiencing >20% YoY growth. That's real estate hyperinflation, far in excess of the normal appreciation you'd expect in a healthy economy with increasing population. And the so…

> build more Clearly, higher density construction in NYC has dramatically reduce prices there. There is no amount of construction in the subset of 49 square miles trendies want to live that is going to solve this problem. There are a million 1%'ers from around the world that will snap up a $750K condo before you 5%'ers can get it.

> "Clearly, higher density construction in NYC has dramatically reduce prices there."

They have.[1]

Or more accurately, they have prevented the exact sort of rent explosion that SF is experiencing now. Manhattan is expensive to live in - but rent prices are growing at predictable and relatively low rates. There are even desirable, wealthy neighborhoods where rents are slowly decreasing.

The fact is also that artificially restricting oneself to Manhattan makes for a easier comparison to SF, but is not representative of the housing situation overall. Commuting from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx into Manhattan is trivially easy, and rent (even if we strictly limit ourselves to the low-crime, desirable sections of these boroughs) is lower than SF.

Take Brooklyn[2] for example. Plenty of good, safe neighborhoods with solid subway access where prices are flat.

[1] http://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report

[2] http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report

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

#174

Post by alina24 » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 8:10 PM UTC

gkop wrote: post #50

dmix wrote: 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…

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

#175

Post by natrius » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 8:11 PM UTC

31reasons wrote: post #156

zanny wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad you can't build more in SF because of the building height limits, which is the principle reason housing rates are absurd. If the city made sense they'd build some highrise condos downtown and house the entrepreneurs in studio apartments.

The earthquake in 1906 nearly ruined the entire San Francisco. It can happen again at anytime. Limiting the building heights and number of housing is a precautionary measure. The best thing the SV tech community should do is realize the limitations and move out to other cities. LA/San Diego could be the great replacement/extension for SV.

Modern building codes prevented that from happening again in '89. If you think earthquakes are a legitimate reason to limit density, Tokyo and Osaka would like to talk to you.

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

#176

Post by bubbleRefuge » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 8:14 PM UTC

hindsightbias wrote: post #129

potatolicious wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about stopping prices from going up, it's about stopping them from going up at an uncontrollable rate. Many desirable neighborhoods are seeing market rents increases in the double-digit percentages, every year . Some parts of SF are experiencing >20% YoY growth. That's real estate hyperinflation, far in excess of the normal appreciation you'd expect in a healthy economy with increasing population. And the so…

> build more Clearly, higher density construction in NYC has dramatically reduce prices there. There is no amount of construction in the subset of 49 square miles trendies want to live that is going to solve this problem. There are a million 1%'ers from around the world that will snap up a $750K condo before you 5%'ers can get it.

Taxation can alleviate that. Provide tax relief to owner-occupants with children. Tax the shit out of non-occupant owners.

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

#177

Post by jlgreco » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 8:15 PM UTC

31reasons wrote: post #156

zanny wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad you can't build more in SF because of the building height limits, which is the principle reason housing rates are absurd. If the city made sense they'd build some highrise condos downtown and house the entrepreneurs in studio apartments.

The earthquake in 1906 nearly ruined the entire San Francisco. It can happen again at anytime. Limiting the building heights and number of housing is a precautionary measure. The best thing the SV tech community should do is realize the limitations and move out to other cities. LA/San Diego could be the great replacement/extension for SV.

Another earthquake should worry San Francisco no more than another fire should worry Chicago.

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

#178

Post by davidw » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 8:16 PM UTC

ebiester wrote: post #163

Jgrubb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phoenix is the mess you're thinking of. Tucson is fairly reasonable as far as size goes.

Tucson is approximately the same size as Chicago, when talking about the actual city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by... -- Tucson is both giant and sparse.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=tucson,+az&hl=en&ll=32.176194...

Looks like they include a lot of land for whatever reason that's not really "city" - and don't include some that is.

I don't know what the job climate is like there, or life in general, but it seems like a fairly nice place: college town, desert climate, but they also have a ski resort (!) just out of town, because to the north east they have a 3000 meter mountain that juts up out of the plain.

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

#179

Post by thetrumanshow » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 8:16 PM UTC

patio11 wrote: post #96

At the risk of unsolicited dating advice: is the reason one is embarassed to mention one's occupation to a woman at the bar caused by tech salaries being too high, or by years of social conditioning telling you that geeks are low status? (Or by learning that the way one signals high status is by constructing a low status outgroup and then explaining how you're unlike them?) An alternative: just pretend society really…

"...start talking about something more interesting than your work"

Aaannd herein lies the second-order problem for many: that they aren't involved in anything interesting outside of work. This is, by the way, also a problem for us that have already acqui-hired Ms. Right.

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

#180

Post by api » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 8:17 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #164

api wrote: 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'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. I've never understood this crazy, if not outright insane obsession with home ownership. Why does everyone want to tie significant amounts of their lifetime earnings into physical property that historically has had very low appreciation in value? It's like pe…

The original origin of the "obsession with home ownership" was the idea of escaping the need to pay fealty to the rentier class by owning your own home. I completely agree that "house as investment" and house flipping bubblemania is insane, and is partly responsible for ruining the real estate market.

Actual ownership is now impossible for ordinary middle to upper middle class people in markets like the Bay Area, and in fact renting is more rational there. But there are plenty of other markets where it's not impossible.