Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
1–10 of 74 posts
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#2The most striking figure in here is this one:
"The hard truth is that the Bay Area's housing and transit systems are bursting at the seams. According to the San Francisco Apartment Association, last year the city added 68,000 new jobs and just 120 new housing units. Silicon Valley's rental vacancy rates are even lower than the city's."
That's math that just undeniable.
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#3The most striking figure in here is this one: "The hard truth is that the Bay Area's housing and transit systems are bursting at the seams. According to the San Francisco Apartment Association, last year the city added 68,000 new jobs and just 120 new housing units. Silicon Valley's rental vacancy rates are even lower than the city's." That's math that just undeniable.
This one really jumped out at me too. I haven't read this anywhere before:
"research from the Bay Area Council Economic Institute showed that each of these tech jobs had an astounding effect of creating an additional 4.3 jobs in the local economy."
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#4The most striking figure in here is this one: "The hard truth is that the Bay Area's housing and transit systems are bursting at the seams. According to the San Francisco Apartment Association, last year the city added 68,000 new jobs and just 120 new housing units. Silicon Valley's rental vacancy rates are even lower than the city's." That's math that just undeniable.
This one really jumped out at me too. I haven't read this anywhere before: "research from the Bay Area Council Economic Institute showed that each of these tech jobs had an astounding effect of creating an additional 4.3 jobs in the local economy."
Yeah I thought that was striking as well. I'm generally skeptical of stats like this but I'd love to see the paper and see the structure of those gigs (eg which industries, where geographically are they concentrated etc)
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
This one really jumped out at me too. I haven't read this anywhere before: "research from the Bay Area Council Economic Institute showed that each of these tech jobs had an astounding effect of creating an additional 4.3 jobs in the local economy."
Yeah I thought that was striking as well. I'm generally skeptical of stats like this but I'd love to see the paper and see the structure of those gigs (eg which industries, where geographically are they concentrated etc)
I found it. It's mentioned on page 5 in the executive summary. I don't have enough time to read through the whole report right now.
http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/media/files/pdf/TechReport.pdf
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#6Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help.
I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any different than the ability to afford a BMW or a Tesla. Should the government subsidize "below market rate" luxury cars too? What would be the incentive to get an education or work hard? Personally I feel somewhat offended when there are dozens of below market rate units available and I'm actually excluded from attempting to buy them because I earn too much money. Meanwhile there are hardly any homes available for people who can afford the houses without subsidies and we bid up the houses to obscene prices due to lack of supply.
Also, if the people who work in SF or other high income areas cannot afford to live there at current wages, there should be pressure on them to leave and work elsewhere. This would increase demand for their labor and drive prices up, all else being equal. (I know, there are other factors here, but those should be dealt with separately, not by adding more layers of complexity to the problem.)
Further, if those workers cannot afford to rent or buy, lowering the cost of renting or buying also reduces the pressure on employers to raise their wages.
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#7Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…
> Should the government subsidize "below market rate" luxury cars too?
People have families and lives built around geographic locations, not cars. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't subsidize housing (I lean libertarian personally), but it's disingenuous to suggest this is like the car market. What's at stake for many people is a foundational part of their lives.
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#8The most striking figure in here is this one: "The hard truth is that the Bay Area's housing and transit systems are bursting at the seams. According to the San Francisco Apartment Association, last year the city added 68,000 new jobs and just 120 new housing units. Silicon Valley's rental vacancy rates are even lower than the city's." That's math that just undeniable.
For comparison, Chicago, a city that isn't growing like SF, added 1,150 housing units in 2012 and had 3,050 units under construction for delivery in 2013-2014 as of September 2012: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-13/classified/ct-....
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#9Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…
As a recent nyc -> sf transplant, i think the best short term solution to making living in the bay area more affordable is to run one track of bart back and forth from 12am - 4am. SF needs a brooklyn, a real brooklyn, that you can get to when your shift at the restaurant/bar/other-service-job ends at 1am.
Public infrastructure is a public good, and service industry workers can't be expected to cab it to oakland when their shifts end. Heck, the bikelane on the new bay bridge segment ends before treasure island. I could NEVER have lived in brooklyn if the non-auto infrastructure was the way it is between sf and oakland.
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#10Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…
You're ignoring the crux of the issue here.
The issue is not "I want to move to San Francisco", the issue is "I've lived in this neighborhood my entire life, and now I can't afford to any longer." Let's not even get into how expensive it is to actually move, all of the complication and complexity involved in moving a family with children to a different school district, all of the paperwork that needs updated... it's nontrivial.
You shouldn't be surprised when people who are currently being colonized against their will and having their entire lives thrown into upheaval without any upside are a little bit upset about it.
(I live in the Mission.)