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

San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 542 posts

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#141

Post by kbenson »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #115
davidw wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with that logic is that the people at the 'top of the heap' - VC's, CEO's and the like are not the ones being priced out, mostly. Granted, a company might open an office somewhere else, but that's after it's already large and established. So you're kicking the marginal (in the economic sense) people out into marginal places where they have less access to what made the original area such a great pl…

maybe, i have neither a moral stance nor suggested solution for that. Seems to me that is a trait of capitalism/market economies; those who can pay the most get what they want.

Yes, but the reason things cost more is because we are restricting supply through regulation. That's not to say that all the regulation should be repealed, but you can't examine the problem in a vacuum and expect useful information. It truly does come down to supply and demand.

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#142

Post by ianamartin »

tryitnow wrote: post #110

Yes, rents are high, but if you invest even a little bit of time you can find a fine residence in the Bay Area for a lot less than $4,500. I rent a two bedroom house in Oakland for $2,200. My commute is not too much longer than it would be if I live in certain parts of San Francisco. There's simply little advantage to living right in the heart of a major city. You have to ask yourself: "Instead of renting in a high-p…

Absolutely this. I have a two-bedroom apt. in Brooklyn that's the size of a small house. No roommate. I just like the space.

I pay the same amount as my cousin, who lives in Manhattan in a studio apt that's smaller than my guest bedroom/office.

At my current job in the financial district, the commute would be the same. Plus, I live in a historic neighborhood where there are houses with lawns and gardens and trees. And it reminds me of home in Texas.

NYC isn't as bad as SF, but it can be really awful if you insist on living in the most "happening" parts of town.

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#143

Post by nostrademons »

zzz157 wrote: post #131
tryitnow wrote: post #110

Yes, rents are high, but if you invest even a little bit of time you can find a fine residence in the Bay Area for a lot less than $4,500. I rent a two bedroom house in Oakland for $2,200. My commute is not too much longer than it would be if I live in certain parts of San Francisco. There's simply little advantage to living right in the heart of a major city. You have to ask yourself: "Instead of renting in a high-p…

Well you also have a significantly higher probability of getting shot when you live in Oakland. So there's always that.

Depends which part of Oakland. Some parts of Oakland (eg. Rockridge, Temescal) are significantly nicer than SF. They aren't exactly cheap, but your safety : price ratio is significantly better than in say, the Mission.

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#144

Post by stuxnet79 »

jperras wrote: post #124
dv0rak wrote: post #107

Fuck. And I thought paying $1k a month in Toronto was too much. I've been looking for work in cheaper cities like Hamilton or London literally because what I make versus what it takes to survive don't sit well with me - and never have.

As someone who lives in Toronto proper, $1k/month is ridiculously cheap unless you live in a basement apartment with possibly a roommate, depending on location.

What are the typical going rates for basement apartments downtown or close to downtown? An apartment from what I've seen is at the very least $1200 a month.

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#145

Post by Apocryphon »

pklausler wrote: post #93
Apocryphon wrote: post #46

So are there any tech hubs right now that aren't dealing with issues of rent increases, gentrifications, and growing pains?

Try North Carolina, which has regrettably chosen to become a former tech hub.

You mean the Research Triangle?

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#146

Post by adamnemecek »

ghaff wrote: post #136
whack wrote: post #111

It's hard to overstate the impact this is going to have on San Francisco, long-term. As Technology becomes the most important industry in America, a well-governed San Francisco could have positioned itself as the next NYC. The hub where all of tech gathers, the same way all of finance gathered in Wall St. Replace the 70 year old 2-storey homes with Manhattan style apartment buildings, and rent in San Francisco would…

Why is extreme population and industry concentration such a great thing? Yes, there are certain virtues to the concentration of talent and energy which happens in major cities generally--but I'm unconvinced that doing some Singapore-style 20-year plan to transform San Francisco into a western Manhattan is either necessary or desirable.

Technological mecca would translate into a technological hegemony, even larger than today.

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#147

Post by rfrank »

seivan wrote: post #30
api wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be full of people who want to be near art and "cool" people. Unfortunately tech doesn't find a way to pay those creators of culture anything. If anything, the focus is on finding ways to make everything free. So tech moves in, enjoys the presence of creative culture they refuse to fund, but ultimately inflates real estate so much they drive that creative culture away. Rinse and repeat. If art and culture…

Tech isn't creative and artistic? Why is an "album" worth more than a graphics engine, drawing app or game? If anything music is overvalued. I'm surprised we haven't automated Skrillex and all that house crap yet. ;-)

> Why is an "album" worth more than a graphics engine...

Why is a Picasso worth more than paint?

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#148

Post by jandrese »

malchow wrote: post #117
Gratsby wrote: post #54

I pay about that for rent - it's the most I've ever paid for housing by a long shot, and it regularly freaks me out. I just can't get used to it. The thing that gets me is that I'm barely paying the property taxes on the place I rent. The landlord isn't gouging me. It's just the way it is here. Housing is so expensive because everyone wants to be here, and for good reason. This is the most thriving technical communit…

Rents are where they are because of state and local governmental policy. I beg you to go out and find a real estate investor to talk to. In any city in the world with a functioning open market for land use, there are compelling profit opportunities in high-density high-rises, economy box living pods with beige walls, high-end glass condos with verandahs, and everything in between. Prices do not have to do with the Ba…

The prices are directly a result of the Bay Area's beauty. The whole reason the prices are so high is that the city has been absolute in its refusal to let people build giant hideous skyscrapers that would block the view of the bay. Those same ugly monstrosities would provide hundreds of apartments and dig the city out of its ridiculous housing shortage.

Rents are high because demand is high and supply is low. Demand is high because there are lots of jobs there. Supply is low because the city refuses to allow high density development. It's a great deal for the people who already own homes and are planning to move out. They can sell their homes for a fortune and live like a king somewhere else.

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#149

Post by ThrustVectoring »

erehweb wrote: post #105
dkopi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 2016, and people still think that if someone moves into your neighborhood, someone else has to move out. Rising demand is great. It means people want to enjoy your neighborhood. You can either meet that demand by increasing supply, or you can restrict the demand, and let certain people be outpriced by the market. Locals aren't victims of gentrification. They're victims of zoning laws and nimbyism.

Gentrification makes housing more expensive in the short term. First order, that's good for landlords and bad for renters. Mixed for owner-occupiers - they have more wealth, but higher property taxes.

Not in California it isn't. Prop 13 limits property tax rates for owners.

Re: San Francisco Tech Firms See Workers Flee from $4,500 Rents

#150

Post by davidw »

asfakeaccount wrote: post #129
lettergram wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to say... I'm already nervous in my 3 story building when there is a earthquake. I'd be even more nervous around buildings, when I know the ground is basically sand.

Modern mid rise and skyscrapers are actually safer in earthquakes than the Victoria homes of San Francisco. If our housing consisted of modern housing our city would suffer way less damages than what will happen today if the big one hits.

For evidence of this, just look at where all the damage was during the '89 earthquake: the Marina district, not the skyscrapers.
Post reply on HN