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

San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 195 posts

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#141

Post by learc83 »

askafriend wrote: post #26
learc83 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about whether any specific person deserves to live in a specific place. There is a cost to society in effectively pricing out half of the population from an entire city. Is the benefit of mitigating that worth the cost? For what it's worth, I think that it probably is.

> It's not about whether any specific person deserves to live in a specific place. I never said anything about if someone deserves to live somewhere. A 1-bedroom apartment is a very specific type of unit and that's part of what I wanted to point out. You can also rent studios, converted rooms, or get roommates in a bigger place with more rooms. There's a lot of other options I'm leaving out too, but I reject the prem…

The price for a studio isn't going to be far behind a 1 bedroom, and rooms in houses aren't really an option for for people who aren't single in most cases. Even if you wanted to cram multiple people into one 12x12 room, most cheap rooms for rent are explicit about 1 person only.

Look at median household income, San Francisco is effectively off limits to most people.

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#142

Post by wankerrific »

ericd wrote: post #121
nostrademons wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$3690/month * 12 months = $44280. If you're making ($44280 - current rent in your city) more for a SF job, you net out ahead, even without considering stock options. (It's also significantly more reasonable in the South Bay - my family pays about $2650/month for a 2BR, and most of the fat Facebook/Apple/Netflix/Google salaries are in Silicon Valley proper.)

I'd definitely keep in mind that those are after-tax figures, though. At the higher income levels, CA+Federal taxes hover around 50%. So, roughly double that rent difference to get the salary offset needed.

Really? At what income level in California are you paying half your income in taxes?

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#143

Post by gumby »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #131
gumby wrote: post #58

I do t want to install the app just to find out: hasn’t this been true in Palo Alto for some time? My ex pays more than that and her place is hardly de luxe.

Palo Alto is particularly expensive because of how luxe the area is (from what I understand).

I first moved to Palo Alto in 1984 and can assure you that luxe it is not.

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#144

Post by johnvanatta »

Zanni wrote: post #24
dthal wrote: post #20

Note that Zumper is not a reliable source for median rent data. CityObservatory wrote an article about their data problems a few years ago [1]. Zumper's data is, of course, based on apartments that are for rent and doesn't include currently occupied units. That alone skews high, especially when there is a lot of higher-rent new construction hitting the market. Also, it looks like Zumper's data skews towards higher-en…

My first thought, on reading the source of the data, is that the article was probably prompted by a press release from Zumper. I don't know this, but if reporting a record high gets them press for their app, they'll certainly be biased towards finding a record high. What a poorly sourced article.

Paul Graham wrote a great essay on this:

http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

From what I've seen, it's definitely true, most "news" is at least influenced by PR firms. Part of why (now old school) blogs are so refreshing to read in contrast. I remember working at a startup, and our marketing person once asked the engineers to do some quick data analysis to get a soundbite just like this.

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#145

Post by Gibbon1 »

olalonde wrote: post #123
Gibbon1 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apparently, you even need to apply for permits to change your windows. Needing a permit to install windows is a thing everywhere. Because if you want a really good way to ruin a house, installing windows wrong is a great way to do it.

Everywhere in the world or everywhere in California? If the former, I find it amazing that house owners ruining their house by replacing windows is a universal problem and that requiring permits solves it.

Pretty much every developed part of the world requires permits for such things. Why permits? Because building codes are as old as civilization.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5181e80b-f307...

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#147

Post by Emma_Goldman »

genidoi wrote: post #36
rayiner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On one hand, it’s a very high price. On the other hand, no one is entitled to a one bedroom in the heart of one of the human epicenters in the world. Many people here have roommates or alternate living arrangements. New York is the “human epicenter” in the US. San Francisco is in the same tier as Houston or DC: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2018t.html . Paying New York/London prices to live in a city that is no…

SF maximizes technological intelligence, Wall Street maximizes financial intelligence. Plenty of overlap, but the top talent stays where the rest of the top talent is.

I don't think a significant proportion of the people who want to live in New York would cite Wall Street in their explanation.

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#148

Post by zten »

cm2012 wrote: post #3

For those who live in SF - what's the cost of a one bedroom rent 1 hour from most jobs in SF? I know in NYC you can reliably get that for around 1500.

For someone with no experience with SF and just looking at a map: a huge amount of the East Bay is closer time-wise to the busiest weekday BART station, Montgomery, than the western part of SF.

Even in the Sunset and the Richmond, 1 bedroom rents are still expensive. I poked around Craigslist recently and found plenty in the $2500 range. If you go across the bay, it's a little better. And, if you can deal with BART turning into a pumpkin at midnight, you might enjoy your work commute more.

Edit: this post assumes you take a job in SF. But, big companies are building more and more office campuses on the peninsula, away from reasonable public transit options. If I recall correctly, office rents in the city are actually on the rise, considerably, and it is driving larger employers out of the city under the guise of "putting our employees together to collaborate better."

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#149

Post by jjjensen90 »

wankerrific wrote: post #142
ericd wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd definitely keep in mind that those are after-tax figures, though. At the higher income levels, CA+Federal taxes hover around 50%. So, roughly double that rent difference to get the salary offset needed.

Really? At what income level in California are you paying half your income in taxes?

From what I've seen I think it's around 38-40% state+federal when you reach about $200-300k then about 50% by $1m annual income... Might be better or worse this year with the new tax bill, not sure.

Re: San Francisco median one bedroom apartment rent hits a new peak of $3,690

#150

Post by Thlom »

allahreturns wrote: post #93
whatshisface wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all people deserve shelter as a basic human right I hear this a lot and it still makes absolutely no sense. Where will they get the shelter from? What if the builder doesn't want to build a house for that person? Is the plan to force the labor out of them? Every positive right that I have ever seen comes along with an implicit demand that somebody else become a slave.

> all people deserve shelter as a basic human right No they don't. You are saying that we must award same quality of life to both kind of people: a) one who are meeting economic demand b) who are failing to meet their economic expectation Sorry but if you award the second group, you automatically demotivated first group to continue with their economic obligations.

Sorry, but what you are saying is that society shouldn’t give a shit if people freeze to death on the streets because they have no shelter. That is pretty disturbing to be honest.
Post reply on HN