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

191–200 of 542 posts

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

#191

Post by ZenoArrow »

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…

>"There's simply little advantage to living right in the heart of a major city."

Depends on the city and what you're after.

Living in the centre of a city can bring lifestyle benefits, especially with fast and reliable public transport. Major cities with metro/subway networks can offer a massive playground of activities all without relying on cars. It might sound bizarre, but there's a certain freedom from moving through a city without using a car. In my experience cars rely on a fair amount of responsibility and effort, whereas public transport offers better opportunities to enjoy the journey.

In addition to that there's the social aspect. If you live close to where you work it's far easier to be social with your work colleagues after work. This can lead to a better sense if camaraderie with those you work with, especially if they live close to where you work too. Seeing as it's often the case that people work in the heart of a city rather than the suburbs, these are perks you're far more likely to get by living in the heart of a city.

There are certainly advantages to living further afield as well, but I hope you can agree the choice isn't one sided.

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

#192

Post by hocuspocus »

beambot wrote: post #169
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…

Did the same math for living in San Jose... With the price difference in rent, you could literally hire a private car plus driver to take you to-and-from the city every weekend. The most insane part is the people who commute down to MTV (eg. Google) and only really get the benefit of the city on weekends anyway...

I've just come back from two weeks in the Bay area to see a bunch of friends and they all do that. Even though I find it insane as much you do, I understand. There are a few good reasons though, from our very European and biased point of view:

* No need to own car, or at least no need to drive everyday.

* For a spouse on a H-4 visa and who thus cannot work, living in the city makes things easier and a lot less boring.

* Mountain View / Sunnyvale / Palo Alto / ... have pretty sad downtown areas, they aren't bike/pedestrian friendly, and they make you live in purely residential areas.

So they end up spending $3~4000 on rent to live in SoMa and be close to their company shuttle lines or the Caltrain station. Some can work during the commute, some can't.

My friends in Berkeley have it better (much nicer residential areas, you can bike to your Bart station). But then of course you need a job in the city or in Oakland (and even though things have supposedly improved a lot, it still looked pretty sketchy to me).

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

#193

Post by pound »

nostrademons wrote: post #151
TranquilMarmot wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with the amount of vitriol in your comment, but I agree with the overall sentiment. I feel like tech workers in San Francisco are fully bought-in to the "this is the best and only place to be if you're in tech" idea. So much so that they can't quite see that the grass is just as green on the other side, so to speak. You have to be fully bought-in to it, there's no other way you would be able to justify…

I'm curious if you've lived in the Bay Area for any length of time. I used to live in Boston (which at the time was the #2 tech scene in the country, but has probably been eclipsed by Seattle/NYC/Austin by now). There were startups and meetups and hacker spaces as well, including a number of famous ones. The Bay Area is a huge difference in degree. The difference is that you had to find the "tech scene" in Boston, wh…

but is it a good thing? even if you're an engineer.

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

#194

Post by wavefunction »

freyr wrote: post #173
ghaff wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not necessarily great. But for a variety of reasons, the momentum has been in SF's favor as the world's dominant technology hub. We might wonder what will happen this momentum is deflected. Technical talent will disperse, and we'll end up with a more distributed workforce? Or will it simply concentrate somewhere else? Right now, the Bay Area is in an extremely enviable position: it has a high concentration of ex…

Or a thousand seeds will be scattered to bloom in "out of the way places," creating employment and value for towns and cities all over the world.

Of course, that might not be in the Bay Area's interest but they seem to be voting firmly against it already.

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

#195

Post by ebiester »

timr wrote: post #186
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…

"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 have remained very reasonable, despite the rapid economic growth. This would have prevented exactly this problem where tech workers are forced to…

I've thought about that, but as far as I can tell, it means about $10-$15k of equipment and a dedicated work room. I need a mobile-connected "smart" whiteboard for every team member, a good microphone, webcam, speakers, a separate computer + monitor devoted to video conferencing, and a team that is geographically dispersed rather than partially-colocated.

...and hopefully, everyone has first class redundant internet, something not guaranteed across the nation.

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

#196

Post by humbleMouse »

timr wrote: post #186
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…

"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 have remained very reasonable, despite the rapid economic growth. This would have prevented exactly this problem where tech workers are forced to…

Funny you mentioned not being able to get a good meal after 9:30pm. That was the most frustrating thing about being in San Francisco for me. I hated that the whole bay seemed to shut down @10pm - almost as if everybody has to wake up the next morning to work another 12 hour day to pay the insane rent.....

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

#198

Post by bogomipz »

hellameta wrote: post #123
bogomipz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really - "This is the most thriving technical community in the entire world"? I'm calling BS. Have you been to New York City recently? Rents for a 1 bedroom are nowhere near that. Lets talk about that community - there are meetups? Wow. You can go to a meetup on any night of the week in New York or Austin. Besides that explain "the community"? Oh you go out and drink craft beers after work? You can do that anywhere.…

> People like you perpetuate some myth that you have to pay $4500 a month if you want to work in tech. Nonsense. This is a little harsh and I doubt what the OP was saying. If someone interprets it like you suggested that is their problem. I don't see the implication that you NEED to live in SV to work in tech. I don't think anyone claims that you can't find thriving tech communities outside of SV, but the reality tha…

That is what the OP said. I was quoting him. Where is the harshness?

Really the auto industry moved to SV? I'm pretty sure they are all in Detroit still, but I guess that doesn't count because its not Tesla? Who I don't believe moved there but actually started there.

Funny that you should mention Hollywood because Hollywood isn't thriving in Los Angeles, California any more and hasn't for some time. Hollywood is in Vancouver, New Orleans, and Atlanta now. So much so that there's a push in Sacramento to try to get it back.

Also interesting that you bring up "the most money" as testament to how much its thriving. You need to get paid a much higher salary in order to live in a place that is "thriving" and as a result are able to take home and substantially less.

Incidentally salaries in NYC are on par with those in SV and the rent is significantly cheaper.

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

#199

Post by wavefunction »

arcanus wrote: post #12
simook wrote: post #2

Portland resident here. What this article doesn't cover, is now locals are victim of gentrification. Rent prices are almost 2x, out of state buyers are throwing all cash offers on houses, and overall housing supply is low... I'm sure the commercial market is just as bad. Interesting times.

Austinite here. Analogous situation happening here, massive gentrification and home building, but still a sellers market.

I think there's a lot of luxury condo development going on in Austin, but actual homes? Even our existing home inventory has been hit hard by investors looking to set up STR2s with AirBnB. The properties they prize are the exact sort of starter homes first-time homebuyers are looking for. There was just an article recently on the dearth of 3/2 houses available.

I'm looking to buy a home soon so the recent municipal prohibition on STR2s gives me hope that the inventory will increase and allow some downward pressure on prices.

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

#200

Post by timr »

freyr wrote: post #173
ghaff wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not necessarily great. But for a variety of reasons, the momentum has been in SF's favor as the world's dominant technology hub. We might wonder what will happen this momentum is deflected. Technical talent will disperse, and we'll end up with a more distributed workforce? Or will it simply concentrate somewhere else? Right now, the Bay Area is in an extremely enviable position: it has a high concentration of ex…

"But for a variety of reasons, the momentum has been in SF's favor as the world's dominant technology hub."

I know this is ancient history, but I keep having to remind folks that the fetish for locating tech companies in SF didn't start until the late 1990s. Then it crashed, and didn't pick up again until the mid/late 'aughts.

Viewed dispassionately, the "momentum" of SF as a technology hub looks more like a fad that happens at the peak of VC consumer investment cycles.

Post reply on HN