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

San Francisco

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 267 posts

Re: San Francisco

#231

Post by saryant »

nilkn wrote: post #217
jamesaguilar wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is certainly not the case that you need $300k a year to afford a $1M house. $800k for a thirty year term on 3.5% gives you around $3k/mo payments. That could be reasonably carried by someone making $120k after taxes (1/3rd net income rule). That said, for a lifetime home in this market you might need a little more than $1M, depending on what you're looking for and where you'd want to live. I don't think we actuall…

Yeah, I totally get why someone would go to the Bay Area. For me there were some particular reasons to stay in Houston. (1) I didn't want to leave my girlfriend behind; she couldn't have easily followed me if I had left at the time. (2) I really like the company I work for; amazing people, unique problems. I lucked out in this regard; the biggest problem with Houston for developers is not the weather but finding a co…

There are a few good companies in Houston outside the energy industry. FlightAware is probably at the top of the list.

That said, there are huge software engineering challenges within oil. The work environment isn't what most here are comfortable with (especially Exxon and their accountability system shudder) but Houston's industries offer some extraordinary challenges for the taking. The largest medical center in the world as well as a growing financial industry offer a lot of opportunities in Big Data.

I would've stayed in Houston but I decided San Antonio had a more interesting startup ecosystem (Austin's not my cup of tea). Having TechStars and Geekdom here has really heated things up in past years.

Re: San Francisco

#232

Post by [deleted] »

nilkn wrote: post #217
jamesaguilar wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is certainly not the case that you need $300k a year to afford a $1M house. $800k for a thirty year term on 3.5% gives you around $3k/mo payments. That could be reasonably carried by someone making $120k after taxes (1/3rd net income rule). That said, for a lifetime home in this market you might need a little more than $1M, depending on what you're looking for and where you'd want to live. I don't think we actuall…

Yeah, I totally get why someone would go to the Bay Area. For me there were some particular reasons to stay in Houston. (1) I didn't want to leave my girlfriend behind; she couldn't have easily followed me if I had left at the time. (2) I really like the company I work for; amazing people, unique problems. I lucked out in this regard; the biggest problem with Houston for developers is not the weather but finding a co…

[deleted]

Re: San Francisco

#233

Post by potatolicious »

acchow wrote: post #212
potatolicious wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The rising cost of living will have nothing but detrimental impact on startups. When $1m used to buy a year of runway, now it's $2m, and you're not really getting any more for your money, you're just making sure your engineers have a decent roof over their heads. Your theory is sound except for one little problem: the Bay Area's transportation system is fucked. FUCKED . Completely, utterly, irredeemably f…

Why does high cost of rent threaten the tech industry? Can't it just shift focus to Boston/Tel Aviv/Berlin/Toronto/etc?

A loss of investor confidence does not necessarily mean the investment will shift to another tech hub. We saw during the first dot-bomb that loss of confidence simply led to money going into not-tech.

Tech investment is, unfortunately, not a zero-sum game. Every dollar that doesn't go into a Silicon Valley tech company is not guaranteed to go into a tech company elsewhere.

So yeah, the failure of SF/SV will probably mean an increase in tech investment in other cities, but ultimately I don't think there's a chance in hell we'll break even. It will be a huge net loss for the tech industry as a whole.

Not to mention there isn't really a strong SF/Bay Area alternative when it comes to tech. I know Boston/Tel Aviv/Berlin/Toronto (add Montreal, Waterloo, NYC, Austin, and Seattle to the list for more completeness) like to hang up banners proclaiming themselves to be just like Silicon Valley, but let's be honest, the scale difference is enormous. None of the above listed cities are even close to being able to assume Silicon Valley's mantle.

Even as someone who no longer lives in the area, who has no interest in returning to the area, the loss of the SF/Bay Area's status as the de facto tech capital of the world will have enormous negative repercussions.

Re: San Francisco

#234

Post by serf »

philsnow wrote: post #100
stplsd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...every day, hot and sunny, today, hot and sunny, tomorrow, hot and, for the rest of the... hot and sunny, every single day, hot and sunny. And they love it. "Isn't great, every day, hot and sunny?" What are you, a fucking lizard? Only reptiles feel that way about this kind of weather. I'm a mammal, I can afford coats, scarves, cappuccino and rosy cheeked women" Bill Hicks

Did Bill Hicks say this of SF ? LA ? California in general ? Starting around San Mateo and going north from there through the city all the way to Sausalito (and probably beyond), there are numerous microclimates. It's not at all like the LA that I know.

he was saying it about Los Angeles, when making fun of LA types. He was performing (as he did nearly half his career) for a British audience.

Re: San Francisco

#235

Post by acchow »

potatolicious wrote: post #233
acchow wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does high cost of rent threaten the tech industry? Can't it just shift focus to Boston/Tel Aviv/Berlin/Toronto/etc?

A loss of investor confidence does not necessarily mean the investment will shift to another tech hub. We saw during the first dot-bomb that loss of confidence simply led to money going into not-tech . Tech investment is, unfortunately, not a zero-sum game. Every dollar that doesn't go into a Silicon Valley tech company is not guaranteed to go into a tech company elsewhere. So yeah, the failure of SF/SV will probably…

> A loss of investor confidence

What? We were talking about high rental costs in SF (probably implying high employee salaries). why does that affect investor confidence?

Re: San Francisco

#236

Post by threedaymonk »

VeejayRampay wrote: post #108

British people are really hard to understand. The way they make whole syllables disappear is nothing short of black magic.

American people are really hard to understand. The way they pronounce "can" and "can't" the same, and the paucity of vowels in their phonemic inventory (cot/caught and Mary/merry/marry) is most perplexing.

(Which is another way of saying: that to which one is unaccustomed is difficult. British people understand each other perfectly well, and some of us even find American English a bit difficult to understand out of familiar contexts.)

Re: San Francisco

#237

Post by jarek »

acchow wrote: post #213
_pius wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your theory is sound except for one little problem: the Bay Area's transportation system is fucked. FUCKED. Completely, utterly, irredeemably fucked. BART is a joke, MUNI is like a fevered bad dream, Caltrain woefully inadequate. A little hyperbolic, I think.

Bay Area mass transit is far from fucked. There's a lot of infrastructure there that, with minor upgrades, could massively improve the situation. Take BART, for example. Not enough trains. Upgrade the system to support more trains and then BUY MORE TRAINS. Suddenly living in Daly City and commuting to SF is feasible.

BART service is running close to capacity during peak hours on the central part through San Francisco to Daly City. You can't put a lot more trains through without building a second tunnel.

Re: San Francisco

#238

Post by acchow »

baddox wrote: post #224
lobotryas wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are forgetting the weather. DC winters: cold, snow, sometimes blizzard, have to scrape your car free from ice if you don't have indoor parking. SF winters: sometimes you have to put in a jacket and sometimes it rains. That's it. This is just one example of many. It's pointless to compare two cities on rent and cost of living alone. Now, if the extra 11k is worth the winter challenges to you then I'm happy. Person…

I grew up in the Midwest, where we had all the seasons and often fairly bad summers (old people die if their air conditioners fail) and winters (can't leave the driveway without 4WD). Still, in San Francisco, I am personally uncomfortable due to weather far more often than I ever was in the Midwest. This is due primarily to the lack of air conditioning in housing (I have bay windows constantly open and a fan directly…

It sounds like you could significantly improve your standard of living by buying an air conditioner...

Re: San Francisco

#239

Post by abalone »

spikels wrote: post #140
abalone wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent control is the ONLY reason we were able to stay in the city and have a child recently. It gives renters the housing security they need to put roots down and start families.

While you have personally are benefitted from SF's rent control laws be aware it has had many perverse effects: - Higher rents for everyone else, less affordability overall - Reduced new constructions (even higher rents, fewer working class jobs) - Increased vacancy (9.7% vacant [1]) - Reduced maintenance - Lock-in (you move you lose) - Endless litigation and political disputes - Side effects (condos, TICs, Ellis Act…

Your citations don't actually establish your claims. In fact, the wikipedia article outlines many arguments in favor.

Re: San Francisco

#240

Post by acchow »

ryanSrich wrote: post #162
potatolicious wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your math is reasonably fair, IMO. That being said, the type of work being done in DC and SF is vastly different. I attended an iOS conference in DC a few months ago (I'm based out of NYC) and was shocked at how few "tech company" people were present. Nearly everyone was working for a government agency, a government contractor, or freelancing with a primarily government client-base. Personally I don't think I can do…

This is really the only reasonable dig I've heard against D.C. I guess I was lucky enough to land a public sector job at a software shop that runs much like the hip ones out west. They are here, just not well represented.

Have you worked in the bay area?
Post reply on HN