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

San Francisco Bubble

blog.larrold.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 393 posts

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#321

Post by amyjess »

skewart wrote: post #27
njudah wrote: post #17

Not withstanding everything else, I've lived in this town for years, and always found it easy to find a reasonably priced beer.

Yup. It's still shockingly easy to find good beer at a reasonable price in the SFBA. Same for food if you know where to go. The only thing that's really hard to avoid spending way too much money on is housing.

> The only thing that's really hard to avoid spending way too much money on is housing.

And people shouldn't discount that.

Here in suburban Dallas, I'm paying $1220 (soon to go up to $1270) per month for a 1513 sq. ft. townhouse that I have entirely to myself. And my commute isn't bad because most of the tech companies here are also in the suburbs (the Telecom Corridor in Richardson).

Good luck finding anything like that in SF.

I'm a very private person, and I like having a lot of space to myself. The idea of having a roommate or living in a small apartment (especially in an urban environment) makes me physically ill. I'd never be able to live there.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#322

Post by superuser2 »

pc86 wrote: post #218
ChuckMcM wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, as a perennial voice for free markets I agree with your observations, but not your point. Having lived through it I see the damage it is doing to individuals who will take years to recover. Too many engineers today, perhaps like sports players, take a big salary, project it across 30 years and then say "Wow I've got millions headed my way, do I really need to bag my lunch?" I've watched as they became both broke…

I agree with everything you said but I think you're underestimating the importance of fighting lifestyle inflation at all costs. It's incredibly hard to justify a six-figure burn rate under any circumstances, even in San Francisco. If you've got a job making multiples of the median household income in the US, it's incredibly irresponsible to live in a manner that wouldn't support a pretty major pay cut at any point.

Young developer here.

The "lifestyle inflation is evil" mantra never made sense to me. The definition I usually find is "living better than a college student once you are a working professional," so apologies if you mean something different.

I was raised to save 15% for retirement, to never carry a credit card balance, to build a 6 month emergency fund, etc. All of these priorities come first. But, after they are funded:

I am in software in part because because I like it, but also because it enables the life I want: a decent apartment to myself, a decent car, some international travel, not having to agonize over small day-to-day purchases. I want these things much more than I want early retirement (which is not particularly useful if all I can do with it is sit in a low-cost-of-living-city home and eat Ramen). If you told me I'd be a broke college student forever, I'd probably go into theater.

Why should we compromise parts of our life for more money, and then carry that money in our savings accounts perpetually? It really seems like you should either use the money in a way that's important to you, or optimize for free time instead.

Silicon Valley as we imagine it might die, and I'm set to absorb a few months. I can't imagine the world will stop wanting code. And if it does, I can change careers like my parents both did in their 40s.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#323

Post by Kinnard »

mbesto wrote: post #62

This is why the free market is so great. 1. Everything too expensive? Good, don't live here, eventually enough people will leave to drive all of the costs back to other market norms. 2. Dumb startups? Good, they will fail, people won't be able to afford to live here and they'll leave. 3. People are spoiled? Uber is cheaper and more convenient in some cases than taking the local transportation. When people stop taking…

I don't know if SF public transportation is awful . . . try living in Detroit.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#324

Post by Kinnard »

jbooth wrote: post #75
YuriNiyazov wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea no kidding. "AppNexus helps brands connect with consumers, empowering agencies and advertisers with a uniquely powerful approach to programmatic online advertising." Thanks for working on Ad Tech, the very thing that powers this bubble by trading attention as a commodity. Other people work on silly startups, but this shit is akin to HFT.

Unless microtransactions for content take off, and they haven't, ad tech is necessary to incentivize content on the web. 90% of the websites you read could not exist without the ecosystem that appnexus is a big player in. Hacker News, being one big ad for ycombinator, doesn't need to bother. So he's doing a real thing that provides real value to the web. And it's actually a sustainable business, to boot. Lastly, ther…

You know, this might be the year when microtransactions for content actually take off.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#325

Post by api »

niuzeta wrote: post #315
whybroke wrote: post #280

Please be aware that moving to the bay area for any reason other than fun will be a serious life mistake. If you move to the bay area in your 20s, by the time you're in your 40s you will have a specific knowledge of a fad language that is 20 years old. But even if you somehow keep up with new tech in your spare time, you will look 40 something and thus be nearly unemployable solely on those grounds. And you simply wi…

I'm in Canada and every time I consider prospects of getting into United States , comments like this frighten me. More specifically the Valley area for its renowned reputation of tech-oriented culture, and make good earnings. Compared to what I see in, say, Toronto area with bad housing and a bunch of old .NET 2.0 I feel that it must be better there. What I find lacking in such comments, though, is some explanation o…

There's a happy medium somewhere between the wasteland of legacy "enterprise" jobs (.NET 2.0 and such) and the nutzo SF/SV orbit.

I live in Southern California (LA/OC). It's not cheap by any measure but it's within the bounds of economic sanity compared to SF/SV. There are tons of very interesting tech jobs in cutting edge areas like computer vision, AI/ML, the latest web and DevOps tech, and a lot of hardware/EE stuff. There are many other places like this. Canada probably has a few too. Even NYC, which is more expensive than LA, is still "sane" compared to SF when you consider what you get. In NYC car ownership is very optional, which mitigates the high rents, while in SF you must own a car if you ever want to leave the peninsula.

I've turned down numerous offers in SF/SV because it just seems economically insane. The housing prices are clearly unsustainable and the OP's comment about it being a "serious life mistake" rings true. The craziness has also priced out much of the interesting culture that made SF compelling in the first place.

Edit: I keep hearing about the relentless ageism in SF/SV tech. I don't see so much of it elsewhere. Is it really that bad? If so it seems like a SF/SV thing and not necessarily true everywhere. In that case it might make some sense for young people to spend some time in SF/SV getting into the latest stuff and learning and then bail before 30.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#326

Post by whybroke »

niuzeta wrote: post #315
whybroke wrote: post #280

Please be aware that moving to the bay area for any reason other than fun will be a serious life mistake. If you move to the bay area in your 20s, by the time you're in your 40s you will have a specific knowledge of a fad language that is 20 years old. But even if you somehow keep up with new tech in your spare time, you will look 40 something and thus be nearly unemployable solely on those grounds. And you simply wi…

I'm in Canada and every time I consider prospects of getting into United States , comments like this frighten me. More specifically the Valley area for its renowned reputation of tech-oriented culture, and make good earnings. Compared to what I see in, say, Toronto area with bad housing and a bunch of old .NET 2.0 I feel that it must be better there. What I find lacking in such comments, though, is some explanation o…

I of course don't know the why. I lived in the bay area coding for 10 years and left 5 years ago when the current state of affairs was just starting. Upon every visit back upon seeing the falling quality of life, especially for housing, I'm thankful I'm out.

But I too would dearly like someone to show me that I am wrong. To disprove my observation that the vast bulk of people who move to the bay area do not stay there happily and prosperously the rest of their lives but eventually move out, maybe with a wistful blog post.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#327

Post by nwah1 »

tostitos1979 wrote: post #268
mbesto wrote: post #62

This is why the free market is so great. 1. Everything too expensive? Good, don't live here, eventually enough people will leave to drive all of the costs back to other market norms. 2. Dumb startups? Good, they will fail, people won't be able to afford to live here and they'll leave. 3. People are spoiled? Uber is cheaper and more convenient in some cases than taking the local transportation. When people stop taking…

Your comment is valid if we lived in a totally free market. We do not. 1) Want to build a skyscrapper? Having the same housing density as Tokyo or Manhattan? No .. sorry .. think of the traffic or view or ... whatever. 2) The place you live in has become very valuable. Pay the appropriate property tax. Umm .. no .. sorry. We don't want to make live unaffordable for seniors or umm whatever. The reality is just wealth…

Exactly! Although, it isn't just that assessments need to rise in tandem with values, which Prop 13 prevents, but the rates on land ought to rise dramatically which Prop 13 also prevents. And taxes ought to be eliminated for improvements.

Considering people seem to have planned their lives around the implicit expectation of the current tax structure, it isn't ridiculous for seniors on "fixed incomes" to be nervous.

But let's remember that seniors are the wealthiest age demographic, and those among them who are actually financially needy can be easily cared for while still not stifling all the hopes of young entrepreneurs.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#328

Post by bcg1 »

superuser2 wrote: post #322
pc86 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you said but I think you're underestimating the importance of fighting lifestyle inflation at all costs. It's incredibly hard to justify a six-figure burn rate under any circumstances, even in San Francisco. If you've got a job making multiples of the median household income in the US, it's incredibly irresponsible to live in a manner that wouldn't support a pretty major pay cut at any point.

Young developer here. The "lifestyle inflation is evil" mantra never made sense to me. The definition I usually find is "living better than a college student once you are a working professional," so apologies if you mean something different. I was raised to save 15% for retirement, to never carry a credit card balance, to build a 6 month emergency fund, etc. All of these priorities come first. But, after they are fun…

I don't think he's talking to you. If you are under 40 and are saving for retirement, have no debt, and have 6 months of expenses then you are lightyears ahead of most people in the US and you should call your parents and thank them for teaching you well.

I think he's referring to how most people do it - carrying debt, little or no savings, paycheck to paycheck no mater how they make. And when they do get a raise, instead of putting the extra money towards getting on track financially, they just bump up their lifestyle so that they're always living right on the edge of what they can manage.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#329

Post by sampo »

restalis wrote: post #297
sampo wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why the free market is so great. I don't disagree with the points you made. But there is nothing free market about the housing market in San Francisco.

"But there is nothing free market about the housing market in San Francisco." How so? There is a supply (although limited), and there is a demand. The landlords are interested to maximize their profits, but can not ask more than the market can bear.

There would be high demand for buying land to build new homes on. Or buying land with old low-rise buildings, and replacing the buildings with higher and/or more efficient design, to provide more homes on the same piece of land.

But even if the owner would like to sell the land, and buyer would like to pay a lot of money, this is usually not allowed, for political reasons.

If let to operate more freely, free market economy would be efficient in increasing the density of homes in high-demand areas. This is very much not happening in San Francisco.

If people are willing to pay Manhattan-prices (and even more), the free market response would be to build at Manhattan-density.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#330

Post by bpchaps »

stvswn wrote: post #304
bpchaps wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rose tinted glasses much? Have you ever been to a poor area in your life? Even mentioning Uber, organics, bad engineers and mediocre engineers ignores places like the south side of Chicago and any gradient between. It's not as pretty outside as you think it is.

Wait I'm missing something. How does largesse in the Bay Area cause poverty elsewhere?

"We can solve all of the world's problems!" - Bay Area "What about us?" - The world

rant.

Maybe I'm a bit naively bitter on the subject, particularly after spending some time at Chicago's opengov hack nights. Something about it got very, very turned me completely away from modern civics and its problems solving. Much of it seems to stem from the same vain as high school grads building unmaintainable schools in "primitive" cultures many miles away.

My problem isn't that Uber, SF etc exist. Individually, "fuck yeah!". As a whole, though, they take the focus away from the nuance of actual problems and create comfort for those who can afford it. The poor, the mentally sick and the fringe simply aren't accounted for to the level that they can be. Especially after walking through SF streets earlier this year. It was infuriating to see so much homelessness and prosperity of achievement condensed in the same place. Chicago and NY have nothing on how sharp that difference was (although, I admit it might be selection bias).

Many techie-type folk my age tend to complain about the large economic/social problems. Very few of them ever take action - yet they complain about inaction! If that feeling is as pervasive as it seems, then maybe the problem just might be within some nuance that's not being addressed. When skill's diverted from that nuance towards Bay-like areas and their functions, then YES, they are part of the problem. Just maybe not directly or in an intuitive way.

Post reply on HN