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

351–360 of 393 posts

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#351

Post by uglysexy »

I think a good indication of a bubble is measuring the IT job market using Craiglist and Dice job postings.

I'd like to ask you all about what you've experienced & seen on Craiglist and Dice that would give you an idea on how good or bad the IT job market in San Francisco (and the Bay Area in general) is or was. I hear conflicting stories of qualified people not able to find jobs after a year of searching (like the SOAP architect below) and on the flip side, of companies not able to find people (the so-called 'IT talent shortage').

I used both websites on & off since the late 90s to find contract & permanent full-time jobs. Back then at the height of the dot-coms, the Dice home page showed 120,000+ jobs, right after the crash (2001-2003) that number fell to around 20,000-30,000. Now it's around 80,000.

On Craigslist, at the dot com height, the Software section for the Bay Area (https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/sof) had so many job postings per day that the list of postings for that day would spill over to the next page (there are 100 listings per page). A year & a half ago (late 2014) there was a good amount of postings and I got a frenzy of replies when I contacted them. Now, there's only a handful of postings per day.

I think it'd be good to get an idea of SF/SV IT job market's fluctuation over the years by compiling these data points. I did a Google search for charts with these data points but couldn't find any. If any of you used these two sites anytime from the late 90s to today and remember the # of postings for that specific date or time period, please post. Ideally, month to month data with high interest on data points from 1999-2003 (dot-com bubble) and 2006 to today (credit bubble).

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#352

Post by beachstartup »

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…

hn has an outspoken minority actively competing in the cheapskate olympics. everyone's circumstances are different, do what makes sense to you.

there's always some penny pinching proselytizer trying to tell other people how to live.

i find it better to focus on making more money.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#353

Post by scholia »

Paul_S wrote: post #43
scholia wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't even know that "banana hammocks" were a thing. Maybe whoever runs bananahammockworld.com reads HN.... http://www.bananahammockworld.com/banana-hammocks-for-men/

Should carry a NSFW warning. I had no idea what a banana hammock was, I thought it was an actual hammock.

Apologies: I didn't think of that.

I had no idea what it was either, so I thought I was saving you a search.....

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#354

Post by uglysexy »

shostack wrote: post #295
csomar wrote: post #108

We have been hearing and reading similarly titled articles for the last couple years. This, however, is the most stupid one in my opinion. What the author describe is a lavish (according to him) standard of living, judged startups to be dumb by their name/description (but they got investor money). He concludes that we are in a bubble. Here are the metrics that matter: * Are current startups generating enough money to…

I think you forgot another important metric: * Are the startups that are hiring taking up enough of the talent compared to large established companies with billions in the bank such that if there were a bubble, and it were to pop, it would actually make an impact on the hiring environment. I'd love to see some hard data on the % of people employed by the "startup ecosystem" vs. large established giants like Google, F…

Hiring is definitely a good indicator of the bubble bursting because hiring indicates that startups are getting funding and they turn around and hire people. When the funding dries up, these same startups tighten the belt, the hiring drops and then the layoffs start.

A good indicator of a bubble in SF/SV startups is measuring the IT job market using local Craiglist and Dice job postings since startups heavily use them.

I used both websites on & off since the late 90s to find contract & permanent full-time jobs. Back then at the height of the dot-coms, the Dice home page showed 120,000+ jobs, right after the crash (2001-2003) that number fell to around 20,000-30,000. Now it's around 80,000.

On Craigslist, at the dot com height, the Software section for the Bay Area (https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/sof) had so many job postings per day that the list of postings for that day would spill over to the next page (there are 100 listings per page). A year & a half ago (late 2014) there was a good amount of postings and I got a frenzy of replies when I contacted them. Now, there's only a handful of postings per day.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#355

Post by JimboOmega »

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…

In San Francisco, anyway, having "a decent apartment to myself" and "a decent car" already seems like a huge extravagance. Median 1BR rent is $3,620, add $300/mo for parking and let's say $300/mo for a car lease, you're at $4,200ish before any sort of food, travel, etc. Even if you're making nominally $120k/year, you need a lot of frugality to make that work.

I remember moving to SF and making ~$110k, and renting a ~$2500 studio in a mediocre part of town with no car (I got a motorcycle eventually) and it was difficult to save any money, even if I wasn't bankrupting myself.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#356

Post by JimboOmega »

beachstartup wrote: post #352
superuser2 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

hn has an outspoken minority actively competing in the cheapskate olympics. everyone's circumstances are different, do what makes sense to you. there's always some penny pinching proselytizer trying to tell other people how to live. i find it better to focus on making more money.

My personal favorite are those people who are living in a rent controlled apartment that they split with a partner and pay $700 on.

They say "$2k for an apartment? That's way too much! Why don't you move to [place]?"

Honestly if you haven't rented an apartment in the last few years, you have no idea. You also have no idea how lucky you are to get that rent control subsidy.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#357

Post by superplussed »

IndianAstronaut wrote: post #347
restalis wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a challenge for me to imagine "exceptional quality code" with "albeit a bit on the spaghetti side". Can you elaborate?

It covers a lot of corner cases, it is fast, it is robust, and produces good quality data. Only thing is it is hard to navigate.

These developer descriptions sound like they are coming from the "Silicon Valley" tv show.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#358

Post by smokeyj »

bduerst wrote: post #275
smokeyj wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming from a family of immigrants that had to move around to find work, it's interesting to hear about people's sense of entitlement to a certain lifestyle. Especially the expensive beachside living lifestyle. Am I wrong for not feeling sorry for them? Disclosure. I tried living in SF. The cost of living was too high. I left. Problem solved. Ta da, no bitching required

I guess I don't get your argument. Not being displaced by an economic bubble is a now a sense of entitlement? Based on your experience you described, you weren't displaced.

If you feel entitled to not be displaced - then yes, that's a sense of entitlement.

I was amazed by the people who felt entitled to a lower cost of living - all while blaming IT workers for gentrifying their beautiful oasis. I would have thought they lived in SF their whole life to feel that level of angst. More like a couple years. Intermittently. While their parents pay for their art degree.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#359

Post by dasil003 »

lawpoop wrote: post #127
philfrasty wrote: post #24

"Engineers are particularly spoiled. They can take an arbitrary sabbatical from work..." (on the about page) "...Currently a principal engineer at AppNexus on sabbatical..." ???

Just your regular self-aware engineer. There is nothing hypocritical about acknowledging one's self is spoiled.

The combination of a cultural bloodthirst for hypocrisy, as well as the human intelligent capacity for abstraction and pattern matching guarantees that anyone can, and probably will, end up being labeled a hypocrite.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#360

Post by x0x0 »

dialtone wrote: post #350
x0x0 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 6 figure burn rate is what's required to own property in or near sf. Take a modest $900k 3 bedroom condo: it costs nearly $5k/mo in mortgage (even with a sizable downpayment), insurance, taxes, and maintenance. And you haven't eaten yet, or owned even a single car.

At 3.92% interest rate for 30-years fixed with a 20% downpayment that's about $3,400/mo and at $900k property tax is another $6k/year, insurance is less than $100/mo so you net out at less than $4k/mo in PITI. And maintenance you'd hope to check what's wrong with the house before you buy but a new roof costs about $20k so unless you replace a roof a year I doubt you'll be spending over $1000/mo for maintenance, at le…

actually, property taxes in sf are a little over 1%, so you're looking at $10.4k/year on that $900k condo (note: on the cheap for sf). $3400 + $900 tax + $100 insurance = $4.4k, again, without any condo fees, maintenance, or utilities. So you'll net much closer to $5k than $4k. Which to my claim, means you're out $60k post tax (over $100k pre) without eating, health insurance, owning a car, or parking yet.
Post reply on HN