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

Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million residents today

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 128 posts

Re: Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million residents today

#81

Post by benmccann »

dfc wrote: post #64
benmccann wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Wikipedia article on price ceilings: "A price ceiling set below the free-market price has several effects. Suppliers find they can't charge what they had been. As a result, some suppliers drop out of the market. This reduces supply. Meanwhile, consumers find they can now buy the product for less, so quantity demanded increases. These two actions cause quantity demanded to exceed quantity supplied, which caus…

I still take issue with the argument and I had trouble finding the citation for this statement or the graphs. Under the price ceiling there is excess demand relative to the supply. This is a no brainer. But excess demand is not the same thing as an increase in demand. If there is an increase in demand why is the demand curve not shifted to the right? The curve stays in the same place.

The quantity demanded is a point on the demand curve. Yes, the demand curve remains in the same place. However, the point at which it intersects the price ceiling is at a lower price and higher quantity than the natural equilibrium. If you're forced to sell something at a lower price, then there will be more people willing to buy it.

Re: Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million residents today

#82

Post by dfc »

benmccann wrote: post #81
dfc wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still take issue with the argument and I had trouble finding the citation for this statement or the graphs. Under the price ceiling there is excess demand relative to the supply. This is a no brainer. But excess demand is not the same thing as an increase in demand. If there is an increase in demand why is the demand curve not shifted to the right? The curve stays in the same place.

The quantity demanded is a point on the demand curve. Yes, the demand curve remains in the same place. However, the point at which it intersects the price ceiling is at a lower price and higher quantity than the natural equilibrium. If you're forced to sell something at a lower price, then there will be more people willing to buy it.

"demand curve remains in the same place" = no change in demand

Re: Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million residents today

#84

Post by rdl »

The big hack for living in the Bay Area seems to be having roommates. I'm currently trying to find a really nice, big house in San Mateo County (the only Bay Area county which is pro firearms ownership, thanks to an excellent sheriff, Greg Munks).

There's really spotty availability of nice houses in a "reasonable" price range (2-3br/2ba for $3000 or less) anywhere reasonable, but a lot of huge, absurdly nice houses (8-12br, 8+ ba, multiple pools, etc. for about $10k/mo). The rent vs. buy calculation is totally rent for properties like that too.

Clearly the arbitrage play, assuming you don't mind sharing a $300k gourmet kitchen, housekeeper, chef, etc., is to rent a house like that and share it. $1-2.5k/mo, and you get to live as well as you would in Texas, while being in SFBA.

Re: Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million residents today

#85

Post by kiwidrew »

briandon wrote: post #66
gobbluth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed with you and MJN. The US is in desperate need of investment in public transportation. Europeans have absolutely mastered the art of urban design and public transportation, and I wish we'd learn from their example. But try telling 99% of the US that 1) their shitty sprawled real estate is effectively worthless, 2) their obese asses will have to give up their cars, and 3) we've spent 70 years of infrastructure i…

I don't disagree with you per se, but I have spent nearly a decade living in a city which has amazingly great public transport, very dense living arrangements (30-story highrises are the norm), and people walk constantly. Are you ready to go grocery shopping pretty much every single day or every other day? Or can you manage to be at home during a 6-hour window for the grocery delivery if you want to shop once a week…

Except that's not the only style of living that HK offers.

Some people do opt for the arrangement you've just described, living in e.g. the "Lake Silver" high rises way out at the very end of the Ma On Shan metro line. Most of them don't seem to mind it, even though it means long rides on the bus or MTR to go anywhere.

But it's just as easy to live a few stops from work, in an older neighbourhood like Sa Ying Poon or Prince Edward with smaller buildings, where you have three different supermarkets within a five-minute walk and are surrounded by shops selling everythinng imaginable.

I mean, how many cities have two overlapping and completely independent public transport networks? HK has the "official" bus and metro system, but the red minibuses are essentially a rogue invisible-hand-of-the-market creation that just sprung up organically. And unlike most American cities, where the public transport struggles to even survive, both of these HK networks are thriving...

Re: Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million residents today

#86

Post by bhickey »

briandon wrote: post #66
gobbluth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed with you and MJN. The US is in desperate need of investment in public transportation. Europeans have absolutely mastered the art of urban design and public transportation, and I wish we'd learn from their example. But try telling 99% of the US that 1) their shitty sprawled real estate is effectively worthless, 2) their obese asses will have to give up their cars, and 3) we've spent 70 years of infrastructure i…

I don't disagree with you per se, but I have spent nearly a decade living in a city which has amazingly great public transport, very dense living arrangements (30-story highrises are the norm), and people walk constantly. Are you ready to go grocery shopping pretty much every single day or every other day? Or can you manage to be at home during a 6-hour window for the grocery delivery if you want to shop once a week…

> Or can you manage to be at home during a 6-hour window for the grocery delivery if you want to shop once a week for that stuff?

Having left London, I really do miss Ocado. Unlike the silly timing restrictions you suggest, they delivered at any hour between about 0700 and 2300 with one hour windows.

> ...ride the public transport (which usually moves slower than a car even if it weren't making a bunch of other stops between your home and ultimate destination's drop-off point)

This is just the tragedy of the commons at work. Outside of the City there are bus lanes (shared with cabs). It isn't the job of society to subsidize drivers in congested areas. There's simply no political will to squeeze private autos.

> If you already live in a highrise

You're tilting at a straw man. Single family houses and high rises aren't the only options. Greater London, for example, is full of four story row houses.

Re: Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million residents today

#87

Post by bfrs »

DanBlake wrote: post #27

As a new landlord in San Francisco, I can tell you that the biggest issue forcing this is rent control. The way rent control works is certainly designed to help those in need but instead it creates a artificial demand for affordable housing. Without rent control, the market is free to compete and suddenly open up a ton of bottled up apartments. The issue is, a family on welfare with a income of 40k a year should not…

As a former Civil Engineer [4] and advocate of commodity-housing [1], I can tell you that rent control [3] is the minor issue here. I'm glad that HN is finally paying some attention to the elephant in the room...zoning laws. I bet that for most HNers who pay rent, it is about 50-60% of monthly expenses. This is freaking ridiculous! Look at it from a Civil Engineer's perspective: modern houses are built from very durable materials, and once constructed the maintenance expenses are minimal.

Is it that hard to connect the dots? People in power are all landlords, and they get a big chunk of their idle income via rents [2]. All they need to do is make sure that no new housing is constructed where they own rental property...basically protection racketeering. Next time you visit the Golden Gate park just spare a few minutes to read the plaque next to Joseph Strauss' statue. It says, "the biggest opposition to building the bridge came from the landlords of San Francisco, who feared that once the bridge was built, it would lead to a nose dive in rents".

[1] Housing so abundant that rents are on the order of maintenance costs, about $50-100/month!

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3959941

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finan...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3959500

[3] http://www.baycitizen.org/columns/elizabeth-lesly-stevens/sm...

This article describes in depth the problem you are facing, and since you are a new landlord it does seem like the biggest issue ;)

[4] One of the reasons for leaving Civil Engineering was the realization that the problem of high-cost-of-housing was not an engineering problem, but completely a political and social one. Constructing abundant, high quality and cheap housing was declared a solved problem in Civil Engineering by the 60s!

Re: Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million residents today

#88

Post by benmccann »

dfc wrote: post #82
benmccann wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quantity demanded is a point on the demand curve. Yes, the demand curve remains in the same place. However, the point at which it intersects the price ceiling is at a lower price and higher quantity than the natural equilibrium. If you're forced to sell something at a lower price, then there will be more people willing to buy it.

"demand curve remains in the same place" = no change in demand

False.

I'm talking about the actual quantity being demanded. You're talking about a demand function. They are two different things. I'm talking about a number like 1,500. You're talking about something like a coefficient changing in Q = a - bP.

A demand curve shift does result in a change in quantity demanded. However, there are other things that can result in changes in quantity demanded as well (such as a price ceiling or technological progress resulting in lower prices).

You already agreed that a price ceiling leads to excess demand. That means demand > supply. Yet, the supply curve did not shift either. Again, this is because demand is a point on the demand curve. You're confusing a graph of demand at each price with demand itself.

Re: Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million residents today

#89

Post by tom_m »

Haha that's nit why. The reason why is living cost. I live in Palo Alto (rent of course) and its STILL increasing in cost. Startups can only pay so much. Since this area carries prestige from Stanford and the tech industry its expensive. Always has been. But real estate sees all this glamour and wild success stories as an excuse to charge lots of money. It's an inflated area...in the cost of homes, rent, and food. The crap I overpay for at most restaurants downtown is insane. Coming from NYC, I had far more options and better food for cheaper. Why? Size. Competition, sure...But also no bubble. Ladies and gentlemen we are in the middle of another tech bubble here. Prices are outrageous and companies are over valued. So it'd the cost. That's why. People do their best to find places to live and they over extend themselves. I know doctors (both husband and wife) who are struggling. A nice profession...Still not enough. If you actually look at the stats (there's a map/site for this) most people move out after moving here. So "growth" and how many people actually do try to move and live here are two different things. It's not the running out of space...it's the cost.

Re: Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million residents today

#90

Post by gobbluth »

spullara wrote: post #68
gobbluth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed with you and MJN. The US is in desperate need of investment in public transportation. Europeans have absolutely mastered the art of urban design and public transportation, and I wish we'd learn from their example. But try telling 99% of the US that 1) their shitty sprawled real estate is effectively worthless, 2) their obese asses will have to give up their cars, and 3) we've spent 70 years of infrastructure i…

You really can't compare Europe to the US. They are tiny. For example, one of the largest countries in Europe is France: slightly less than the size of Texas. It's metropolitan population is 65m. Texas is only 28m. Other countries there are even more lopsided. Just as with cellphone networks, smaller area is easier.

That's not actually true. The US is 3,794,101 sq mi. Europe is 3,930,520 sq miles

However, Europe is almost entirely concentrated in walkable, urban areas -- even beyond the major cities, small towns are accessible by train, navigable by foot, and have excellent support in the form of public transportation. If people do have "cars," they tend to be tiny or Vespas.

There's no reason we can't have the same system here, except that we absolutely suck at infrastructure investment. It's really not that hard to build an urban environment, and it's overwhelmingly popular with people who can afford it. The exurbs of Las Vegas and Miami are completely worthless, and will be even more so in a future with higher fuel costs, water scarcity, and resettlement in urban environments.

Post reply on HN