3 ms·

You rather blithely move between talking about "San Francisco" and "the bay area," but they're different, and the ultra-high rents are much more a San Francisco

You rather blithely move between talking about "San Francisco" and "the bay area," but they're different, and the ultra-high rents are much more a San Francisco thing than a bay area thing.

icelancer 11y ago
Presumably he knows that. Even still, traffic and commute from "the bay area" to San Francisco where most of the startups are located are not reasonable there compared to other parts of the US, even tech-heavy ones.
- jessedhillon 11y ago
  > other parts of the US, even tech-heavy ones This is not comparable. SF is unique among other "tech-heavy" environments around the US in that we reward employees with significant pre-liquidity equity here, and the chances are significantly above zero that those shares are worth something in many cases. When you factor that in, compensation comes out to ~$300-500k/yr. In other areas of the US, even where you have a density of tech startups, the culture is entirely different -- compensation is attractive to a more conservative profile. Likewise, the companies that inhabit those economies are not targeting the same kind of aggressive growth that companies in SF+SV. So to say that there is a choice between working in SF and, say, the research triangle, disregards crucial differences.
timr 11y ago
I'm not being blithe. Last I checked (maybe a year ago), the rents in the valley weren't substantially better than the city. You might get more space for the same amount of money if you're willing to live in Burlingame, but the monthly nut is similar. You also have to factor in the cost (and time!) of the commute, which sucks. You can do a little better in the east bay, but rents for anything convenient to BART are going up faster than rents in SF. Basically, the bay area is an efficient market for housing, modulo the cost of commuting to the major job centers.
- x0x0 11y ago
  Don't forget the required car(s). Start pricing those in at $500/mo ea (payment, insurance, gas, maintenance, traffic tickets/driving tax, parking) and it's not clear you save much money.
  - philsnow 11y ago
    A lot of people can easily get by with a bike, especially if they're taking Bart / Caltrain to the city.
- aetherson 11y ago
  Median 1BR rent in Oakland is $2000 per month (according to: http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2015/05/12/what-you-can-get-for-oaklands-median-1-bedroom-rent-of-2000-per-month/ http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2015/05/12/what-you-can-ge...). So, look, that's not cheap, but it's $1,500/month less than the median rent in SF that you quoted. The equivalent of an after-tax raise of $18,000 per year. Yes, it's not in the city. Noted. But, you know, life is full of trade-offs.
  - timr 11y ago
    Yes, I said you could do a little better. But rents over there are going up faster than the city, and the places that are convenient to BART are the most expensive. Add in the cost of a car (which you need if you're living over there) and a daily BART commute, and you've easily added on $500-$1000 a month in transportation expenses. Again, housing around here is an efficient market, modulo the cost of commuting.
    - aetherson 11y ago
      $1500 a month isn't "a little better." And Oakland is far from being a cripplingly long way out in the 'burbs. Plenty of people -- most people? -- in SF have a car too, and no, you don't actually need $500/month for a car. And hey, it's eminently possible to live in Oakland without a car if you really feel that's a priority. I agree with you: the market is efficient. It's efficient and filled with people who put a big premium on being near the hip areas of SF. If you have less money than those people, you can get more monetarily efficient by being willing to be farther from the hip areas of SF. If you have identical preferences to a bunch of other people making $100,000-$150,000 in an area averse to adding housing density, then... well, you're going to be bidding a lot for a limited supply of housing.

You rather blithely move between talking about "San Francisco" and "the bay area," but they're different, and the ultra-high rents are much more a San Francisco thing than a bay area thing.

icelancer 11y ago

Presumably he knows that. Even still, traffic and commute from "the bay area" to San Francisco where most of the startups are located are not reasonable there compared to other parts of the US, even tech-heavy ones.

jessedhillon 11y ago
> other parts of the US, even tech-heavy ones This is not comparable. SF is unique among other "tech-heavy" environments around the US in that we reward employees with significant pre-liquidity equity here, and the chances are significantly above zero that those shares are worth something in many cases. When you factor that in, compensation comes out to ~$300-500k/yr. In other areas of the US, even where you have a density of tech startups, the culture is entirely different -- compensation is attractive to a more conservative profile. Likewise, the companies that inhabit those economies are not targeting the same kind of aggressive growth that companies in SF+SV. So to say that there is a choice between working in SF and, say, the research triangle, disregards crucial differences.

timr 11y ago

I'm not being blithe. Last I checked (maybe a year ago), the rents in the valley weren't substantially better than the city. You might get more space for the same amount of money if you're willing to live in Burlingame, but the monthly nut is similar. You also have to factor in the cost (and time!) of the commute, which sucks. You can do a little better in the east bay, but rents for anything convenient to BART are going up faster than rents in SF. Basically, the bay area is an efficient market for housing, modulo the cost of commuting to the major job centers.

x0x0 11y ago
Don't forget the required car(s). Start pricing those in at $500/mo ea (payment, insurance, gas, maintenance, traffic tickets/driving tax, parking) and it's not clear you save much money.
- philsnow 11y ago
  A lot of people can easily get by with a bike, especially if they're taking Bart / Caltrain to the city.
aetherson 11y ago
Median 1BR rent in Oakland is $2000 per month (according to: http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2015/05/12/what-you-can-get-for-oaklands-median-1-bedroom-rent-of-2000-per-month/ http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2015/05/12/what-you-can-ge...). So, look, that's not cheap, but it's $1,500/month less than the median rent in SF that you quoted. The equivalent of an after-tax raise of $18,000 per year. Yes, it's not in the city. Noted. But, you know, life is full of trade-offs.
- timr 11y ago
  Yes, I said you could do a little better. But rents over there are going up faster than the city, and the places that are convenient to BART are the most expensive. Add in the cost of a car (which you need if you're living over there) and a daily BART commute, and you've easily added on $500-$1000 a month in transportation expenses. Again, housing around here is an efficient market, modulo the cost of commuting.
  - aetherson 11y ago
    $1500 a month isn't "a little better." And Oakland is far from being a cripplingly long way out in the 'burbs. Plenty of people -- most people? -- in SF have a car too, and no, you don't actually need $500/month for a car. And hey, it's eminently possible to live in Oakland without a car if you really feel that's a priority. I agree with you: the market is efficient. It's efficient and filled with people who put a big premium on being near the hip areas of SF. If you have less money than those people, you can get more monetarily efficient by being willing to be farther from the hip areas of SF. If you have identical preferences to a bunch of other people making $100,000-$150,000 in an area averse to adding housing density, then... well, you're going to be bidding a lot for a limited supply of housing.