4 ms·
I think about this quite often. Perhaps a more effective argument for this effort is social impact (rather than financial savings). The tech industry is reeki
by johnrob 11y ago
I think about this quite often. Perhaps a more effective argument for this effort is social impact (rather than financial savings). The tech industry is reeking havoc upon lower income earners by rapidly increasing the cost of living. Ironically, many of these companies are social minded and have programs to assist those in need from a day-to-day perspective (i.e. free meal, cleanup projects, etc etc). However, the elephant in the room is that they've done far more damage than is possible to rectify via charity.
Which comes back to the social argument: if tech companies proactively migrate these highly paid tech workers to other municipalities, it could significantly reduce the pressure on rent and home prices. The initiative could be sold as a massive goodwill effort to the local community. And, of course, the employees who willingly move away would get rewarded with a much lower cost of living.
- gorkemyurt 11y agoThis is an option right now, almost all big tech companies have offices in Seattle Austin or Boulder. People just want to stay in San Francisco.. Its a great city to live in both when you are a fresh collage hire and if you are trying to raise a child.
- johnrob 11y agoCompanies aren't proactively encouraging employees to migrate though. The employee has to ask for a approval, and if granted it's generally considered a favor.
- Reedx 11y agoI assume you meant not a great city if you're trying to raise a child? Between the insane rent and child care costs... it's just not worth it. ~$4k/mo for a 2 bedroom and then you're looking at $1k+/mo for one kid in daycare. I've been living in SF for the past five years and despite how much I like it, I'll probably move out with a baby on the way.
- sawthat 11y agoI have two kids and I live in SF. I'm just a regular old developer too. For day care you should probably be budgeting more like $2k, FYI. I live in the outer sunset and I own my home.
- svsanta 11y agoWhy is it the tech industry's fault? It's a good thing that the industry is prospering. Would you rather have people losing their jobs? However, it is a bad thing that the housing supply is not keeping up, leading to high rents. There needs to be way more housing supply. This is the obvious solution that is somewhat of a third rail issue due to local politics and homeowners. The fact that even Palantir employees have lobbied for more housing in Palo Alto shows it is really affecting everyone who doesn't already own a house or condo, even those well off. Also, it's not like the area isn't benefitting from prosperity through taxes. Why is it a company's responsibility to donate for cleanup projects when their taxes already pay for such things? If there should be more meal programs in a city, the city can vote for that, and fund it through taxes.
- johnrob 11y agoThe correct thing to do is build a shit ton of housing. But that will never happen politically. So I was simply offering a solution that might be attainable.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoWrong, building housing as a means to reduce housing prices is a huge misconception. If a low-rise neighborhood sees the construction of a mid-rise condo building, you've suddenly raised the opportunity cost of not having dense housing, and prices go up regardless. EDIT: Apparently I'm being downvoted without comment. Great way to further the dialogue. Well, I will: I live in a college town and when developers promised a decade ago that replacing houses with high rises would lower housing prices, well, they built the apartment blocks and prices still went up across the board, by a lot. I'm not talking out of my ass, here.
- maccam94 11y agoAs long as demand outstrips supply, prices will go up. How much depends on how big the gap is. Government action can try to limit this (subsidizing construction in nearby areas, improving public transit to areas with more room to build, slashing police budgets to increase the crime rate....) but it only works if it can shift the demand.
- mahyarm 11y agoI would say the havok is caused by NIMBYs + rapid economic expansion. For example, there are no height minimums for new construction in the bay area, but constant height maximums. Would this havok occur in a building friendly city, such as Dallas? They have encountered a recent economic boom due to oil, but you don't hear many complaints of rapid price increases.
- seiji 11y agoheight minimums would be great. It's almost disgusting walking around ~8th st soma and seeing single story car maintenance places or strip malls take up entire blocks. Tear them down and build rows and rows of 5 story to 20 story apartments. As for Dallas (err... THE METROPLEX), it isn't a peninsula with restricted growth, crappy highways, and old money refusing anything new that doesn't look like a quaint bombed out city from the old country. I still don't understand why south san francisco looks like a 3rd world country. Eminent domain the whole area and build neotokyo on top of the existing shanty town.
- nemo44x 11y agoYup. The Bay Area needs to start aggressively building up. The people already there have to give it up and realize their little California suburb isn't that anymore. Those scared that building up will lower their property values need to relax. Population density will bring more value and thus more desire to live in an area raising the property values of locals. A house that sells for 1.5 million right now could be sitting on a piece of land worth 50 million if a high rise wanted to use it.
- nugget 11y agoIt's havok upon more than just lower income earners. That is the most ironic part of it to me, the tech industry is doing this to itself, like a dog trying to chew off its own tail. When you're earning a lot and spending a lot you feel like you are doing well, even if your net savings is close to zero. I've found this attitude especially prevalent among younger folks. The real beneficiaries in a gold rush are the landlords, the government (more taxes), and vandwellers who can effectively arbitrage the high wage-high cost of living gap.
- some-guy 11y ago> The real beneficiaries in a gold rush are the landlords, the government (more taxes), and vandwellers who can effectively arbitrage the high wage-high cost of living gap. Another issue is that there is quite a bit of an income gap within the tech industry itself. Yes, a $100k salary out of college is fantastic, but the cost of living is so ridiculously high that it's almost impossible to buy decent housing here unless you already have old money (which I don't). My parents had an easier time in the 1970s buying a house with their lower salary (adjusted for inflation) than I do now in the Bay Area. Conversely, many of my hip millenial techie peers are willing to blow their entire salary living in San Francisco, going out to eat every night, driving up their credit cards. I don't have enough fingers on my hands to count the number of folks I know who make six figures and spend 70%+ of their income on rent alone just to be around their friends.
- encoderer 11y agoYou need to work a company that will pay you in liquid equity. I suppose cash bonuses would also work. You only need 5-10% down payment.
- johnrob 11y agoCouldn't agree more. This is the consumer version of a business that focuses on revenue while ignoring profit margin.