5 ms·

> SF can't expand easily since it's water 3/4 all around. Demand still high and supply very low. That might easily change. If average salaries go down, people

by lubos 11y ago

> SF can't expand easily since it's water 3/4 all around. Demand still high and supply very low. That might easily change. If average salaries go down, people won't be able to afford pay rent they once used to. There will be less people living on their own and more people sharing with others. This will create oversupply of rental properties which means rent prices will go down. If rent prices go down, property prices will go down too as property investors won't be able to justify holding a relatively expensive property yielding low rental returns. So they might as well put the property on the market creating more supply of properties for sale. Thus bursting the bubble.

yeukhon 11y ago
SF is heavily relying on the high-tech, high salary population to sustain its high market value. So SF is always at risk of having market breakdown. But because giants like Google and Facebook have offices in SF, or near SF, as long as that population remain, SF market will survive, no matter what. If SF only relies on startup, SF will doom. Startup population, however, is dragging the price higher, so high that even the workers from the giant tech feel wallet drain, and that's really bad, because Google wouldn't pay everyone $200,000 annually, and even if Google does, only a handful of companies can, thus the market will bloat with a huge economic gap.
- marincounty 11y ago
  I'll get hammered for this, but I just wonder if we will be talking about Google, and Facebook ten years from right now? I know both have diversified, and Google has become best friends with the Obama administration. I just wonder if they will be relevant? These tech companies main reason for living is advertising, and their algorithms. I look back, and Apple had a physical product. Other than Apple, exactly what companies will be here in a decade? Actually, I don't think I would buy another new Apple product for myself. I still buy them as presents. It's a nice gift. For myself, I will still buy used while their is a surplus of parts. I went into my Corte Madera Apple Store on 2-1-16. There's no cash registers. A few printers are attached under the counters for receipts. It's ambience was that of a operating room. I walked out, with a $39.00 iPad mini case. I said to myself, "Is this my last visit?" The case was not the quality I expected from Apple either. Please don't beat me up. I won't even be back. Just thinking out loud. My prediction of future events have a poor track record.
  - pacala 11y ago
    Advertisement is relevant. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=KO http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=KO produces nothing of intrinsic value, yet it is valued at $185B. Why? Because they've built and maintained a very valuable brand, via advertisement. The day CocaCola is headed for bankruptcy is the day I start worrying about Google and Facebook.
    - cplease 11y ago
      Market cap is not the same thing as book value, and the book value of the Coca Cola brand is less than $80 billion. Google is up with Apple and Coca Cola as most valuable brands, but Facebook is not even top 10.
  - DougN7 11y ago
    I think you might be right. I remember about 10 years ago having a discussion with a coworker. He was bemoaning the fact that Microsoft was so far entrenched that nobody would ever be able to challenge them. Back then Microsoft looked like Google does today. Nobody stays on top forever.
    - monkeywork 11y ago
      but Microsoft is still in top in terms of market share on desktop, and they have started to put a dent into the prosumer tablet market, and they compete well in the gaming market. I'd say they are still "on top"
      - angelbob 11y ago
        Microsoft is long past "nobody would ever be able to challenge them." Maybe on desktop, provided you exclude the server market. You didn't used to have to exclude the server market. They owned that too. Then Linux challenged them and won. In fact, they used to own all PCs. Then Apple challenged them for laptops and won. Microsoft isn't doing badly, but it's not an unchallengeable juggernaut any more. And Google won't be forever either.
    - 11y ago

by lubos 11y ago

yeukhon 11y ago

SF is heavily relying on the high-tech, high salary population to sustain its high market value. So SF is always at risk of having market breakdown. But because giants like Google and Facebook have offices in SF, or near SF, as long as that population remain, SF market will survive, no matter what. If SF only relies on startup, SF will doom. Startup population, however, is dragging the price higher, so high that even the workers from the giant tech feel wallet drain, and that's really bad, because Google wouldn't pay everyone $200,000 annually, and even if Google does, only a handful of companies can, thus the market will bloat with a huge economic gap.

marincounty 11y ago
I'll get hammered for this, but I just wonder if we will be talking about Google, and Facebook ten years from right now? I know both have diversified, and Google has become best friends with the Obama administration. I just wonder if they will be relevant? These tech companies main reason for living is advertising, and their algorithms. I look back, and Apple had a physical product. Other than Apple, exactly what companies will be here in a decade? Actually, I don't think I would buy another new Apple product for myself. I still buy them as presents. It's a nice gift. For myself, I will still buy used while their is a surplus of parts. I went into my Corte Madera Apple Store on 2-1-16. There's no cash registers. A few printers are attached under the counters for receipts. It's ambience was that of a operating room. I walked out, with a $39.00 iPad mini case. I said to myself, "Is this my last visit?" The case was not the quality I expected from Apple either. Please don't beat me up. I won't even be back. Just thinking out loud. My prediction of future events have a poor track record.
- pacala 11y ago
  Advertisement is relevant. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=KO http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=KO produces nothing of intrinsic value, yet it is valued at $185B. Why? Because they've built and maintained a very valuable brand, via advertisement. The day CocaCola is headed for bankruptcy is the day I start worrying about Google and Facebook.
  - cplease 11y ago
    Market cap is not the same thing as book value, and the book value of the Coca Cola brand is less than $80 billion. Google is up with Apple and Coca Cola as most valuable brands, but Facebook is not even top 10.
- DougN7 11y ago
  I think you might be right. I remember about 10 years ago having a discussion with a coworker. He was bemoaning the fact that Microsoft was so far entrenched that nobody would ever be able to challenge them. Back then Microsoft looked like Google does today. Nobody stays on top forever.
  - monkeywork 11y ago
    but Microsoft is still in top in terms of market share on desktop, and they have started to put a dent into the prosumer tablet market, and they compete well in the gaming market. I'd say they are still "on top"
    - angelbob 11y ago
      Microsoft is long past "nobody would ever be able to challenge them." Maybe on desktop, provided you exclude the server market. You didn't used to have to exclude the server market. They owned that too. Then Linux challenged them and won. In fact, they used to own all PCs. Then Apple challenged them for laptops and won. Microsoft isn't doing badly, but it's not an unchallengeable juggernaut any more. And Google won't be forever either.
  - 11y ago