5 ms·
>The Bay Area's long-term employment prospects simply cannot support current home values or rental rates. Why not? What are you basing this on?
by ec109685 11y ago
>The Bay Area's long-term employment prospects simply cannot support current home values or rental rates.
Why not? What are you basing this on?
- angelbob 11y agoHe's reasonably and appropriately worried about both the shaky unicorns and the seed funding bubble, neither of which seems terribly sustainable. There are other games in town, but those two games were seriously inflating salaries here.
- astazangasta 11y agoCommon sense? Median rents are $5500 a month. No one can afford that. A city can't exist if people can't live there.
- steven2012 11y agoYou say no one can afford it, but all the apartments are rented out.
- astazangasta 11y agoSure, but that class of people can't do all the things required to run the city (food service, child care, etc). Those people have been priced out and are moving elsewhere. The city suffers; it becomes difficult to sustain the current pattern.
- steven2012 11y agoExcept none of the doomsday predictions have come true. There are still of services like food service, child care, etc.
- brianwawok 11y agoI mean other cities are like this too. Chicago is a very cheap big city. But how many server workers live in Gold Coast or River North? The difference is I guess cheap housing is closer compared to SF?
- refurb 11y agoDon't forget that the median rent is determined by the very small slice of rentals that are changing hands. I'd love to know what the median rent across all rentals is in SF! ~70% are rent controlled. I'd guess the median rent is maybe half? Around $2000? Just a guess.