5 ms·

How much value would be realized if this massive and complex problem is fully addressed in the Bay Area (and the solver properly compensated)? $100B? The scale

How much value would be realized if this massive and complex problem is fully addressed in the Bay Area (and the solver properly compensated)? $100B? The scale of it all is huge, but so is mining asteroids.

ThrustVectoring 11y ago
The Bay Area currently has 8 million and change people in it. A reasonable estimate of "fixing the housing problem" would add another million. Assume $1000/yr per additional resident in extractable economic value, and a net present value of twenty times the yearly income, and you wind up with a problem that's worth roughly $20 billion.
- ghaff 11y ago
  >A reasonable estimate of "fixing the housing problem" would add another million. Another reasonable approach to "fixing the housing problem" is realizing that not everyone can live in a handful of popular areas. Even if incremental building happens. Even if tax policy changes. Not everyone in web/social/mobile development can move to the Bay area. Indeed, many probably don't want to.
  - eru 11y ago
    You could put a city like Hong Kong or Singapore in some part of the bay area, and put quite a few willing people in there.
    - jamespitts 11y ago
      Definitely agree. Once any area starts to take on the characteristics of a modern megacity, it becomes self-sustaining. I would even go as far as to say that megacities attain the closest thing to a singularity that human beings currently experience.
      - eru 11y ago
        I used to live in Singapore. Didn't feel very singular.
  - ThrustVectoring 11y ago
    Indeed, that's the information that housing prices convey - how badly you want to move into a particular area. The problem is that the current residents of the Bay Area are using this demand to extract economic rents. They're even encouraging it: see how much easier it is to bring 10k office jobs to the area than it is to build 10k bedrooms. I'm fine with limiting the size of the Bay Area, but not as a deliberate maneuver to move wealth from the tech ecosystem to the fortunate landowners in the area.
- jseliger 11y ago
  The Bay Area currently has 8 million The San Francisco / Bay Area MSA has only 4.5 million: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistic.... But the rest of your post is well taken! Given the low energy cost of heating / cooling in the Bay Area, and the high concentration of smart people and economic activity, more reasonable housing policies would dramatically improve a lot of lives.
  - ThrustVectoring 11y ago
    There's multiple confusing metropolitan areas, depending on what you want to count. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area which lists it at 7.44 million. The 4.5 million is for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, which notably excludes San Jose and things more associated with that part of the area.
- jamespitts 11y ago
  Why not another 8 million? The Bay Area could be Tokyo or London. NYC could finally become #2. More than just people, entire industries might find this a better place to operate if housing were not such a burden on workers. No doubt this is an amazing place to do business, but in the long run "only the paranoid survive". In some parts of the Bay Area economy, jobs and factories have shipped overseas. Why is that? Could costs be involved? There are also the huge secondary effects of dramatically reducing a key cost or other burden that reduce the creative potential of the economy. Where would we be without Moore's Law? Where would we be if we could do that in other parts of our economy? In Taipei for example there is a huge supply of "small spaces" for small businesses, and this space is very cheap to rent. The price of food and other services are extremely low partly due to this, an important component of the amazing food scene that is happening there. Much innovation and value are unleashed by improvements in the underlying costs and conditions.

ThrustVectoring 11y ago

The Bay Area currently has 8 million and change people in it. A reasonable estimate of "fixing the housing problem" would add another million. Assume $1000/yr per additional resident in extractable economic value, and a net present value of twenty times the yearly income, and you wind up with a problem that's worth roughly $20 billion.

ghaff 11y ago
>A reasonable estimate of "fixing the housing problem" would add another million. Another reasonable approach to "fixing the housing problem" is realizing that not everyone can live in a handful of popular areas. Even if incremental building happens. Even if tax policy changes. Not everyone in web/social/mobile development can move to the Bay area. Indeed, many probably don't want to.
- eru 11y ago
  You could put a city like Hong Kong or Singapore in some part of the bay area, and put quite a few willing people in there.
  - jamespitts 11y ago
    Definitely agree. Once any area starts to take on the characteristics of a modern megacity, it becomes self-sustaining. I would even go as far as to say that megacities attain the closest thing to a singularity that human beings currently experience.
    - eru 11y ago
      I used to live in Singapore. Didn't feel very singular.
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  Indeed, that's the information that housing prices convey - how badly you want to move into a particular area. The problem is that the current residents of the Bay Area are using this demand to extract economic rents. They're even encouraging it: see how much easier it is to bring 10k office jobs to the area than it is to build 10k bedrooms. I'm fine with limiting the size of the Bay Area, but not as a deliberate maneuver to move wealth from the tech ecosystem to the fortunate landowners in the area.
jseliger 11y ago
The Bay Area currently has 8 million The San Francisco / Bay Area MSA has only 4.5 million: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistic.... But the rest of your post is well taken! Given the low energy cost of heating / cooling in the Bay Area, and the high concentration of smart people and economic activity, more reasonable housing policies would dramatically improve a lot of lives.
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  There's multiple confusing metropolitan areas, depending on what you want to count. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area which lists it at 7.44 million. The 4.5 million is for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, which notably excludes San Jose and things more associated with that part of the area.
jamespitts 11y ago
Why not another 8 million? The Bay Area could be Tokyo or London. NYC could finally become #2. More than just people, entire industries might find this a better place to operate if housing were not such a burden on workers. No doubt this is an amazing place to do business, but in the long run "only the paranoid survive". In some parts of the Bay Area economy, jobs and factories have shipped overseas. Why is that? Could costs be involved? There are also the huge secondary effects of dramatically reducing a key cost or other burden that reduce the creative potential of the economy. Where would we be without Moore's Law? Where would we be if we could do that in other parts of our economy? In Taipei for example there is a huge supply of "small spaces" for small businesses, and this space is very cheap to rent. The price of food and other services are extremely low partly due to this, an important component of the amazing food scene that is happening there. Much innovation and value are unleashed by improvements in the underlying costs and conditions.