3 ms·

A year or two ago, ~8% of SF's population worked "in tech". It seems like median tech salaries are in the very low six-figure range. 120k/year gross will (assu

A year or two ago, ~8% of SF's population worked "in tech". It seems like median tech salaries are in the very low six-figure range. 120k/year gross will (assuming no car or loan expenses) pay for -at most- $3500/month rent with typical utilities, Internet, and food expenditures. Even then, that leaves you with $2,500/year to save for emergencies or retirement. Where's the money coming from? It's likely not coming from the majority of tech workers. What happens when it runs out? I... really don't know. Whatever happens, it will take quite some time for landlords to adjust their rates to match the new reality. In the interim, I would expect even more "grassroots" hate generated for tech workers.

Finnucane 11y ago
It doesn't have to come from the majority--the fact that there's a lot of it is what causes the distortions. I live in Cambridge, and there's a lot of money going through the biotech sector--that money is surely as unevenly distributed as the tech money in SF, but it's a lot of money going through a small space. Sure, you can build more housing where you can squeeze it in, but as long as the money hose is going full blast, there's no way to keep up with it. The other problem that kind of gets lost here is that we have a few places where there is a lot of money, there are jobs, housing shortages, etc., and a lot of places in the country where the opposite is true. And that's not really good. I don't think it's really sustainable to think that a few coastal cities are going to be able to accommodate everyone who would like to live and/or work in them. We could actually relieve some of the pressure on these cities by making _other cities_ more desirable destinations.
- ghaff 11y ago
  Bingo. This sort of dynamic has played out forever, but whatever the flaws in housing policy in today's shiny locales, not everyone can live there however perfect housing and construction policies were (and, of course, not everyone will agree on what constitutes perfection). The good news is that this is somewhat self-correcting. To the degree that a locale becomes unsupportably expensive, people and jobs start shifting to other areas. Adding a million housing units to San Francisco and the South Bay isn't going to happen anytime soon whoever is setting policy.

Finnucane 11y ago

It doesn't have to come from the majority--the fact that there's a lot of it is what causes the distortions. I live in Cambridge, and there's a lot of money going through the biotech sector--that money is surely as unevenly distributed as the tech money in SF, but it's a lot of money going through a small space. Sure, you can build more housing where you can squeeze it in, but as long as the money hose is going full blast, there's no way to keep up with it. The other problem that kind of gets lost here is that we have a few places where there is a lot of money, there are jobs, housing shortages, etc., and a lot of places in the country where the opposite is true. And that's not really good. I don't think it's really sustainable to think that a few coastal cities are going to be able to accommodate everyone who would like to live and/or work in them. We could actually relieve some of the pressure on these cities by making _other cities_ more desirable destinations.

ghaff 11y ago
Bingo. This sort of dynamic has played out forever, but whatever the flaws in housing policy in today's shiny locales, not everyone can live there however perfect housing and construction policies were (and, of course, not everyone will agree on what constitutes perfection). The good news is that this is somewhat self-correcting. To the degree that a locale becomes unsupportably expensive, people and jobs start shifting to other areas. Adding a million housing units to San Francisco and the South Bay isn't going to happen anytime soon whoever is setting policy.