3 ms·

The cost of living follows salaries of the tech sector, not the other way around. Even the tech hub was not on a peninsula, you'd still have an expensive cente

The cost of living follows salaries of the tech sector, not the other way around. Even the tech hub was not on a peninsula, you'd still have an expensive center and poor people would have to suffer a long commute like East Bay people do in the Bay Area. Just look at London or Paris: it's not cheap despite not having the same geographical problem. It's not as expensive as the Bay Area because there are many people with various jobs, not just highly paid tech workers.

whack 10y ago
It's a combination of demand and city-policies. San Francisco has a lower population density than queens, but the same housing price levels as Manhattan. If the city got its act together and built up a housing density that's on par with Manhattan, cost of living would fall dramatically. Good governance matters. It makes a huge difference in cost-of-living. The way SF is run, it's almost as though people want the cost-of-living to be as high as possible.
- softawre 10y ago
  > The way SF is run, it's almost as though people want the cost-of-living to be as high as possible. Surely you're joking? Of course that's what they want. SF people, home owners, are voting on SF policy. Do you want to lose half the value of your house?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > SF people, home owners, are voting on SF policy. Do you want to lose half the value of your house? Its more complex than that, as SF people voting on policy also include renters, and even if rent control insulates them from directly paying for price increases, market price declines save them money (and both increases and declines affect local costs of other goods, so they affect CoL even if they don't directly affect existing renters rent payments.) But, renters are largely people who have decided the trade-off of quality for cost at the current price does make sense, so they are less likely than outsiders who might want to move to SF if it was more affordable to make trade-offs that impact the qualities that they prefer in SF for lower prices, even if it would reduce their cost of living.
galdosdi 10y ago
The long commute for those who can't afford the center is not actually a law of nature. Better infrastructure gives better results. For example, you can get to midtown manhattan in half an hour on NJTransit from East Orange, NJ, a very cheap place to live. The NYC metro area is chock full of affordable neighborhoods where the tradeoff is merely having a commute, not a LOOONG commute. Ideally, you have your infrastructure scale as the city grows, to maintain constant commute times for workers even as they move further out.

whack 10y ago

It's a combination of demand and city-policies. San Francisco has a lower population density than queens, but the same housing price levels as Manhattan. If the city got its act together and built up a housing density that's on par with Manhattan, cost of living would fall dramatically. Good governance matters. It makes a huge difference in cost-of-living. The way SF is run, it's almost as though people want the cost-of-living to be as high as possible.

softawre 10y ago
> The way SF is run, it's almost as though people want the cost-of-living to be as high as possible. Surely you're joking? Of course that's what they want. SF people, home owners, are voting on SF policy. Do you want to lose half the value of your house?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > SF people, home owners, are voting on SF policy. Do you want to lose half the value of your house? Its more complex than that, as SF people voting on policy also include renters, and even if rent control insulates them from directly paying for price increases, market price declines save them money (and both increases and declines affect local costs of other goods, so they affect CoL even if they don't directly affect existing renters rent payments.) But, renters are largely people who have decided the trade-off of quality for cost at the current price does make sense, so they are less likely than outsiders who might want to move to SF if it was more affordable to make trade-offs that impact the qualities that they prefer in SF for lower prices, even if it would reduce their cost of living.

galdosdi 10y ago

The long commute for those who can't afford the center is not actually a law of nature. Better infrastructure gives better results. For example, you can get to midtown manhattan in half an hour on NJTransit from East Orange, NJ, a very cheap place to live. The NYC metro area is chock full of affordable neighborhoods where the tradeoff is merely having a commute, not a LOOONG commute. Ideally, you have your infrastructure scale as the city grows, to maintain constant commute times for workers even as they move further out.