5 ms·
As a NY-based entrepreneur, from my perspective the only people who lose here are those who have convinced themselves that there is no place other to be than Sa
by leroy_masochist 10y ago
As a NY-based entrepreneur, from my perspective the only people who lose here are those who have convinced themselves that there is no place other to be than San Francisco, and who accordingly suffer to a greater and greater degree as their commitment to staying in the city becomes less and less economically justifiable.
Otherwise...we're all grownups here. If the people of San Francisco decide that the best possible set of tradeoffs involves reducing tech's footprint, and their elected representatives implement policies to that effect, then that's democracy. Certainly the city's rich and diverse history provides some weight to the anti-tech crowd's strongly held belief that the City needs to pump the brakes.
- twblalock 10y ago> As a NY-based entrepreneur, from my perspective the only people who lose here are those who have convinced themselves that there is no place other to be than San Francisco, and who accordingly suffer to a greater and greater degree as their commitment to staying in the city becomes less and less economically justifiable. I think it's pretty similar to New Yorkers who insist on living in Manhattan, rather than the other boroughs which are more affordable, or, God forbid, New Jersey. You don't have to move very far from San Francisco to get a significant decrease in rent. Just a few miles is enough. I know plenty of people who insist on living in SF. They do the same things after work that most people do: go home, eat, watch TV or read a book. They go out a few nights per week. They could easily move 10 miles south, cut their rent by more than 1/3, and still spend just as much time enjoying the San Francisco restaurants and nightlife as they do now.