7 ms·

The bay area is currently depopulating. People are demonstrating, with their lives and futures, during one of the biggest boom periods in history, that the aggl

The bay area is currently depopulating. People are demonstrating, with their lives and futures, during one of the biggest boom periods in history, that the agglomeration effects are not sufficient to deal with the housing crisis in the bay area, even with the unprecedented slush capital flying around. The crisis is more happening because they're not even building enough housing for the people that already live in the bay area. Honestly, from my experience living there for a year, the agglomeration benefits of the bay area are pretty oversold. I met some great people there, usually too far away to meet with regularly (transit is beyond terrible), that can't work on anything with you because they're too busy working an all-consuming job so they can afford rent, lost in an endless sea of people I would never want anything to do with.

kbenson 8y ago
Upvoted for second paragraph, but do you have anything to support the depopulation claim? Demographic stats from SF and San Jose indicate growth. The bay area in general also seems to be experiencing growth.[1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area#Demogra...
JimboOmega 8y ago
I haven't seen any evidence for it depopulating. Anecdotally yes people talk about moving and how expensive it is, but I haven't seen any data or real evidence that there's a significant outflow. There has to be an end to the housing price rises, though. I think it will happen when salaries get too high for tech companies to pay. Why pay double what you would for the same person in another area? Right now the ease of finding employees makes it worth it, but there has to be a tipping point somewhere. I keep thinking the housing policies will kill the golden goose but it hasn't yet.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  Inflow is greater than outflow but it primarily comes from births and international immigration. Additionally domestic migration into California is certainly still happening, but it's very likely the case that it involves the filtering out of the working class. https://lao.ca.gov/laoecontax/article/detail/265 https://lao.ca.gov/laoecontax/article/detail/265
fossuser 8y ago
The claim that people are leaving the Bay Area has been around since the 90s (possibly earlier) and I think it's never been actually true. Even in 2008 property values didn't decline that much in this area. There's some growth in Washington, Austin, Colorado, LA too - but that doesn't mean the Bay Area is in decline.
- wahern 8y ago
  Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!nntp.Stanford.EDU!abercrombie.Stanford.EDU!paulf From: pa...@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU (Paul Flaherty) Subject: Re: Sillycon Valley history Message-ID: <paulf.731874319@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU> Sender: ne...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News) Organization: DSO, Stanford University References: <C3p1B1.EDE@csulb.edu> Date: 11 Mar 93 18:25:19 GMT Lines: 20 dpa...@csulb.edu (Dave Palmer) writes: >From what I understand, the shine is rubbing off. The cost of housing is >ludicrous, and companies are fleeing to places like Arizona. But you >still can't throw a silicon wafer in Cupertino without hitting an Apple >facility. I think it's fair to say that Silicon Valley is dead. Cheap venture capital, minimal startup cost, access to university researchers, and good inter business communications fueled an engine which turned ideas into products. You can now find venture capital elsewhere, with the discount rate being what it is. The cost of housing and office space has spiraled out of control, thanks to the environmentalists and Prop 13. The trade secrets and intellectual property mania have pretty much destroyed open cooperation. The universities remain, but aren't the driving force they used to be. The place has a much different, more ossified feel to it than it did seven years ago. -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "My boy, we are pilgrims in an unholy land." ->pa...@Stanford.EDU | -- Dr. Henry Jones Sr. Someone pointed out to me recently that not long after this post he created AltaVista.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The bay area is currently depopulating. No, it has net growth, even though it has net domestic out-migration. It's getting more populated, from foreign immigration and natural growth, while losing in internal migration.

kbenson 8y ago

Upvoted for second paragraph, but do you have anything to support the depopulation claim? Demographic stats from SF and San Jose indicate growth. The bay area in general also seems to be experiencing growth.[1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area#Demogra...

JimboOmega 8y ago

I haven't seen any evidence for it depopulating. Anecdotally yes people talk about moving and how expensive it is, but I haven't seen any data or real evidence that there's a significant outflow. There has to be an end to the housing price rises, though. I think it will happen when salaries get too high for tech companies to pay. Why pay double what you would for the same person in another area? Right now the ease of finding employees makes it worth it, but there has to be a tipping point somewhere. I keep thinking the housing policies will kill the golden goose but it hasn't yet.

zjaffee 8y ago
Inflow is greater than outflow but it primarily comes from births and international immigration. Additionally domestic migration into California is certainly still happening, but it's very likely the case that it involves the filtering out of the working class. https://lao.ca.gov/laoecontax/article/detail/265 https://lao.ca.gov/laoecontax/article/detail/265

fossuser 8y ago

The claim that people are leaving the Bay Area has been around since the 90s (possibly earlier) and I think it's never been actually true. Even in 2008 property values didn't decline that much in this area. There's some growth in Washington, Austin, Colorado, LA too - but that doesn't mean the Bay Area is in decline.

wahern 8y ago
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!nntp.Stanford.EDU!abercrombie.Stanford.EDU!paulf From: pa...@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU (Paul Flaherty) Subject: Re: Sillycon Valley history Message-ID: <paulf.731874319@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU> Sender: ne...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News) Organization: DSO, Stanford University References: <C3p1B1.EDE@csulb.edu> Date: 11 Mar 93 18:25:19 GMT Lines: 20 dpa...@csulb.edu (Dave Palmer) writes: >From what I understand, the shine is rubbing off. The cost of housing is >ludicrous, and companies are fleeing to places like Arizona. But you >still can't throw a silicon wafer in Cupertino without hitting an Apple >facility. I think it's fair to say that Silicon Valley is dead. Cheap venture capital, minimal startup cost, access to university researchers, and good inter business communications fueled an engine which turned ideas into products. You can now find venture capital elsewhere, with the discount rate being what it is. The cost of housing and office space has spiraled out of control, thanks to the environmentalists and Prop 13. The trade secrets and intellectual property mania have pretty much destroyed open cooperation. The universities remain, but aren't the driving force they used to be. The place has a much different, more ossified feel to it than it did seven years ago. -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "My boy, we are pilgrims in an unholy land." ->pa...@Stanford.EDU | -- Dr. Henry Jones Sr. Someone pointed out to me recently that not long after this post he created AltaVista.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The bay area is currently depopulating. No, it has net growth, even though it has net domestic out-migration. It's getting more populated, from foreign immigration and natural growth, while losing in internal migration.