3 ms·

That does seem to be the crux of the article, but I find it very unsatisfying without data. It's extremely improbable that it is exactly 1 person leaving to 1 p

That does seem to be the crux of the article, but I find it very unsatisfying without data. It's extremely improbable that it is exactly 1 person leaving to 1 person graduating from Stanford or wanting to come. So what is the actual trend? This article doesn't know.

njepa 8y ago
It is hard, if not impossible, to say. What I think one could say is that these things doesn't generally happen in the way people think. Since there is generally a lot of inertia that prevents people from seeing what is going on. People expects shifts, but it is usually more similar to leaving things on the table. Because this is hard to figure out, it is therefor instead more important to you make these decisions for good reasons. And that what I think is the real problem for the Bay Area (and other regions in a similar position). That you end up losing a lot of potential for no good reason.
nostrademons 8y ago
In the absence of housing construction & vacancies, it's probably pretty close to 1 person leaving to 1 person arriving. The limiting factor in the Bay Area is usually housing; if there were really a net outmigration, you'd see vacancies and a drop in rents. If there were a large net inmigration, you'd see new construction (which you do to some extent, but not a lot). There's probably a mild net inflow that's accounted for by new construction, people doubling up in houses that used to be single-family, and homelessness. The continued rise in housing prices seems to indicate a large latent demand, i.e. many more people want to come or want to stay but are discouraged because they can't get housing at reasonable prices.
- marcell 8y ago
  I think the housing market indicates a net inflow of engineer types: (1) There are actually still some low income people living in the Bay Area. For example even in Mt View (home of Google), there are some low income areas. Other cities have them too. The low income people are continuously being displaced by higher earning engineer types. This is reflected in rising rents. (2) It varies by city, but there is some new construction. Last year, SF issued 6 building permits per 1000 residents, while San Jose issued a little under 3 [1]. Some other cities in the area, like Mt View, Sunnyvale, Fremont, are fairly pro-deveopment. [1] https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-q6CqiDf9FL8/XINJI7vxJ0I/AAAAAAAADCQ/vb_w_Da1CXgZHu3NJZ3RWHLI5-OJ_MzbgCK8BGAs/s512/2019-03-08.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-q6CqiDf9FL8/XINJI7vxJ0I/A...
- freddie_mercury 8y ago
  No one is asking whether the overall population of the Bay Area is holding steady. They're asking whether the number of entrepreneurs is holding steady. You don't need new construction for a Facebook developer-drone to move out of the Bay Area and an entrepreneur from Kansas to move into their apartment. So there's no reason to assume is is anywhere close to 1 entrepreneur leaving for each 1 arriving. And we're back at the original point: without any numbers who knows what is actually happening? What's more, even small differences become big when you compound them across the total population and several years. Say the ratio is 1.02 arriving for each entrepreneur leaving. And 1,000 leave every year. After just five years you've got 40 new companies. Many cities would kill to have 40 new companies founded (relative to their baseline formation rate).

njepa 8y ago

It is hard, if not impossible, to say. What I think one could say is that these things doesn't generally happen in the way people think. Since there is generally a lot of inertia that prevents people from seeing what is going on. People expects shifts, but it is usually more similar to leaving things on the table. Because this is hard to figure out, it is therefor instead more important to you make these decisions for good reasons. And that what I think is the real problem for the Bay Area (and other regions in a similar position). That you end up losing a lot of potential for no good reason.

nostrademons 8y ago

In the absence of housing construction & vacancies, it's probably pretty close to 1 person leaving to 1 person arriving. The limiting factor in the Bay Area is usually housing; if there were really a net outmigration, you'd see vacancies and a drop in rents. If there were a large net inmigration, you'd see new construction (which you do to some extent, but not a lot). There's probably a mild net inflow that's accounted for by new construction, people doubling up in houses that used to be single-family, and homelessness. The continued rise in housing prices seems to indicate a large latent demand, i.e. many more people want to come or want to stay but are discouraged because they can't get housing at reasonable prices.

marcell 8y ago
I think the housing market indicates a net inflow of engineer types: (1) There are actually still some low income people living in the Bay Area. For example even in Mt View (home of Google), there are some low income areas. Other cities have them too. The low income people are continuously being displaced by higher earning engineer types. This is reflected in rising rents. (2) It varies by city, but there is some new construction. Last year, SF issued 6 building permits per 1000 residents, while San Jose issued a little under 3 [1]. Some other cities in the area, like Mt View, Sunnyvale, Fremont, are fairly pro-deveopment. [1] https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-q6CqiDf9FL8/XINJI7vxJ0I/AAAAAAAADCQ/vb_w_Da1CXgZHu3NJZ3RWHLI5-OJ_MzbgCK8BGAs/s512/2019-03-08.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-q6CqiDf9FL8/XINJI7vxJ0I/A...
freddie_mercury 8y ago
No one is asking whether the overall population of the Bay Area is holding steady. They're asking whether the number of entrepreneurs is holding steady. You don't need new construction for a Facebook developer-drone to move out of the Bay Area and an entrepreneur from Kansas to move into their apartment. So there's no reason to assume is is anywhere close to 1 entrepreneur leaving for each 1 arriving. And we're back at the original point: without any numbers who knows what is actually happening? What's more, even small differences become big when you compound them across the total population and several years. Say the ratio is 1.02 arriving for each entrepreneur leaving. And 1,000 leave every year. After just five years you've got 40 new companies. Many cities would kill to have 40 new companies founded (relative to their baseline formation rate).