3 ms·

It'd only cause those negative effects if people don't leave the Bay Area, though, with that newfound flexibility. There are plenty of places, even desirable ur

It'd only cause those negative effects if people don't leave the Bay Area, though, with that newfound flexibility. There are plenty of places, even desirable urban centers, that aren't the Bay. (I've worked for SFBA companies and I live in Boston--with its own housing crunch, though not nearly as bad, and TBH I'd live here even if I didn't work in tech, it's just my home.)

CydeWeys 7y ago
I think you underestimate the reasons why people find living in certain cities desirable. There's a lot more to do with it than merely having your job located there. Downtown SF and NYC are always going to be hugely desirable, regardless of whether people are working from home or not.
- eropple 7y ago
  See, usually it's me saying that (because I'm usually replying to the people upholding rural living as some kind of ideal) but the thing is, people are moving to these cities, from other urban areas, mmmmostly for work. Not because they're great. They are great! But the gravity is because of the jobs more than anything else. Without that gravity, I tend to think people won't keep moving there in the same numbers and more of them will leave. If you can get 70-80% of the desirability for 50% of the cost (Boston would be like 80-90% and 60-70%, by my reckoning) while retaining 90% of the salary, and you make it perfectly acceptable on all sides to do so, a lot of people are gonna do that.
- kortilla 7y ago
  I think you overestimate how many people want to be there when career isn’t the driver. Everyone I know who moved to the bay did it for the job and gave zero fucks about the shit lined streets of the city.
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    If it wasn’t for the abundance of tech jobs, there is exactly 0% chance I would choose to live in the Bay Area. To me (everyone is different), the jobs are the upside, the rest is downside.
    - joejerryronnie 7y ago
      If you could take the tech jobs with you (without the negative externalities), where is your ideal location?
      - ryandrake 7y ago
        If I could simply decide to live anywhere, and have some guarantee that my job opportunities and salary would remain the same as if I were in the Bay Area? So many choices! If I limited myself to the US, any state with zero state income tax, cheap land/housing, and mild winters would work. I lived in Florida for over a decade and would go back in a heartbeat if the job situation matched the Bay Area. A big suburban house near Las Vegas would be fine. Texas doesn’t seem bad either—lots of land!
- Karrot_Kream 7y ago
  Without data there's no way to tell, so some folks will shout out about the inscrutable appeal of the popular cities today while others deify the beauty of nature with country living. Given that SF was not particularly appealing to live in 10 years ago, I think the story is more complicated.

CydeWeys 7y ago

I think you underestimate the reasons why people find living in certain cities desirable. There's a lot more to do with it than merely having your job located there. Downtown SF and NYC are always going to be hugely desirable, regardless of whether people are working from home or not.

eropple 7y ago
See, usually it's me saying that (because I'm usually replying to the people upholding rural living as some kind of ideal) but the thing is, people are moving to these cities, from other urban areas, mmmmostly for work. Not because they're great. They are great! But the gravity is because of the jobs more than anything else. Without that gravity, I tend to think people won't keep moving there in the same numbers and more of them will leave. If you can get 70-80% of the desirability for 50% of the cost (Boston would be like 80-90% and 60-70%, by my reckoning) while retaining 90% of the salary, and you make it perfectly acceptable on all sides to do so, a lot of people are gonna do that.
kortilla 7y ago
I think you overestimate how many people want to be there when career isn’t the driver. Everyone I know who moved to the bay did it for the job and gave zero fucks about the shit lined streets of the city.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  If it wasn’t for the abundance of tech jobs, there is exactly 0% chance I would choose to live in the Bay Area. To me (everyone is different), the jobs are the upside, the rest is downside.
  - joejerryronnie 7y ago
    If you could take the tech jobs with you (without the negative externalities), where is your ideal location?
    - ryandrake 7y ago
      If I could simply decide to live anywhere, and have some guarantee that my job opportunities and salary would remain the same as if I were in the Bay Area? So many choices! If I limited myself to the US, any state with zero state income tax, cheap land/housing, and mild winters would work. I lived in Florida for over a decade and would go back in a heartbeat if the job situation matched the Bay Area. A big suburban house near Las Vegas would be fine. Texas doesn’t seem bad either—lots of land!
Karrot_Kream 7y ago
Without data there's no way to tell, so some folks will shout out about the inscrutable appeal of the popular cities today while others deify the beauty of nature with country living. Given that SF was not particularly appealing to live in 10 years ago, I think the story is more complicated.