3 ms·

Sure the big tech companies have no direct financial interest in simply reducing homelessness, but one way to accomplish that would be to lower the cost of hous

Sure the big tech companies have no direct financial interest in simply reducing homelessness, but one way to accomplish that would be to lower the cost of housing in San Francisco. How is it in the interest of tech companies to have skyrocketing real estate prices and as a result, the need to pay huge salaries to their employees so they can afford the cost of living in SF? Surely it would be in the interest of Google, Facebook et al. to be able to pay their employees less and have the cost of their own commercial real estate fall? Do they not have enough political influence? Or is it not in their interests somehow?

conanbatt 6y ago
I think this is why Facebook wants to build their own complexes. If they buy the land themselves, they could achieve increasing housing units on one hand, and also provide housing as a benefit which means going around the 50% tax bracket for their employees.
- toast0 6y ago
  Disclosure: I worked at Facebook. You do not want your landlord and your employer to be the same. (Unless you're a live in manager of the property, then it's more likely to make sense). For one thing, it makes looking for another job much harder, because you'll presumably have to move as well. For another, because an employee that lives at the employer's housing may never interact with people who aren't employees, and end up even more disconnected from the community at large. It may make sense for Facebook (or others) to put their money to work increasing housing supply by building denser housing, or by financing such building, but they need to divest as soon as practical. If the issue is employees can't live near work, because housing is too expensive, increasing the supply near work should help with that, even if you don't restrict the new units to employees.

3 ms·

Sure the big tech companies have no direct financial interest in simply reducing homelessness, but one way to accomplish that would be to lower the cost of hous

by joefourier 6y ago

conanbatt 6y ago
I think this is why Facebook wants to build their own complexes. If they buy the land themselves, they could achieve increasing housing units on one hand, and also provide housing as a benefit which means going around the 50% tax bracket for their employees.
- toast0 6y ago
  Disclosure: I worked at Facebook. You do not want your landlord and your employer to be the same. (Unless you're a live in manager of the property, then it's more likely to make sense). For one thing, it makes looking for another job much harder, because you'll presumably have to move as well. For another, because an employee that lives at the employer's housing may never interact with people who aren't employees, and end up even more disconnected from the community at large. It may make sense for Facebook (or others) to put their money to work increasing housing supply by building denser housing, or by financing such building, but they need to divest as soon as practical. If the issue is employees can't live near work, because housing is too expensive, increasing the supply near work should help with that, even if you don't restrict the new units to employees.