9 ms·

More likely, this will just result in businesses continuing to leave San Francisco. The pandemic has given most companies a good reason to do so already and my

More likely, this will just result in businesses continuing to leave San Francisco. The pandemic has given most companies a good reason to do so already and my bet is on most of them not returning to their overpriced San Francisco headquarters when this is eventually over.

rm_-rf_slash 6y ago
Or just move it to a smaller office somewhere else in the Bay Area.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Maybe, but is the rest of the Bay area enough better that they can trust they won't end up the same way in the near future.
  - shreyansj 6y ago
    Damn! Pretty sure that the rest of the Bay Area isn’t a dumpster fire either.
  - clhodapp 6y ago
    Contra Costa is full of open space and I believe that many of the cities from Walnut Creek out would bend over backwards to pull in these types of jobs.
    - umeshunni 6y ago
      There's a mini-silicon valley shaping up in the East Bay along the 580/680 corridor - towns like Dublin, Pleasanton etc are growing rapidly with existing companies and new ones - Oracle, Workday, Snowflake etc are all there. It helps that they are also much more new housing friendly than SF and SV.
      - clhodapp 6y ago
        Right! I wasn't thinking about stuff like Bishop Ranch being down there. Yeah, it really does seem like most of the freeway/transit-connected East Bay towns beyond the hills would be very amendable to this type of growth. It really seems like the only exception would be the arc from Orinda to Danville.
  - newhkusers1 6y ago
    Yes, they are better. Also, this isn't the only silly tax law that SF has.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  It’s hard to determine what’ll happen due to pandemic + remote work, but historically nearby counties with lower taxes have always been the biggest risk for high tax municipalities. Think less “I’m leaving NYC to go to Michigan” and more “I’ll move to New Jersey and commute into NYC”. But again, the pandemic and rise of remote work makes this hard to predict.
- cobookman 6y ago
  They said SF, not SF Bay area. I'm certain the city of SF will be seeing a loss of jobs as they move to Oakland, East Bay, Peninsula and South Bay.
LinuxBender 6y ago
A law firm I use has been in SF for over 20 years. They just moved to a rough part of Oakland. The move was challenging for them and I know they would not have done it if they didn't have to.
- RangerScience 6y ago
  Why did they have to move? This new law, or something else?
  - LinuxBender 6y ago
    This was in the middle of Covid, around the time many businesses and renters were leaving SF. They would not give me specifics, but I assume it no longer made financial sense to be in that expensive high-rise, as all the parking was locked down, forcing all the customers to take BART. I am not sure what affect this new law will have for those that remain.
    - TuringNYC 6y ago
      Another reason SF companies are leaving: restrictions mandating lower maximum elevator occupancy (e.g. 4 persons) is causing long lines at some high-rises, making it hard to get in and out of the building -- esp for quick breaks, food pickups, lunch, etc.
      - LinuxBender 6y ago
        I noticed that as well. The building had really tiny elevators, but many of them. You could fit maybe 3 people in them. I had never seen anything like that in my life.
        TuringNYC 6y ago
        Much worse since COVID since every elevator has to have minimal separation for passengers, no more squeezing in like sardines.
heavyset_go 6y ago
I doubt it. The purported reasons to leave were already on the table before the pandemic hit, but they were not enough to do so when compared to the reasons for staying. The pandemic is relatively temporary, and once it is over, those reasons for staying will still be on the table.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  > The pandemic is relatively temporary Until the next ones comes. That could be in 1 year or 100 years. No one knows. Reminds me of the repeated hurricanes that drive people out of coastal areas.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > Reminds me of the repeated hurricanes that drive people out of coastal areas. People still live in coastal areas, and rich people continue to build lavish vacation homes on the coast despite the fact that they're washed away by storms every couple of decades. Part of being rich is not having to worry about money, which is why many rich people live in cities, states and countries that tax them more: the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. I think you can draw parallels between that and companies choosing to remain in cities for similar reasons despite some drawbacks existing.
    - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
      Sorry you focused on my comment about coasts. I was really just trying to point out that another pandemic can happen and can happen soon.
      - heavyset_go 6y ago
        I didn't focus on it because I agree with you.
tlogan 6y ago
Maybe but outsourcing is much easier solution than relocating. Think about hedge funds, bond traders, etc. For example, they will be all firing desk support people and replacing them with RobertHalf.
kmtrowbr 6y ago
I have lived in San Francisco since 2005. Over the time I've lived here, we've had the opposite problem: lots of highly paid tech firms moving into SF. This has changed the nature of San Francisco in a way that many dislike, including me. I was initially attracted to San Francisco because, it was chill, it was beautiful, and it had a lot of eccentric, really interesting people. Many of our good friends had to leave over the years as SF has becoming more unlivable because rents have gone up so much, and also it's just not as fun, it's crowded and stressed. I am aware that I am a part of the problem: my wife and I are white, yuppie, dink tech workers. :) These issues are complex. I voted yes on Proposition L: the tax is quite small and I think the tech firms are unlikely to leave, meanwhile SF can get more taxes from them (many of them were historically given tax breaks, like Twitter, to move into the mid-market area). If they do leave, I don't see that as a bad thing. Meanwhile socioeconomic disparity is an oozing sore in San Francisco, we have billionaires rubbing elbows with homeless people every day. Nationally, we've had round after round of tax cuts for the wealthiest, if SF wants to tax excessive income disparity, I say, fair enough.
- drak0n1c 6y ago
  Taxes tend to increase price levels, not reduce them. Costs are passed through to every level.
  - gmadsen 6y ago
    not 1-1. a personal wealth tax is not felt or distributed down lane. As long as it is not a company tax, it will not be directly pointed to the buyer.
    - kansface 6y ago
      > The tax will levy an extra 0.1% to 0.6% on gross receipts made in San Francisco for companies ...
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > personal wealth tax is not felt Yes it would be. A tax on salaries, would force companies to have to pay more to attract talent. And these are additional costs that the company would have to pay.
gmadsen 6y ago
I don't understand why this is said as a negative. Tech needs to expand to other parts of the country. If SF wants high taxes, so be it, let all participate in the competition of where to be located.

rm_-rf_slash 6y ago

Or just move it to a smaller office somewhere else in the Bay Area.

bluGill 6y ago
Maybe, but is the rest of the Bay area enough better that they can trust they won't end up the same way in the near future.
- shreyansj 6y ago
  Damn! Pretty sure that the rest of the Bay Area isn’t a dumpster fire either.
- clhodapp 6y ago
  Contra Costa is full of open space and I believe that many of the cities from Walnut Creek out would bend over backwards to pull in these types of jobs.
  - umeshunni 6y ago
    There's a mini-silicon valley shaping up in the East Bay along the 580/680 corridor - towns like Dublin, Pleasanton etc are growing rapidly with existing companies and new ones - Oracle, Workday, Snowflake etc are all there. It helps that they are also much more new housing friendly than SF and SV.
    - clhodapp 6y ago
      Right! I wasn't thinking about stuff like Bishop Ranch being down there. Yeah, it really does seem like most of the freeway/transit-connected East Bay towns beyond the hills would be very amendable to this type of growth. It really seems like the only exception would be the arc from Orinda to Danville.
- newhkusers1 6y ago
  Yes, they are better. Also, this isn't the only silly tax law that SF has.
ashtonkem 6y ago
It’s hard to determine what’ll happen due to pandemic + remote work, but historically nearby counties with lower taxes have always been the biggest risk for high tax municipalities. Think less “I’m leaving NYC to go to Michigan” and more “I’ll move to New Jersey and commute into NYC”. But again, the pandemic and rise of remote work makes this hard to predict.
cobookman 6y ago
They said SF, not SF Bay area. I'm certain the city of SF will be seeing a loss of jobs as they move to Oakland, East Bay, Peninsula and South Bay.

LinuxBender 6y ago

A law firm I use has been in SF for over 20 years. They just moved to a rough part of Oakland. The move was challenging for them and I know they would not have done it if they didn't have to.

RangerScience 6y ago
Why did they have to move? This new law, or something else?
- LinuxBender 6y ago
  This was in the middle of Covid, around the time many businesses and renters were leaving SF. They would not give me specifics, but I assume it no longer made financial sense to be in that expensive high-rise, as all the parking was locked down, forcing all the customers to take BART. I am not sure what affect this new law will have for those that remain.
  - TuringNYC 6y ago
    Another reason SF companies are leaving: restrictions mandating lower maximum elevator occupancy (e.g. 4 persons) is causing long lines at some high-rises, making it hard to get in and out of the building -- esp for quick breaks, food pickups, lunch, etc.
    - LinuxBender 6y ago
      I noticed that as well. The building had really tiny elevators, but many of them. You could fit maybe 3 people in them. I had never seen anything like that in my life.
      - TuringNYC 6y ago
        Much worse since COVID since every elevator has to have minimal separation for passengers, no more squeezing in like sardines.

heavyset_go 6y ago

I doubt it. The purported reasons to leave were already on the table before the pandemic hit, but they were not enough to do so when compared to the reasons for staying. The pandemic is relatively temporary, and once it is over, those reasons for staying will still be on the table.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
> The pandemic is relatively temporary Until the next ones comes. That could be in 1 year or 100 years. No one knows. Reminds me of the repeated hurricanes that drive people out of coastal areas.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > Reminds me of the repeated hurricanes that drive people out of coastal areas. People still live in coastal areas, and rich people continue to build lavish vacation homes on the coast despite the fact that they're washed away by storms every couple of decades. Part of being rich is not having to worry about money, which is why many rich people live in cities, states and countries that tax them more: the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. I think you can draw parallels between that and companies choosing to remain in cities for similar reasons despite some drawbacks existing.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    Sorry you focused on my comment about coasts. I was really just trying to point out that another pandemic can happen and can happen soon.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      I didn't focus on it because I agree with you.

tlogan 6y ago

Maybe but outsourcing is much easier solution than relocating. Think about hedge funds, bond traders, etc. For example, they will be all firing desk support people and replacing them with RobertHalf.

kmtrowbr 6y ago

I have lived in San Francisco since 2005. Over the time I've lived here, we've had the opposite problem: lots of highly paid tech firms moving into SF. This has changed the nature of San Francisco in a way that many dislike, including me. I was initially attracted to San Francisco because, it was chill, it was beautiful, and it had a lot of eccentric, really interesting people. Many of our good friends had to leave over the years as SF has becoming more unlivable because rents have gone up so much, and also it's just not as fun, it's crowded and stressed. I am aware that I am a part of the problem: my wife and I are white, yuppie, dink tech workers. :) These issues are complex. I voted yes on Proposition L: the tax is quite small and I think the tech firms are unlikely to leave, meanwhile SF can get more taxes from them (many of them were historically given tax breaks, like Twitter, to move into the mid-market area). If they do leave, I don't see that as a bad thing. Meanwhile socioeconomic disparity is an oozing sore in San Francisco, we have billionaires rubbing elbows with homeless people every day. Nationally, we've had round after round of tax cuts for the wealthiest, if SF wants to tax excessive income disparity, I say, fair enough.

drak0n1c 6y ago
Taxes tend to increase price levels, not reduce them. Costs are passed through to every level.
- gmadsen 6y ago
  not 1-1. a personal wealth tax is not felt or distributed down lane. As long as it is not a company tax, it will not be directly pointed to the buyer.
  - kansface 6y ago
    > The tax will levy an extra 0.1% to 0.6% on gross receipts made in San Francisco for companies ...
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > personal wealth tax is not felt Yes it would be. A tax on salaries, would force companies to have to pay more to attract talent. And these are additional costs that the company would have to pay.

gmadsen 6y ago

I don't understand why this is said as a negative. Tech needs to expand to other parts of the country. If SF wants high taxes, so be it, let all participate in the competition of where to be located.