6 ms·
I do not understand the apocalyptic takes so many people have. The major problem SF has had for a long time is housing is too expensive. People leaving the ci
by birken 6y ago
I do not understand the apocalyptic takes so many people have. The major problem SF has had for a long time is housing is too expensive. People leaving the city will help counter this, which is going to probably benefit the city in the long term.
In the short term though SF is still an expensive place to live and you aren't getting nearly the benefit because SF, like all cities, is just a shell of itself right now.
To imagine that once the Pandemic is over SF will not burst back into life is crazy. SF is a wonderful city due to its weather, geography, culture, density, parks, public transit, and many other great things about it. One bad year is not going to destroy the city.
And many people not in the tech community have been a little upset at the monoculture that seemingly has developed in the past 10 years related to the tech boom. Guess what... If a bunch of those tech companies leave, the city is going to be less of a monoculture. That's good! Change isn't always bad.
- an_opabinia 6y agoHousing prices are both cause and effect of things like population, it's a very silly thing to generalize about. > And many people not in the tech community have been a little upset at the monoculture that seemingly has developed in the past 10 years related to the tech boom. Everyone hears this sentiment. But I can't think of a community that "got better" when its best earners left. It's just such backwards thinking.
- bobthepanda 6y agoYour sentiment implies that high earners are a necessary thing, or even something that should be optimized for, for “better” outcomes. Better means different things to different people. An artist, an old-money socialite, a tech bro, and a blue-collar worker all have varying definitions of the word “better.”
- mc32 6y agoHigh income earners trickle down their money to other sectors of the economy --they have more disposable income. This is why on the one hand conspicuous consumers are good; on the other hand that means it does not get invested in longer term things like R&D, infrastructure, etc. They can afford the iconic $14 guacamole on toast that encourages chefs and restauranteurs to try new things and in turn those people spend and support other areas of the economy. If you only have median income people, then, it's not bad, but it's not as vigorous an economy and things change less.
- bobthepanda 6y agoThis is only a good thing as long as the trickle down is actually keeping up with cost of living, and when employees actually benefit from the trickle down; you're not going to see that money go to artists, really, for example. When you have teachers and other necessary basic employees commuting from as far afield as the Central Valley to afford housing, then a correction is needed.
- freehunter 6y agoThey're a necessary thing if the city has grown dependent on their tax income to provide basic services. The reason Rust Belt cities like Detroit are doing so poorly isn't because of the people who live there or the politicians they elect, it's because their tax base disappeared. And now the city is stuck paying for infrastructure that they can't afford to maintain because the people who paid the majority of city taxes left. I live in a small town in the Midwest and my town is doing great... as long as the factory stays here. The next town over? The last factory in town left 15 years ago and they've had to close some schools (they're still paying the bonds for those buildings and the land though) and maintain water lines to residential neighborhoods that don't exist anymore and pave roads that only handle 1/4 the traffic they were built for. The big city nearby discontinued bus service to that town a few years ago because it was such an unprofitable line without the factory. The town recently stopped city trash service and now residents have to pay for their own waste disposal, raising the cost of living in a town where economic prospects are decreasing. An artist may prefer a more down-scale San Fransisco, but if the city has been taking the tax revenue from high-paid engineers and using it to build infrastructure for people who don't live there anymore and don't pay taxes there anymore... well no one likes crumbling roads and collapsing bridges and failing dams and abandoned bus stations. It's really hard for a city to go down a level once it's used to higher tax revenue. They don't turn into SoHo Beyond Broadway, they turn into Detroit and Flint.
- impendia 6y ago> I can't think of a community that "got better" when its best earners left. It's just such backwards thinking. Among other things, rents seem likely to go down, which will make a huge difference to many people's quality of life.
- jxramos 6y agoI'm curious if rents have gone down for existing tenants or just for new leasees.
- nostrademons 6y agoAnecdotally (Sunnyvale) I didn't see any offers to drop our rent to match what new tenants were getting, but you can always hack that by moving. Hell, maybe a bunch of 124,131 change of addresses are people moving internally to take advantage of reduced rents. (FWIW, offering 1-2 months free rent seems to be much more popular than actually reducing rent, too.)
- jxramos 6y agofor sure, I remember back in college days we'd play the pass the buck on the tv/internet account from one roommate to the next to secure the sign on deals and discounts. Makes sense.
- dbt00 6y agoI'm in the south bay too and I haven't seen as much as a dropoff as SF. I'm definitely anchored here with schools etc for a few more years and most of my neighbors are too. The folks I know who have been out of the area are mostly going to second houses in the Tahoe area, not moving permanently.
- panopticon 6y agoYeah, housing prices in the south bay have been solid/trending upward throughout all of this. Lots of good deals on apartments though.
- nostrademons 6y agoThe "best earners" in the Bay Area tend to own homes in the foothills (or Atherton). They're not leaving, at least any more than they already do because they own homes everywhere else too. Folks in the Mission, SOMA, Mission Bay, Nob Hill tend to be junior engineers at tech companies. They will likely be back when they realize that being close to the actual best earners (VCs, angel investors, and executives) is the best way to advance their careers.
- kelnos 6y agoI think you're being too narrow with your definition of "best". The people in the foothills/Atherton are your VP-level-and-above type wealthy earners. I think the parent's reference to "best earners" includes a lot of non-executive types who make north of $150k a year, which is a lot of people when it comes to tech. (I don't entirely agree with the parent's premise overall, though I do believe there's some truth to it.)
- nostrademons 6y agoSure, but my point is that the magnets in the Bay Area are the folk who control the corporate coffers, those multi-billion-dollar treasuries that can determine whether you make $1-2M/year or $150K/year. As long as being geographically close to them gives you a much better shot at making multi-millions a year, people will move back. The junior engineers are moving to Vegas because it's close and cheap and right now nobody's advancing quickly in anything, so it doesn't matter. They'll all snap back (or be replaced by other people who do) as soon as the next technology wave starts.
- paxys 6y agoI always find it funny that everyone I know complains about San Francisco's "monoculture" but they all have a completely different idea of what that monoculture actually is.
- hnusr22 6y agoI think it's more than just expensive housing, it's the quality of life that comes with it. A lot of people like to ignore this, but people don't want to spend millions on a house and then have homeless people take a dump on their front steps or dodge needles when walking around or deal with high property crime and unchecked craziness.
- Tiktaalik 6y agoMaybe... we should tax the people that can afford millions on a house more so that we can build housing for everyone and eliminate homelessness.
- RhysU 6y agoThere will always be homelessness. Always. How much and at what cost is the question.
- totalZero 6y agoAll good growth involves ebb and flow, spring and winter, budding and pruning.