6 ms·

You cant live in San Francisco then. Pack your bags and live somewhere you can afford. That may sound harsh but its reality. You're not entitled to live anyw

You cant live in San Francisco then. Pack your bags and live somewhere you can afford. That may sound harsh but its reality. You're not entitled to live anywhere you want just like i cant live on billionaires row in manhattan. edit: should have known this wouldnt be popular considering half of HN is trapped in cali absurd prices but refuse to leave. Too bad. Applies to you as well.

gregable 5y ago
That's a common response. The problem is that it ignores the fact that San Francisco needs those people to fill jobs that need doing. https://nyti.ms/3yuq3nX https://nyti.ms/3yuq3nX The common response to that then is then we should just raise the pay in an area until every job pays enough to afford to live there, or if not those jobs are clearly not important enough. The problem is that the number of these jobs is growing faster than housing stock. Market forces can't solve the problem of more jobs than homes unless you can build homes or destroy jobs. Take a look at https://bit.ly/36ySeFS https://bit.ly/36ySeFS - Santa Clara County added 300,000 jobs between 2010 and 2020 while building around 6,000 homes per year (5 jobs per home). SF is the same story: total housing units in San Francisco increased by about 23,000 from 2010 to 2018 (https://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/1996.0013CWP_2018_Presentation.pdf https://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/1996.0013CWP_2..., slide 6). Total employment in San Francisco during the same period grew by almost 300,000. Seattle: total housing units in Seattle from 2010 to 2019 grew by about 59,000 homes (https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/about-seattle#housing https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/abo...). Total employment (labor force) in Seattle during the same period grew by 243,000 (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUDV534264400000006?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUDV534264400000006?amp%253...)
- trident5000 5y ago
  If you really need them, then pay them more. Otherwise you dont need them do you. People dont want to pay a business enough so they can hire people? Then you dont get the business. Economics works itself out if you let it.
  - timdev2 5y ago
    I feel like you didn't really address anything past the second sentence of the comment you were responding to. > Economics works itself out if you let it. Sure. But exclusive single-family zoning, for example, isn't exactly "letting it".
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    > Economics works itself out if you let it. It's not just the businesses that are lost. Entire towns are at risk. We're facing the same problem in a lot of small mountain towns here in Colorado. Businesses can't hire because workers can't afford to leave anywhere near. The poor business environment and rising prices destroys the quality of life for locals, and the feedback can drain the population. I feel like this is an experiment that hasn't been fully conducted on a large scale anywhere, but I fear it will be soon.
    - trident5000 5y ago
      My point is if rich people are moving in and driving home prices up, then those same people should have the ability and willingness to pay higher prices to local businesses who can then pay employees more. If their business is not a necessity or something the community wants, then yes they are going out of business. I have sympathy for that small town feel, trust me. But thats how its going to go.
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    The most common policy responses in this thread are suggesting that the solution is to allow more building by relaxing zoning restrictions and lowering the amount of public input on new development, ie greater property rights. How are you not for that if you believe what you stated in your last sentence?
maybelsyrup 5y ago
There shouldn't be a billionaire's row in Manhattan. There shouldn't be billionaires.
- trident5000 5y ago
  People who win your dollar vote can have as many value exchanges as they want and deserve to keep it. And a quick reminder than spacex and tesla wouldnt exist if it were up to you.
  - maybelsyrup 5y ago
    > And a quick reminder than spacex and tesla wouldnt exist if it were up to you. You're doing my work for me here, pal. Where do I sign up?
    - trident5000 5y ago
      You're a pretty depressing example of a human if you're not rooting for innovative companies that are creating the future. Maybe get beyond your own ego and root for others sometime.
      - maybelsyrup 5y ago
        > if you're not rooting for innovative companies > root for others sometime. I'll root for those companies when they start rooting for me, and for the rest of us. My objection to those firms, and to the obscene individual wealth of the people who own them, isn't about innovation, it's about them as "companies", as immortal legal persons whose fundamental purpose is the enrichment of their owners. That they make rockets or hastily-made electric cars is incidental, and so is the fact that we're allowed the great privilege of working in them until we're laid off. They don't exist for us; they exist for the owner. The nanosecond that making space toys or vroom-vrooms or employing you and me works against those people's interests, well, poof, there will go the rockets and cars and you and me. > that are creating the future I'd laugh if this weren't so terribly sad. What future, exactly? Firms like these have been "innovating" and "building the future" for a good century now, and doing so in that exact Harvard Business Review jargon for at least my own lifetime. You're right that they have the future in their hands -- collectively, they have the most power and wealth of (nearly) any entity on the planet -- but what future have they delivered? A dying planet, endless war, no real wage increase in half a century -- that future? Millions homeless in the wealthiest polity in world history -- maybe that one? The unhoused, or maybe the ones driven into penury by healthcare "costs"? The implication that we should be somehow thankful for these people and their legal structures is like ... I don't know. Where's your self-respect? Where are your standards? How bout this, I'll make you a deal: I'll work on getting "beyond my own ego" if you ask yourself sincerely why you believe what you wrote.

gregable 5y ago

That's a common response. The problem is that it ignores the fact that San Francisco needs those people to fill jobs that need doing. https://nyti.ms/3yuq3nX https://nyti.ms/3yuq3nX The common response to that then is then we should just raise the pay in an area until every job pays enough to afford to live there, or if not those jobs are clearly not important enough. The problem is that the number of these jobs is growing faster than housing stock. Market forces can't solve the problem of more jobs than homes unless you can build homes or destroy jobs. Take a look at https://bit.ly/36ySeFS https://bit.ly/36ySeFS - Santa Clara County added 300,000 jobs between 2010 and 2020 while building around 6,000 homes per year (5 jobs per home). SF is the same story: total housing units in San Francisco increased by about 23,000 from 2010 to 2018 (https://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/1996.0013CWP_2018_Presentation.pdf https://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/1996.0013CWP_2..., slide 6). Total employment in San Francisco during the same period grew by almost 300,000. Seattle: total housing units in Seattle from 2010 to 2019 grew by about 59,000 homes (https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/about-seattle#housing https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/abo...). Total employment (labor force) in Seattle during the same period grew by 243,000 (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUDV534264400000006?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUDV534264400000006?amp%253...)

trident5000 5y ago
If you really need them, then pay them more. Otherwise you dont need them do you. People dont want to pay a business enough so they can hire people? Then you dont get the business. Economics works itself out if you let it.
- timdev2 5y ago
  I feel like you didn't really address anything past the second sentence of the comment you were responding to. > Economics works itself out if you let it. Sure. But exclusive single-family zoning, for example, isn't exactly "letting it".
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  > Economics works itself out if you let it. It's not just the businesses that are lost. Entire towns are at risk. We're facing the same problem in a lot of small mountain towns here in Colorado. Businesses can't hire because workers can't afford to leave anywhere near. The poor business environment and rising prices destroys the quality of life for locals, and the feedback can drain the population. I feel like this is an experiment that hasn't been fully conducted on a large scale anywhere, but I fear it will be soon.
  - trident5000 5y ago
    My point is if rich people are moving in and driving home prices up, then those same people should have the ability and willingness to pay higher prices to local businesses who can then pay employees more. If their business is not a necessity or something the community wants, then yes they are going out of business. I have sympathy for that small town feel, trust me. But thats how its going to go.
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  The most common policy responses in this thread are suggesting that the solution is to allow more building by relaxing zoning restrictions and lowering the amount of public input on new development, ie greater property rights. How are you not for that if you believe what you stated in your last sentence?

maybelsyrup 5y ago

There shouldn't be a billionaire's row in Manhattan. There shouldn't be billionaires.

trident5000 5y ago
People who win your dollar vote can have as many value exchanges as they want and deserve to keep it. And a quick reminder than spacex and tesla wouldnt exist if it were up to you.
- maybelsyrup 5y ago
  > And a quick reminder than spacex and tesla wouldnt exist if it were up to you. You're doing my work for me here, pal. Where do I sign up?
  - trident5000 5y ago
    You're a pretty depressing example of a human if you're not rooting for innovative companies that are creating the future. Maybe get beyond your own ego and root for others sometime.
    - maybelsyrup 5y ago
      > if you're not rooting for innovative companies > root for others sometime. I'll root for those companies when they start rooting for me, and for the rest of us. My objection to those firms, and to the obscene individual wealth of the people who own them, isn't about innovation, it's about them as "companies", as immortal legal persons whose fundamental purpose is the enrichment of their owners. That they make rockets or hastily-made electric cars is incidental, and so is the fact that we're allowed the great privilege of working in them until we're laid off. They don't exist for us; they exist for the owner. The nanosecond that making space toys or vroom-vrooms or employing you and me works against those people's interests, well, poof, there will go the rockets and cars and you and me. > that are creating the future I'd laugh if this weren't so terribly sad. What future, exactly? Firms like these have been "innovating" and "building the future" for a good century now, and doing so in that exact Harvard Business Review jargon for at least my own lifetime. You're right that they have the future in their hands -- collectively, they have the most power and wealth of (nearly) any entity on the planet -- but what future have they delivered? A dying planet, endless war, no real wage increase in half a century -- that future? Millions homeless in the wealthiest polity in world history -- maybe that one? The unhoused, or maybe the ones driven into penury by healthcare "costs"? The implication that we should be somehow thankful for these people and their legal structures is like ... I don't know. Where's your self-respect? Where are your standards? How bout this, I'll make you a deal: I'll work on getting "beyond my own ego" if you ask yourself sincerely why you believe what you wrote.