4 ms·

> The Silicon Valley Poll is a survey of 1,610 registered voters in five Bay Area counties... > The following sources were used to recruit respondents: > • ta

by wahern 5y ago

> The Silicon Valley Poll is a survey of 1,610 registered voters in five Bay Area counties... > The following sources were used to recruit respondents: > • targeted advertisements on Facebook and Instagram. > • text messages, sent via the echo19 platform, to cell phone numbers listed on the voter file for individuals who qualified for the survey’s sample universe, based on their voter file data. That's it; just those two sources.

systemvoltage 5y ago
As someone that lives in Oakland, I would agree with the conclusion of the survey. I know several people that are leaving SF and the sentiment reflects mainstream news about SF's future.
- wahern 5y ago
  I don't find any of the responses surprising, nor would I think most Bay Area residents, but 1) conclusions that neatly mesh with popular narratives should always be met with a heightened degree of skepticism simply because narratives and reality are rarely so consistent; 2) people tend to say one thing but do another, especially when there's a powerful narrative driving expectations; 3) this only begs the question to what extent these sentiments and expectations differ from residents in other areas, such as as Seattle, Washington, or NYC metro areas; 4) it begs the question of how actual relocation patterns have matched similar, previous survey responses (this is the first survey by this group, but there have been others before); and 5) it begs the question of why it matters, because so far people leaving have simply been replaced by richer people, and if you consider global cities like Seoul or London, neither of which are even in the top 10 most expensive large cities, San Francisco alone has quite a ways to go to even reach those CoL heights. Also, suffice it to say that Joint Venture Silicon Valley is not a disinterested party. A cursory inspection makes me think they're supported in a non-partisan manner by a diverse array of groups interested in economic development. Their agenda is economic development, which even without any negative connotations means they need to drive home the point that the current environment is unsuited for, say, stable, equitable economic growth. From their perspective, there's very little to gain by actually answering questions #3 and #4 above (or improving survey respondent diversity, for that matter) because any answers might deflate the impact of their survey "findings".
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    Some things are just in plain sight. All you need to do is make a trip down to San Francisco downtown and the rest of the areas in SF. I don’t need to look at any data, for that matter but looking at it only reaffirms the observation. I think the biggest mistake policy makers make in improving a worsening situation is to double down on their policy stances instead of stepping back and observing the consequences impartially and accepting failure of their actions. Only then one can expect to improve, otherwise any set of successive choices you make, will suffocate you in a local optima. That said, I think SF gets disproportional attention from the media while the rest of the west coast is eroding: LA, Seattle and Portland [1]. I think this is a west-coast problem of illberalism. [1] The Urban Land Institute, a think-tank, runs annual surveys ranking the desirability of cities to property developers. In 2017 Portland ranked third. Now it has dropped to 66th out of 80: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-was-once-a-byword-for-tattooed-vegan-microbrewers https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- nostrademons 5y ago
  This was representative of my late-20s friends; about half of them ended up leaving the Bay Area to have kids. It's not at all representative of my late-30s parent friends. Almost all of us bought houses and are presumably staying here for good, barring unforeseen catastrophe or major changes in life circumstances. It's like we passed the selection filter and now we're in the 50% staying. The Bay Area attracts more aspirants than it has room for. That means that inevitably some will leave. I'd model this as tournament economics, tenure in academia, or the up-or-out culture at many big companies, though: you get lots of attrition in your first 10 years, and then after that you're in.

by wahern 5y ago

systemvoltage 5y ago

As someone that lives in Oakland, I would agree with the conclusion of the survey. I know several people that are leaving SF and the sentiment reflects mainstream news about SF's future.

wahern 5y ago
I don't find any of the responses surprising, nor would I think most Bay Area residents, but 1) conclusions that neatly mesh with popular narratives should always be met with a heightened degree of skepticism simply because narratives and reality are rarely so consistent; 2) people tend to say one thing but do another, especially when there's a powerful narrative driving expectations; 3) this only begs the question to what extent these sentiments and expectations differ from residents in other areas, such as as Seattle, Washington, or NYC metro areas; 4) it begs the question of how actual relocation patterns have matched similar, previous survey responses (this is the first survey by this group, but there have been others before); and 5) it begs the question of why it matters, because so far people leaving have simply been replaced by richer people, and if you consider global cities like Seoul or London, neither of which are even in the top 10 most expensive large cities, San Francisco alone has quite a ways to go to even reach those CoL heights. Also, suffice it to say that Joint Venture Silicon Valley is not a disinterested party. A cursory inspection makes me think they're supported in a non-partisan manner by a diverse array of groups interested in economic development. Their agenda is economic development, which even without any negative connotations means they need to drive home the point that the current environment is unsuited for, say, stable, equitable economic growth. From their perspective, there's very little to gain by actually answering questions #3 and #4 above (or improving survey respondent diversity, for that matter) because any answers might deflate the impact of their survey "findings".
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Some things are just in plain sight. All you need to do is make a trip down to San Francisco downtown and the rest of the areas in SF. I don’t need to look at any data, for that matter but looking at it only reaffirms the observation. I think the biggest mistake policy makers make in improving a worsening situation is to double down on their policy stances instead of stepping back and observing the consequences impartially and accepting failure of their actions. Only then one can expect to improve, otherwise any set of successive choices you make, will suffocate you in a local optima. That said, I think SF gets disproportional attention from the media while the rest of the west coast is eroding: LA, Seattle and Portland [1]. I think this is a west-coast problem of illberalism. [1] The Urban Land Institute, a think-tank, runs annual surveys ranking the desirability of cities to property developers. In 2017 Portland ranked third. Now it has dropped to 66th out of 80: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-was-once-a-byword-for-tattooed-vegan-microbrewers https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
nostrademons 5y ago
This was representative of my late-20s friends; about half of them ended up leaving the Bay Area to have kids. It's not at all representative of my late-30s parent friends. Almost all of us bought houses and are presumably staying here for good, barring unforeseen catastrophe or major changes in life circumstances. It's like we passed the selection filter and now we're in the 50% staying. The Bay Area attracts more aspirants than it has room for. That means that inevitably some will leave. I'd model this as tournament economics, tenure in academia, or the up-or-out culture at many big companies, though: you get lots of attrition in your first 10 years, and then after that you're in.