14 ms·

I think remote work is often understated in reasons people move away. When you go into the office every day, it's pretty obvious that you have to live in whatev

• anothernewdude 4y ago
  This is exactly why I left to a smaller town. Once I was fully remote, there was nothing keeping me from seeking out better prices for housing, better schooling for my children, and better streets to walk down.
• anm89 4y ago
  I agree but I think this also understates the importance of just how messed up SF has become. I don't want to come into contact with human feces as part of my daily commute. I'm going to leave no matter what once that is the case. Especially when the equity in my two bedroom apartement is enough to buy the nicest house ever built in some other smaller city.
  • Mumps 4y ago
    If people keep leaving, will that equity materialise as you hope?
    • anm89 4y ago
      Right, which is why you get out while things are still liquid
  • javajosh 4y ago
    [flagged]
    • jeromegv 4y ago
      What is the conservative solution to this issue?
      • TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        Who said homelessnesses and mental illness have solutions?
        • neartheplain 4y ago
          Centrist candidate for Governor of California Michael Shellenberger, who has interviewed many addicts on the streets of SF and has a credible plan to address homelessness and open drug abuse: https://www.shellenbergerforgovernor.com/issues/homelessness/ https://www.shellenbergerforgovernor.com/issues/homelessness...
      • sdenton4 4y ago
        Blaming liberals.
      • havblue 4y ago
        The conservative solution is to move to a place where they arrest the poopers.
      • mediaman 4y ago
        If we're talking about 'reasonable' conservatives, the typical answer is that booking people who commit a crime, and then using the threat of prison time to force them into rehab will ultimately be much better for them and the community than immediately releasing them under the guise that poverty causes addiction and crime and that therefore they are essentially blameless. Some former addicts attest that, when they were addicted, it was only the threat of prison time that could force them into rehab, because at the time they were not fully in control of their own decision making. They say the 'stick' helps motivate them to choose rehab instead, and it ultimately helped them out of a bad situation. Sam Quinones' book, The Least of Us, documents some of this and is well-researched.
  • anm89 4y ago
    Just pointing this out. This post was quickly up +4 and then instantly went down to -1. Someone seems to be brigading here.
    • themitigating 4y ago
      He doesn't live in San Francisco but is claiming that if he commuted to work he would always see human feces on the ground. He provides no evidence, not even a personal experience
      • alar44 4y ago
        What do you want? Pictures? This is commonly known to be an issue there. If I was there right now, I'd say give me 5 minutes and I'll post a picture. Was in SF last week. If you do a lot of walking there, you WILL see not only a shit, but someone actively shitting. Edit: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=b6fab720912642b6aedafdb02a76d2a4 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=b6fab72091...
        • themitigating 4y ago
          That's not an indication of frequency which is what matters.
        • mikebenfield 4y ago
          Granted I've only spent about 6 months of my life living in SF, but I did a decent amount of walking around and never saw human feces.
          • esprehn 4y ago
            Same. We lived in SF for 10 years and saw something like that maybe twice? On the whole the city is pretty clean, and most of the dirtiness is because it rarely rains. That's what's keeping many of the other popular cities looking cleaner. For reference we've been in DC for a year now and we saw someone literally pull their pants down and poop in the middle of the sidewalk the other day. I don't think that's any indication of the city though. I think it's the kind of thing where many folks visiting would end up in the rougher part of downtown, see something unfortunate, and not really experience the rest of the city. And then the whole city is painted with that brush. The bay area has many problems (housing policy is probably the worst in the country), but it's also a beautiful and vibrant place to live.
  • _fat_santa 4y ago
    I didn't mention this in my comment as it was more about the broad trends in every city rather than SF/NYC specifically. Typically for a group that got tired of a city and moved out, there would be a new group that is ready to fill their place. Thing is no one wants to move to SF given the situation (crime, COL, homeless, etc). Now for all the folks that will say "it's not that bad" I say that it doesn't really matter. If you're moving to a city, your opinion and view of the city is largely dictated by what you see/hear from friends, relatives, on the news, etc. Even if SF wasn't "that bad", it still doesn't matter, because the perception is more important for gaining residents than the actual situation IMO.
    • DragonStrength 4y ago
      Exactly. And the problem is even if I want to stay, once my entire social group has left during the pandemic since none of us were old enough to have mortgages or kids, well, this all kind of sucks right now. All the people I work with have kids and mortgages and have enjoyed flitting up to Tahoe for the past two years, but I'm not from the state but was required to work within it for the past year anyway. Well, my life here is pretty shitty right now, and as soon as I could really start doing things, it was time to start a hybrid model designed with people with kids and mortgages in mind. Traditionally, these folks have a lot of leverage over their younger counterparts, which we're finding is not holding. The issue is that Gen X is small, so they don't have a lot of leverage if the only other two generations in the market just leave town. Unless it's their opinion that Californians are just better, but of course, now we're back to the shrinking schools problem. It's difficult for me to imagine how California rebounds without losing a lot more ground first. Probably the best thing that could happen for people from the part of the country I grew up in, if we're actually concerned with equity though.
    • BurningFrog 4y ago
      Also, when you pick a place to move to in this huge country, "it's not that bad" isn't going to be chosen, even if true.
    • juve1996 4y ago
      I think you're right about perception to people considering going there. But I really think it just comes down to cost. Cities have gotten exorbitantly expensive. It doesn't make financial sense to stay in SF if you're salary stays the same in Texas and your company is remote. Unless there is some specific reason to live there - you like the vibe, or it's where you were born, or some other reason (weather). I think it's good that we have this shakeup. Change is a good thing, and I think a lot of cities need some change.
  • RC_ITR 4y ago
    I think your argument ignores that fact that in other cities, you drive by the social problems, whereas in SF you walk through them. Nobody complains about the homeless people who live under the Las Vegas Strip because they are unseen, but per capita, some studies imply Las Vegas has a much worse problem than SF.
  • ihumanable 4y ago
    I see this argument constantly, that the streets run brown with human feces. I worked in SOMA for a decade, I would commute every day on BART and would walk from Montgomery Street Station or Embarcadero or Civic Center or 16th Street to wherever my office was at the time (different companies, different offices). SOMA was always pretty clean, Civic Center a bit more hit or miss, 16th Street was generally a bit dirtier and rougher. The number of times I encountered human feces though was very low, like not even a monthly occurrence. Now I'm sure there's parts of San Francisco that are worse than others, and the walk from 16th Street BART to Potrero Hill would take me past plenty of homeless people camped out on the sidewalks, but I rarely if ever encountered human feces. But every. single. time. San Francisco comes up, it's the same tired line, "Oh I couldn't deal with the absolute deluge of human feces" which like cool, neither could I and it was fine because what the heck is everyone talking about. I'm not going to claim that every sidewalk and roadway is completely free of poo, but as someone that managed a team of people and would frequently go for walking meetings all around San Francisco, it was never my experience.
    • blindmute 4y ago
      This comment is absurd to someone living in a small metro area. There should not ever be human shit encountered on a sidewalk. Not once every couple months; never. You've been living in absurdity for so long that you've lost sight of it.
• peckrob 4y ago
  I don't know why it isn't being mentioned. I am not in the Bay Area myself, but about half of my friends there have relocated in the last couple years. A bunch to Washington or Oregon, some to Texas, one to Nashville, and a few others to places mostly in the northeast. All of them cited cost of living as the primary reason ... but all also mentioned full time remote work is what finally made it possible to move. When you aren't chained to a physical location by your job, lots of things become possible.
  • ghaff 4y ago
    Even if you like San Francisco on balance, it's hard not to ask yourself if you like it so much that you're OK with paying for some of the most expensive housing in the country when you don't have a reason you have to be there.
    • thatfrenchguy 4y ago
      Not a lot of places in the USA where you can take transit, walk around and be close to the beach and the mountains while having a garden and some space :)
    • xvedejas 4y ago
      This is not a strategy for everyone, but I definitely pay less in SF than I would in most cities because I know people willing to live with me long-term (and split rent) here. Generally it's easier in SF to find a roommate who is high-earning and willing to split an apartment or house compared to other cities, where similar people would just pay a little more to get their own place.
      • elif 4y ago
        in our city, my partner and I bought a house entirely for 5.5 years of what we were paying in rent. Now just 2 of our rent payments cover annual tax and insurance. any locally optimized strategy within the overall context of renting is still a failing proposition imo.
      • wctawcta 4y ago
• ghaff 4y ago
  There's also a natural tendency for many people, as they get older, to tend to gravitate away from downtowns as they care less about the bar scene, say, and more about space for hobbies, family, etc. So you're always going to have some natural outflow for older demographics and it's probable it's not being counterbalanced by new grads moving in. But I agree with your basic point. If you no longer have to live in an area for work, you definitely start thinking about where you want to live.
• givemeethekeys 4y ago
  If SF was attractive, then people would want to remotely work from SF. But it isn't. So, they're leaving. On the other hand San Diego seems to be blowing up.
  • RandomUser4567 4y ago
    I have a family member in San Diego and it’s truly mind boggling how expensive things have become over the last couple years.
  • whakim 4y ago
    I don't think this is necessarily true. Consider that the reason many people were in SF in the first place was because their job required them to be there and they didn't have a choice; now that they have a choice, perhaps many of them find SF attractive and stay, while a minority don't and leave.
    • deltaonefour 4y ago
      Around 2010 and before SF was very attractive. The southbay were where most jobs were located but everyone wanted to live in the city. That's what caused a huge amount of companies and startups to move to SF. The influx of techies, however, changed the city. And SF soon became what it is today.
      • onetokeoverthe 4y ago
        The ahistorical techies destroyed sf by 2000. Sf became techietown in 2000. Instead of primarily being an alt culture capital. It became "a place to work".
        • deltaonefour 4y ago
          No. It started in 2000 and proceeded into 2010 where around 2010 and before it became noticeable. By the mid 2010s it reached it's peak. Prior to 2010 and a little after it was more than a place to work. It was a place where all techies wanted to live; but not because of work. Because they loved the city. That's why those shuttles from SF to mountain view google exist. Too many googlers wanted to live in SF and work in MTV.
• scelerat 4y ago
  It's funny, I moved to SF and landed a tech job, in that order. I moved to the Bay Area for certain things above a job. I know there are others like me, perhaps not a majority of the HN crowd, but I quite like it here and it would take a lot for me to change my mind about the place.
  • deltaonefour 4y ago
    Lots of reasons why people hate SF. The homeless problems, the petty crime. The smell, the dirtiness, the shitty weather, the actual danger of stepping on human feces, the drug use. To each their own, but I think it's important for people to get out of their headspace and see things from a more general perspective as well. There are very good reasons why people don't like SF and unless people who love the city acknowledge those things, change is likely impossible.
    • tayo42 4y ago
      Except the weather lol I lived in Bernal for years and never experienced any of that...
      • deltaonefour 4y ago
        This is what I mean by people not getting out their headspace. I literally find it impossible not to experience every single thing I mentioned above on a daily basis just by walking through the city.
    • nineplay 4y ago
      There are good reasons why people don't like SF but why should people who do like SF care or try to convince them otherwise? I don't like Dallas but I don't think people who do like Dallas need to get out of their headspace and change things for my benefit. Obviously SF has problems and no one loves SF who doesn't want to improve the homeless issue. It doesn't make them wrong to love the city.
      • themitigating 4y ago
• vikingerik 4y ago
  > "if I don't have to live here, do I want to keep living here" I answered the exact same no to that question, moving out of NYC when my job went permanently remote since the pandemic. I moved to semi-rural Virginia where my family is, and bought a house with far more space and a pool than I could have dreamed of within commuting distance of NYC.
  • themitigating 4y ago
    For some house size is less important than have more to do outside the home if city entertainment is to your liking
• 99_00 4y ago
  Your reasoning contradicts its self. I agree that remote work allows more workers to live where they want. You claim that workers left SF not because of any attribute of the city, but because they wanted a change. You imply that SF is desirable place to live, however it's population declined only because of a desire for change. However, there are more remote workers outside of SF than in it. If SF was in-fact desirable, and remote workers simply want 'change', then SF's population would increase. Because a greater number of remote workers would move to desirable SF for their change, than would leave it. Reality is this: Remote work allows workers choose desirable places to live regardless of office location. Without the advantage of office location, SF stops being desirable. It stops being desirable because the benefits it supplies (culture, etc) are less than the costs it demands (crime, rent, etc). One might argue that MANY cities are going to experience similar declines and that SF isn't unique. So this can't be seen as people voting with their feet against SF. That's fine. Then people are voting with their feet against MANY cities and cities are simply not desirable.
  • 8note 4y ago
    The price of rent shows its desirability. Lots and lots of people want to live there, but that doesn't mean they can, or that it's the best fit for their other requirements.
    • ulfw 4y ago
      No it really doesn't. It's a supply/demand thing. A ton of jobs bring people into San Francisco, a lot of people coming into SF (with housing supply roughly steady) let to ever increasing prices. Simple as that. That's the majority of why people come to SF. It's not the 1960s anymore as people fled to SF because of flower power, hippies or the gay movement. Sadly it's become a very different town. As soon as jobs didn't require people to live in SF (thanks to Covid induced remote work) people moved out. Not everyone! Of course. But more people moved out than moved in, showing that the desirability of SF isn't as strong as you think it is.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• ilamont 4y ago
  There's another data point that supports this view of remote work: retirement Many people, when given the chance to not work at all, leave their residence or make a decision to split their time between their old home and a new home in a location with a better lifestyle, friends, family, whatever.
• tshaddox 4y ago
  The even more obvious thing is the lockdowns. Regardless of whether you think the lockdowns were appropriate or not, it’s pretty clear that many of the advantages of living in a dense cultural center like SF go away when you’re mostly confined to your home and can’t participate in night life, the art/music scene, restaurants, etc. Heck you barely even benefit from the weather any more.
• smsm42 4y ago
  Many SF tech companies would love to not allow remote work again, but I think they can't really pull that off anymore. The argument "the company can't function that way" has been demolished during COVID days, so it'd be very hard for companies to go back. And the more companies allow it, the less leverage the ones that don't have. That said, a lot of people that worked in SF didn't live in SF even back then. They may live in Oakland, Redwood City, Mountain View, all the way from Walnut Creek to Los Gatos or Milpitas. Now they can just avoid the multi-hour commute - and I think that's a win.
• hsdrtjhwe45j 4y ago
  >...all these super visible indicators I laughed a little at how hard the wording here is trying not to say "The homeless and druggies". Anyway, this explanation might have some grounding in reality but I don't know that it's actually saying anything useful since people and businesses choose remote work for a reason and they choose to displace themselves to embrace it for a reason. There are essentially two components in this scenario. There are the people who leave because want to work remotely and the companies that want to leave to hire remote workers (or move their current workers). The people want to work remotely because of the crime, toxic local culture, and costs. Companies want to leave because of the crime, incompetent governance, and costs. In either case, the fraction of people/businesses leaving because remote work is just so awesome and it's fun to get out and see new places is miniscule. Tl;dr: People and businesses choose to work remotely for reasons and there's little evidence to show that a primary or even significant motivator of this is simply a desire for a change of scenery. Even if it was, the question still becomes what is the scenery being escaped from.