5 ms·

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.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > 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 I’m not sure how big of a factor that is/was though. I know plenty of people in their 20s who worked in the peninsula or east bay but deliberately took on the high costs (and long commutes!) of living in SF for the usual reasons related to SF being a cultural center. I think it would be fairer to apply your claim to the reason many people live in the entire Bay Area, but not specifically in SF.
  - jethro_tell 4y ago
    I mean, to be fair, we're talking about 6 out of 100 people moving this year. I can defiantly see 6 out of 100 people being there just because that's where they get paid or their job moved them. It's even more likely that part of that 6 percent had family obligations, and some just realized they wouldn't buy a house even if they loved the city, and some just hated it.
rad88 4y ago
If fallacies worked then everyone would use them, but they don't, so nobody uses them!
andbberger 4y ago
SF is attractive it's just stupidly expensive
lemonlime 4y ago
If SF was unattractive, it wouldn't cost $2,500-$3,000 to live in mediocre housing with 6 housemates. Even people that don't have high paying tech jobs are lining up to pay these kinds of insane prices. They don't want to pay the prices, but it's worth it to live in an area like SF. One of the only places on the planet in human history that people put this much energy and money into just living somewhere.
- twiceaday 4y ago
  "Nobody drives in LA. There's too much traffic!"
- mikebenfield 4y ago
  Obviously there is some level of demand to live in SF, and that's part of the explanation for the high cost of living. But the factor really driving up rent and real estate prices is the massive resistance in SF and the Bay Area in general to building new housing.
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
    It's being driven up everywhere. SF just started higher.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      In part yes, but also, SF was especially resistant to building new houses. So much so it even has a Wikipedia article on its obstinance. [1] > For example, from 2012 to 2016, the San Francisco metropolitan area added 373,000 new jobs, but permitted only 58,000 new housing units. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage
      - inferiorhuman 4y ago
        Don't confuse the city and county of San Francisco with the whole bay area. There are NIMBYs just like everywhere else out here, but San Francisco is already one of the most densely populated cities in the country. You don't have to look very far (e.g. Brisbane) to see places with little-to-no housing fighting new developments tooth and nail.
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
SF is expensive. If SF was cheaper, it would be more attractive, more people would arrive, and rents would be pushed up again by the increased competition. This is just supply and demand at work.

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.
tshaddox 4y ago
> 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 I’m not sure how big of a factor that is/was though. I know plenty of people in their 20s who worked in the peninsula or east bay but deliberately took on the high costs (and long commutes!) of living in SF for the usual reasons related to SF being a cultural center. I think it would be fairer to apply your claim to the reason many people live in the entire Bay Area, but not specifically in SF.
- jethro_tell 4y ago
  I mean, to be fair, we're talking about 6 out of 100 people moving this year. I can defiantly see 6 out of 100 people being there just because that's where they get paid or their job moved them. It's even more likely that part of that 6 percent had family obligations, and some just realized they wouldn't buy a house even if they loved the city, and some just hated it.

rad88 4y ago

If fallacies worked then everyone would use them, but they don't, so nobody uses them!

andbberger 4y ago

SF is attractive it's just stupidly expensive

lemonlime 4y ago

If SF was unattractive, it wouldn't cost $2,500-$3,000 to live in mediocre housing with 6 housemates. Even people that don't have high paying tech jobs are lining up to pay these kinds of insane prices. They don't want to pay the prices, but it's worth it to live in an area like SF. One of the only places on the planet in human history that people put this much energy and money into just living somewhere.

twiceaday 4y ago
"Nobody drives in LA. There's too much traffic!"
mikebenfield 4y ago
Obviously there is some level of demand to live in SF, and that's part of the explanation for the high cost of living. But the factor really driving up rent and real estate prices is the massive resistance in SF and the Bay Area in general to building new housing.
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  It's being driven up everywhere. SF just started higher.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    In part yes, but also, SF was especially resistant to building new houses. So much so it even has a Wikipedia article on its obstinance. [1] > For example, from 2012 to 2016, the San Francisco metropolitan area added 373,000 new jobs, but permitted only 58,000 new housing units. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage
    - inferiorhuman 4y ago
      Don't confuse the city and county of San Francisco with the whole bay area. There are NIMBYs just like everywhere else out here, but San Francisco is already one of the most densely populated cities in the country. You don't have to look very far (e.g. Brisbane) to see places with little-to-no housing fighting new developments tooth and nail.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

SF is expensive. If SF was cheaper, it would be more attractive, more people would arrive, and rents would be pushed up again by the increased competition. This is just supply and demand at work.