5 ms·

The Tech industry caused a lot of the isdues in SF due to rising housing prices due to high wages. The problem will just move around.

racl101 4y ago
Classic "why does it smell like shit everywhere I go" situation.
- dkural 4y ago
  Boston has a ton of tech and none of the brazen crime and breakdown in social order.
  - JoshTko 4y ago
    It’s definitely starting to get worse.
  - tapoxi 4y ago
    I think that's because our winters are brutal. Homeless people would rather live in a milder climate or a place like New York with a better public transportation system.
- cronix 4y ago
  Right, we're talking about San Francisco. It's because there's literally shit everywhere.
carlivar 4y ago
How much new housing was built?
prottog 4y ago
A causal relationship seems very difficult to establish here. Housing prices in SF are mostly due to the fact that it's very, very difficult to build more homes. High wages, even if it's concentrated in one particular sector, spreads out to the rest, since those high earners have to spend their money somewhere. The average hourly wage among all occupations in the SF area is almost 50% higher than the nationwide average; in food service, 35% higher. Of course, none of this causes drug addiction and mental illness.
- JoshTko 4y ago
  Massive income inequality is a root cause driver of a underclass that gets crushed under soaring costs and inability to pay for basics necessities like housing and healthcare.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    …because of an utter lack of ability to build more housing. The massive wealth brought by the tech industry could easily allow abundance. But when it’s impossible to build anything, it doesn’t matter how much money is raised via taxing that wealth, it just goes everywhere OTHER than building housing, which is needed desperately for lower income folk there and working class folk who do the work in healthcare. A fixed amount of housing will just get bid up and up and up into the stratosphere. And for the progressive Boomer types who bought into the market decades ago and are now sitting on multimillion dollar property valuations, they will support any measure other than one which increases supply in a way that could reduce their property values (see Robert Reich). It’s a recipe for misery. And Robert Reich is why I think that concern about inequality is not actually a productive route to fixing the problem. He’s one of THE greatest voices decrying inequality (and in the past I really agreed with a lot he had to say), and when push came to shove, he opposed new housing in his area (Berkeley) which could’ve threatened his household wealth. Be concerned about “community voice” and the power of existing homeowners (which in SF means millionaires or more) to oppose building housing. Question those who question—under the guise of progressive (or conservative) goals—the creation of abundance. “Sure, you’re creating greater overall wealth that will help the vast majority of people, but the wrong people get most of the benefit.”
    - prottog 4y ago
      > Question those who question ... the creation of abundance I cannot agree with you more on this point. The whole history of capitalism and all it depends on (rule of law, strong private property rights, laissez-faire economic policies) has been one of a rising tide lifting all boats. Now in the developed world, material wealth has gotten to such a level that people in power are much more keen on divvying up the pie as they see fit than baking more pie. People have gotten myopic on this topic because they see more wealth than ever before; they question why we need to create more wealth, instead of spreading the existing wealth around? And that leads to precisely the kind of thinking you underlined: a further rising tide is bad, if some people end up in bigger yachts.
manuelabeledo 4y ago
This is a myopic point of view. "High wages" are not the issue, inequality is, and the largest contributor to that are low wages. We should be fighting poverty, not aiming at the middle class to earn less.
- Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
  Fighting poverty =\= fighting inequality. Why the shift? Is your problem that Musk is much richer than the 1% (inequality), or is it that there are people without anything at all?
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    Doesn't it make sense to aim at increasing wages at the lowest end, instead of targeting higher earners? I get the sense that people in HN believe that most tech workers in the Bay Area are some sort of high rolling millionaires. They mostly are not, and the proof is that most are priced out of housing in SF too. Saying that inequality is caused by tech workers is thus a myopic statement.
triceratops 4y ago
San Franciscans: "Paying workers well is bad." Everyone else: "SF is full of lefty commies". Let's appreciate the...irony? Cognitive dissonance? Misunderstanding? I don't even know what it is.
- planter 4y ago
  Well, that pretty much sounds like communism, atleast in practice. Majority is suffering while the leaders and a small group are ultra rich and lives in luxury, at the expense of workers and ordinary people.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    You just confirmed the point I made above about the lack of critical thinking on this subject.

racl101 4y ago

Classic "why does it smell like shit everywhere I go" situation.

dkural 4y ago
Boston has a ton of tech and none of the brazen crime and breakdown in social order.
- JoshTko 4y ago
  It’s definitely starting to get worse.
- tapoxi 4y ago
  I think that's because our winters are brutal. Homeless people would rather live in a milder climate or a place like New York with a better public transportation system.
cronix 4y ago
Right, we're talking about San Francisco. It's because there's literally shit everywhere.

carlivar 4y ago

How much new housing was built?

prottog 4y ago

A causal relationship seems very difficult to establish here. Housing prices in SF are mostly due to the fact that it's very, very difficult to build more homes. High wages, even if it's concentrated in one particular sector, spreads out to the rest, since those high earners have to spend their money somewhere. The average hourly wage among all occupations in the SF area is almost 50% higher than the nationwide average; in food service, 35% higher. Of course, none of this causes drug addiction and mental illness.

JoshTko 4y ago
Massive income inequality is a root cause driver of a underclass that gets crushed under soaring costs and inability to pay for basics necessities like housing and healthcare.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  …because of an utter lack of ability to build more housing. The massive wealth brought by the tech industry could easily allow abundance. But when it’s impossible to build anything, it doesn’t matter how much money is raised via taxing that wealth, it just goes everywhere OTHER than building housing, which is needed desperately for lower income folk there and working class folk who do the work in healthcare. A fixed amount of housing will just get bid up and up and up into the stratosphere. And for the progressive Boomer types who bought into the market decades ago and are now sitting on multimillion dollar property valuations, they will support any measure other than one which increases supply in a way that could reduce their property values (see Robert Reich). It’s a recipe for misery. And Robert Reich is why I think that concern about inequality is not actually a productive route to fixing the problem. He’s one of THE greatest voices decrying inequality (and in the past I really agreed with a lot he had to say), and when push came to shove, he opposed new housing in his area (Berkeley) which could’ve threatened his household wealth. Be concerned about “community voice” and the power of existing homeowners (which in SF means millionaires or more) to oppose building housing. Question those who question—under the guise of progressive (or conservative) goals—the creation of abundance. “Sure, you’re creating greater overall wealth that will help the vast majority of people, but the wrong people get most of the benefit.”
  - prottog 4y ago
    > Question those who question ... the creation of abundance I cannot agree with you more on this point. The whole history of capitalism and all it depends on (rule of law, strong private property rights, laissez-faire economic policies) has been one of a rising tide lifting all boats. Now in the developed world, material wealth has gotten to such a level that people in power are much more keen on divvying up the pie as they see fit than baking more pie. People have gotten myopic on this topic because they see more wealth than ever before; they question why we need to create more wealth, instead of spreading the existing wealth around? And that leads to precisely the kind of thinking you underlined: a further rising tide is bad, if some people end up in bigger yachts.

manuelabeledo 4y ago

This is a myopic point of view. "High wages" are not the issue, inequality is, and the largest contributor to that are low wages. We should be fighting poverty, not aiming at the middle class to earn less.

Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
Fighting poverty =\= fighting inequality. Why the shift? Is your problem that Musk is much richer than the 1% (inequality), or is it that there are people without anything at all?
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  Doesn't it make sense to aim at increasing wages at the lowest end, instead of targeting higher earners? I get the sense that people in HN believe that most tech workers in the Bay Area are some sort of high rolling millionaires. They mostly are not, and the proof is that most are priced out of housing in SF too. Saying that inequality is caused by tech workers is thus a myopic statement.

triceratops 4y ago

San Franciscans: "Paying workers well is bad." Everyone else: "SF is full of lefty commies". Let's appreciate the...irony? Cognitive dissonance? Misunderstanding? I don't even know what it is.

planter 4y ago
Well, that pretty much sounds like communism, atleast in practice. Majority is suffering while the leaders and a small group are ultra rich and lives in luxury, at the expense of workers and ordinary people.
- triceratops 4y ago
  You just confirmed the point I made above about the lack of critical thinking on this subject.