2 ms·
True, it's also interesting to note that for the city to function "the waiters, waitresses, security guards, janitors, etc" are required. The tech employees are
by k-mcgrady 13y ago
True, it's also interesting to note that for the city to function "the waiters, waitresses, security guards, janitors, etc" are required. The tech employees aren't. We could end up in a situation where 'aspiring entrepreneurs' work those jobs while they try to get their startup off the ground (a bit like people trying to get into acting in Hollywood).
- bmelton 13y agoAgreed. Another irony is that what has happened to SF is basically what every city would like to happen. Just like every startup, they've met their goal -- they're hip, and have traction, and now, basically, they're having problems scaling their success. If you squint hard enough, you could draw parallels to Twitter's early success -- lots of users, and not enough infrastructure to support it. San Francisco is now looking at a number of fail whales, but, at the same time, housing regulations prevent them from scaling. They've made that as a deliberate choice, and a pretty baffling one. As I stated elsewhere (so won't bother repeating at length), I believe the market would ultimately correct for this except for the artificially constrained supply being imposed by the building regulations. As an east-coast dweller that only works in SF, it's interesting to watch from afar. I mean, the idea of a class war ensuing as a result is obviously not a great one -- I'd hate to have to navigate SF like I would some war-torn country when I'm there for work, but one assumes the issue will resolve itself, some way or another, well before it ever gets to that.