
San Francisco: Office space data says tech bubble is not popping - cft
http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/30/dear-san-francisco-office-space-data-says-your-tech-bubble-is-not-popping-and-probably-never-will/
======
cbanek
Honest question here: Do people have the right to live wherever they want?

I hear a lot about SF prices, and housing, and employment/pay, and it all
really seems to come down to this one fundamental question.

A lot of people want to live in SF, which is a very small geographic area. The
simple law of supply and demand shows that prices will be high, and people
that can pay those prices will stay, and people that aren't willing or can't
will leave. This seems to be what is happening right now, economics in action.

In the end, there's likely a few possible outcomes: 1) We need people to do
the "low jobs" that wouldn't pay enough to live in SF. Jobs like cleaning,
food service, etc. All of these things still need to happen. So these people
either need to get paid enough to live there, or there needs to be some kind
of amazing commuting going on. This would continue the price rises.

2) People that can afford SF realize it's so expensive that it's not worth it.
This helps deflate the prices, and increase economies elsewhere.

It honestly feels like we've got a bit of both going on. Many companies are
getting out of SF because of the costs and moving elsewhere. But there's still
too many people (and a lot of young people) trying to get in. We haven't hit
equilibrium yet, so prices rise.

But the real question is, for people that can't afford to live in SF, and are
constantly protesting that fact - do you have the right to live there, or
should you just move somewhere else?

There are plenty of jobs in the US, and while there may be some real reasons
that you NEED to live in SF (taking care of family is one that comes to top of
mind), I can't honestly see any requirement to living there.

This is one of the reasons why I moved out of California entirely, after
living in SF and LA, and moved to Nevada. But I'm not one of these people
protesting that they can't afford to live where they choose, and thinking
that's a right.

As far as I can tell, it's not a right. If you can't afford it, you can't have
it. Not everyone can live in mid-town Manhattan or SF. Everyone does, so the
people that make it are the people that can pay.

Things and times change. If you don't change with them, then you're the one
standing in the road waiting to get run over.

~~~
RickS
The socially accepted answer is "no". I don't just mean in the regional sense
(san francisco), but the literal sense (your neighbor's yard). Property can be
owned, ownership can be transferred/negotiated, and rights tied somehow to
that ownership are necessary for occupation.

But you're asking the wrong question, IMO. The right question is "do we have a
moral obligation to make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest
number of people?"

I think we do, at least to a point. Some places take it farther than others,
but the general consensus is that SF's prices are a result of malleable
policies and past decisions, not just hard facts of life (though the "water on
3 sides" thing is a hard fact for sure).

People aren't complaining that they're magically entitled to live wherever
they happen to be standing. They're complaining that a system capable of
helping more people live better is performing pretty poorly.

I think that's great that there's uproar. Personally I fear the day we _stop_
demanding that the world around us get better.

~~~
cbanek
I agree with your question: "do we have a moral obligation to make housing as
accessible as it could be for the largest number of people?"

I say the answer to that is yes. But if you make the question specific to a
particular area, my answer would be no. Just about anywhere in the US is
cheaper to house people than SF (other than NYC). It'd also probably be better
for the economy to develop other urban and even suburban areas, because there
would be more jobs related to people living in those areas (think cashiers,
gas stations, places to eat, etc.)

While some places are hard to live, because there's no water, no medical
services, etc, there's a lot of places to go live.

The big question now is about jobs. There's a lot of jobs in SF, and not a lot
of jobs in small affordable towns, and people need jobs. But I think that's a
self fulfilling cycle, in that tech jobs can really happen anywhere. You don't
need a railroad, or factory, or have a port.

Overall I feel like people in SF are complaining that they can't afford to
live in SF. Not where they are standing, or in a great neighborhood, but they
want to live in SF. And most of them are blaming the tech companies
completely.

I'm also not sure what system is helping or hurting people here. It seems to
be simple economics. And while I'm all about helping people, knowing some of
the ways people get around rent control in both SF and NYC, you're really
fighting the clock to get things back to a normal equilibrium.

I'm all about people demanding things get better, but it just seems like
people are angry that things suck, and while there are things that we can do
(both people and government), nobody is budging.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" The big question now is about jobs. There's a lot of jobs in SF, and not a
lot of jobs in small affordable towns, and people need jobs."_

This is ameliorated to some extent by the increased feasibility of
telecommuting. If you can telecommute, then you can work from almost anywhere.

Unfortunately, there are still prices to pay for telecommuting, even if your
workplace allows it. It's not for everyone. I have a friend who did it for a
long time, and they got regularly passed over for promotions vs people who
worked in the home office, but they got to live in a much more beautiful and
much cheaper place than SF. Some people can't concentrate when they work from
home. Some miss having coworkers they can socialize with in-person, and so on.
But if you can swing working remotely, and don't mind the downsides, then it
can be a much saner and more affordable way to go.

~~~
cbanek
I completely agree with you on this one. Telecommuting can change everything,
because suddenly a town with no outside basis of jobs could support a
community and have a tax base.

(Also, some people work better remotely, away from politics and open office
nonsense)

------
jblow
San Francisco is just kind of stupid at this point. I have lived in the Bay
Area since 1989 and I am leaving on Tuesday. Whatever benefits there are to
being here do not outweigh the huge monetary cost and substantial degradation
of quality of life.

(And before you can thinking about paying rents or whatever, if you are in the
top tax bracket, enjoy paying 13.3% state income tax, which, after Federal
tax, is a staggering 22% of your income.)

~~~
user5994461
22% of your income ONLY. OMG.

Paying around 50% here (plus another many percent paid directly by the
employer).

Note that I'm in Europe.

~~~
adviceadam
OP's numbers are off. If you make $1,000,000 a year in SF, you pay 45% of your
income as income tax. If you make $10,000,000, it's just over 50%.

I used this calculator: [https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-
calculator#ysfEQ...](https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-
calculator#ysfEQYrShp)

~~~
SomewhatLikely
OP's 22% was of the amount remaining after federal taxes. After federal taxes,
you would have about 65% of your income left, the state would take about
13.5%/65% = 21% of that.

------
jimmywanger
I've lived here for over 30 years.

The city is getting silly. I remember when 280 would never get traffic, now
it's clogged up more often than not. And 85, don't even mention it.

I don't see what San Francisco's appeal is, except for the food. In almost
every other respect, it's worse than any other major city in the United
States, all things considered.

~~~
Xcelerate
As someone who has lived in the southern U.S. all of my life (except three
years in Paris when I was younger), San Francisco has a lot going for it that
makes it well worth the price:

\- Like-minded people. Living in a region where people are genuinely
interested in and passionate about the same things that you are is invaluable.
There are a few people who live near me that are just as interested in science
and technology as I am, but they are vastly outweighed by the people who _aren
't_ interested in it. Some of my friends in tech say they eventually get tired
of hearing about tech all the time in SF, but as a twenty-something who just
finished grad school, it will be a very long time before I get "sick of tech".
Plus all of the VCs are in San Francisco, and failure (at starting your own
company) doesn't have the same stigma there that it does in the rest of the
world. SF always seems to be on the cutting edge.

\- Beautiful environment. This is subjective, but I love the rolling hills,
the bay, and the weather. I love how there are bike lanes all over the place,
and how nature is just a couple hours drive away.

\- The food. No city in the South can compete with the diversity of food in SF
other than a few rare restaurants. (One could argue that I should just learn
to cook better... which is a valid point.)

\- The diversity. I like the mix of cultures and the exposure to things that
are _new_. I'm one of those people who constantly craves novelty, and there's
not many cities that can provide that.

~~~
santaclaus
> No city in the South can compete with the diversity of food in SF other than
> a few rare restaurants

New Orleans has an amazing food culture! You can walk into dive bars and have
some amazing meals in that town, for like 5 bucks...

~~~
Xcelerate
That's true... I forgot about New Orleans. There are also some other southern
cities known for food (Asheville), but they're so small, so once you've hit
all the major restaurants, there's nothing else out there.

------
jorblumesea
All of these issues are great for Seattle. The influx of talent and wealth has
been transformative for the city (but not always in a good way). People
fleeing high prices of California in general have found things to be much
better here in every regard. Perhaps not the weather.

The real issue is whether we will repeat the same mistakes of SF?

------
ttul
Doesn't office space lag a slowdown considerably? I mean, from the first rent
default to the suite being on the market takes a while.

~~~
heisenbit
I think it is coincident or lagging.

Also let's not forget venture beat is basing it's reporting on the seller side
i.e. a real estate firm which has incentives to talk the market up.

