Item — HN Reader

I often wonder about how sustainable SF’s growth is. Between the issues with housing, rent control, NIMBYism, and poor infrastructure, there has to be a price tag at which this can’t continue. I live in the city, and the quality of living here is terrible compared to other cities.

The only thing SF has going for it is the people, but sooner or later the right social pressures could cause a mass exodus, and I wonder what those pressures look like.

6 comments

Your question gets asked often: How long can this continue?

And the answer is: It will continue as long as people are willing to pay the rent.

I understand from your post that you are fed up with the high rent and the low quality of living. But the most important part of what you said is the fact that you are still willing to pay, and you are still willing to stay, despite all of the disadvantages. In other words, you have decided (whether you like it or not) that in your case the advantages of living in SF outweigh all of the disadvantages.

And there are many others like you. You are all collectively voting for things to continue the way they are.

Making it stop would require you (or others like you) to decide the trade-off isn't worth it.

My girlfriend and I decided in January that the trade off is no longer worth it. Now it’s just about timing.

While I hear what you’re saying, I’m musing more specifically on what that function looks like. I understand “it will continue as long as it can” but looking for a less rhetorical answer.

I regularly have recruiters coming to me with jobs in the Bay Area. I tell them that my salary requirement is double for up there versus Los Angeles. A few of the big players will always be able to afford that, but I see smaller tech companies and startups moving away due to cost.

Alternatively, a bunch of us could get together and change the laws, so as to make the city better.

The more people who get screwed by housing, the more political power we will gain, until something eventually gives out, and we start winning the political game.

You don't have to wonder, you're looking at it.

https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-A...

"The Bay Area exodus is real and ongoing. The region leads the nation for outward migration, a new study has found."

This study is from Redfin and AFAIK Redfin only deals with real estate purchases, excluding renters.

SF, and the Bay as a whole, is the northernmost large snow-free area in the country. The weather alone practically guarantees someone will find a reason to live here. If there were other negatives besides high prices, I think the concern over decline could be more well-founded, but there will always be some sort of city by the Bay.

  the northernmost large snow-free area

You can go a long way north of SF before you hit an area that has snow in any meaningful amount, excluding a few mountains/volcanoes.

> but sooner or later the right social pressures could cause a mass exodus

Why would that be the case, rather than the social pressures (it sucks to try to live here) reaching a dynamic equilibrium with the economic forces (companies and people are more productive here and will compensate you well for the extra trouble)?

I can only think of two reasons for a sudden 'mass exodus':

1. People to 'suddenly realize' that they are getting a bad deal; but isn't it pretty much public knowledge that housing in the Bay Area sucks, and will continue to suck?

2. Outside factors suddenly slow down tech hiring (recession, tech crisis)

The SFBA runs on a gold rush / lottery model. You can move there as an "ordinary" person and make millions or tens of millions of dollars within a few years, i.e. a winning lottery ticket. It's probably better than a lottery because there's enough of a skills-based component that people convince themselves their odds are higher than a pure lottery would be. As long as that dream remains alive, young talent will swarm like locusts and care relatively little about living standards or quality of life. And to be fair, at least for now, there are a lot of people in SFBA hitting the jackpot - good for them - so when I say dream, it's a dream at least loosely tethered to reality. But if the tide turns and millionaires in their 20s stop being minted, then the whole ecosystem is in for a readjustment.

Everyone agrees it sucks. The reason they stay is the opportunity.

A good point. I don’t know. I’d love to learn more about how this happens in practice and what the driving forces are.

I live in a city/country with a similar situation. Where the capital is literally a highly polluted shit-hole. Just 80km from the center you can find very nice housing, calm neighborhoods and good restaurants. (and yet better infrastructure) for like 1/3 or a 1/4 of the rent cost.

Unlike San Fransisco, no one wants to live here.

So the situation will continue as long as jobs remain in the bay area.

The entire town literally smells like crap. The people are alright. No idea why anyone would want to live there.

The best thing about the gentrication war is all the trustfund liberal arts crowds shaming tech workers for trying to make a living.

Meh, soon enough you're left with the veneer of culture due to the commercial and superficial nature of it. Once this takes effect a cultural ghetto is created and the creators move elsewhere leaving a consumerist mess of boutiques and nonsense in its wake.

It's not like this is new, it's the natural order of capitalizing on development. If you want to hang with the arts kids, you'll be living in squalor. I mean hell, Vancouver used to be a giant powerhouse of culture generation, post-exodus the amount of cultural importance is rapidly decreasing spreading to other nearby locations.