Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable housing strangles hiring - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/20/san-jose-san-francisco-oakland-job-losses-hammer-bay-area-employers-slash-thousands-of-jobs/ <comment><USER4> Most of the bay area employees are divided into 3 categories from anecdotal experience: young rockstars that are willing to live in relative squalor for a chance to prove themselves, vested and moneyed elites (CEO's, presidents, VC funded overlords) who are so out of touch with the average employee its best they not show up to the office that frequently, and H1B visa recipients that endure the soul-crushing San Jose or beyond commute every day because their job represents something more than just the sum of their skills, its a ticket to citizenship and a better life for their family.

Ive turned down more bay jobs than I can count because at some age you begin to accept the fact that SFBay isnt that great. Rising levels of increasingly aggressive homeless, the inability to afford any housing, and the price of food and public transportation in general are just a few factors that led me to say no.

<comment><USER5> A fourth category: people who have lived here for a long time, and were able to buy property back before it became unaffordable. These are typically the managers or senior employees.

It makes me wonder that as the young rockstars and H1B recipients age, where will they go? They certainly can't afford to buy a house. I imagine as time goes on, companies in the Bay Area will be awash with young junior talent but will struggle to attract more senior folks.

<comment><USER6> I'm fairly early in my career at a company (< 30 years old). I'm currently able to afford a house in the bay area. Its not as crazy as it sounds.

80-10-10 mortgage on a 1mil home is only 100k down. And the monthly payments split by 2 people (aka a couple) is ~2k / person / month. That's 4k/month all in once you include the tax rebates.

<comment><USER7> How much land and house does that $1M buy you? In New Hampshire where I live, $1M buys you quite a bit: several thousand square feet of house, several acres of land, an excellent local public school system, great views... Heck, I even imagine that in the greater Boston metro area you'll get a similar bang for your buck.

Your normal family property (approx 1500 - 2000 ft/sq, ~1 acre land) goes for $200k - $250k. Still expensive, but doable, especially if both parents are making decent money (>= $50k/year is what I count as decent money). Less than $30k down payment brings your monthly expenses to less than $2k/mo. Exactly half price for what I'd imagine to be similar living conditions in SF Bay (albeit Bay Area public schools are probably better than NH's, though New England has very good schools).

It's clear that you're making a lot more money than I am for similar experience -- I too am less than 30 years old -- but I wonder the difference in percentage our savable income is, given the difference in costs we both pay for housing. I too wonder for others in our age and job demographic what they're able to save when living in SF Bay vs. elsewhere.

The cost of living there doesn't seem worth it to me. Heck, NE I think is too expensive! Been looking to move down to Raleigh, NC after I get married, but that's neither here nor there.

<comment><USER8> I don't live in the Bay area, but I live in DC and still pay a lot for housing by national standards, and at least for me, looking at it in terms of land and square footage misses the point. Obviously people optimizing for those things won't live in SF or DC (or Manhattan or Boston, etc.). Those things will clearly be more cheaply attainable in places where land is plentiful. You pay to live in a dense urban area because you value the amenities of the city, the economic opportunities it affords, the walkable or bikable lifestyle it facilitates, etc.

My commute is ten minutes on a bike, I live alone so I don't need a big house, and I have no use for a lawn. Your values are clearly different, so New Hampshire is the right call for you (or NC, or whatever). But they're not apples-to-apples comparisons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 38, two kids and a wife. Have been living in a 900SQ/FT apt, I don't know how much longer I can take this before rage quitting and relocating somewhere else (don't know where). The sad part, as a ethnic-minority, I have just found our community for my kids, etc. It would be really tragic if I have to tear my kids away from that.

Don't get me wrong, my daily 30 minute commute on BART isn't the worst. The worst part is that I make $185,000-$238,000 (with bonus and all) and still can't afford to buy a home because I can't compete with other investors that have deep pockets filled with cash, not to mention buying a semi-decent home in a semi-OK neighborhood sets you easily back by $850K-$1.2MM. It's insane! The best I'm able to do is to pay for a $3550/mo rent and tuck away as much money as I can while providing for the wife and kids, which isn't the cheapest.

Anyway, thanks for reading. Back to work.

Edit: Armenian. Also, I'll check myself, there are others in far worse financial/living condition in the Bay Area. Comparatively speaking, I have it easier than most.

<comment><USER10> As someone who's originally from California (not the Bay Area, though), let me tell you this: the cost of living, for what you get, is astronomically high compared to other places.

Here in North Texas, I make around 100k/yr, and due to cost of living I can squirrel a lot of that away. We have no state income tax, and our property tax, while high, isn't nearly as high as California's (and will vary depending upon which county you live in -- massively expanding counties like Collin will charge more than rural ones like Johnson).

With that income I was easily able to buy a ~1800sqft two story house in a good neighborhood. My total consistent expenses for each month are maybe 2/3s that of your rent, which includes non-consumables like mortgage, insurance, utilities, etc.

In all of this, of course, I don't have kids and my wife doesn't (currently) work. If your spouse does work, then your spending power here becomes so much greater.

Trust me. Get out. It's the best decision I've ever made and there's absolutely no fucking way I would ever live in CA again.

<comment><USER11> I have lived in Texas. It absolutely sucks in many ways. No real cities (yes, I have been to Austin, doesn't count). Nothing compared to California when it comes to recreation, vacations, day trips, road trips etc. Acceptance of LGBT lifestyles. Very church oriented (I am a non believer). Low salaries, tech opportunities in Dallas and Houston are not comparable to the Bay.

<comment><USER10> >No real cities

Erm...guess you don't count some of the largest metroplexes in the country as "cities", do you?

>when it comes to recreations, vacations, day trips, road trips

That's fairly accurate. We don't have a ton of touristy crap, but that's no big deal for me.

>Acceptance of LGBT lifestyles

Did you live in the country or something? Never seen a problem with it here. In any of the urban/metro areas it's no big deal.

>Very church oriented

So? I'm an atheist and I've never had any problems with it. You'll only find a problem if you're actively combative with people about it. Otherwise most people don't care.

>Low salaries, tech opportunities

Houston I can understand. But not Dallas. You must not be looking very hard is all I can say. Even when I haven't been actively looking I get hit up by recruiters all the time. Either that or you're in a very, very specialized field with very low overall demand. My salary has also been going up constantly, and with the cost of living I can live very comfortably with what I make (and I'm not even in the top parts).

<comment><USER12> >when it comes to recreations, vacations, day trips, road trips

>>That's fairly accurate. We don't have a ton of touristy crap, but that's no big deal for me.

I get what you're saying (though Texas definitely has a fair share of tourist traps). I think it's worth mentioning this is potentially a large lifestyle component for some (possible deal breaker too). The difference between California and Texas is vast.

Texas has extreme weather compared to the west coast and it should not be ignored. There is less geographical variety through the entire state, and what variety there is can potentially be very far (Dallas to Big Bend Park is an 8 hour drive!). If you enjoy the outdoors and outdoor activities and your only reference is California, you may be surprised in the summer when the temperature does not cool in the evenings like a coastal city (even on the gulf coast). The gulf coast water temperatures in the summer can be 90 degrees! A July beach trip in Galveston is not enjoyable and potentially deadly just from temperatures. No mountains or large points of reference can be dizzying. Living in an air-conditioned bubble for 8 months of the year can get frustrating. If you live in southern California, you can go from the beach to snowy mountains in the same day. You can drive an hour or two and be in some of the most beautiful coastal cities in the country, or wineries with some of the best wine in the country. You can go hiking in December without a jacket and you can go hiking in July and need a light coat. You can basically switch any month of the year and still be comfortable. Obviously there is some hyperbole in my examples but the main points stands.

It's worth mentioning that if none of that matters much to you, then you'd enjoy Texas a great bit. There is a ton of culture. Depending on the city, there is a mishmash of everything social you could want or imagine. Food is great and cheap (or expensive, they can suit any taste or appetite to spend money or not).

>Acceptance of LGBT lifestyles

>>Did you live in the country or something? Never seen a problem with it here. In any of the urban/metro areas it's no big deal.

I have a good friend who still cannot come out at work for fear of mistreatment - in the city. I agree that it's generally friendly and accepted in the cities but nowhere near the same as the west coast. I'm gay and I've lived in California and Texas and there is no comparison on the two in terms of acceptance. I would hesitate to hold my partners hand or come out to new acquaintances in Texas. Not so much in California (or the west coast in general). You may not see it but the pressures exists and the difference is real.

>Very church oriented

>>So? I'm an atheist and I've never had any problems with it. You'll only find a problem if you're actively combative with people about it. Otherwise most people don't care.

Agreed, I've never had problems with it, but it is more in your face. There are benefits to being atheist in Texas, travel is lighter and shopping/etc is much easier on Sunday mornings. I got asked what church I attend much more frequently. I've also witnessed more extreme views in Texas that I don't appreciate, but this is what shapes a person, so it's not all bad. One anecdote comes to mind: Driving to work at 7am and seeing a large line of people (maybe 100). Turns out they were all protesting abortions outside of a clinic. Normally I wouldn't think much about them but they held giant signs of unborn bloodied fetuses and encouraged their children to hold signs and yell violently as well (kids no older than 5, 6, 7). This scene affected me more than normal because a family member recently needed a late term emergency abortion which these people found despicable.

Anyway, I lived in Texas and found my way. I met some of my best friends there and know they will be there for life. I made do with hot and cold weather. I enjoyed the amazing food options and wonderfully low cost of living. It's central to the US so getting to the east or west coast is not a big deal. Airports are huge and you can fly a lot of places direct. I've seen some amazing storms in Texas, more lightning than I thought was possible, and some great sunsets.

I encourage people to keep an open mind about Texas. There are great people there and it offers a lot of opportunity, but it's not for everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It seems ironic that the land of self-aggrandizing free market disruption (Uber, AirBnb) seems so against the obvious free-market solution to their problems: increase supply.

You have too little of something, and it's causing prices to skyrocket because demand is increasing. So make more of it, reducing the price.

I just got back from a visit to the Bay Area. Outside of SF itself, not a single building over 4 stories tall. All that air space that could be condos, homes for people, anything at all, wasted so that "people can see the mountains better". Meanwhile, my friend and his girlfriend are paying $4000/month for 1000 sqft. Their rent is more than the median total pre-tax income in large swaths of America.

This is a self-inflicted wound. I have little pity.

<comment><USER14> > All that air space that could be condos, homes for people, anything at all, > wasted so that "people can see the mountains better". Meanwhile, my friend > and his girlfriend are paying $4000/month for 1000 sqft.

My guess is that, if significant amounts of extra housing were added in the Bay Area, software devs salaries would fall. Right now, software companies need to pay insane money in order to offset the insane cost of living (as otherwise, they'd lost their workforce). So, filling BA with high-risers would not help members of this forum that much (it would likely be very helpful for people in low-wage jobs though).

<comment><USER15> Home prices will fall too.

So all these people who have already paid millions for their homes will suddenly find their homes devalued by a huge margin.

Needless to say that won't go down well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Montana, a land of National parks, natural beauty, fast internet, and a low cost of living has a number of high tech jobs open. Full disclosure, I own an internet company here and want more tech savvy people in the area ;)

Social Finanace (SoFi) | Helena, MT

Oracle | Bozeman, MT

OnXMaps | Missoula, MT

Zaneray Group | Whitefish, MT

Submittable | Missoula, MT

Applied Materials | Kalispell, MT

<comment><USER17> Counterpoint: it is a very conservative state, and one of their elected representatives choke-slammed a Guardian journalist who was trying to ask him questions, and he still got elected.

<comment><USER18> While I wouldn't want to say these people are representative of the state as a whole, it gets worse:

 _Gallatin GOP Women official says she 'would have shot' reporter Gianforte assaulted_

[http://helenair.com/news/politics/state/gallatin-gop- women-o...](http://helenair.com/news/politics/state/gallatin-gop-women- official-says-she-would-have-shot- reporter/article_795ad221-50c2-5e0a-85cd-993f2c97cca9.html)

<comment><USER16> We do have entertaining politics, much like everywhere else. That said, there's always a yin to the yang. [https://www.hrc.org/blog/montana-governor- steve-bullock-sign...](https://www.hrc.org/blog/montana-governor-steve- bullock-signs-executive-order-protecting-lgbt-state)

<comment><USER18> Yeah, those far-right yahoos aren't anything like the people from Montana that I have known.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Whenever these threads come up, the NIMBY pitch forks come out. I 100% agree that we should build more housing in the Bay Area, but some perspective is helpful. The Bay Area is _already_ one of the most densely populated regions in America:

[http://ecpmlangues.u-strasbg.fr/civilization/geography/maps/...](http://ecpmlangues.u-strasbg.fr/civilization/geography/maps/US%20Population%20density,%202010%20570x361.png)

And San Francisco is the 3rd most densely populated city in America, if you look at cities with over 100k people:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density)

So I disagree with the narrative that Bay Area NIMBY-ism is out of control. It's probably similar to anywhere else in America.

There are two unique factors at play here:

(1) Massive growth of high paying jobs in the tech sector, with typical wages for an engineer ranging from $100-200k. This has caused housing to double/triple in cost over the last ten years.

(2) The Bay Area has very unfortunate geography: there is a giant bay in its geographic center, and mountains/oceans all around. This makes traffic and commuting more difficult, and also makes development "outwards" harder.

<comment><USER20> there is a lot you're leaving out here or misunderstand. The reason that there is a housing crises int he SFBA is that all of the cities in the SFBA have produced an order of magnitude more office space than housing in the past 10 or so years. Look at communities like Cupertino, building the apple space ship for 14k people, but adding virtually no housing to the city. Lather/rinse/repeat for Palo Alto, MPK, MTV, etc and you have a terrible region-wide housing crises.

<comment><USER21> Each city is doing that intentionally of course, because it's in their best interest.

If they allowed housing to develop they'd have to expand their school, police, fire, garbage and other departments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've been thinking that apartment cooperatives might be a way to break "investors'" stranglehold on housing.

The last landlord I had was a decent fellow - the property was well maintained and he fixed problems promptly. But my rent certainly went to pay his mortgage on the property, and I now have nothing to show for the $thousands I paid him. One time he was showing off the little 8-unit complex to someone he wanted to go into a partnership on another property with him.

My cousin has a few low-end houses that he rents out. He's jokingly referred to himself as a "slumlord", but... rent is what economically strangles his renters.

My grandparents owned both their homes free-and-clear, and stayed in their homes for 40-50 years. This is the hope of anyone who buys a house: independence from the landlord & bank.

The cooperative I'm envisioning would channel rent payments into a fund. After long enough, you'd be able to live there for just maintenance costs, or you could "work off" the monthly fee by contributing somehow. And if a person moves out of the coop, their "equity" could be returned to them over time... Or something like that.

(minor edit on 'work off')

<comment><USER23> > "But my rent certainly went to pay his mortgage on the property"

Um, yeah. That's the way it works for property investors. Find a property, borrow money to purchase, rent out property to cover mortgage costs. This happens at low scale (individuals) and high scale (property investment companies, REIs, etc.).

> "I now have nothing to show for the $thousands I paid him"

Presumably, you had a job at the time, for which you decided it was an equitable trade to have the job and not buy a property to live. You made a choice, and the outcome from that choice is what you have to show.

You do the math on the rent/buy decision. In places like New York, San Francisco, etc. it's very common to come out on the side of renter instead of buyer. If you're in the mid-west, you are probably buying. But don't say you didn't have nothing to show for the rent.

<comment><USER24> Your comment fails to even consider the people who don't qualify for a mortgage or have the money for a down-payment.

Relatively few people are in the position of being able to choose freely between buying and renting.

<comment><USER25> The barriars to financing does not discount the accuracy of his/her/its comments

<comment><USER23> His comments. :) But "its" would have been interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've only visited SF. From what I've seen, there are far better cities such as Seattle, San Diego, ect, ect. I live in Dallas and couldn't be happier. I've been able to start a family as a Postdoc!

[http://dallas.culturemap.com/news/city-life/03-29-17-us- cens...](http://dallas.culturemap.com/news/city-life/03-29-17-us-census- bureau-report-dallas-fort-worth-population-growth/)

<comment><USER27> What makes Seattle better? I've visited friends there a few times and I can't shake the feeling that it's only trailing the Bay by a few years in of affordability and transportation woes.

<comment><USER26> My opinion:

\- Seattle has more diverse industry. I toured the bio-science companies down at the harbor and was really impressed. Seattle is _more_ than just "tech".

\- SF is way too restrictive with allowing new housing to be built. I did not perceive the problem to be as bad in Seattle.

\- In SF, a lot of the streets reeked of weed--It's like when someone cranks up their music too loud forcing everyone to listen to it. I don't care if someone smokes weed, I just don't want to smell it everywhere--it's not family friendly. Meanwhile, Seattle's streets appeared much cleaner to me when I explored the city (on foot).

<comment><USER27> > In SF, a lot of the streets reeked of weed

What? Where did you live? I never once had that problem. It's not like the entirety of SF smells like weed 24/7, I think that's a pretty absurd strike to give a city (especially since it's legalized in WA).

<comment><USER26> It was around 2013 and I stayed at the Holiday Inn civic center. I explored around on foot. I remember wanting to get the fresh ocean air in my room (because of the funky odor in my room) and deciding to close my windows because all I smelled outside was weed (though lots of places smelled of weeed)

<comment><USER27> Yeah, Civic Center is a dumpster fire. Lots of earthy folks hanging about. I used to avoid it as much as possible, which was getting harder after Twitter/Uber/Square/etc moved down there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm surprised no one has mentioned [http://www.sfyimby.org/](http://www.sfyimby.org/)

They're the go-to people if you want to be involved in fixing things.

<comment><USER11> FYI, California state legislature has passed a number of housing laws this year intended to accelerate housing development and affordable housing. I am hoping this really makes a dent. On the other hand, I don't think real estate would ever be cheap in coastal California as the demand for such real estate extends far beyond the US.

<comment><USER28> They were involved in some of that legislation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Austin resident here. My wife and I have been talking to renovators and have heard several times that projects simply take longer these days because many workers now must live farther out from the city core than they used to. I wouldn't be surprised the same thing happens here -- to a lesser degree perhaps, as we have more geographical space to expand into -- with avg commute time being the primary constraint on growth.

<comment><USER30> Yeah. It's not so much about distance, it's about time. Better infrastructure for moving people in and out of the city enables a larger city, and a more populated one.

<comment><USER31> Shouldn't we at least be talking about working remotely and why that doesn't happen more often?

I would bet most people have to drive in primarily because there manager did it that way when he/she was in the developer role.

Working remotely is friendlier on the environment and saves time commuting. It's also cheaper for the company and more easily scales as head count increases.

<comment><USER30> It's not just about work. Sports stadiums, bars, meetup groups, nightlife, concerts, comedy clubs, etc etc all involve bringing people into the city. Commuting is just part of the battle

<comment><USER31> Working remotely might give a town more years before they have to expand the highway due to rush hour traffic. They may work in the next town over too, so more diffuse nightlife, bars, etc... It's not a panacea, because of some of the activities you mention (stadiums), but I think it could help with infrastructure and reduce our carbon footprint.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I've been living in the bay area for about 7 years working as a software engineer. When I arrived, rent was around 1.7k for a 2 bed 2 bathroom apartment. Today, the same place charges you around 3.5k. The cost more than doubled while this is pretty much not true about your salary.

You either need to get huge promotions in 7 years to double your salary which is very difficult (and this is just to keep your living standards) or be forced to move to somewhere farther and face a crushing commute of at least 2 to 3 hours everyday.

Roughly speaking, buying a house is also not a win since houses closer to where you work will usually be more than 1 million dollars. Mortgage would be around 4k-5k with 20% down payment. So again, you'd be forced to buy somewhere farther.

There's really not much to do about it, it's supply and demand and you need to accept it. There are a couple of things though that tech companies could do: either working with local authorities to help improve public transportation or decentralize the workplace.

Companies, however, are doing exactly the opposite: Buying lands which were previously residential areas and building huge mega-structures so everyone can work in a single place while not having the best from public transportation (e.g. Apple).

I naively thought that making the lives of their employees easier would be in the best interests of tech companies but I just see things getting worse every year.

</comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Could somebody please explain why in a region with just about more millionaires and billionaires than anywhere else, there is almost[1] no serious muscle for residential development?

Perhaps I am naive, but it is my understanding that many of the wealthy people of the Bay Area made the majority of their money through commerce and technology, not by purchasing a house a few years or decades ago and quashing any attempt at increasing the housing stock.

Would it not be in the self interest of all tech corporations, executives, venture capitalists and angel investors in Silicon Valley to ensure the development of housing for their future tech employees - and thus spur their future profits - and the greater economy's service workers?

Even if one buys the insane argument that service workers perhaps ought not to live in the expensive Bay Area, one still must acknowledge that these line chefs, janitors, security guards, hairdressers and many others must live and commute in from _somewhere_ , which affects everybody in the Bay Area, regardless of their wealth.

Everything about Silicon Valley makes sense to me but this.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/oct/02/rise-of- the-y...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/oct/02/rise-of-the-yimbys- angry-millennials-radical-housing-solution)

</comment><comment><USER33> I don't want to live in California, but it seems like a lot of the recruiting and employment matchmaking systems these days focus almost entirely on the SF Bay area.

Added: I think the hype might have pumped the job market too full, and net outflows are the only way for the system to concentrate more desirable candidates, with employee compensation being the signal.

<comment><USER33> I'm thinking it might be worthwhile to engineer a scalable, high-traffic city(maybe city's the wrong word, it could be sprawling and fast, instead of dense and slow) from the ground up, somewhere there isn't one already. You don't need to build the transit immediately, you just need to have the restraint to reserve the space for a time when you will want it. Other useful constraints aside from transit reservations, might include: setting aesthetic standards (line of sight corridors[through zoned height restrictions] to natural beauty, stylistic restrictions, above-ground pedestrian accommodation planning), extensive mixed-use zoning in the sprawl, multiple downtowns (hierarchy of pedestrian/two-lane/light rail accessibility > main street/express light rail > freeway/full sized rail arranged in superblocks).

Added: Three-dimensional land parcels would solve a lot of the problems with properly valuing natural beauty, direct sunlight, and underground access.

Added: Environmental (noise[aggregate peak SPL, loudness], ground vibration[aggregate peak amplitude], air pollution[aggregate peak particulates, ozone, maybe fuel fumes, maybe heat], ground pollution, EMR [including radio and light]) sensor networks could be used to make it simpler to uphold agreements and ordinances, or litigate environmental property devaluation or damage (reduction in air quality, disturbance of quiet, excessive night time light, ground shaking). You could also include on-board detectors for things like gunshots, car crashes, or desperate cries for help, to aide emergency services. Data like these could be made completely public so that public offices don't need to waste their time determining access.

<comment><USER34> Or just copy Singapore.

<comment><USER35> I'm from Singapore, what about it?

<comment><USER36> Dense but nice to live in. Good public transportation and on-call options. Commute time is shorter than what is required for many people in the Bay Area.

What do you think?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Why aren't tech companies buying or building massive apartment complexes, making them appealing with a few amenities, and renting them out for cheap to their employees? I know building development in San Francisco proper is limited, but in the general bay area or South is not. Now you have a very attractive package: a relatively big salary and somewhat affordable housing. Talent would be much more willing to relocate, even if your tech lab is outside San Francisco proper.

<comment><USER38> Many seem very keen to, but most housing initiatives brought before at least the Mountain View and Sunnyvale councils (in my experience) face hard opposition from individual homeowners.

And that's how you keep the market up for $2.4 million homes that would go for $300k elsewhere [http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/12/now-this-is- ridiculous...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/12/now-this-is- ridiculous-782000-over-asking-for-a-house-in-sunnyvale/)

<comment><USER39> You'd think that if big software corporations can lobby in D.C., they could lobby in local communities as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I place blame on the location of the tech hubs in the Bay Area. Not one mega- company, save Tesla, has setup shop in East Bay. There _is_ affordable housing across the water, and new construction as well. Facebook has mitigated this somewhat buy purchasing Sun Microsystem's campus right next to the bridge.

Also, note that SF isn't the fastest growing housing market anymore, it's Seattle ([https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle- no...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle-no-1-in-home- price-growth-again-starter-homes-require-half-of-income/)). Seattle didn't feel as much housing-pressure with Microsoft due to the remote location of its campus in Redmond/Bellevue. That's changing with Amazon; the sales giant is located in prime real estate, just like the tech companies on the peninsula.

<comment><USER41> Teslas development still happens in Palo Alto or San Mateo. They only setup the factory in Fremont because the building had already been built 30 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> My wife and I lived in the Bay Area for a year. It was great - <USER2> weather (San Mateo), incredible farmers market, and we met some really cool people.

I'm glad we did it, but I'm also glad that I moved back to Ohio now.

Beyond having my extended family around here, it just feels like a better place to raise a family and be part of a community, whereas SF seemed more geared towards single or childless folks who were very focused on their carriers.

The Bay Area is also incredibly expensive. After moving back, I went to a movie with a friend, asked for two tickets, then tried to correct the attendant because the price was so low that I thought she must have rung me up for a single ticket. That's just one example, but nearly everything costs more in SF.

Oh, and our house in Ohio cost slightly less than my current annual salary - <USER3> had an apartment and the mortgage overlapping for a couple of months here, and even paying both was less than what my rent was in San Mateo.

</comment><comment><USER43> Boy am I glad I stayed in Upstate, NY. Stress free, five minute commute, little traffic, low cost of living, fall weather, fingerlakes, Adirondacks, no earthquakes/hurricanes/firestorms/tornadoes, and great food.

Of course, now we're bidding to get Amazon to move here. Sigh.

</comment><comment><USER44> If SF Bay Area cities can't be bothered to build enough housing, they should at least have the decency to tax the fuck out of business until they start moving out and housing prices regress to 3x the median rent.

If you want the companies, you must take their employees. If you don't want their employees, you shouldn't have the companies.

<comment><USER45> They could just stop approving new office space. I've noticed a lot of the prices increases started around when Twitter moved to Civic Center and SOMA began to open up to tech startups. I think the number of jobs vastly increased.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> This has a roll on effect as business with increased real estate costs pass it on to consumers. So you are not only directly paying higher rent or purchase but also for products and services.

What's supposed to happen is inflated prices take up an unjustifiable portion of income and make things like families impossible forcing people to move.

Wages are supposed to keep rising to keep pace rendering some business unprofitable, making others expensive and forcing others to move altogether, all adding up to cause a correction in prices.

But in the real world its not really working that way. While wages are rising there is also large import of labour keeping wages in check with people resorting to more and more desperate measures like sharing rooms.

Without that perhaps the labour crisis would become unmanageable forcing businesses and government to rethink some policies. At the moment its the financial and real estate sectors making out while the average person faces the brunt. This is replicated worldwide in most major cities.

</comment><comment><USER47> 4700 out of 3894200 is 0.12% ... not exactly an earthquake, as the article sounds.

</comment><comment><USER48> 4700 isn't a lot in the whole scheme of things, but part of what makes a bubble a bubble is that it either keeps growing or it pops.

<comment><USER49> SF Bay is definitely in a housing bubble. One of the signals from the 2008 housing crises was when mortgage and rental payments diverged, and even with the high-rents in the bay now you're starting to see mortgage payments outstrip them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm quite familiar with the bay area.

Lack of housing and traffic are familiar complaints, but it bears repeating. I remember when there was never any traffic on 280, now it's a parking lot during rush hour.

If you're just starting out in your career, it's simultaneously the best and worst place to work. Best in that there's a lot of opportunity and you're kinda bathed in the tech ecosystem, worst in that you'll probably be paying 40k (after taxes) for a one bedroom apartment in the city, or stuck commuting for an hour easy way.

</comment><comment><USER51> The lack of affordable housing is strangling the middle class (typical worker type) in every major city in the UK and Canada too, it's nothing to do with SV specifically, yes that lead to the higher population but other cities have had their own industries. The real problem is interest rates are low in all these countries and speculation means people will borrow like crazy to keep on increasing the prices. We also allow it to be fine for one person to own 1000 homes while local authorities in some cases limit supply.

</comment><comment><USER52> We gained 50k jobs in the last year, this is a loss for september of which happens every year as temps etc are usually hired again in Nov.

> _Over the 12 months that ended in September, the Bay Area added 50,400 jobs, > a 1.3 percent increase in total payroll jobs during the one-year period._

The interesting part is the percentage slow down over the year, which is what requires more thought than headlines about "hammered job losses" that included area-wide growth.

<comment><USER38> In my five months of living here I've noticed the Mercury isn't exactly known for its depth or subtlety in reporting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Too many Chinese buyers, rich businessmen, corrupt bureaucrats, made money speculating on Beijing real estate and middle class speculators with children planning to study in the US have flooded the housing market from Vancouver, Seattle to SF Bay area. I guess they probably form at least 10-25% of buyers.

Just making overpriced metros ineligible for foreign buyers could ease the pricing pressure.

<comment><USER54> When you sell stuff to foreign people that's called exporting. Exports are good. They bring money from foreign countries to your country.

So SF could stop exporting with some sort of ban on foreign buyers. For what's it worth (not much), I think such a ban would have almost no effect, as unless the US bans all Chinese capital wholesale, all the same money can makes it way to SF real estate through less direct means.

Or we could fix our taxes and regulations. The current regime of taxes and regulations actively incentivize speculation, and penalize land use. We need tax revenue, might as well collect it in a way that discourages speculation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> San Diego has the same problem. Impossible to find decent housing. Studios going for +600K, 3 bedroom homes going for 1M. More and more of us are living 1-2 hours away from work just to live comfortably. Eventually this will reach a breaking point, and the housing market will crash like 2008. House flippers basically playing hot potato with these inflated prices.

</comment><comment><USER56> ~$470000000 in lost economic potential due to NIMBYers Its time for San Francisco (and other bay area) to build more housing.

</comment><comment><USER57> _" although the East Bay eked out a gain of 500 tech jobs"_

This is the good news. Home prices in the East Bay are 50%-70% of SF prices, and the infrastructure for employers is comparable to SF (public transit, internet, hospitals, restaurants, culture).

</comment><comment><USER58> Must read in the subject: [https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf- housing/](https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/)

</comment><comment><USER39> Seeking Bay Area relocation stories in this Ask HN thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15536213](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15536213)

</comment><comment><USER59> Seems a touch hyperbolic no? 4700 jobs does not sound like a "hammering".

<comment><USER6> 4.7 net lost. There's likely more than 4.7k ppl who lost their job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'm under thirty and bought a place in San Francisco this year using my own savings from my paychecks. No, I'm not being crushed by my mortgage either. It's definitely achievable, just need to work hard and save your money. Costs are higher here but wages are almost much higher than anywhere else so it's not as terrible as it seems. The Mercury News publishes this same article every 5 years despite home prices continuing to push higher over the long- term.

</comment><comment><USER61> I still get a couple of emails every week from recruiters with job openings in Bay Area. I always tell them I am willing to talk but only if I don't have relocate to Bay Area. I rarely receive a reply back and if I do they usually tell me job location is not negotiable. The multitude of tech companies that refuse to allow remote work (or do not allow working from a different office because of location of hiring team etc.) are also a big part of the problem.

</comment><comment><USER62> I grew up in the Bay Area and got a feel for the tech sector up there. People always throw around the "network" argument out there for why they decided to move up. Truth is you can get just as much networking in if you move to an emerging tech hub along with positioning yourself better by more easily establishing yourself/buying cheaper property. I'm looking at you Portland, San Diego, and Denver.

</comment><comment><USER63> This isn't really a bay area specific issue but rather a problem with any area that is desirable to live in with jobs. I live in Honolulu and we see the same issues here. Home prices are even more out of sync with salaries here as there are no where near as many high paying jobs as in the bay area. We also have a large homeless problem like SF

</comment><comment><USER64> Double income $500K/year (common among folks who work for the Internet companies) can borrow up to $3mil (6x income). There are still many homes affordable to such folks. For listings below $2mil, there are usually 8-10 offers. For the hot ones, there can be 20 offers.

</comment><comment><USER65> It says "some experts" attribute this to housing costs, but nothing has really changed there in the last year (in fact in my opinion rents have softened somewhat). It seems to me the anti-immigration atmosphere is a more proximate cause.

</comment><comment><USER66> From an outside perspective it is interesting to see, that a place, which is accepted as the planet's hotbed of innovation is not able to produce a solution for this pressing problem.

Maybe Elon or someone else should be city below the sea.

</comment><comment><USER67> Reminds me of good old Johannesburg where the maids, nannies and cooks had to get up at 4 in the morning for the long bus journey to their work place.

</comment><comment><USER68> OK, jobs are down a little, and this means the housing problem is getting worse? That seems backwards.

</comment><comment><USER69> People losing their jobs is the most sure fire ways to lower housing costs. This title makes no sense.

</comment><comment><USER70> "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

Yogi Berra and San Jose Mercury News on Silicon Valley.

</comment><comment><USER71> The # of jobs _rose_ by ~25% between Feb 2010 and September 2017. How does that make September the _" worst month for employment locally since February 2010"_?

<comment><USER32> The worst month of employment __growth __, meaning, growth is slowing down. Not hiring enough + layoffs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> do you think it's the start of a downturn?

</comment><comment><USER73> Add that to the lack of gender balance and one wonders why so many men are conned into moving there.</comment>


Autonomous robot struck and 'killed' by a self-driving Tesla in Las Vegas - <AUTHOR> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6566655/Oops-Autonomous-robot-struck-killed-self-driving-Tesla-Las-Vegas-ahead-CES.html <comment><USER2> And so it begins..the great robot war</comment>


Rumors of new 7-inch iPad from Apple persist - <AUTHOR> http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/10/08/17/rumors_of_new_7_inch_ipad_from_apple_persist.html

<comment><USER2> I was actually hoping for a version with a slightly bigger screen. I was a little surprised at the small size of the iPad when using it for the first time.</comment>


What's the worst thing to do with a pressure cooker? - <AUTHOR> https://what-if.xkcd.com/40/ <comment><USER2> In terms of bad stuff happening from pressure cookers, the Boston Marathon bombing comes to mind. They made bombs using pressure cookers and killed and injured many people.

</comment><comment><USER3> FWIW modern pressure cookers aren't your grand-parents' and are much much much safer. They're awesome to cook stuff for a fraction of the time and energy you'd need using conventional cooking methods, they can sterilize stuff, and make preserves quicker.

Modern ones have thick bodies unlikely to ruptured, run at less than 2 atmospheres (I think 1.3?), have a pin that comes up when pressurized so you can't open it until it's fully depressurized, and a safety grommet that will shoot up and depressurize the cooker should the rocker's exhaust be clogged.

</comment><comment><USER4> Disappointing that the two most intriguing links (the spud cannon and the aluminum foil/draino video) are both dead.

Otherwise - fascinating!

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure why this posted, getting traction on 4chan somewhere?

The XKCD did come out 6 days before the Boston bombings.

Inspire, at a crazy guess actually inspired the Boston bombings since they had actual instructions to make a pressure cooker bomb to kill Americans.

I always wondered why Inspire chose the pressure cooker, it was in the article making bombs in your moms kitchen.

But would it work better than a normal pot?

Or was it chosen because it seems scary, which is why XKCD also choose it.</comment>


Why won't you answer my question? - <AUTHOR> http://rion.io/2017/02/09/why-wont-you-answer-my-question/ <comment><USER2>
        I have an important homework assignment due this afternoon
        at 5PM and it isn't working. Can you download it from here
        {dropbox-link} and get it working by then?

IMO, the ideal response to this is to send back a quote at triple your usual hourly rate.

<comment><USER3> To me, the ideal response is either to ignore the question or stopping to take the time to genuinely help. Stopping to take the time to be genuinely mean is not a reflection upon the character of the person who asked the question and the questioner's actions do not excuse the answerer's behavior.</comment></comment>


Hours after Zuck deletion scandal, Facebook announces new unsend feature - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/hours-after-zuck-deletion-scandal-facebook-announces-new-unsend-feature/ <comment><USER2> Will Reddit retroactively come out with an edit without showing that you edited feature?</comment>


Show HN: Microbiome of urban spaces - <AUTHOR> http://bacteriafloripa.neoprospecta.com.br/

<comment><AUTHOR> My company (Neoprospecta, a start-up focused on microbiome analysis) was contacted by a local news channel to analyse the micro-organisms found in common urban spaces, (such as bus stops, credit card machines, public gyms etc). The city is Florianópolis, a city that lies in a big island and is the capital of the state of Santa Catarina, in the south of Brasil. At the bottom of the page is a link to the full results that can be visualized in a system we are developing in Angular and D3.</comment>