I don't live in CA, but I get why people want to. Where would you propose? Where else has a strong economy, good universities, nice weather, a well educated/talented work force, legal frameworks amenable to tech, good food, and interesting culture? There just aren't a lot of candidates, and if everyone moves hypothetically and never grapples with NIMBY policy, they'll just bring the problem with them.
This one is the only part that's not really possible at this time. However, if a company is willing to invest directly in growing the housing supply in the bay area, they should be willing to make the effort to try and grow talent in other parts of the country.
And there are tons of other places that have some combinations of good universities, nice weather, good food and interesting cultures. Namely large parts of sunbelt region in addition to other cities which may not have as nice weather, but make up for it in business friendliness and cost of living. It's also important to remember that virtually all urban areas are liberal and diverse, even in conservative states such as Texas.
> This one is the only part that's not really possible at this time. However, if a company is willing to invest directly in growing the housing supply in the bay area, they should be willing to make the effort to try and grow talent in other parts of the country.
I don't know how to reliably "grow talent", and I'm not sure most companies would either. Building housing and attracting talent are solved problems, so why not try that first?
I'm not saying companies shouldn't be in Austin or Huston, far from it. However, SF and NYC are titanic economic engines that could be even more dynamic if they had more housing. There is an obvious solution to the not enough housing problem, difficult though it may be, it's probably worth solving.
You're ignoring the consequences that come from building large amounts of new housing at once, I should preface this by saying I'm very much in favor of new housing just we need to be careful about it.
First you grow talent the same way it grew in the bay area, by letting people work on challenging software products decade over decade.
Second, population growth leads to strains on civic infrastructure which in the bay area is way under invested in. Additionally, there is a very limited amount of infil available to build new housing on, so it would require that other housing get torn down in order to build said new housing. In areas with small lots, this is harder to do because you need to buy up a bunch of surrounding properties to build a larger building.
This often contributes to increased displacement as developers are buying up properties, using laws such as the ellis act to evict and redevelop properties. Oddly enough, the restricted zoning which keeps prices high, also reduces the amount of redevelopment that happens which keeps land values lower and maintains rent control that would not be allowed for new buildings under costa hawkins.
Additionally, the political infeasibility of San Francisco should not be overlooked. This is a city with a long history of anti-capitalist activity and capitalists should recognize this fact and go to places that will be more accepting of their investments.
I think your criticism is perfectly valid. I'm not suggesting that someone wave a wand and double supply tomorrow. I'm proposing that people should support increases in supply, changes to laws that make housing less affordable, and infrastructure spending to support new housing. You're right, it won't be easy, but I believe that moving the problem elsewhere, just moves the problem elsewhere. If everyone in tech goes to Austin for example without some plan for density, you'll either get an affordability crisis, or sprawl which is terrible in myriad other ways.
Maybe SF is a lost cause, I don't really know.
I'm from near Research Triangle Park in NC and have to say that the weather is miserable all summer, just horrible. The traffic is abysmal, and everything is strip malls and McMansions. You can top that off with the insane gerrymandering in NC that prevents the most populace areas from having any political power. Locals are quite hostile to new-comers, and the government keeps trying to tell people which bathrooms to use which is just bizarre. Yeah, BBQ is great, the schools are good, and low taxes are nice, but NC really misses the mark for me in a lot of ways. Having grown up in the area, I am not a fan.
Say what? I visited Durham recently and had a blast -- lots of cool local businesses (Fullsteam Brewery was an amazing find) and neat old warehouses and charming old houses and such. Carrboro was also great, people biking everywhere and local hippie markets and stuff.
Yes, Durham is very nice (and Fullsteam is pretty great), but the part you visited is very small and not representative of the rest of the region at all. Raleigh also has a tiny, and nice downtown. However, the region is still a snarl of highways and unsustainable suburban sprawl.
Unless (in America) we start approaching housing differently, we'll see the same problem happen over and over again, until the whole economy is choked by housing costs and wealth is transferred from productive uses to land owners seeking rents.
This is very HN-centric thinking (rational but not scalable). People move to Silicon Valley to "move to Silicon Valley". They're chasing a dream and they want to be in the thick of it.
Sure you might find a couple good job opportunities in Nashville or Tampa, but its hard to compare that to being in the thick of tech industry where you're right in the middle of the world's top companies, surrounded by lots of talent to push you further.
Agreed. Imagine what might be possible if SV employers were willing to spend $15k per employee annually on making remote teams awesome, as opposed to paying (I'm just guessing) $25k/year in salary and rent to keep them in SV.
I don't know what a real solution would cost, but it's a question worth asking IMO.
Remote work is fine, and should be more available, but agglomeration effects are real. Putting a lot of smart interesting people in a few dense places just makes sense.
While that will always exist, the majority of people moving to the bay area are moving to work for a company like Facebook or Google rather than to work on their own startup.
I didn't say anything about should or shouldn't. I was putting forth the idea that it is uniquely attractive to companies and workers. If housing were a normal market, supply would rise to meet demand, and the market could arrive at some sort of equilibrium. The present situation only serves rent seeking interests, and I believe that as a matter of public policy we should prioritize a broader set of stakeholder needs. On a macro level, prioritizing the interests of rent seekers is economically sub optimal, and transfers wealth from workers, companies, and consumers to land owners.
More expensive, yes; exponentially more expensive, no. Those market forces alone don’t account for the cost of living; that’s entirely down to zoning laws preventing high- or even medium-rises.
I don't live in CA, but I get why people want to. Where would you propose? Where else has a strong economy, good universities, nice weather, a well educated/talented work force, legal frameworks amenable to tech, good food, and interesting culture? There just aren't a lot of candidates, and if everyone moves hypothetically and never grapples with NIMBY policy, they'll just bring the problem with them.