Hacker News Reader

Comment by pascalxus | Hacker News Reader

I agree with the author for the most part: the ideal solution is to build lots more housing - it's the morally and ethically correct thing to do. But, SF lacks the political will to do this and we need to accept that. the 2nd best solution would be to get tech companies out of SF. I hate this solution as much as the author, but I think it's worth considering. There's no reason why tech companies must be in SF, when there's so much Software engineering talent in the rest of the US where housing is much more accessible. I can understand large companies with big budgets paying top dollar moving to SF - they can out compete other companies for talent. But, I have no sympathies for software companies that can't find labor in SF because they went to the worst possible housing location offering modest compensation.

View on HN

(I'm the author)

Even putting aside the ethical and moral arguments, which carry a lot of weight for me: (1) There are network effects in urban environments. (2) Globally, specific industries often concentrate in specific cities. A lot of tech has concentrated in the Valley up to the San Francisco. The effects are getting stronger as that migration occurs. That's a great thing: it allows for people to move between companies easily, allows ideas to be shared, etc, etc.[1] That effects is and will continue to be hard to replicate elsewhere. (3) Destroying that seems like a gigantic waste. (4) We are destroying it through our current public policies -- housing and other. (5) I believe there are political solutions, just not ones that have been well-organized.

[1] Urbanism has a lot of other benefits too, if done right: like less traffic, and a lower per capita carbon footprint.

And yet there's nothing inherent with software development that makes SF and the Bay Area any different from lots of other cities, other than inertia. It's amazing that an industry that prides itself on being non traditional is so tied to a specific geographical location, as if there's some valuable mineral that can only be mined in SOMA and downtown Palo Alto.

There is nothing inherent about finance that makes New York and London any different than a lot of other cities, other than inertia.

It could be otherwise than it is, that's sort of the truth of network effects, but it's difficult.

Favorably comparing Bay Area software to Wall Street is an odd thing to hear from you.

I don't like big banks, but that doesn't mean finance has been bad for NYC.

How much of this is down to VCs/incubators insisting startups move to the Bay Area?

Actually, there is: non-compete clauses. They're unenforceable in California. Everywhere else, they are. That makes it an attractive place to be a tech worker, since tech workers tend to change jobs relatively quickly. In the Bay Area, you can easily switch jobs, even going to a competitor; this isn't the case in other states.

And then you get the chicken-and-egg problem: with all those workers there, companies want to locate there to have access to that talent pool. And then the workers want to stay there so they have access to all those jobs that they can hop between.

Here in Santa Monica, CA companies are seeing more candidates because the ridiculous rents that you pay in SF affect your bottom line.

Living in SOMA requires $120k/yr minimum to responsibly afford renting a 1 bdrm. Getting paid 20% less but, having housing costing 1/4 of what it is in SF is a win overall. And this is coming from someone who loves the tech scene in SF. So many smart people, so many great ideas, so much energy. But, to move there, I'd have to make at least $35k/yr more just to break even and that's living in a hovel in comparison to where I live now.

In theory, this could alleviate some of the issues you are seeing in SF, but in practice this is not something many tech companies founded here would do. Most new tech companies are being started by people already working in the industry, and the industry is located in Silicon Valley, with epicenter now being in SF. So it just doesn't make sense from a competitive perspective for most companies to move out of the Bay when there's no better place for "tech".

To me, the most logical conclusion is to organize and create the political will to create the housing necessary to alleviate prices. This could be on a regional level - building more housing throughout the east bay and peninsula, or organizing on the city level to re-zone and re-develop parts of the city that can most easily support denser development.

Not everyone will like it but as long as you have more people than the anti-more-housing crowd and are organized to vote, it can be done.

I've seen recent comments on HN that some people are considering it a sign of shrewdness and intelligence that some companies aren't locating themselves in SF.

For all these people complaining about San Francisco housing costs, I say: just go somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you to work or live there. By crowding in there you are just making it miserable for those already there.

> the ideal solution is to build lots more housing - it's the morally and ethically correct thing to do.

What do you mean when you say "morally and ethically correct"?

Food, water and shelter are fundamental human needs that everyone should have. It's wrong for society to deny Shelter to individuals on the grounds of: traffic, population density, and countless other slight inconveniences that are not on the same level as the need for shelter. I say solve Shelter first, then deal with the other problems.

Furthermore, since government owns all the land outside of the zoned areas, they have a responsibility for making sure there's enough land allocated for people to live/house in - CA is doing a terrible job of this. Even in the furthest reaches of CA, housing prices are still almost twice the national average, especially egregious since only 5% of CA land is being used.

The government does not own all of the land outside of the zoned areas (presumably "zoned" meaning zoned for residential). Plenty of it is owned by farmers and ranchers.

Wouldn't the water problem get even worst? unless some agriculture is move to other states?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com