Massive growth in the SF housing supply is just politically infeasible at this time, a million dollar donation won't change that.
We also do that! Stripe is hiring engineers in both Seattle and Dublin, and for other roles in many other cities. Please apply :-). https://stripe.com/jobs
That said... this issue isn't just (or primarily) a Stripe issue. It's a broader social and economic problem. Even if Stripe is okay, we want to help fix the larger issue around us.
E.g. I looked through this list, and at least at quick glance it seems like they were all fairly major cities 100 years ago. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-news-best-places-to-live-i...
Where do the restaurants, and arts, and culture they need come from? Who works at those institutions, and how do they afford to live in that city? (Or do they commute from somewhere else?) How do you fund the international airport that's going to be a must-have?
I think it's possible, but I'm unclear how it would actually lead to a low cost of living. It sounds like most company towns - sprawling, lacking the kind of culture that people want from a city... reminds me of Plano, TX, where JC Penny moved in the 80s, or Bentonville, AR, or Sidney, NE (where Cabela's is HQed).
Companies would have a really hard time hiring highly-educated, high demand workers to move there vs being able to live in say, NYC, London or SF. It's not enough to just offer cheap housing - you have to offer a high quality of life, plus jobs for spouses, and good schools for their kids.
(Contrast that with say, auto manufacturers, who would maybe bring in some managers when opening a plant but would also employ tens of thousands of locals, raising the incomes of the existing resident more than bringing in new transplants.)
However, home prices (including condos) have risen drastically because of the limited supply. There's no new space for single family homes, and because of a Washington law which increases liability for developers, few new condominium buildings are built.
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.
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.
I don't know what a real solution would cost, but it's a question worth asking IMO.
I don't know too much about the other places.
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.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/05/what-went-wro...
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.
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.
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 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.
source for my stats:
https://www.google.com/search?q=detroit+unemployment+rate
https://www.google.com/search?q=san+francisco+unemployment+r...
I believe that this is just a self fulfilling prophecy, if companies invested in new cities, it would lead to more and more tech workers choosing to live in those places rather than in California.
You can't just shackle them up and put them on a train though. Plenty of people don't want to live in Detroit, and have other opportunities in the Bay Area or elsewhere. Perhaps they prefer the climate in CA, or perhaps they want to be someplace where there are plenty of other opportunities if the one job doesn't work out.
From there you can grow. This is sort of the logic I'm going by here.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-sac...
https://www.selectsacramento.com
Close to Tahoe, Sonoma Coast and Silicon Valley VCs.
Some lively discussion: http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/991635-austin-vs...
If every major tech company in the Bay Area switched to remote work, allowing employees to work from anywhere they wanted to as long as they stayed on the same schedule as those who remained in the Bay Area offices, my guess is that there would be a large exodus.
If I weren't constrained by work, I'd be looking for some place where • houses are far enough apart that I rarely hear my neighbors and they can't hear me if I decide to watch an action movie or listen to music at a good volume in the middle of the night, • there are enough trees, bushes, wild plants, and lawns in my neighborhood that plenty of wild critters hang out and are visible from my living room window, • it is not a long drive to reach some place with dark skies, • it is warmer than where I now am (Western Washington, west side of Puget Sound).
I currently have the first two (sonic isolation, wild critters). Here's the view out my living room window from my computer desk [1].
Yes, but the problem is that many companies have found that remote work is significantly less efficient.
So if you need to cluster your work force somewhere, the Bay Area is probably where you'll have to given the desires of your top people to live there.
Starting a 2nd Stripe Headquarters in Downtown San Jose near the proposed Didiron Transit Village like Google is would be huge [1]. Those without kids will be able to live in Downtown San Jose which is going through a mild renaissance (i.e. area around San Pedro Market) and those with kids will be able to commute in from Morgan Hill/Gilroy in 20 minutes, and Modesto in 20 minutes once HSR arrives. Execs/VCs could take Caltrain or an easy non-rush hour drive on 280 to shuttle between SF and SJ.
Downtown Sacramento is also pretty happening downtown these days with a mix of trendy historical areas that could easily go hipster. And has UC Davis providing a strong student inflow to the area.
[1] https://www.curbed.com/2017/12/5/16738120/google-san-jose-ca...
I've never understood the whole concentration of the tech industry in such dense clusters, it's quite literally not only the opposite of what all the wise men predicted technology and the internet would do and is also totally contrary to some fundamental technology concepts. Talk about putting all your eggs in a basket.
On the other hand, I also don't understand how other cities seem to be unable to attract a kind of threshold level of tech people to incubate something similar elsewhere.
It feels like it is seriously way past due that the big tech companies get broken up and their monopolies shattered in order to allow for competition and diversification of the market.