San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate | Hacker News Reader

San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate

movebuddha.com

139 pointsrcarrigan87120 comments

Per the article, this is based on an analysis of 1,200 searches done on their platform. It seems like a stretch to use those figures to reach conclusions for a city of over 800,000 residents.

came hear to say the same thing. the submitter should not have used a over exaggerated title. 1200 people is not an "Unprecedented Rate".

90% is the rate. 1200 is the sample size.

The traditional signal is when U-Haul starts having logistics problems getting trucks back to the City.

UHaul publishes top growth cities and states based on their data. Here's the list of top growth states for 2019: https://www.uhaul.com/Articles/About/19965/U-Haul-Names-Top-...

The outbound relocation effect went from 57% to 90%. I suspect that 1200 samples is more than enough to demonstrate strong statistical confidence intervals. (Though I haven't run the numbers.)

They are if they're a representative sample. Margin of error is bounded by 1/sqrt(n) in that case.

That MOE would be extremely conservative given that the proportion of interest is far from p=0.5; the classical MOE would be +- 1.96 * sqrt(0.9 * 0.1 / 1200) = +- 1.697% -- but of course it's not a representative sample as you mention.

Some stats from https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm Plugged in 800,000 as pop size, and 99% as confidence level and 4 as confidence interval. The number it spits out is 1039 It is a pretty good sample size.

That only holds true if you assume this sample is representative of the overall population of SF.

This would be true if the website drew a random sample of residents of San Francisco and asked them. They didn't. Rather, they drew a census of their website. No one is doubting that the website has correctly confirmed that 90% of the SF-related searches on their website were people looking to migrate outbound (so the "sampling error" here is effectively 0, unless we choose to model the census as a sample from a meta-population, in which case the classical MOE would be +-1.7% without a finite sample adjustment);

The issue here is whether we can draw a reasonable inference from that sample to the target population (all people in San Francisco). My guess is it does not. The title is not justified by the data presented.

The claims we're able to make are narrow:

A combination of annual secular growth, advertising spend, and COVID that we cannot disentangle suggests 30% increase in move requests to this moving site in the area; Separately, the sample of people using this website are more interested than outbound moves than last year.

If we want to combine these, we have "Website Shows 90% growth in raw outbound move searches among SF visitors"

There is nothing wrong with that sample size. That should give less than a 3% margin of error at 95% confidence.

If it were uniform.

Not to be cynical, but this strikes me as more of a ad - or click bait. Search numbers on a website that I, at least, have never heard of is pretty poor evidence for a trend.

But they are making a year-on-year relative analysis, so even for a non-representative sample, you can identify a strong trend.

Maybe it's a demographic shift between people who don't use their platform and those who do.

Or that people moving into the city/state are paying moving services while those leaving are DIY moving.

The trend is still just searches. Do their historical search numbers closely represent actual figures for people coming and going?

> last year, there were 980 move searches involving the Bay Area [in the same time period]

This is microscopic data to make any sort of claim about migration patterns. I live in Denver, and read a similar article a few years ago (more people were moving out than moving in). Didn't seem to have much of an impact on housing prices or the job market, because it wasn't a sustained, significant trend.

Well, the difference is a bit bigger... so last year 57% were looking to move out, or 558.

This year it's 1200 * 90% or 1080...that's nearly double.

This is just a sample size though because, I for one have never heard of the site, so I doubt a ton of people use them for moving needs. A lot probably will just use U-haul and other resources for their move.

I could see a lot of people wanting to move from SF esp, if they've been laid off, how could you possibly afford rent in a recession in SF?

anecdotal, but I know some young folks who are planning to pack it up and head out after their contractually obligated time is over and their lease is up.

My younger sibling, like many, is very annoyed that their early years of marriage without kids/california adventure is mostly being stuck in a 800 sqft apt and occasionally walking the dog. They love the bay, but having the small apartments combined with quarantine has got them reevaluating where they are and how their lives might look for the next $time while we figure out covid-19 as a country/species.

edit: my bad of the soft/sqft typo. seems my brain was trying to split the different between small and sqft and flubbed the landing.

What is an "800 soft" apartment? ... Oh, do you mean 800 square feet? For non-US readers: That's 74.3 m^2 (square meters), but that figure could:

* include/not include walls

* include/not include balconies

etc.

There is an article like this every month, yet the Bay Area is consistently among the largest growing population centers in the country. I'll believe any of the claims the author makes once there are numbers to back it up.

I think a lot of is is also that if you are going to be WFH for the next several months, you can save a lot of money by no longer paying San Francisco-level rent. I know if my lease were expiring now I would not be living here until my job started telling everyone to come back to the office. I feel like that's going to have a much bigger effect than VC funding

This is exactly what my partner and I did. I'm remote and she is COVID-19 remote, so we're sheltering in place in a city we wanted to see. A furnished unit is 1k cheaper than our Bay Area rent was. The weather is great and we get to walk our dog in new parks.

It is an unprecedented time and we're having trouble coming up with reasons to go back. We moved out there for a big n salary for me. That wasn't the work I wanted to do so I'm part time now doing what I enjoy. That really throws off the rent justification though.

> But there are many reasons why the region could finally be experiencing a shrinking population:

And yet the author is missing the elephant in the room: the incredibly deteriorating living conditions in a city crammed with drug addicts, human feces and casual violent aggressions at all hours of the day. A city that enables the "homeless lifestyle" without any accountability. Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.

There is of course a certain amount of people that do become homeless because of lack of housing, but for the most part the city administration has been gaslighting us on the real causes: drug addiction and homeless lifestyle.

Most of them are not even native from San Francisco, but they come from elsewhere. I suggest everybody reads this article to learn more about the long history of criminality in San Francisco, enabled by the city officials: https://www.city-journal.org/san-francisco-homelessness

Edit: Everybody in San Francisco talks about the rights of the homeless, but where are my rights as a lawful tax payer who cannot bring his son to the park without risking his life by stepping on a needle?

High housing costs are probably a causal factor in all of the problems you mention.

When housing costs are as exorbitant as they are, everyone is much closer to homelessness than they were before. If someone is laid off in the bay, they have significantly less time to find a new job before they cannot afford housing compared to more affordable areas.

Once you are actually homeless, mental problems and drug issues can become a self fulfilling prophecy, especially if you moved to the bay from out of state and have no local support network.

> Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.

This is.. a very harsh take. Mental illness and drug abuse I can see, but a choice ? That is a serious claim that requires serious evidence.

It's funny because people like the parent comment here usually propose even more fines and restrictions on these people.

None of them want to admit that housing shouldn't be tied to employment.

You want to solve homelessness? Make homes a guaranteed right. And actual homes. Not some shitty shelters.

Perfect, if we determine that housing is an important cause, then can we:

* Enact consequences for those that do refuse housing when available (ie, banning homeless lifestyle).

* Arrest illegal aliens that are making the lack of housing even worse.

* Stop open-air drug dealing and abuse so that people can get back on their feet.

And if not, why not?

This sounds like it's based more on ideology than evidence.

> Enact consequences for those that do refuse housing when available (ie, banning homeless lifestyle).

You're saying that if someone homeless turns down free housing you want to arrest them? The obvious question is - where's the free housing you're talking about? Homeless shelters don't even have free beds, I'm pretty sure that the homeless would take a better indoor place to sleep if there was one available.

> Arrest illegal aliens that are making the lack of housing even worse.

I'm sorry, you think that migrant farm workers being paid less than minimum wage are the reason Google engineers have to get roommates, or why single family homes start at $1M and up? I really don't get it. Migrant workers aren't buying real estate.

> a choice

This claim is stronger in San Francisco specifically than it is nationwide. The city has been a Mecca for drug culture for a long time, and its current public policy barely recognizes the drug abuse of its homeless persons as a problem, except when it’s time to mitigate the spread of HIV with needle exchanges.

“Used needles on the playground equipment” is a very-specifically San Francisco complaint.

How do you propose to solve said drug addiction and homeless lifestyle?

Well for starters, not allowing open air drug dealing and arresting illegal drug dealers in the streets. Cooperating with ICE, and so on. Starting to take action against homeless that do refuse housing because they enjoy the homeless lifestyle, which in turn will make it less attractive for non-native homeless to come to San Francisco.

Cooperating with ICE to send these people back to America where they come from? My, my, San Francisco’s atavistic parochialism is really something but calling ones fellow Americans illegal immigrants. That’s good.

If there is no housing available, then why are illegal immigrants tolerated which would arguably make the problem worse? It makes no sense.

Because no one can demonstrate it makes an appreciable impact, and the cost is that we get ghettos where no one will report crime. So we don’t do it.

So - as a result of your logic - you suggest that we allow crime and illegal aliens?

We know it does make an impact because the police department regularly arrests them (since they cause negativities in the community) and regularly the courts release them so that they can go back to the same street corner to keep selling death.

San Francisco truly is a law-less place.

Applying "illegal" to someone who is in your country without __papers please__, is just so astonishing to me.

Why on earth do you give a shit who lives where in the world? I've immigrated to the US, legally, gone through all the paperwork and expenses. I don't give a fuck if "illegal" immigrants exist.

I will continue to advocate for them and vote for policies that keep them safe.

Illegal immigrants do not have lawful ways to find a job. They will either get abused in one way or another, or they will start looking at illegal activities to survive (ie, drug dealing).

Encouraging illegal immigration - like you are suggesting by enabling them to come to San Francisco - not only is dangerous for the community but it is first and foremost dangerous for those people who come here thinking it's paradise on earth and end up being taken advantage of.

You are irresponsible. There are reasons why there are lawful ways to immigrate, it is not a game.

Maybe then make it legal for them to find a job?

You get rid of illegal immigrants on the street and you won't move the needle on crime. Listen, I'm not interested in you blowing my money on vanity projects.

We have been blowing up hundreds of millions of dollars on existing vanity projects for 40 years [1] we might as well try something new and - perhaps - enforce some law and order in a lawless and dangerous city.

None of the existing policies are helping moving the needle on crime, while arresting drug dealers and deporting illegal aliens that perform criminal activities will help with the goal of having less criminals and less drugs in the streets.

My son - native San Franciscan - dodges needles every day at the park. What happens if he gets hurt or catches a disease? Do you think this is the future he deserves? Criminals belong to prison.

[1] - https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/19/21027974/san-francisco-home...

Listen, you think you're on the opposite side of the guy with one vanity project by coming up with another vanity project but ultimately, to me, you guys are both just vanity project spenders who want to use someone else's money on random things that make you feel like you did something. I'm not interested in budgeting to your ego.

No thank you. Depending on cost + externalities, I'm okay with some number of criminals not being in prison.

> I'm okay with some number of criminals not being in prison.

And this right here is what’s wrong with San Francisco. You literally support death and crime on what - over the years - costed (and still costs) the city billions of dollars and countless of dead bodies with no tangible results and yet living in a lawful society - like the rest of the world does - is somehow too expensive for you?

The FBI even arrested the guy in charge of the homeless budget for corruption a few months ago (Nuru Mohammed, our dear mayor London Breed's ex-boyfriend, who also used the city funds to pay for Breed’s personal car repairs), and yet all is fine. I guess we don’t put criminals in prison, we elect them: the San Francisco way.

In the meantime people die, but it is an acceptable externality. Cruelty at its finest.

I knew these comments are racist dog whistles. It's so sad how San Francisco went from the cradle of counter culture to...this.

Outlaw street-level drug use.

I guess prisoners technically aren't homeless.

And how does that help? You're just sending anyone undesirable to prison?

How about, and this is a wild idea, we just require housing to be a natural right and we give people that?

> we just require housing to be a natural right and we give people that?

Who is "we" in this context?

People who realize housing people is cheaper than jailing them.

How is it in any way cheaper. I mean yes, if you ship people to middle america it will be. But touting a "right" to housing in SF is preposterous, at $1000 / sq ft (and will only go up with more demand).

Jails are more expensive to construct, are staffed, and also take up space like other forms of real estate.

What is stopping the group of people who realize this from housing people?

The fetishization of "law and justice" in the United States and the world?

As a species it seems we enjoy jailing the "undesirables" rather than tolerating them and understanding them.

I say we let them continue "thriving" just like we did for decades. Left wing "activists" keep their steady income so they can continue pretending to solve problems, the homeless will be happy too. As for tax payers, we can scare them with Trump and republicans so they keep voting for us. What do you say? Sounds like a win-win-win to me.

give them the compassion and support that any one of us deserves as human beings. if they are mental ill, then get them on the medication they need. if they want a job, give them one. if they are on drugs, get them into a program like NA and give them the medication to combat the withdrawl. everyone deserves the help the desire. there is no reason why we should putting each other down.

> if they are mental ill, then get them on the medication they need.

What if they don't want to be on medication?

> if they are on drugs, get them into a program like NA and give them the medication to combat the withdrawl.

What if they have no interest in doing that?

Right now, nothing. If you build enough shelter space, by law, you no longer can make these decisions. If there is enough shelter space to house the homeless population, the choices become go to the shelter or go to jail. This is why we need to build more shelters as soon as possible.

Agree with you generally, but NA is a religious missionary program, where the treatment/process involves worship or reverence of supernatural entities (a god / higher power).

I'm in NA... it's not a religious program and you don't have to believe in god or a higher power. all of that crap is suggested.

it's a fellowship, nothing more, nothing less. you have someone that you can talk that understands first hand what you are going through when you have cravings. that's all it is... support when you want it.

everything is optional.

Homelessness is not a "lifestyle", and it is quite rude of you to say that.

Also, in the US, a great amount of social resources are expended - albeit often indirectly or inadvertantly - to _encourage_ drug addiction. Aim for the social institutions that make the US the highest developed country in terms of, say, opiate use:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalenc...

(second highest if we consider Russia developed rather than developing)

Lots of folks back East, they say, is leavin' home every day,

Beatin' the hot old dusty way to the California line.

'Cross the desert sands they roll, gettin' out of that old dust bowl,

They think they're goin' to a sugar bowl, but here's what they find

Now, the police at the port of entry say,

"You're number fourteen thousand for today."

Oh, if you ain't got the do re mi, folks, you ain't got the do re mi,

Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.

California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;

But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot

If you ain't got the do re mi.

You want to buy you a home or a farm, that can't deal nobody harm,

Or take your vacation by the mountains or sea.

Don't swap your old cow for a car, you better stay right where you are,

Better take this little tip from me.

'Cause I look through the want ads every day

But the headlines on the papers always say:

If you ain't got the do re mi, boys, you ain't got the do re mi,

Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.

California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;

But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot

If you ain't got the do re mi.

Words and Music by Woody Guthrie

I just discovered Woody Guthrie after watching the "No direction home" documentary about Bob Dylon on Netflix.

There is incredible, timeless insight into the human condition in his work.

Thank you for posting this.

A place with the highest housing prices in the country, where software engineers make over six figures and still have roommates, also happens to have a large number of homeless people - nope, no causality there, it's just that they're all drug addicts or living the H O M E L E S S L I F E S T Y L E or (some other thing that absolves me of any need to have empathy for my fellow people)

Software engineers who move in and give zero shits about their fellow humans are truly the disease of SF, not the homeless.

As someone who has never lived in SF but vaguely heard of their issues with homelessness, that article is super eye-opening. It talks about city bureaucrats and homeless advocacy organizations, but not so much the attitude of the general public. Aren't democracies supposed to have feedback loops that will eventually solve this problem? If they haven't gotten there already, at what point will the general SF citizenry get pissed off enough to elect leaders focused on fixing this?

The feedback loop works if you assume most people's opinions are rooted in facts. They are often not grounded in reality, especially at the local political level where awful inflammatory opinions readily circulate on social networks like nextdoor and Facebook. People in SF and other cities frequently oppose construction of homeless shelters, with the thinking that this will attract homeless to the area and make the situation worse. Guess what, the homeless are already there, that's why that site in particular was chosen for the potential shelter. At least in LA, when a shelter goes up, cleanings in the area happen much more frequently and it becomes a less attractive place to camp if you need to move all of your things every day. People don't bother reading the details of these plans to see these things.

This degenerate logic against shelter construction ignores the fact that the only alternative to not building shelters and mental health facilities is to allow the homeless population to grow and fester and continue to trash the streets, since thankfully we are not a society that just removes undesirables from existence.

> enables the "homeless lifestyle" without any accountability

You mean by not having public housing?

> Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.

It's obviously not a choice. It's also not the result of mental illness nor of drug addiction, at least for the most part, as people suffering from mental illness or addicted to some drug also don't want to be homeless and stuck on the streets. And while they are somewhat more likely to lose their house due to mis-managing their life - it is much much more likely to happen when they have no social support: Medical care-givers (no such thing by default in the US), neighborhood/community associations (not much of that in most cities), families etc.

> where are my rights as a lawful tax payer who cannot bring his son to the park without risking his life by stepping on a needle?

Your right is not catered to by social institutions, and municipal ones in particular, who are acting as though homelessness should be addressed by suppressing/harassing the homeless rather than ensuring people have homes.

They do refuse housing when it is being offered. In addition to this San Francisco does not cooperate with ICE to deport illegal aliens which make the housing problem worse.

Do you agree that if they do refuse housing we need to do something about it? Do you also agree that we should start taking action in making more housing available by at least deporting illegal aliens?

It is obvious by now - after 40 years - that the current strategy does not work, don't you agree with this statement?

> They do refuse housing when it is being offered.

This sounds rather incredible... can you back this claim up?

> they do refuse housing we need to do something about it?

Perhaps, but to be honest I'm quite baffled by this. I'm even surprised that San Francisco is offering 0-rent apartments to the homeless, when generally from what I know the rental market there is rather out of control.

> by at least deporting illegal aliens?

the problem you decried is people who are homeless and harass others on the streets. So, why use someone's legal immigration status as the criterion for action? I'd imagine most homeless are actually US citizens, and that illegal immigrants tend to find someplace to work and some decent sleeping arrangement.

If you build enough shelter space to house the homeless population, by law your choices are to sleep in the shelter or go to jail if you refuse. Until enough shelter space is built, you can continue to sleep on the sidewalk. See the Boise decision which dictates this policy all over the Western United States.

One of the facets of the Boise decision which made it legal to camp on sidewalks in the Western United States is that you can make sidewalk camping illegal if you have sufficient shelter space. If you live in SF or anywhere else with homeless issues, and are tired of the status quo, the only solution that will ever work is building shelters and building mental health facilities. The decision for a camper would therefore be, spend a night in a shelter with social workers, move to a mental health treatment facility if they are mentally unsound or addicted so substances, or go to jail. The only way out is to build your way out, which is why opposition to shelter construction is so soooo stupid and morally abhorrent.

A friend considered it after graduation. 3500 a month for a place in rent.

Eventually even with tech salaries that doesn’t make sense. He went to Seattle.

Should note that's basically the price for a full 1b to yourself in a nice and convenient area in the city. Most people who move here after graduation are probably paying closer to half that due to living with roommates/not in the super convenient and expensive areas.

Fair, but he is paying $1500 for that same thing in Seattle.

That's still crazy. I live 10-min walk away from downtown and SLU (where Amazon campus is) in Seattle and pay a friction of that for a nice 1bd (and still think it's too expensive).

SF is crazy.

The 10% -> 0% income tax SF -> Seattle is also a pretty big deal.

Seattle is a great choice. Salaries are similar. The politics aren’t idiotic. No state income tax. Standard of living is just as good.

Isn't Seattle the City Council where even the allegation of someone having worked with or been friends with Republicans becomes an election scandal?

edit: found the article that first brought this up to me (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/in-seattl...)

As soon as COVID is over we're out.

Where are you going?

New York area. It's expensive, but it's where family is.

I wouldn't be surprised if COVID pushes a lot of people to be nearer family.

But why move from one COVID prone location to another?

Sounds like family

I'm legit curious. What's your definition of "over"?

In a few years when vaccines have been found, 85% of people inoculated and no more proven Covid-19 cases have been found for 30 days?

or...?

I think the consensus of 'over' is when the world one way or the other goes back to well...as normal as it's gonna get. Personally, I think that'll be when there's better treatments for the effects of covid, I'm not too believing of a vaccine hitting anytime under 2 years.

But if we could halve the death-rate or more, it'd be pretty good steps towards getting back to normal. Also, if we could actually get people to wear masks and take it seriously. That'd go a long way towards quelling it.

That's the million dollar question. When I feel not unsafe moving my family cross country?

We'll obviously need to accept some level of risk to do that, unless we're willing to wait for vaccines or herd immunity, as you pointed out. But it may well be a year.

How does this compare to MoveBuddha's "regular" numbers? Maybe only the people who're moving out of SF are using MoveBuddha? It's an interesting insight, but I think there's a high chance it doesn't reflect the situation at large.

> To put this into perspective, during the same period last year, there were 980 move searches involving the Bay Area on our moving cost calculator. Of those 980 requests, 57% were for outbound moves and 43% were for moves into the Bay Area. This is typical for any major city that has a lot of people coming in and out at any given time.

> But what we’re currently seeing is an incredible 90% of move searches involving the Bay Area are current residents looking to leave and only 10% are people looking to move into the region. That’s a very different picture from just last year.

Interesting to see Columbus (I'm assuming OH) on that top 5 list. That means about 60 people were looking at moving to Columbus I guess? The other cities made sense to me, but Columbus was a stand out. The others just seemed like cities people looking to leave SF that would use movebuddah would be looking at.

I think it's still a major test market because it has the perfect demographics for that kind of thing.

I've heard great things about Columbus, OH. Never been there but sounds like a great midwest city with an affordable cost of living and nice college town (The Ohio State University).

Brutal winters though if you are coming from CA.

Honestly one of the under rated large cities in the US is Cleveland. I have had to travel a lot for work over the years and was impressed by the dining options available and the general togetherness of the community there. Again winters...bad...

I grew up wearing shorts while there was snow on the ground, but Cleveland was the first city where I understood why scarves and gloves are a thing. Brutally cold wind.

But on the flipside, their street maintenance was amazing. It was snowing almost all the time during the winter, but the road were always clear.

Grew up there. They plow the roads then don't fix the potholes the plows make lol. The infrastructure maintenance budgets are shoestrings because the city lost 60% of its population over the past 50 years.

I wonder what the figures really are when you separate regular people (if you'll forgive the loaded term) from the category of "super rich people who can afford $3,000/month rent or whatever it is these days".

Layoffs, VC defunding, poop on the streets and city-corona troubles.

Yes, I can totally understand a strong outflow. (But in a little while it might be time to buy in. I believe someday SF will again be a desirable place to live.)