More than half of Silicon Valley residents want to leave: The mood is darkening
nypost.com
nypost.com
I’ve even lost some pretty significant weight just getting back to living a non-workaholic lifestyle.
Life is short people. Keep an eye on what’s actually important to you.
Always when I think about how short life is, in the cited context, I remember this essay from PG. Which I found great:
Just a guess, but seems likely in context.
I was able to get a concealed carry permit, but ironically, I only carry when I have to travel back to the Bay Area.
If SV and SF allowed for the construction of additional housing, there would not be a downstream housing crisis in Denver, Austin, etc. The policy decisions of a handful of city councils of the suburbs on the West coast has had a huge impact on these cities -- and has indirectly displaced residents, disrupted local economies, and pushed many people into homelessness.
Housing policy in major economic zones in the US is a national issue, and should be treated as such.
This doesn't even touch on the wider problem of income inequality itself.
If we're being completely honest, the average American would be much, much better off if SV had never produced a single unicorn.
Clearly the solution is for US to annex the Earth like we annexed the Moon and then nationalize housing policy. /s
Our local housing policy does suck, but this is not a constructive direction. You’re simply replacing one power structure with a different one in the hopes that maybe it’ll be better, when what you want to make are specific policy arguments.
Secondly, Canada, whose real estate markets have been even more seriously disrupted by authoritarian regimes across the Pacific Ocean, have already placed outright, albeit temporary, bans on citizens of those regimes from parking their capital in the domestic real estate market.
Your characterization of my argument is specious and straw-man-esque. You are assuming that globalization is a given, that borders are always porous, that neoliberalism is the only way of looking at the world. I am kindly inviting you to reconsider your point of view, in light of evidence that it has made housing more unaffordable for the many Americans, disrupted their livelihoods, and dissolved their communities.
Or you can keep making colorless jokes to yourself about the property markets on Mars, up to you.
Are you responding to me or someone else?
> Your characterization of my argument is specious and straw-man-esque.
Your argument was to effectively transfer local zoning power from local government to Federal government because as you put it, it’s a national issue. True in a way, but the solution isn’t constructive, and you had no policy proposals to accompany this transfer. The one you propose here about limiting foreign ownership of domestic property by citizens from authoritarian countries (PRC, KSA just to name a couple) is something I’m actually on board with.
However, perhaps you think my characterization was inaccurate and uncharitable, so could you clarify the following for me:
>> Housing policy in major economic zones in the US is a national issue, and should be treated as such.
What does treating it as a National issue entail? A broad reading of this is direct Federal intervention into municipal policy which would be a direct power transfer. Could you narrow it down for clarity with actual policy proposals to convey a better understanding of what exactly you have in mind?
Here are some potential solutions anyways.
Some of these would be unpopular, but we could consider;
1. National standardization of zoning (like Japan) 2. Federal funding for local rail instead of highways (this would probably be the biggest one) 3. Municipal incentives for densification 4. Federal laws regulating the lobbying power of neighborhood associations 5. Beheading local gentry at the guillotine before inevitably being placed in its open maw ourselves (vive la révolution!)
It's also very hard to find examples of long-term successful large-scale (town-scale) growth. So we can't just move substantial fractions of people from our largest cities to mid or small-sized cities in a matter of months or years (and get satisfactory results).
Undoubtedly NIMBY forces around the U.S. are partly to blame, but the Covid/WFH exodus is surely the more important factor at this point in time.
Applies to SF and SV too - and to the other citied
Having lived in one of those cities as a low-income resident, a medium-income resident, and now a high-income resident, I assure you that the high income residents do much less for these cities than any other group. And no, taxes do not make up for it.
> the average American would be much, much better off if SV had never produced a single unicorn.
Is this an envy thing? The average American isn't really affected by SV's housing prices at all.
I've yet to hear anyone gushing about how they left SV for North Dakota or Alaska.
Wherever you go, there you are.
As someone in Colorado watching the influx of Californians with a dread and frustration over the past 10 years, the majority of newcomers seem to vote and live exactly like they did in CA, creating the exact same problems in CO that they ran from CA to escape.
Sighed deeply for it too
Here in Spain more and more northern europeans come. I guess many of them are going to settle here (I get lots of questions about taxes and dealing with the spanish state, candid souls), so they contribute to the housing problem but I don't really see what they might import here that can worsen the situation besides their purchasing power.
Also, being Sillicon Valley one of the most productive places on earth, why companies don't involve themselves in politics about housing and city planning?
If I was some top head in such companies I woudl definitely consider it, as it goes directly against my floating line. If I manage to convince mayors that copying the netherlands onto the land around my offices I wouldn't need to pay so much and my engineers would be happier anyways.
They are basically swimming in cash, so IDK, they are involved in politics anyway...
Before anyone responds looking to argue, I'm not saying whether it's true or false, just stating that that's the perception.
Just as there are progressive YIMBYS and "conservative" (usually labelled "market urbanist") YIMBYS.
The left/right axis is inadequate to describe the dynamics of municipal politics. You need a second urbanist/conservationist axis to describe support or opposition for housing development.
It's not left/right, it's also urbanist/conservationist.
You will find those on both the left and right that for various ideological reasons end up at the same point of wanting to obstruct new housing creation.
Occasionally they do but the main power bloc in rich urban/suburban California is homeowners whose property taxes have been essentially frozen at low rates as their home values have skyrocketed. Anything the companies would do politically to help solve the issue immediately runs up against older voters who are well-organized and have nothing but time on their hands and huge amounts of equity in their homes.
I don't have much experience but even I can do. I don't think the US is short of this people nor this companies short of cash to burn.
And they would do something good for once.
Edit: I remember watching documentaries about SV engineers living in vans ffs. I could get my life almost settled with a couple of years of such salaries.
Politically, this manifests as fervent support for causes that seem good on the surface but have dire unintended consequences.
To be fair to Californians, the California constitution is a mess, and incentivizes a kind of aggressive crazy politics.
If you really want to know details (you don't want to know details), here are some articles by locals.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221006202807/https://www.press...
https://web.archive.org/web/20180113084809/https://www.ocreg...
Even more https://duckduckgo.com/?q=california+politics+is+a+mess&ia=e...
Problems are caused by the rich and established of SV desiring exclusive enclaves of single family homes and not wanting any normal income earning renters to live near them.
People that move elsewhere and maintain this attitude will simply induce the same problems again.
Acting like all the issues are due to recent laws is a easy lie to fall for.
Generally those conditions are caused by the people who live in them - their culture and ways of thinking - even if they don't understand or can't acknowledge how.
Many people want to escape the consequences of their own beliefs, but don't want to give up the beliefs themselves.
Another example of, "You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic."
Would you advise these people should confront their belief system and the consequentiality of their agency that led them to this conclusion?
And that the reason why the original place was so crowded is because people like them wanted to all be there, and the politics and other things there are negatively perceived by the people who DIDN'T move there.
Also, when everyone all the sudden starts buying homes in a previously not in demand are, the homes start getting difficult to afford, as demand is increasing. Especially for people who have been living there awhile already, and don't have the cash that the folks leaving the previously crowded areas have.
I've personally seen this same cycle happen 3 times in California (and PNW/Texas).
What do you mean? I've lived in Colorado and now live in California. Sure, it has serious problems but I'd say some of them are from population density. Millions of people living in small area causes issues. Housing prices? I'd want housing prices to go up if I owned. Taxes? That's a financial question, and the bay area offers world class comp in tech. Traffic? Also bad, but that's from attracting so many people. Crime and homelessness is a serious issue. But I don't think there are easy answers. I live in a safe area, and I would run into other political issues in different states.
If California is broken, it’s not from the people that live there or leave because they can’t stand it the way it is. If another place becomes that way, it isn’t the people coming there that causes it (other than from the population shift).
Everything is crowded nowadays anyway, ant least in the cities. That’s an issue with there being more people in general.
They brought their votes with them. Those towns took a turn to the woke-left. Took barely a year to see it translate into higher crime, petty theft, etc. Now people are fleeing it again.
same thing happened to Austin and is starting to happen in Dallas
I get that it causes angst in the destination, but that is the last thing on anyone's mind when they're considering such a disruptive life change. They're moving because they're miserable right now. That it might make someone else slightly uncomfortable politically later?
And that's ignoring the whole 'no single raindrop causes the flood' issue. Beating up on any individual doesn't make a bit of difference. These changes are being driven by macro-economic shifts.
On a side note, what is also likely contributing? Nasty, nasty air pollution 1/4 to 1/2 of the year in the SF bay area due to all the fires.
Also many of them are not liberal, if that’s what you were hinting
Truly incredible.
So you really should be blaming Texans more than Californians, and if they are ruining Colorado like they did Texas, you should call them out on it.
https://stacker.com/colorado/states-sending-most-people-colo...
I was really burned out and though the tech scene was good in silicon valley(startups, good companies), it still felt my life was just monotonous. I had same tech friends, which were competing against each other. Talking about FAANG companies.
I took a pay cut when I moved away to my new place. I joined a small tech company and was happy. 9-5 job and skiing on the weekends. Taking dog to the walk everyday.
I feel happy.
The thing that had the biggest impact on various quality of life issues (and why I stayed) was moving from the Mission to a quieter and safer SF neighborhood. I bike everywhere, don’t have a car, and can walk to work and several beautiful parks, including one that opened this year.
If I had kids, don’t think it would have been possible at all to stay.
If you have kids and send them to the public schools, you can’t just move into the neighborhood next to the school you want your kid to attend. There’s an entire placement system you have to learn about that takes into account where you live, stated preferences, etc. It’s possible you live next to a school, but your kid has to go to a completely different school in a different neighborhood.
If don’t want to subject yourself to that then you can send kids to private schools that cost between $15k-$45k/year. On top of that these schools hit you up for more money at fundraisers, etc.
Middle School and High School is another can of worms.
I’m also skipping past the huge budget shortfalls SFUSD is facing and the possibility the state of CA takes over.
At some point it just gets exhausting having to think through all this stuff.
A big reason I moved out of SF to a nearby town is because I knew all the schools were great from K-12 in my district and I just don’t have to think through the insane logistics people have to worry about in SF.
Maybe I overthink my child’s education, but for me it didn’t sit well with how much was left up to chance in public education, the expense of private education, and all the logistics and hassle involved for both options.
For example similarities include, cost of living / rent in Bangalore is high but it's also the city with most tech jobs. The public transport infra is weak and there is an acute shortage of Uber cabs and yet it still is the most fun city for the youth to be in.
I guess what I am saying is that the grass is always greener on the other side. There will always be a tradeoff to make.
As someone who spent all his childhood in Bangalore before migrating to the USA & specifically California, let me give you some perspective. No SDE wants to work in a Shimoga or Davangere. They want to work in Bangalore. Similarly, no SDE wants to work in a Concord or Martinez or what have you. There are thousands of perfectly good cities in California, but the SDEs all want to work in Silicon Valley. I remember during the early days of YC, I wrote to a founder saying I'd like to work with him. So he invites me. I go to see the company. Its just a 2 bedroom house in San Francisco! They've gotten rid of the furniture, put tables & chairs & laptops. So I tell him, look, I have a 2 bedroom house in San Ramon. We can just operate out of that. He says, I too have a 2 bedroom house in San Ramon! So I say, why are you working out of San Francisco ? Because that's Silicon Valley, you see! So 2 people who live 5 minutes walking distance from each other, both in San Ramon, each have 2 bedroom houses with enough space to spare, no cost, have to commute 1 whole hour, all the way to San Francisco every morning, to work in an expensive rented 2-bedroom house, because Silicon Valley. Now if that's not ridiculous, I don't know what is.
In the case of Bangalore, one could argue there is a huge advantage to commuting from say Hebbal to Electronics City, because there is a gigantic 4 million square feet Infosys campus over there. But if you have a collection of 1000s of startups, and each of them is just a 2-bedroom house or some small office building, the same can very well exist in Danville or Pleasanton or Walnut Creek or Clayton or Dublin or Antioch or .... I've stayed in all those places and there's plenty of cheap office space & 2-bedrom houses. But no. All the action must happen in Silicon Valley. Because.
In that sense I really welcome all this disruption. You don't have to go to Colorado or Seattle or whatever...just go 20 miles N/S/E/W...that itself would be a huge deal. Forget cost cutting, Cutting down on the pollution due to commute traffic would be a very significant positive contributor to the environment.
I think you are underestimating the commute to Electronic city. It must be life sucking, same as the SV commute, probably more.
This definitely does not apply to the Valley. SF you could make an argument for at least.
(I actually do not know one way or the other, but am aware of that topic.)
NYPost (and also SFChronicle) were constantly talking about this 'exodus' during COVID. How everyone was leaving; how the U-Hauls were cheaper in the egress direction. Seemed like complete and utter BS. I'm sure they made a lot of revenue from ads though.
Moving back to SF in the next month for a new gig (after the startup I was working for ran out of cash and laid everyone off).
There is no exodus, people move to silicon valley to work, for a few years or decades, until they get sick of it or retire, then move out. Someone always takes their place, for a job and/or the weather, and housing prices fluctuate a little but always keep climbing.
When a person hits their late teens and stops growing in height, you don't say death is the only thing awaiting them.
The survey results aligned with my impression from talking to folks in the Bay area over the years: Most don't like how expensive it is and are there primarily for the jobs. Once more companies became open to remote work, the value of being in Silicon Valley went down. If housing prices don't drop fast enough to match that, then simple cost-benefit analysis says that people will want to leave. Sure, the weather's nice, but it's not that nice.
People here are saying that this will make other cities unaffordable, but I don't think that really holds up. There's many many cities that people leaving Silicon Valley to move to and distributing the load across all of them should be easily absorbed. Sure housing costs will go up some, but this is not going to turn Spokane into SF. Obviously, it would be great if housing was miraculously cheap everywhere, but that's not reality. Slightly more expensive everywhere and significantly cheaper in Silicon Valley is probably a net win for the country. (Remember that non-tech people do still live in Silicon Valley.)
This seems like an overall good thing to me. The US has been struggling under an incredibly painful demographic shift. We outsourced our manufacturing jobs to China and automated away most of our agricultural jobs. This forced a huge migration into the relatively small number of metro areas with significant service and tech economies, but those cities physically can't grow as fast as people want to move there.
Giving information workers more remote work opportunities lets the country load balance jobs more effectively across its existing physical infrastructure.
The one that got me was: "People are leaving due to the economic downturn. But you're not, because you're already home."
I am glad big tech is growing in the area but the home prices have been bonkers.
Know much about folks buying that far out these days? I mean, I hear apocryphal stories about Apple/Google engineers buying up houses unseen in the immediate RTP area but I am not entirely sure I believe those.
I am in Burlington and everything from Mebane toward RTP has just been crazy prices and moving crazy fast. I am very glad I got in when I did. I worked in Chapel Hill for a couple years and could commute on the back roads but going in to Cary or RTP would be at least an hour for me.
New construction is always a bit behind here and we will definitely see higher prices in central NC with the various tech companies increasing their presence in the area.
But it was complete bonkers until August. Sellers were getting double-digit all-cash offers 10%-20% over asking price. Never seen anything like that here before.
They simply noped out on shopping because the market seemed so irrational to them personally. I wonder if other similarly wealthy buyers looked around and just did the same . . .
It's a systemic issue and can't be fixed by focusing on any particular set of earners. The entire system is broken and needs to be replaced.
There, luxury housing (e.g. high rise condos in the heart of the city) are of course still expensive but more affordable housing is broadly available, mostly in residential districts. Houses are seen as a liability and as such property with housing on it deprecates much the way a car would in the US. As a result it's not too difficult to find housing for sale for prices below ~$200k USD in the Tokyo metro area with options opening up considerably if you bump the upper limit to $300k USD. Those prices are unheard of in most US metro areas, with even the most dumpy closet of an apartment you can find fetching prices higher than that. Also note that this is just what's visible to me as a foreigner — there's likely a large number of properties that I can't see.
This is also partially enabled by their extensive public transportation. It's much less of a problem to not be in the heart of the city when getting there costs ¥500 or less and is a ~30 minute ride that you're free to read, catch up on email, etc during.
So in short, 1) housing should be treated as homes, not investments 2) most US cities need more density 3) public transportation needs to be expanded and properly supported.
Don't forget, this commute is actually free for most commuters, because their companies pay for it. It only costs money to use the public transit if they stray from their normal commute route (and this is automatically calculated and handled by the system), or go somewhere on the weekend.
So not only do Tokyoites not have to deal with car payments, insurance payments, maintenance costs, and fuel costs if they don't want to, just getting to work and back won't cost them anything but time. Plus they don't have to worry much about being killed or maimed on the way to work.
https://jointventure.org/images/stories/pdf/sv-poll-2022-rep...
A lot of families have deep roots here (and houses). They have businesses, friends, families, etc. despite the crap they don’t plan to move anytime soon.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this survey captured more renters, or techies / transplants, or younger folks. Then I’d believe 50%+ thinking of leaving.
https://jointventure.org/images/stories/pdf/sv-poll-2022-rep...
Stereotypically, not conclusively, speaking:
The most bizarre thing about this problem is that both sides don't want it solved. The NIMBY crowd obviously doesn't want affordable housing, or housing programs, anywhere near their million-dollar home, or city for that matter. The YIMBY often oppose extremely effective (although never perfect) approaches to this crisis.
These people are bringing one of these attitudes with them to wherever they move. The homeless [generally] aren't the cause of homelessness, the homed are. I'm sure many of the QoL problems will follow these people/attitudes around.
[1]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/homelessness/id1380008... "You're wrong about: Homelessness" (Available on other platforms too)
Due to the high cost of living and high incomes, the other local wisdom is: [get in early, once you leave, you’ll never really go back]
(I left the Bay Area in 2014.)
When people are eagerly waiting for prices to drop...they aren't going to drop.
[1] In the cities. I'm guessing life in suburbia/rural towns is easier. I lived in a major city my entire life, and living in rural parts of the country not worth it unfortunately. It's my own personal decision, I understand that it comes with significant trade-offs.
The owner has to live on the property and make it their primary residence, to claim homestead exemption. CADs will not know that until the owner applies for Homestead exemption. Not sure they can make it automatic.
https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2022/10/04/how-texas-cities-...
https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/metro-...
If you restrict yourself to specific "tech lifestyle" cities obviously that's a different story.
We're literally running out of cities in the west.