There was an attack ad against Chris Christie run this campaign season that claimed over 50% of NJ residents wanted to leave.
This type of figure only makes sense if you compare it across different regions, also I suspect the way you prime the question could make a big difference in the answer you get.
Surely we can get a few more people to move in who want to pay $5k for rent? You know one of those startups is the next Twitter! Any day now! Come on, people - can't let the game of musical chairs stop. Not now.
If I can get a good job somewhere else I will vote with my feet to get out of this ridiculous valley. Half of my salary goes in paying rent for a small apartment. It is simply not worth it.
Pressurizing government into opening up the empty spaces for housign needs is what the tech industry needs to do.
I'm curious - where are you located? Most of the dissatisfaction I see in this area is from people in SF or the Peninsula. East Bay and South Bay seem much less grumpy about it.
Yes, it's still not cheap, but it's a world better than SF.
I really like the open spaces. I also feel the situation has been ridiculous for a few years now (3 or 4).
Everybody wants to point the finger at x, y, or z.
A lot of people think the fault is the government. Yet, how can the government tell private land owners what to do?
Personally I think this situation will work itself out once this artificial stimulus gets turned off. We are at zero percent interest rates! Crazy. Unfortunately, given the US populations dependence on this stimulus, they may not turn it off until it is way too late.
Atlanta has a great tech scene. I get paid SF wages, and I'm renting a 2-bedroom apartment for only $1k. Everything goes into savings. On top of that, Atlanta has great food, music, and arts scenes. I'm sure there are other cities that could fit the bill as well.
I've lived in this area for a long time, and through several bubbles, and this is nothing new.
- The bay area has a handful of thriving industries creating a lot of wealth, in a country with a stagnant economy, so people come here for opportunity, our population is growing.
- Existing property owners are resistant to change, and they're "locked in", price increases don't affect them. They don't want those new dense apartments or the new stores. Prop 13 really locks in housing costs, allowing these people to check out of the equation forever. The net result is rampant NIMBY-ism, and housing gets built at only the state mandated minimum of development.
- Lower income people get priced out. Those in the first two groups I mentioned above don't see this as a problem, but this forces people to commute longer distances, leading to the horrible traffic problems. Housing and traffic go hand in hand. The commute makes the cost of hiring help of any sort more expensive, driving up prices.
This is all a vicious cycle of selfishness, basically. It's nobody specific, just society overall. Everyone wants "theirs" and once they have it, they don't care about people who are still struggling. We should feel fortunate to live in such a thriving area, and accept that our neighbors may want to build apartments or shops. That's the price of living in economic prosperity. If you want the opposite, move to a rust belt state.
9 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 39.7 ms ] threadThis type of figure only makes sense if you compare it across different regions, also I suspect the way you prime the question could make a big difference in the answer you get.
Pressurizing government into opening up the empty spaces for housign needs is what the tech industry needs to do.
Yes, it's still not cheap, but it's a world better than SF.
Everybody wants to point the finger at x, y, or z.
A lot of people think the fault is the government. Yet, how can the government tell private land owners what to do?
Personally I think this situation will work itself out once this artificial stimulus gets turned off. We are at zero percent interest rates! Crazy. Unfortunately, given the US populations dependence on this stimulus, they may not turn it off until it is way too late.
- The bay area has a handful of thriving industries creating a lot of wealth, in a country with a stagnant economy, so people come here for opportunity, our population is growing.
- Existing property owners are resistant to change, and they're "locked in", price increases don't affect them. They don't want those new dense apartments or the new stores. Prop 13 really locks in housing costs, allowing these people to check out of the equation forever. The net result is rampant NIMBY-ism, and housing gets built at only the state mandated minimum of development.
- Lower income people get priced out. Those in the first two groups I mentioned above don't see this as a problem, but this forces people to commute longer distances, leading to the horrible traffic problems. Housing and traffic go hand in hand. The commute makes the cost of hiring help of any sort more expensive, driving up prices.
This is all a vicious cycle of selfishness, basically. It's nobody specific, just society overall. Everyone wants "theirs" and once they have it, they don't care about people who are still struggling. We should feel fortunate to live in such a thriving area, and accept that our neighbors may want to build apartments or shops. That's the price of living in economic prosperity. If you want the opposite, move to a rust belt state.