[–]get_it_together1 4 points  

What rental legislation are you talking about? Most of the places around here don’t have rent control, so landlords are welcome to raise rents 10%/year if they feel like it.

[–]SomeoneWithOpinions 6 points  

I don’t know San Francisco well enough to say how many properties are owned by foreigners who never occupy them. Where can I find data showing this?

[–]JohnnyOnslaught 19 points  

Pretty much every major newspaper over the last five years.

[–]slapadastic 3 points  

If you don’t know it well enough, why are you recommending more apartments??

[–]berniebro420 -3 points  

Who cares if half the city is unoccupied? Just build more. Problem solved. If the Chinese want to give American construction workers jobs, then let them.

[–]bs247 21 points  

Who cares if half the city is unoccupied?

People who are trying to live within reasonable distance to their workplace to make a living for themselves and their families.

[–]trackerFF 7 points  

Sounds like a poor economic model. Sure, someone(construction, realtors, city/taxes) will make a few bucks, but ultimately there’s no money in it for Businesses around.

[–]p_nut_ 6 points  

Building more will create other problems. I commute from the East Bay to the South Bay every day and most of the roads and highways can barely handle the amount of people as it is.

I’ve also never really understood why the cost of living in one area has to be affordable to everyone in the first place.

[–]Pretentious_Cad 5 points  

It at least needs to remain affordable for service employees or it becomes an issue. Right now, it’s hard to hire entry level people and that needs to change somehow whether through legislation or a natural process.

[–]berniebro420 5 points  

Then build some trains for a change. It’s a very dense city, not fucking Houston. If housing wasn’t absurd, people could and should walk to work instead of driving everywhere.

[–]witchsbrew 4 points  

Then build some trains for a change

We tried that 30 years ago and never properly maintained or expanded the train systems. We’re fucked at this point. All the infrastructure is 30 years outdated.

[–]Internetologist 1 point  

I’ve also never really understood why the cost of living in one area has to be affordable to everyone in the first place.

Because it’s ugly to have a scenario in which people have to live in terrible conditions (ex: a fuckton of people in one bedroom) to pursue opportunity.

[–]pixl_graphix 10 points  

Just build more. Problem solved.

Urban sprawl?

[–]berniebro420 20 points  

SF is a peninsula. The only direction to build is up.

[–]queen_of_the_spammed 11 points  

And up is a FUN direction to go, when you’re sitting on the end of the San Andreas fault line.

[–]lunartree 8 points  

Tall buildings are the safest place to be in San Francisco because they must be designed to very high engineering standards to withstand any plausible earthquake scenario. On the other hand if you have an old Victorian with a soft story garage it might fall over. Every time there’s an earthquake it’s always small structures that collapse while the skyscrapers that survive.

People seem to not understand this about earthquake safety, but it’s the same reason why downtown Tokyo is much safer than being in some Japanese village during an earthquake.

[–]witchsbrew 2 points  

Tokyo did it and they have worse seismic activity. Why are Americans such pussies about this issue? Uninformed or simply in denial?

[–]Nat_Sec_blanket 5 points  

Surrounded by mountainous terrain in all directions.

[–]momo_knows 2 points  

No. This happened in Vancouver. It sucks. Housing is completely unaffordable even though they keep building and building, and it’s added nothing to the culture of the city. In fact I think it makes the culture worse off because everyone has to work all the time just to afford to live there.

[–]PowerSystemsGuy 1 point  

Because eventually companies are going to move elsewhere so they can pay their workers less and give them a higher standard of living at the same time thus attracting more talent while simultaneously saving money.

[–]livinincalifornia 0 points  

Yeah, let’s build ghost cities like china….

[–]rcl2 5 points  

You really should lay off the internet myth bullshit.

[–]alittlefedup 2 points  

100k+ units is how many San Francisco needs just to stabilize prices.

Don’t speak about things if you’re uninformed.

[–]seeking-n-knowing 1 point  

link for those who never seen what a ghost city in China looks like –

[–]BDB_JCD 11 points  

No, the cost of living will go down when CA finally wakes up and repeals Prop 13 and its market distorting effects.

[–]openzeus 8 points  

That will be shortly after Half-Life 3 is released.

[–]BDB_JCD 3 points  

true true

[–]newprofile15 2 points  

That would be nice as well. But the anti-development mindset of the bay area is the main culprit. You could fairly say that prop 13 is tied to that anti-development mindset.

[–]livinincalifornia 4 points  

Prop 13 is the only thing keeping property taxes from skyrocketing

[–]diggdugg 6 points  

The main people benefitting from Prop 13 are the ones who bought in the 50’s. They might be paying $1,000 a year where their neighbor next door could be paying $10,000 a year. That shit needs to be equalized out.

[–]eigenfood 1 point  

It needs to be equalized on the profits of the sale of the home. I five years I have paid more than my neighbors who have lived in my town for 30 years.

[–]Showmeyourtail [score hidden]  

Wouldnt that just cause homes to transfer into trusts and cause even more damage to the market?

[–]rockyali 3 points  

Indeed. But property values have also skyrocketed.

[–]livinincalifornia 1 point  

Not because of prop 13…

[–]witchsbrew 3 points  

Prop 13 creates an incentive to buy and hold property and rent it back out. It’s like rent control. Why are the same people who are against rent control for Prop 13?

[–]BDB_JCD 3 points  

Yes because of Prop 13 and all of its market distorting effects.

Prop 13 is Behring more than rent control for porosity owners except that it’s worse.

It effects commercial as well as residential properties and distorts prices across the entire state forcing newer and younger residents to subside people who just happened to be born before them or moved to the state earlier.

[–]rockyali 2 points  

No of course not. But your tax rates wouldn’t go up. The value of the property has risen.

So… at least you have a very valuable asset, one that has often risen enormously in value through no effort or expense of your own.

As an example, I have a friend who bought a house for 300K (and pays taxes on it at that valuation). The house is currently worth about 3 million. All she did in the interim is own it and maintain it.

While it would be upsetting to her to have to pay taxes on a 3M property, at least she can be consoled by the fact that she owns a 3M property off a 300K investment.

[–]livinincalifornia 4 points  

That assumes she will realize those gains. Most people just want a place to live without being taxed out of the area.

[–]rockyali 4 points  

Sure. Nobody likes to get gentrified out of their homes. But we seem to accept it in every other instance.

[+][deleted]  (7 children)

[–]SantyClawz42 2 points  

The Bay already has some of the worst traffic in the nation and you want to densify the population further?

[–]kdeff 2 points  

It is really this simple (well, not really but this is the most important thing).

San Francisco’s population has grown by about 7500 people a year for the last decade. During that time, only around 1800 housing units were added per year. That means that around 50,000 people moved into the city without any form of housing being built to accommodate them (assuming the average new unit acomodates two).

What does this do? Rents skyrocket as the landlords can be ever more selective of who they lease to.

Why does nothing change?

There are three general arguments in this battle. On one side, there is the preservationists (“NIMBYs”) who have passed many laws over the years limiting the amount the City can develop in a year, or dis-allowing construction of any structure if it will cast a shadow upon any public park during any part of the day.

The second group is mainly working class and poor, who are really suffering as their landlords are all looking for reasons to evict them so they can raise rents. While their intent is noble, their ideas have centered around only allowing affordable housing construction. Unfortunately, you need market rate housing to subsidize the affordable housing. Their solution might be a good stop gap measure to get through a small period of rising rents, but they want to freeze a lot of construction that the city desperately needs right now.

The last group are the ones that are trying to get things built. Developers, a few politicians, and a few groups. Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that many people don’t vote in local elections. Those that do are traditionally the preservationists.

[–]fb39ca4 3 points  

Only 7500?

[–]chocslaw 1 point  

I thought that was low too, but seems to be about right

[–]RemingtonSnatch 8 points  

San Fran is fucked up. Even if you cut the number of people competing for an individual apartment listing in half, you all would still have an obscene supply shortfall. I do think a mini dotcom bust is gonna sweep out a lot of the snake oil tech that has re-arisen out there, but other people will just swoop in. It’s too damn nice there.

[–]openzeus 8 points  

All the people already here in established companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc…) will just buy the properties if their value falls due to mass snake-oil layoffs. Housing would need to crash by 50% or more to be “affordable” to regular workers again.

[–]Mr_Ballyhoo 2 points  

It’s gonna happen nation wide. Just wait for the next round of SAP ratings. A lot of start ups are no longer going to have those awesome lines of credit they once were able to easily get.


[–]Glasgo 15 points  

Layoffs at Yahoo, Western Digital, and IBM? Lets also write news stories about how the sky is slightly more blue than yesterday while we’re at it.

But seriously I worked at Western Digital for a time and of course they are doing badly. They are the definition of a company that is stuck in the past and refuses to change or do much in terms of innovation.

[–]Echelon64 14 points  

Seems about right:

-Yahoo is about be sold off.

As it turned out, the woman mostly known for her talent at being Larry Page’s girfriend didn’t turn out to be yahoo’s savior. Shocking news, that.

Insert sexist accusations here.

-Western Digital

Samsung has been eating into its product lines for years, HDD’s don’t sell anymore, SSD’s do and WD was seriously late to the game. They just completed an acquisition of SanDisk so it’s not surprising they are cutting employee’s as they make a bid to be relevant again.


IBM has been losing jobs for years, who the fuck still wants to work for IBM these days? Even back in the day they were well known as an H-1B shop and it seems the tradition is only continuing.

Now if you excuse me, I have to check if my water is wet.


[–]Singing_Shibboleth 73 points  

3,135 since January. In an area with 1.5M+ jobs.

Hardly a ripple.

[–]cannibaloxfords2 71 points  

All replaced by H1B Visa Holders. You’re Welcome America! Faceless Capitalism only cares about the bottom line$

[–]dingosaurus 35 points  

As a tech worker, I feel so triggered right now. The rage is real.

[–]cannibaloxfords2 14 points  

triggered becuz of the H1B’s or because you are an H1B ??

[–]dingosaurus 50 points  

Because of the H1B’s. Watching companies that I’ve worked for fire incredible employees so they could bring in two+ H1B’s who aren’t even remotely on the same level because it “saved money.” Well, it saved money until they had to hire a different contractor because these people fucked up in so many places.

[–]UROBONAR 22 points  

Current investment models reward short term gains. This is the root cause of all these symptoms.

[–]dingosaurus 8 points  

Oh, I agree that it is the top of the ladder that is making these decisions for investors/shareholders.

It still pisses me off that departments that already struggle (e.g. support services) get completely shit on when they fire staff and bring in H1B’s who really have no sense of what the culture is like in the business and have zero desire to adapt to it.

Maybe in the PNW we’re inundated by heaps of H1B’s who only feed that frustration.

To give an example that’s happened a few times to me personally, and I know I’m not the only one. We hire an H1B who, on paper, looks pretty good. We get him in an office and set him to task running some basic SQL query building against a test DB to better understand how our environment works. Shouldn’t be a problem, right? I see him walk by a few times in the first few hours to go on smoke breaks. We aren’t talking 5 minute power breaks, but 15+ minute gaps from when we see him leave until he comes back. Maybe he’s a complete rockstar and has finished most of what we’ve given him. Check in with him 4 hours later, and he hasn’t even finished installing SQL on his machine, and hasn’t even bothered to reach out to any of the people on his team for assistance.

This happens more often than I’d like to see, and is completely demoralizing to a department once it is found out. We work in a world where communication is key, and if you can’t be assed with asking for assistance due to some kind of cultural difference thinking that you’ll be judged harshly because of it, you shouldn’t be in that field.

On the other hand, I’ve had complete rockstars who have come through. These people seem fewer and further between.

When it is easy to find someone local who will be a 100% fit with the team, it only makes the decisions from above to hire more H1B’s a huge hit to our ability to effectively do our jobs without having to run at 110% just to make up for these people.

[–]lolmonger 4 points  

How so you think all the Americans who worked in agriculture, construction, and manufacturing felt about outsourcing and illegal immigration these past decades?

No one spoke up for them for decades, massive national legislation underscoring their unimportance as workers was popularly passed and tolerated, so that’s the baseline.

[–]Yancy_Farnesworth 4 points  

This is why you come back on contract @ 2x your old rate.

[–]dingosaurus 7 points  

Except I’m an FTE, not a contractor. I’m quite happy after over a decade working contracts, I just get irritated when we have lost great people under the guise of saving the company money, and allowing a larger team.

Edit: a word (I English gud!)

[–]OSXMasterRace 8 points  

Honestly, I’m kind of happy to see this problem spread to other fields. When it was just blue collar and ag workers losing their jobs to foreigners, they were all “racists” that needed to go out and get better jobs. Maybe now american workers will actually stand together.

[–]elitebook840 12 points  

Is this even true?

[–]Not_Pictured 8 points  

It’s the government doing it. Not capitalism. If you think the government offering corporations quasi-slave labor is something corporations could resist, then what is the point of the government?

Instead the government is 100% the enabler.

[–]meatball402 24 points  

If you think the government offering corporations quasi-slave labor

And why do you think they started offering that? The companies lobbied for it.

[–]friedeggs3 1 point  

and what exactly does lobying have to do with capitalism? Seems like corruption simply fucks up every form of government

[–]stakoverflo 31 points  

As lobbied for by companies like Facebook…

[–]Singing_Shibboleth 2 points  

It’s crony capitalism. Firms using government contacts to expand the program, or to ensure that their firms get the majority of the visas so they can abuse the fuck out of them and hire them out as bodies to other companies. Looking at you Cognizant, Infosys, IBM Global. Fuckers.

[–]Not_Pictured 4 points  

The word ‘crony’ in crony capitalism means “the state”.

[–]poobly 1 point  

H1B is definitely capitalism and not the government. It’s the government allowing a trickle of outside market forces on the current employment landscape. If free market was fully allowed then there’d be a ton more people from developing countries landing jobs in the US for far less money than people are paid now. Embracing the free market fully is a terrible idea if you’re a wage laborer in a developed country without enough investments to retire. You have a TON to lose.

[–]Singing_Shibboleth 6 points  

H1B is definitely capitalism and not the government.

Crony capitalism. Whoever’s better ‘friends’ with the government officials gets the visas.

[–]BigC927 1 point  

Crony capitalism.

Also known as “Capitalism.”

[–]Not_Pictured 4 points  

H1B is definitely capitalism and not the government.

Who runs the H1B program? Like, who is 100% in charge of it.

If free market was fully allowed then there’d be a ton more people from developing countries landing jobs in the US

Sure, but that isn’t the issue with H1B. The issue with H1B is that the foreign employees are forced to work for less than a native and can’t quit without being deported.

A native can’t compete with a government run slave program.

[–]poobly 3 points  

They aren’t forced. They volunteer because their alternative is to work for 1/10 of that back home. This is in no way slavery. The companies want to pay as little as possible in wages but most countries protect their citizens from the wage being set to the global minimum for that job. H1B allows some of that global minimum into the US.

[–]quickhook 1 point  

Forced…what? U understand only 50% people applied will get H1B every year…right??

[–]Not_Pictured 1 point  

It’s better than home. It’s still a “job” you can’t quit, ask for better, apply elsewhere, leave etc. I thought liberals cared about that stuff.

[–]Outlaw-In-Law 1 point  

You have the culprits reversed. The federal government doesn’t determine a company’s labor practices. Instead, its executives and key investors drive that decision.

[–]Singing_Shibboleth 4 points  

The federal government doesn’t determine a company’s labor practices.

But they enable it with this program.

[–]OsWuScks[🍰] 2 points  

The federal government doesn’t determine a company’s labor practices.

Are you kidding me? The government greatly affects a company’s labor practices. Government policy and regulations determine how risky and expensive it would be to hire someone compared to outsourcing the job overseas or taking on a contractor.

Businesses are obviously going to operate in ways that are, well, best for business. It would be stupid of them not to. That means reducing risk and cost, which government regulations often increase, especially when it comes to hiring people.

[–]Outlaw-In-Law 4 points  

I oppose regulatory capture when it is counterproductive, but not all regulations fit that description. Most labor laws and regulations have NEVER been aimed at that goal. Instead, they have been aimed at ensuring that workers are paid fairly for their economic contributions and are not forced to work in environments detrimental to their well-being. Unfortunately, the nation’s labor laws and regulations have been diminished in recent decades to the point workers are no longer paid or treated fairly, given their meaningful contributions to both their employers and economy as a whole.

The problem with the argument you’re posing there is that it is an extremist one. We know this because the only concern it expresses is toward the business community’s financial statement concerns (i.e., counterprodcutive cost reduction) rather than whether present labor laws/regulations/practices are mutually beneficial to the economy, society AND, yes, the business community too. I favor a far more balanced approach to labor laws, regulations and economic practices, not the lop-sided supply side-centric legal and economic environment which neoliberal/corporate/oligarchic special interest groups favor. Why? It doesn’t destabilize the national economy and market we all depend upon for our livelihood.

[–]Not_Pictured 1 point  

The state has men with guns and claims to hold the power to initiate violence.

Corporations (and literally anyone else) pay the state to do bad stuff for them.

The state is the issue because anyone is an impossible number of people to regulate.

[–]Outlaw-In-Law 1 point  

I’ve witnessed such decisions on numerous occasions at various corporations over several decades. Not once have I seen those decisions made at gunpoint or under the kind of duress you’re suggesting there.

That viewpoint is nothing but an unfounded ideological belief which happens to be completely detached from economic reality.

[–]Not_Pictured 1 point  

You seem to fundamentally be misunderstanding me.

The state is only a state so long as it enforces its monopoly status as the final arbiter, and backs it up with initiatory violence. That’s a fact. That is what a state is.

As far as economic calculations, it’s widely accepted that the best return on investment is to bribe a politician. No guns necessary except the ones the state uses after being bought.

[–]OsWuScks[🍰] 3 points  

Maybe if the government didn’t make it so difficult and expensive to hire people companies wouldn’t have to resort to contractors. Capitalism isn’t to blame.


[–]The_Shadow_Monk 15 points  

So, in an area with a high concentration of tech jobs… has more lay offs in tech sector than rest of country… got it.

[–]andre2003s 1 point  

More – many top 10% earners, who happen to be concentrated in one area, are experiencing increase in income equality by dropping out (or rather “getting dropped” under the bus). Housing prices follow jobs. With more “mediocre” jobs dying the high earning jobs accumulated in certain areas. Rinse and repeat with even fewer even better paying jobs leaving more “former middle class but now unemployed” ghettos behind.


[–]xiliath 17 points  

Jesus Christ everyone calm down, it’s 3000 jobs. The sky is not falling.

[–]mredofcourse 16 points  

And that’s 784 jobs a month… while adding 800 tech jobs each month.

[–]iScreme 1 point  

If those jobs being Added are filled by H1B’s… is that really a gain?

[–]mredofcourse 2 points  

If those jobs being lost are H1B’s are they really a loss?


[–]jomiran 20 points  

Whatever you do, DO NOT come to Austin. There are no jobs here and we just kicked Lyft and Uber out. Seriously. Austin is stinky and all we do is open carry guns and re-elect Ted Cruz. Stay away, it sucks here. /s

[–]shadowDodger1 3 points  

Don’t forget the humidity.

[–]jomiran 4 points  

Of course! If you’re from the Bay Area you don’t want to move to Austin and endure our miserable 500% humidity. We also have this huge flying dung beetle infestation. They just fly around and drop turd balls in our margaritas if we dare sit out on the patio despite the humidity.

[–]RileyRydem 4 points  

Ditto for San Antonio.

[–]rookieoftheyeard 9 points  

San Antonio legitimately sucks though.

[–]RileyRydem 3 points  

You’re right. It’s terrible. No one should move here, especially no one from California. Please tell everyone you know.

[–]SoftWereWorf 8 points  

Don’t worry. No one was planning on it.

[–]edfghj8976 2 points  

I lived in Austin for a month for business reasons. Holy fuck, dude. The traffic game is strong there. 35 is a total shit show.

[–]Mr_Dr_Prof_Derp 2 points  

Portland is a hell hole of year round grey skies, bad traffic from Vancouver, and hipsters. Don’t move here either.

[–]angryd0g 1 point  

At 3:00 everyday. Holy fuck.

[–]darexinfinity 1 point  

Ironically I’ve heard more places in Austin closing down.

[–]TexasLonghornz 1 point  

we just kicked Lyft and Uber out

Uber and Lyft bailed because they didn’t want to follow the same requirements that they follow in Houston and NYC. Not having either of them would be annoyance enough but let’s stop spreading the corporate bullshit that Austin “kicked them out.” They pushed for the ballot initiative in the first place and left on their own when it didn’t go the way they wanted.

[–]crs8975 1 point  

Same with Denver. This town sucks too.

[–]queen_of_the_spammed 2 points  

Funny. I heard the same about Oregon. I’m getting the feeling that nobody wants us Californians. Somedays, I feel like a Syrian trying to run from ISIS.

[–]BigC927 3 points  

I’m getting the feeling that nobody wants us Californians.

I’m quite happy living in California so the rest of the country can go fuck itself.

[–]angryd0g 1 point  

A family friend moved to Oregon from California and couldn’t find anybody for months to buy a house from. He had cash in hand and everything “Oh you’re from California? Sorry house is reserved.” He managed to get his family into a good home, but now he has to commute 2 hours a day just to teach at the EMT academy. Motherfucker is an EMS GOD but just because he is from CA people discriminated against him.

[–]nuvistor 1 point  

California will welcome him back.

I was up in Bellingham, WA and that’s the angriest town I’ve ever been in and I’ve been to Pueblo, CO.

[–]Ironfist 1 point  

I’m getting the feeling that nobody wants us Californians.

After seeing what California has become, we don’t.

[–]edfghj8976 1 point  

I immigrated to Denver sort of early-ish in the immigration boom here. So I’ve gotten to see this town sort of go to hell. I’m sorry that I’m part of it. But I’m not really sorry.

When I got here we were paying $1600/month for a 3-4 bedroom 3 bath house in City Park West. I pay almost that much for a 2br apartment now.

[–]crs8975 1 point  

Yeah I mean I’m not helping it much either. My job moved me here a couple of years ago. By then it was too late. Oh well. Just the other day I looked up what my old apartment costs in the last two major places I’ve lived and it costs more to live in those shitholes than Denver. So I’ll take what I got!

[–]Anonymocoso 1 point  

And stay out of Utah. Even Park City. It’s a theocracy in a frozen desert where you have to buy your Pinot Grigio from the ripoff state monopoly.

And we have almost as many guns as Texas.

And the Bay Area has a better NBA team.

[–]jomiran 2 points  

Dear God yes! I made the horrible mistake of buying in Park City. Before I knew it, a moose broke into my apartment and raped my Chihuahua. How did he even climb to the second floor?


[–]ssfsx17 11 points  

Relevant quotes:

“We are being increasingly driven by the growth of the large companies,” Levy said. “What you did not see on the list is layoffs from Apple or Google or Facebook or LinkedIn … which are all expanding. This is the era of the large companies.”

As 2016 progresses, smaller tech firms are caught up in a Darwinian brawl, Levy suggested. “Those who have not kept up with their industries’ trends are facing layoffs,” Levy said. “It’s an indication of churn in an increasingly competitive and volatile sector that’s doing well overall.”

It’s mainly old companies that couldn’t adapt that were namedropped, and probably a bunch of little startups.

[–]arebmooc 1 point  

Did you read the article?

The companies are only required by-law to report layoffs of 50+ employees. These numbers/figures do not show “little startups” laying their tech employees off.

WARN notices do not include cuts by many smaller companies and startups. In addition, notices of layoffs of fewer than 50 people at larger companies aren’t required by the act.


[–]physicsfan1 22 points  

The bubble is going to burst soon

[–]Damn_Dog_Inapprope 14 points  

Jesus… Its going to make Oakland look like an oasis.

[–]Singing_Shibboleth 10 points  

Its going to make Oakland look like an oasis

More like a mirage, for the tech folks who just moved there in the last 2 years hoping that gentrification would help prop up their inflated property values.

[–]killinrin 3 points  

I don’t live in CA so I have no idea, but I’ve heard Oakland has gotten pretty nice as of recent.

[–]mankstar 9 points  

Yeah, it’s the main benefit of gentrification.

[–]Takeitinblood5k 7 points  

Where did all the poor people go?

[–]Guerilla713 19 points  

For the Bay Area they moved to Stockton, Modesto, Tracy, and some even Sacramento. That whole area between Oakland/East Bay/Tri-Valley and Sacramento will become like the Inland Empire area of Los Angeles.

[–]weaverster 8 points  

Oh man inland empire, what a shithole

[–]Fallaci 2 points  

Hey fuck you buddy.

[–]nuvistor 1 point  

Aww, relax, go eat at Flo’s and smell the cow shit blend with the odor of your biscuits ‘n’ gravy.

[–]ikescurvy 1 point  

Will become? Anything south of Sacramento in the valley is basically a dump. Hell most of South Sac is too.

[–]CostAquahomeBarreler 8 points  

San Bernadino, Bakersville, etc.

[–]ivsciguy 3 points  

Aren’t those way down in the Inland Empire?

[–]Akfied 2 points  

Jack London is the spot.

[–]nuvistor 2 points  

Only a murder a day! Source: Read the East Bay newspaper – used to be the Argus, now it’s the East Bay Times or something. Shootings in Oaktown all the time.

[–]Grumpy_Old_White_Guy 2 points  

Oh yeah, tighten your belts everyone.

[–]edfghj8976 1 point  

What bubble, exactly?

[–]PM_ME_A_FACT 2 points  

The tech startup bubble.

[–]Acrimony01 1 point  

There is no bubble in SF. Everything that can make housing prices go up is. It would take a reversal of almost every factor (there are like 20) and somethin downright impossible things to make it pop.


[–]Takemycreamyload 3 points  

It’s not just the tech industry, plenty of other layoffs throughout the economy have started. There is another recession coming soon, we’ll see if it’s just a recession or another big bust.

[–]queen_of_the_spammed 1 point  

Either that, or it’s an election year.


[–]jimflaigle 4 points  

Housing prices increase 12% in totally rational move.

[–]andre2003s 5 points  

Probably Chinese money trying to find a safe haven before worse things happen to their wealth there – independent of the real estate investment demand side problems. Maybe one day we have Panama papers of real estate revealing the legitimacy of the investments in Bay Area, Vancouver, New York, London, etc.


[–]afisher123 3 points  

The Tech world called for Disruption – I seriously doubt that the people who have lost their jobs thought that their unemployment would be part of that regime.


[–]loli_trump 0 points  



[–]marcusweller 3 points  

Tide is going out. Doesn’t mean anything though. We know what we’re doing.


[–]bezerker03 1 point  

This makes sense. This year interest rates went up. The bubble is slowly deflating as anyone with a brain figured it would.

Investments are harder to get this year. There are plenty of companies going under as a result. My former gig did just this last year. Even my current company noted it’s getting harder to get funding this year.


[–]harmlessdjango 1 point  

Bring them guest workers on visa!


[–]FortCollinsEnt 1 point  

“..but… but… were educated!!!! Our jobs were supposed to be safe! We did it the right way and now are being screwed?” …. Welcome to the club. -Many Americans


[–]Tanamab 1 point  

The real estate market in the Bay Area is so overpriced when there is real estate market correction it will happen so suddenly and so dramatically that people who have real estate aren’t going to unload their real estate quick enough to avoid financial disaster.

Usually even in major declines typical real estate markets have a buffer of a couple of years before the typical real estate owner will have a upside down mortgage. But in the Bay Area the typical homeowner could easily have an upside mortgage in a few months to even a few weeks time.

The most extreme case in the Bay Area is San Francisco where the median house price is $1.3 million. And let say the correction occurred in June of this year. By July the price will be $1.2 million. As house prices start to drop more buyers hold off buying and people who were planning to sell in fall and winter will quickly put their homes on the market. Each additional month this creates a positive feedback look. Each month San Francisco has more and more homes on the market for a longer period of time which push the price down faster.

Once the median price hit 900,000 to 800,000 will mean that every home purchased since 2010 will have upside-down mortgages.

As more homeowners start to have upside mortgages people will start to continue payments on their homes and as the mortgages become delinquent they are taken over by the bank. The flood of foreclosed homes will throw the market in to a power nose dive.

By two years time it entirely possible for the median home price to drop to $300,000 to $400,000, if not crash altogether. Because the city and county governments in the Bay Area will see their tax revenue evaporate and municipal services look the Detroit. Sure San Francisco will have homes that can bought for cheap but not to many people will want to live in city where it can take anywhere form 4 hours to 3 days before the emergency services respond to a 911 call and landlords are burning down their buildings en-mass to collect insurance money.

[–]Serius_Brown 17 points  

Way overblown. Sure, the Bay Area is inflated, but in every recession over the last 30 years, the Bay Area housing market just bounces back stronger. Believe me, I’d love to ever be able to own a home in the Bay Area, but the only way the Bay Area housing market tanks to the degree you’re describing is if China’s economy collapses.

[–]heavenlytoaster 7 points  

“Eventually it will crash, then it will be my chance to buy”

-every bay area resident for the last few decades

[–]Tidley_Wink 3 points  

China’s economy could collapse entirely and you still wouldn’t see median home prices of 300k in SF.

EDIT: not trying to be a dick by contradicting you, just trying to more emphasize how ludicrous that claim is. This source cites that the last time SF median house price was ~300k was 1997 (which adjusted for inflation would be $447k today).

[–]lizard_larry 2 points  

China’s economy collapses.

It won’t collapse, but a recession on the level of 07/08 is possible stemming from their slowing economy and loads of bad debt.

[–]amerycarlson 1 point  

why wait when you can come to Vallejo now. monthly ferry passes to frisco are only $300.

[–]Redhater 1 point  

Dream on. The only way that prices will hit those levels is post the big one and even then it’ll be temporary ( assuming San Fran is still somewhat above the ocean)

[–]HidingOutInPlainView 1 point  

I was with you until $300k.


[–]Grumpy_Old_White_Guy 1 point  

I call Bullshit! We all know unemployment is at a 30 year record low. Plus we all know there is a huge shortage of workers with technical skills. /S

[–]UncleMeat 3 points  

3,000 people since January. Its not even a tiny effect. Google has hired almost that many people this year by itself. The problem is that companies like IBM and Yahoo are losing money, not that there aren’t jobs for tech workers in the bay area.


[–]bigplrbear 1 point  

Rev up those fryers cuz I sure am hungry- for reasonably priced housing.


[–]Acrimony01 1 point  


To all the cryptic comments saying “this is the end’ and “the bubble is going to pop”, this is a SMALL list of the things causing Bay Area prices to stay high. The prices are not going anywhere.


  • Rent controls (Democrats)

  • High cost of living

  • Hedonistic culture (gourmet foods and drinks)

  • International buyers (Gotta have a house there)

  • Climate

  • Shortage of flat land (go look at the bay area on google maps)

  • Earthquakes / building codes (strict af)

  • Emergence of Asian money

  • Low interest rates (currently below 4%)

  • Strict environmental laws (I know, I work in them)

  • High commodity prices

  • Healthy housing prices (Bay Area was barely touched by the GR)

  • History (wealth, sports, landmarks, culture)

  • Cultural appeal (liberal, scenic)

  • Stubbornness of locals (natives, not in my backyard attitude)

  • High quality of farmland and grazing land (Mediterrainian fruits, grapes, almonds, high end cheeses)




[–]andre2003s 5 points  

The high rents are sustained by high earners – which actually can go away faster than they desire (your landlord won’t accept rain checks)

[–]Acrimony01 1 point  

What implying that “high earners” are all going to vaporize from a diverse economy in a world class city? The tech industry is not the only people making money in the bay area. Engineering, construction, civil service, biotech, wine, food products, agriculture and countless other industries are extremely healthy in the Bay Area.

I’ve met millionaire grape growers that get up at 4 AM everyday, and millionaire contractors that build custom homes for a living to “somewhat wealthy” people. Not too mention all the people in finance, Asia-pacific relations, service and government. As a matter of fact, the bay area did have a bubble pop in the tech industry. Far bigger then twitter or yahoo going under could do. It barely did anything. The area consolidated and continued to innovate.

[–]andre2003s 3 points  

Were you around 2000/2001 in the Bay Area when the tech bubble bursted? Nothing happened because tech was just an “insignificant” part of industry in SF Bay Area? Estimates are around 260000 layoffs in high tech industry, mostly in high cost areas. Maybe future startups have to build their first working product in Austin before getting funding for SF offices.


[–]Acrimony01 3 points  

I was around in the bubble. My dad’s boss (who owned a technology leasing company) blew his brains out and my father lost his stock options (a pinner $3000, for a family of six, devasating though). His company was eaten by another within weeks and everything went back to normal.

This experience wasn’t unique. Many of the layoffs in the tech bubble were reorganized into new companies with new ideas almost instantly. Again, even if “le bubble burst” it would result in a bunch of young people with capital starting their own businesses, creating even more wealth and ideas.

I was born and raised in the wine country of the Bay Area, I am very aware that there are things besides the tech industry here. The idea that the tech industry blows up is simply preposterous. It’s too diverse and integrated into our lives now. Just because Twitter can’t make a penny (its a shitty service that has a shitty effect on society) and Yahoo is awfully mismanaged doesn’t mean the tech industry is going to “blow up”. Google is not going anywhere. Apple has more capital then several countries. Startups litter office space throughout the bay area.

The bubble bursting is unlikely, even if it did burst it would recover, and even if you burned down tech the bay area would still be wealthy. That’s my point. You are dealing with a almost 0% probability.

[–]Acrimony01 1 point  

The bay area has always been high earning. It was one of the wealthiest metro areas even before the tech boom. Rent controls, land shortages, and a pivot toward Asian power would have kept that high without the tech industry.

I’ve seen a Cabernet Sauvignon field get bulldozed to build condos in the bay. The land is simply too valuable all around. Even the farming potential makes it go up. Hey I’ll add that to the list.


[–]queen_of_the_spammed 3 points  


Asian money should be #1 on that list. All those “low prices” from WalMart added up, and are in the hands of a few very wealthy Chinese industrialists who are trying like mad to shelter it from their socialist government’s taxes. So it’s coming back home, and driving up the cost of living, even if we can buy a 12-pack of car stereos for $15.


4% mortgage rates don’t mean fuck when you’re making 150k and trying to buy a house that’s 750k.