Another article on wanting tech to fail. Just curious..... (San Francisco: buy, construction)

[04kL4nD]

Does it really matter at this point? Honestly, the Bay Area has always had a reputation for being expensive, but right now is just nuts. Who really cares about the 80s? Seems like grasping at straws to me...

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I never said they were a new phenomenon. But for a lot of people who can only afford to buy a house that's under 500k, they are pretty much screwed. Most people don't have that kind of cash lying around.

Exactly. And bidding wars today are nothing like they were in the 1980s or 1990s. Even as recently as 2002 (re: below article), $10 K over a listed price was considered high.....a far cry from $100 K today.
Multiple Offers and Bidding Wars Abound - LA Times

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-bidding-wars/

[neutrino78x]

Who cares, oakland? Maybe middle classs in this area right now is renting. That's still affording the area on 100k.

[jade408]

Pretty much none of the current tech companies are legit profitable. But some are cash flow positive. This was an interesting story this week about our economy rewarding growth over actual profits and how our tech companies exploit this.

Douglas Rushkoff Dissects the Tech Economy and 'Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus': Forum | KQED Public Media for Northern CA

[neutrino78x]

Jade are you kidding? Facebook makes a profit, Google makes a profit, Microsoft makes a profit, Intel and AMD make a profit etc. You're thinking of smaller tech startups like twitter. Tech did have an implosion, the "dot com bust", but property in both SJ andd SF remained expensive.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

As I said before, I would like to "run the numbers" - but I can't find the data that I want (as I suspected would be the case).

Without this info, I'm not sure if I can really make any meaningful comparisons...

Hockey, as much as I appreciate the effort, I don't think it would much matter. No one on either side of this issue is willing to budge so as I stated earlier, all you would have gotten is another 50 pages of arguing, which eventually would just result in insults and a complete distraction from the topic.

And it's also completely off topic from this thread (the other thread that was started would have been a much more appropriate place for it)

I'll hold true to my original comment and add Likealady's observation (which was warranted). The people that were most impacted by the current rent and housing price increase in San Francisco were those that arrived here after the tax holiday was given to companies in SF (and the biggest portion of those increases really took place in 2014 and beyond....so a lot of this whining is for a very small window of time). If you were in a rent controlled unit prior to 2011, you really aren't experiencing anything like those that got here after you (and anyone that lived here before 2011 had a choice to get into a rent controlled unit prior to that....if they chose not to then they should look in the mirror and accept personal responsibility...and that goes for people that got into units too small for them and didn't anticipate their needs). If you bought a house prior to 2011, your house cost had nothing to do with tech so don't blame them. I do concur with Likealady in that if you were saving up for a house prior to 2011 and didn't have all your savings in place prior to around 2014, then yes, you got screwed (point taken).

Comparing housing in 1980 to today has nothing to do with the topic. With that said, you saw the interest rate charts I presented to you and a logical person would conclude that your average was somewhere in the 12 1/2% to 13% range (and as TR noted there were also points you paid...also on the chart I supplied to you). And you were at a 7%-8% range through much of the 90's so it's not like you got anything remotely close to what people can get today (even though some posters on here are blind to that and apparently are just looking to have a fight..not interested). I truly think the majority of posters have no idea on the impact of an interest rate on a loan (and clearly refuse to run the numbers on a mortgage calculator or look at an amortization table). Do you realize if I took out a $250K loan at 13% that it would take me 8 years just to pay the principal down to $240K. Crazy huh? And if you refinance, it's basically like starting over after closing costs are added in. Of course you would, because if you were able to make the same payment amount, you'd still payoff that house in a significantly faster amount of time, but I'm amazed at how many people here are just so financially illiterate that they don't understand that.

But the real point I'd like to make to you since you did say you are a Democrat, right? We have a Democratic process in place where we vote for policies and we vote for politicians. I often hear the term NIMBY bandied about, which to me is just a derogatory term put in place by people that arrived somewhere after a native. And of course, in addition to the tech companies, the "NIMBY"s are also the "villain" (because they won't conform to what you want). But of course, if the "majority" really wanted zoning restrictions to be lifted, environment restrictions to be lifted, and the like, wouldn't it have already happened? I think it's clear it's not what the majority wants. But for all the people that complain about it, what's the solution? Yeah a Democratic process. So that means, you need to get some signatures so you can get something on a ballot. You need to find politicians to support your cause and get them elected (i.e. Board of Supervisor, Mayor, Governor). And until you do that, all the whining in the world is not going to get you want you want. And for all you people that want the government to just impose your will, well sorry, that's not how it works. Funny thing is, most people are very happy with politicians in this state as long as they get what they want. Perhaps it's time to start quoting Mick Jagger..."you can't always get what you want". There are plenty of things I don't like in this city also. But I put up with the good and the bad, because I like living here for now.

There will always be some villain that people want to blame. But to think housing prices wouldn't have climbed regardless if the companies weren't given a tax break is asinine. They're called recessions and recovery. It's happened for years and housing prices ebb and flow. Who knows when they'll go down again? Could be 2-3 years as the next recession is predicted in 2017. But there's one thing I'd gamble on every time....regardless of what price we drop to, we will exceed our previous high when we recover (and that's been going on for the last 40 years....tech companies or not).

Ultimately I think all people are looking for is respect. Most of us that have lived here for years know how hard it is to survive in the Bay Area. We get it, we sympathize with people, but what we don't want to hear is how no one's never had it as hard as they have. Because all that does is discount the struggles many of us have had to endure to survive here.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by sav858

You sound really young lol

No, he just has really low expectations and is ok with sharing a 1BR apartment with his dad. Oh well, at least he isn't complaining.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by JohnS_15

This is silly. Just because you are locked in on a rent controlled apartment in the city doesn't mean you never want to move again. Yeah you might not be forced out of your home but maybe you changed jobs and now have a terrible commute and want to move but can't afford it. Or maybe you had kids and want to move but can't afford it. "Locked in" is exactly what you are.

This is spot on and describes my situation. The only place I'm moving if I lose my job is out of state.

Rooting against the tech industry won't do anything good though. What we really need is an all out assault on NIMYBY-ism and it's close cousin the enviro-nazis. Those are the twin evils that prevent new housing construction (or make it much more expensive) in California.

Fixing California: The Green Gentry

The gentry, of course, care little about artificially inflated housing prices in large part because they already own theirs — often the very large type they wish to curtail. But the story is less sanguine for minorities and the poor, who now must compete for space with middle-class families traditionally able to buy homes. Renters are particularly hard hit; according to one recent study, 39 percent of working households in the Los Angeles metropolitan area spend more than half their income on housing, as do 35 percent in the San Francisco metro area — well above the national rate of 24 percent.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

What we really need is an all out assault on NIMYBY-ism and it's close cousin the enviro-nazis.

The gentry, of course, care little about artificially inflated housing prices in large part because they already own theirs — often the very large type they wish to curtail. But the story is less sanguine for minorities and the poor, who now must compete for space with middle-class families traditionally able to buy homes. Renters are particularly hard hit; according to one recent study, 39 percent of working households in the Los Angeles metropolitan area spend more than half their income on housing, as do 35 percent in the San Francisco metro area — well above the national rate of 24 percent.

I rest my case Hockey, and the comment in bold is pure BS.

[04kL4nD]

Actually, it's true. Typical of the "already got mine, so (screw) you" crowd that makes up a decent chunk of the Bay Area these days.