[adevine]

Shorting SF real estate seems like a really, really bad idea to me. There have been a lot of articles recently about the research that SF real estate has been going up 6.6% a year for 60+ years now. Of course, there have been some downturns along the way, but the only way to profit from these downturns with a short position is basically perfect timing. I'm sure someone will do it, get lucky, make a killing, and be the subject of lots of "look how smart this person was" articles, but we probably won't see any articles about the tons of people who tried to do the same thing, were unlucky with their timing, and lost their shirts.

[api]

Can you actually have a city where nobody $150k/year salary can actually afford to live there?

Of course your argument does boil down to the old "markets can defy reality longer than you can short them." Shorting is high risk.

[TearsInTheRain]

as long as you have good public transportation to ship in the low skilled labor sure

[mmanfrin]

Because people buying homes tend to not live alone. And 150k is pretty middle of the road for established tech workers in SF, so in reality you're looking at two people making 200k each.

400k/yr can buy you a home in the Bay Area easily.

[nugget]

I think I'd probably say it's possible rather than easily done. But why force young couples to ante up such a huge buy-in just for the opportunity to work at all the local companies? Even the YC partners are starting to point out, correctly I think, that expensive housing is becoming a significant headwind to Silicon Valley's future.

[fapjacks]

I feel like you've pretty much described the entire industry.