[dventimi]

I can't agree with this. At various times over the last 30 years, there has been roughly two classes of people in SF: "tech workers", and "everyone else." The "everyone else" comprises teachers, restaurant workers, retail workers, delivery drivers, and others, who cater to the whims of "tech workers." "Everyone else" works in industries subject to competition, market forces, and the ruthless demand for profitability (try keeping a restaurant open for 3 losing quarters). "Tech workers" work in an industry often shielded from these exigencies, cossetted in a pillowy cocoon of VC money. "Everyone else" serves the local community. "Tech workers", if they serve anybody, tend to be disconnected from the local economy and serve national or global markets. Relatedly, "tech workers" are paid high salaries that rise quickly. "Everyone else" is paid much more modest salaries that tend to stagnate. To add insult to injury, not only did this set of circumstances arrive in SF, it also arrived quickly, in waves, representing a series of shocks. Then came the last and possibly the most serious shock: remote work. Altogether, this is a recipe for: spiraling costs, social fragmentation, homelessness, and political turbulence.

Put another way, an ocean of money was poured into a thimble and no amount of "increasing supply" is going to make a difference. Make it two thimbles, ten thimbles, a hundred thimbles, it's still going to leave a mess.

[selectodude]

Every time I read this sort of stuff, I ask - do you think that the demand to live in San Francisco is infinite? For a city that’s less than one-half as densely populated as Brooklyn, NY, no less? This problem was solved 150 years ago.

[zozbot234]

Even if demand was so large as to be practically infinite, all it would mean is that San Francisco becomes the local Manhattan equivalent on the West Coast. Which in turn means big-government California progressives gets a whole lot of additional tax revenue to play with, at zero extra cost to the rest of the economy. How is that supposed to be a bad thing, exactly?

[dventimi]

Not necessarily.

https://www.wired.com/story/no-more-deals-san-francisco-cons...

[Qwertious]

>do you think that the demand to live in San Francisco is infinite?

In practical terms, because of the inevitable feedback loop, yes. Building more housing creates more demand for housing.

If SF built more houses, then rent would drop and thus more businesses/jobs could be profitable at the same standard of living. The more jobs there are, the more demand for housing there is. And if people move into those new houses then the city has a larger userbase for any locally-focused businesses.

This whole loop is why cities keep growing.

In other words, meeting the demand for housing creates more demand for housing.

[dventimi]

No, I don't think that the demand to live in San Francisco ever has been or ever will be "infinite." I also don't think that's a relevant question.

[selectodude]

Of course it is. You claim that it’s impossible for San Francisco to satiate demand. That implies that it’s functionally infinite seeing as it’s currently less dense than Brooklyn or the north side of Chicago - dense places but not quite Manhattan or Manila.

[dventimi]

> You claim that it’s impossible for San Francisco to satiate demand

No, I don't. I claim it's difficult and unlikely.

EDIT: so long as it offers an urban playground to people earning high salaries, that is

[selectodude]

So then there’s obviously infinite demand to live in San Francisco. It’s not difficult - we’re actively accomplishing it in other cities that have tons of wealthy people (detached single family in my neighborhood is >$2mm) and relatively affordable housing (an apartment is under $1000/bd).

[dventimi]

Continue to say there's infinite demand if you like, but I won't be joining you.

As for "we're actively accomplishing it in other cities", I'm interested in these questions:

1. Who's "we"?

2. Which cities?

3. What exactly is being accomplished?

[zozbot234]

> Put another way, an ocean of money was poured into a thimble and no amount of "increasing supply" is going to make a difference.

So? The problem is not "too much money", it's too little housing. Having lots of highly-paid folks around is good for local workers' incomes; housing scarcity is really bad for them. Homelessness happens when people can't afford to pay for a home.

[dventimi]

> Having lots of highly-paid folks around is good for local workers' incomes

You're describing income inequality. Personally, I don't believe income inequality is good for everybody. I think it tends to benefit some people at the expense of others.

[zozbot234]

It's also a kind of "income inequality" that those who are "disadvantaged" most from it can avoid very easily, by voting with their feet. But you don't see very many people moving from the highest-income cities in the U.S. to places like Appalachia, or for that matter to the poorest places in Mexico. People tend to do the exact opposite, funnily enough.

[johnnyanmac]

And if you were speaking faithfully you know there are mechanisms by coincidence or design that make it harder for the disadvantaged to vote. It's no coincidence that your rep is probably only available every other Tuesday at 1pm while the disadvantaged are working at one of their two jobs.

> But you don't see very many people moving from the highest-income cities in the U.S. to places like Appalachia

CA declined in population this decade until 2024:

https://apnews.com/article/california-population-growth-pand...

So yes, people are moving out.

[dventimi]

People did vote with their feet, moving out of the core of the Bay Area to its periphery.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67b36262-3c7c-8013-aa61-f1ff8088fb...

[dragonwriter]

> At various times over the last 30 years, there has been roughly two classes of people in SF: "tech workers", and "everyone else."

You can always arbitrarily divide people into two groups by making one "everybody else", but the two groups you name are not coherent classes. (Not even the first, which overlaps both [a relatively well paid segment of] the working class and the petite bourgeoisie, but especially not the second, which spans from the lowest of the working class to the highest end of the rentier/capitalist class.)

[dventimi]

> the two groups you name are not coherent classes

Sure, they are. "tech workers" tend to work in tech companies. "everyone else" tend not to work in tech companies. It's quite coherent. Are there exceptions? Of course. Does the presence of exceptions mean the classes are incoherent? Of course not.

[marnett]

Which of the two classes does San Francisco’s billionaire capitalist class fit into in your analysis - “tech workers?”

Equally curious which the non-working property owners fall into as well?

[dventimi]

Why are you curious? I didn't say there were only two classes. I said there's been "roughly" two classes over the last 30 years. Add other classes if you want (billionaire tech owners who don't code, billionaires in non-tech fields like real estate or agriculture or petroleum, old-money San Franciscans, millionaire non-working property owners who don't know how to open a Google Doc), it doesn't affect the conclusions: "tech workers" (and the "tech owners" who pay them) are an important factor causing many of the problems in SF.