I think what might be lost in the report you shared is that tech workers might not have extraordinarily high compensation on average, but there's a lot of variance in the compensation. So there are enough tech workers with very high purchasing power to bid up the market a lot
-
-
Replying to @snoble @David_desJ and
Only true because of artificial constraints on the housing market. Their purchasing power as a sector is not wildly out of proportion to the many other highly paid sectors in the Bay Area, except for a small cohort; most tech workers make what most nurses/longshore workers make.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mateosfo @David_desJ and
I mean, yes. That's a restatement of my comment above where I said the mean wasn't that high My point is you said the only distinguishing feature of software was an industry that wasn't liked. I'm pointing out it does have this distinct property that makes it worth talking about
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @snoble @David_desJ and
What happens if you build 3.5 million homes and there are only 100,000 millionaires? Do the rest of the homes sit empty while the sellers wait for the rest of the millionaires to show up? What if the number of millionaires doubles, or triples, or quadruples? This is silly.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
You aren't going to build 3.5 million new homes in SF. But, yes, if you did, you would sell at least 1M of them to new high-income tech workers, and some of the rest to service workers, and overall housing affordability would be worse than now.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @David_desJ @mateosfo and
Bringing another million software engineers and tech workers making $200k+ salaries to SFBA would not be difficult at all, if you built homes to attract them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @David_desJ @mateosfo and
You two are spending a lot of time arguing about induced demand without actually citing what research has to say about actual measurements of it From what I understand, it is real, it can be big, but not in all situations
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @snoble @David_desJ and
Since the legislation David is railing against has first-ever statewide inclusionary requirements, I'm not inclined to do his research for him since this whole thing is bad faith. The fact that affordable housing developers are co-sponsors of the bill is all the evidence I need.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Inclusionary requirements are useless. Building 4 market rate units that generate 10 units of induced demand, and then requiring one subsidized unit, means you're digging the hole deeper.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @David_desJ @mateosfo and
Now you understand why traffic can't be fixed with more lanes.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
But lanes are free to drivers and Bay Area houses cost millions for people to live in.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @David_desJ and
Exactly my point. Authorities reduce costs for the wrong things.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @nendoras and
Driving isn't free. It has costs in fuel, depreciation, and time. If it really cost nothing to drive then obviously driving patterns would be a lot different.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.