San Francisco has gotten so expensive, some tech companies can't convince employees to move there

But at least we don’t need to spend as much on fashion:

And while employees complain about San Francisco’s high housing costs, the city’s casual culture means they don’t have to spend as much on clothing.

Vevo’s McCreary said she has an unlimited Rent the Runway subscription to rent clothes to wear when she’s in New York for work. She doesn’t need them at the office in San Francisco.

Virtual reality media company Upload founder and CEO Taylor Freeman, who recently left San Francisco for Los Angeles, found that investors expected people to be a little more dressed up in southern California. It is opening a second, much larger location in Los Angeles.

“I have been urged to get a nice jacket like a cool Rag and Bone… If you don’t believe in having nice shoes or a handbag, it still matters to the people you do business with (in L.A.),” he said.


Gee! If teachers couldn’t, imagine others?

Of course, there’s got to be a point where you say “screw this beautiful place, I am living to work instead or working to live”.

I question whether teachers are an appropriate crowd to compare to. Teaching is a job which should attract stay-at-home moms because the vacation can match the kids’ vacations, and they were taking care of kids anyways. So as long as the teacher is married to someone who is in Tech or RE or otherwise well off, it shouldn’t be a problem. It’s a unique part time job that doesn’t have to be a choice between a career or no career, and is therefore an add-on salary for a family who was intending to rely on a primary breadwinner.


And on a different note, what is this supposed to mean???

““They’re young and single, and want to be where people with a like-minded lifestyle want to be,” like Chicago and New York. Rokt decided to make its existing office in New York its U.S. headquarters.”

Is SF somehow more liberal or more conservative than Chicago or NY?

In Tahoe people work to live and survive on min wage


Tech companies that can’t convince people to move are not that hot to begin with. The high cost of Bay Area in general and SF in particular is acting as a natural filter. The lessor companies are filtered out. I bet the success rate of SF companies would be higher as a result.

I don’t agree with that. The problem with the Bay Area is that you can keep paying people more and more and the houses just get more and more expensive. It’s an unsolvable problem. So it’s an arms race to pay people more and attract the best people to work with you. It doesn’t mean that any of the companies are bad. In fact, they could all be excellent companies, but someone still has to lose. And at some point they put themselves out of business because they can’t afford the pay.

Put another way, if you had one woman and ten men stranded on an island, those men could be the 10 hottest men in the world, but only one of them gets the woman. Trying to call the other nine men ugly to explain the fact that they didn’t get the woman is a lame excuse when the problem is really the male/female ratio, and isn’t going to change the fact that what they really need is to get off the island and find some more women. And those men complaining that the women on the mainland are, on average, ugly or married, so they want to stay on the island hoping this woman becomes available again doesn’t change the fact that they really need to get off the island if they’re serious about increasing their chances at finding an available woman.

Tech startups fail at a high rate. If nine out of ten died anyway, failing the talent test in SF is an early tell.

Going back to the one-woman-on-island example, I bet the guy who wins is truly the alpha male.

Key Question is if the supply(whether new or resale) within commutable distance(1 hour each way) is increasing?

Sorry but teaching is not something that you advertise, and they come. It is not “they should”, though they can adapt. No, teachers are for a long term career, and most of them, tend to stay at a school to get some tenure or some kind of working condition that will help them to achieve both their kids education and their pockets. Schools don’t like a heavy turn around, it is not good for their image. They lose lots of creativity, and for that I put Cupertino and other areas like Palo Alto, where teachers may live in EPA or Redwood city. They may still have a cheap rent or own homes that were cheap at their time. They are not revolving that front door every year.

I kind of reflect on what manch was saying, you can’t keep increasing the wages on certain group of people to the point that they will dominate all over, from making places of enjoyment as bars, eateries, you name it, out of reach for the common person. And even with the wages raising to $15/hr, people can’t afford to live in a place where the continuous increase of rents every year is a common denominator.

SF as other places are not only for high tech. It is like the mirror of democracy, there’s got to be dissent and diversity.

Eventually, something is going to give up. And there I don’t know what I am talking about.

“Silicon Beach”? Nah. It will crash together with Snap.

I hope Silicon Beach becomes a real vibrant start-up/tech environment. I want other parts of California and in a broader sense rest of the U.S. to succeed too…

Yup I’m naïve.

Not naive, just selfish. I wish the quality of life for all humans continues to improve.

1 Like

I think I have said it quite of few times, but there’s going to be a time where new employees or those with a job offer will rethink coming to the Bay Area.

At least, it would be a good idea to spread the wealth around areas that are abandoned in a certain way. The East bay, and so on. I would like to see tech companies going that way. We are starting to live like sardines.