Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Zero Hedge)   Median price of a home in San Francisco rises $200,000 in the past six months to $1.6 million. Although people there can still pick up a mid-sized Amana refrigerator box in Ghirardelli Square for around $400,000   ( zerohedge.com) divider line
    More: Scary, Real estate, Real estate pricing, San Francisco, home price, median home price  
•       •       •

605 clicks; posted to Business » on 08 Jul 2018 at 8:11 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-07-08 05:34:52 PM  
I like the chocolate.
 
2018-07-08 05:47:12 PM  
Nope, no zero hedge bad subby. Bad no.
 
2018-07-08 05:59:11 PM  

not enough beer: Nope, no zero hedge bad subby. Bad no.


Why?
 
2018-07-08 07:23:15 PM  
Sounds like a bunch of rich people who weren't taxed enough are, intentionally or not, hell-bent on ruining San Francisco.  I genuinely can't think of a single place where, in the long run, absurd property values haven't rotted away all the best parts about a place.

Besides that, what's weird is you don't really need to be physically in a place any more.  So it's like, what do they think is going to happen?  The "demand" for San Francisco is going to stay the same or go up?  When the employees will eventually just work from anywhere they want?  They're going to pick San Francisco when they could get a greater salary return and lower cost of living by working out of Portland? Or the tropics?

So yeah, bubble.  Here in Dallas I noticed the same spike from a couple years ago; some assholes are clearly buying up South-Dallas-but-mid-city POSes thinking, I guess, that there'll be demand to live in the middle of the city instead of have acres of farmland to grow whatever you want for the same cost?
 
2018-07-08 07:44:04 PM  

koder: Sounds like a bunch of rich people who weren't taxed enough are, intentionally or not, hell-bent on ruining San Francisco.  I genuinely can't think of a single place where, in the long run, absurd property values haven't rotted away all the best parts about a place.

Besides that, what's weird is you don't really need to be physically in a place any more.  So it's like, what do they think is going to happen?  The "demand" for San Francisco is going to stay the same or go up?  When the employees will eventually just work from anywhere they want?  They're going to pick San Francisco when they could get a greater salary return and lower cost of living by working out of Portland? Or the tropics?

So yeah, bubble.  Here in Dallas I noticed the same spike from a couple years ago; some assholes are clearly buying up South-Dallas-but-mid-city POSes thinking, I guess, that there'll be demand to live in the middle of the city instead of have acres of farmland to grow whatever you want for the same cost?


San Francisco has been extremely expensive for 30+ years, now it is just moreso.  The property values are simply a reflection of the tidal wave of money flowing through Silicon Valley and the Bay Area in general combined with the city being, by far, the hippest place to live in the area and growth restrictions of both the geographic and NIMBY variety.  If you're a wealthy young tech person who wants to be where the action is, you pay to live in SF not on a farm in central Texas.
 
2018-07-08 08:19:23 PM  

OptionC: San Francisco has been extremely expensive for 30+ years, now it is just moreso.  The property values are simply a reflection of the tidal wave of money flowing through Silicon Valley and the Bay Area in general combined with the city being, by far, the hippest place to live in the area and growth restrictions of both the geographic and NIMBY variety.  If you're a wealthy young tech person who wants to be where the action is, you pay to live in SF not on a farm in central Texas.


But I think that's what I'm getting at.  It's been expensive because the very fields/people you're talking about--myself included--used to have to work at a physical place.  Right now the main reason I'd move to San Francisco is for abundant chocolate mousse, legal weed, and presumably-good people.  If the mousse and weed become widely available anywhere else, and if the formerly-good people have been replaced with stuck-up douches, then there's no longer that much of a reason to physically live there--particularly when it's a soil-liquefaction trap.  Who really wants to be surrounded by first (or worse) second-and-third-generation douche?  Do you really think that in the long run those people will maintain the city, or will they squeeze out the soul of the city, creep libertarianism into it, and reduce everyone not able to work remotely to rent slavery?
 
2018-07-08 08:21:35 PM  

OptionC: koder: Sounds like a bunch of rich people who weren't taxed enough are, intentionally or not, hell-bent on ruining San Francisco.  I genuinely can't think of a single place where, in the long run, absurd property values haven't rotted away all the best parts about a place.

Besides that, what's weird is you don't really need to be physically in a place any more.  So it's like, what do they think is going to happen?  The "demand" for San Francisco is going to stay the same or go up?  When the employees will eventually just work from anywhere they want?  They're going to pick San Francisco when they could get a greater salary return and lower cost of living by working out of Portland? Or the tropics?

So yeah, bubble.  Here in Dallas I noticed the same spike from a couple years ago; some assholes are clearly buying up South-Dallas-but-mid-city POSes thinking, I guess, that there'll be demand to live in the middle of the city instead of have acres of farmland to grow whatever you want for the same cost?

San Francisco has been extremely expensive for 30+ years, now it is just moreso.  The property values are simply a reflection of the tidal wave of money flowing through Silicon Valley and the Bay Area in general combined with the city being, by far, the hippest place to live in the area and growth restrictions of both the geographic and NIMBY variety.  If you're a wealthy young tech person who wants to be where the action is, you pay to live in SF not on a farm in central Texas.


Not to mention SF is surrounded on three side by water. Hard to lower prices by urban sprawl as opposed to what's happened with Dallas/FW, LA,  LV, or Phoenix.
 
2018-07-08 08:23:39 PM  

fusillade762: not enough beer: Nope, no zero hedge bad subby. Bad no.

Why?


Publication not even fit to stare at a bird's ass

Surprising, given the hard right political taint.  You'd think it'd be right on up that alley
 
2018-07-08 08:27:33 PM  
In 6 months?

If you bought one of those $200,000 houses 6 months ago, flip it and run.
 
2018-07-08 08:29:30 PM  

koder: Sounds like a bunch of rich people who weren't taxed enough are, intentionally or not, hell-bent on ruining San Francisco.  I genuinely can't think of a single place where, in the long run, absurd property values haven't rotted away all the best parts about a place.

Besides that, what's weird is you don't really need to be physically in a place any more.  So it's like, what do they think is going to happen?  The "demand" for San Francisco is going to stay the same or go up?  When the employees will eventually just work from anywhere they want?  They're going to pick San Francisco when they could get a greater salary return and lower cost of living by working out of Portland? Or the tropics?

So yeah, bubble.  Here in Dallas I noticed the same spike from a couple years ago; some assholes are clearly buying up South-Dallas-but-mid-city POSes thinking, I guess, that there'll be demand to live in the middle of the city instead of have acres of farmland to grow whatever you want for the same cost?


Yeah. Anyone else calling bubble?
I'm calling bubble.
 
2018-07-08 08:29:40 PM  

koder: OptionC: San Francisco has been extremely expensive for 30+ years, now it is just moreso.  The property values are simply a reflection of the tidal wave of money flowing through Silicon Valley and the Bay Area in general combined with the city being, by far, the hippest place to live in the area and growth restrictions of both the geographic and NIMBY variety.  If you're a wealthy young tech person who wants to be where the action is, you pay to live in SF not on a farm in central Texas.

But I think that's what I'm getting at.  It's been expensive because the very fields/people you're talking about--myself included--used to have to work at a physical place.  Right now the main reason I'd move to San Francisco is for abundant chocolate mousse, legal weed, and presumably-good people.  If the mousse and weed become widely available anywhere else, and if the formerly-good people have been replaced with stuck-up douches, then there's no longer that much of a reason to physically live there--particularly when it's a soil-liquefaction trap.  Who really wants to be surrounded by first (or worse) second-and-third-generation douche?  Do you really think that in the long run those people will maintain the city, or will they squeeze out the soul of the city, creep libertarianism into it, and reduce everyone not able to work remotely to rent slavery?


In a strict sense, these companies could locate anywhere but they simply don't.  The VCs live in Silicon Valley and they overwhelmingly prefer to fund local companies so the founders live there and when they get big they prefer huge campuses there because there is lots of local talent and the talent likes it there because all the companies are there.  Plus, if you want that VP job some day, you work at HQ, which is in SV.  It's a self-reinforcing ecosystem.
 
2018-07-08 08:32:46 PM  
The sad truth is San Francisco is a pale shade of the place it was from the post war era to the mid 70's, even though the scenes clung on bitterly into the new century. SF was a mean blue collar town for a long time, with cheap rent as the jobs moved out. The stuff that grew out of that environment is long gone, except at the expensive gigs at expensive venues the tech bros will studiously document on their phones.
 
2018-07-08 08:34:57 PM  

Iamos: OptionC: koder: Sounds like a bunch of rich people who weren't taxed enough are, intentionally or not, hell-bent on ruining San Francisco.  I genuinely can't think of a single place where, in the long run, absurd property values haven't rotted away all the best parts about a place.

Besides that, what's weird is you don't really need to be physically in a place any more.  So it's like, what do they think is going to happen?  The "demand" for San Francisco is going to stay the same or go up?  When the employees will eventually just work from anywhere they want?  They're going to pick San Francisco when they could get a greater salary return and lower cost of living by working out of Portland? Or the tropics?

So yeah, bubble.  Here in Dallas I noticed the same spike from a couple years ago; some assholes are clearly buying up South-Dallas-but-mid-city POSes thinking, I guess, that there'll be demand to live in the middle of the city instead of have acres of farmland to grow whatever you want for the same cost?

San Francisco has been extremely expensive for 30+ years, now it is just moreso.  The property values are simply a reflection of the tidal wave of money flowing through Silicon Valley and the Bay Area in general combined with the city being, by far, the hippest place to live in the area and growth restrictions of both the geographic and NIMBY variety.  If you're a wealthy young tech person who wants to be where the action is, you pay to live in SF not on a farm in central Texas.

Not to mention SF is surrounded on three side by water. Hard to lower prices by urban sprawl as opposed to what's happened with Dallas/FW, LA,  LV, or Phoenix.



https://www.star-telegram.com/news/lo​c​al/community/fort-worth/article2063574​04.html

The Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlingtonmetropolitan area's 146,000-resident jump in 2017 was the most of any metro area in the United States. And six of the top 10 fastest-growing counties in the United States were also in Texas, including Tarrant, Dallas, Denton and Collin.

Overall, Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington ranked fourth, with 7,399,662 residents, behind only the New York, Chicago and Los Angeles metro areas and ahead of Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, which ranked fifth.
 
2018-07-08 08:36:56 PM  

fusillade762: not enough beer: Nope, no zero hedge bad subby. Bad no.

Why?


Because they're a bunch of moronic hard-right crazy gold bugs.
 
2018-07-08 08:38:05 PM  

Dbtucky: koder: Sounds like a bunch of rich people who weren't taxed enough are, intentionally or not, hell-bent on ruining San Francisco.  I genuinely can't think of a single place where, in the long run, absurd property values haven't rotted away all the best parts about a place.

Besides that, what's weird is you don't really need to be physically in a place any more.  So it's like, what do they think is going to happen?  The "demand" for San Francisco is going to stay the same or go up?  When the employees will eventually just work from anywhere they want?  They're going to pick San Francisco when they could get a greater salary return and lower cost of living by working out of Portland? Or the tropics?

So yeah, bubble.  Here in Dallas I noticed the same spike from a couple years ago; some assholes are clearly buying up South-Dallas-but-mid-city POSes thinking, I guess, that there'll be demand to live in the middle of the city instead of have acres of farmland to grow whatever you want for the same cost?

Yeah. Anyone else calling bubble?
I'm calling bubble.


I've been calling bubble for a while.  My crappy house in Sunnyvale has had its Zillow estimate go up by 50% so far this year.

This is not sustainable, and as soon as there's a serious shock to the money flowing into the big players here, I expect things to drop quickly.  (Were I to guess, I'd say Facebook - something with the election or its general privacy issues - but I could see Google or Apple taking a hit.  Facebook pays better, though, so a hit there would hit more broadly, as other companies might not feel as strong an urge to throw stupid amounts of money at people.)
 
2018-07-08 08:42:53 PM  

mcreadyblue: Iamos: OptionC: koder: Sounds like a bunch of rich people who weren't taxed enough are, intentionally or not, hell-bent on ruining San Francisco.  I genuinely can't think of a single place where, in the long run, absurd property values haven't rotted away all the best parts about a place.

Besides that, what's weird is you don't really need to be physically in a place any more.  So it's like, what do they think is going to happen?  The "demand" for San Francisco is going to stay the same or go up?  When the employees will eventually just work from anywhere they want?  They're going to pick San Francisco when they could get a greater salary return and lower cost of living by working out of Portland? Or the tropics?

So yeah, bubble.  Here in Dallas I noticed the same spike from a couple years ago; some assholes are clearly buying up South-Dallas-but-mid-city POSes thinking, I guess, that there'll be demand to live in the middle of the city instead of have acres of farmland to grow whatever you want for the same cost?

San Francisco has been extremely expensive for 30+ years, now it is just moreso.  The property values are simply a reflection of the tidal wave of money flowing through Silicon Valley and the Bay Area in general combined with the city being, by far, the hippest place to live in the area and growth restrictions of both the geographic and NIMBY variety.  If you're a wealthy young tech person who wants to be where the action is, you pay to live in SF not on a farm in central Texas.

Not to mention SF is surrounded on three side by water. Hard to lower prices by urban sprawl as opposed to what's happened with Dallas/FW, LA,  LV, or Phoenix.


https://www.star-telegram.com/news/loc​al/community/fort-worth/article2063574​04.html

The Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlingtonmetropolitan area's 146,000-resident jump in 2017 was the most of any metro area in the United States. And six of the top 10 fastest-growing counties in the United States were also in Texas, including Tarrant, Dallas, Denton and Collin.

Overall, Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington ranked fourth, with 7,399,662 residents, behind only the New York, Chicago and Los Angeles metro areas and ahead of Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, which ranked fifth.


Exactly. And how many of those are built entirely on a peninsula? Scarcity of land limiting sprawl, favorable climate, unique geographical features, and a strong tech+biotech+pharma all contribute to the cost of housing here.
 
2018-07-08 08:56:55 PM  
50% compound annual growth on $1.6 MM for ten years.
$92,264,063.50
I don't know why anyone would think that's not sustainable.
 
2018-07-08 09:02:51 PM  

OptionC: the action


I mean, I gotta ask... Do people honestly think San Francisco is like a New York or a Tokyo? "The action"? Is there more that goes on in SF proper than I realize.
 
2018-07-08 09:11:58 PM  

puffy999: OptionC: the action

I mean, I gotta ask... Do people honestly think San Francisco is like a New York or a Tokyo? "The action"? Is there more that goes on in SF proper than I realize.


LOL, not even. The entire city of SF is nothing in Tokyo and barely a proper borough in NY. It was never a city city, but a big port town where everyone knew everyone. Drive out the sin and vice and you have Staten Island.
 
2018-07-08 09:16:53 PM  

OptionC: San Francisco has been extremely expensive for 30+ years, now it is just moreso.  The property values are simply a reflection of the tidal wave of money flowing through Silicon Valley and the Bay Area in general combined with the city being, by far, the hippest place to live in the area and growth restrictions of both the geographic and NIMBY variety.  If you're a wealthy young tech person who wants to be where the action is, you pay to live in SF not on a farm in central Texas.


As a well paid tech person who lives in the middle of San Francisco (looking over that new SalesForce tower as I type) - that's largely bullshiat.  I only moved here because the company wrote me a check.  After my three years - I'm out.  The Bay Area is a tech bro echo chamber and its largely damaged goods.  For anyone getting into the game - I say go anywhere else.  And Austin is one of the places I would recommend (since you bring up central Texas).

puffy999: OptionC: the action

I mean, I gotta ask... Do people honestly think San Francisco is like a New York or a Tokyo? "The action"? Is there more that goes on in SF proper than I realize.


Exactly.  Someone told me that to be in the gaming industry you must be in San Francisco.  As if they've never heard of London, Seattle, Vancouver, Tokyo, Los Angelas, etc.  There are tons of action in more interesting places in the world.
 
2018-07-08 09:23:28 PM  

drewogatory: puffy999: OptionC: the action

I mean, I gotta ask... Do people honestly think San Francisco is like a New York or a Tokyo? "The action"? Is there more that goes on in SF proper than I realize.

LOL, not even. The entire city of SF is nothing in Tokyo and barely a proper borough in NY. It was never a city city, but a big port town where everyone knew everyone. Drive out the sin and vice and you have Staten Island.


gingerjet: Exactly.  Someone told me that to be in the gaming industry you must be in San Francisco.  As if they've never heard of London, Seattle, Vancouver, Tokyo, Los Angelas, etc.  There are tons of action in more interesting places in the world


So San Francisco's real estate market is basically the world's third best legal ponzi scheme, behind organized religion and the US government.
 
2018-07-08 09:29:34 PM  

puffy999: So San Francisco's real estate market is basically the world's third best legal ponzi scheme, behind organized religion and the US government.


Clearly you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, but you think you do and you call everything one.
 
2018-07-08 09:38:20 PM  

koder: Sounds like a bunch of rich people who weren't taxed enough are, intentionally or not, hell-bent on ruining San Francisco.  I genuinely can't think of a single place where, in the long run, absurd property values haven't rotted away all the best parts about a place.

Besides that, what's weird is you don't really need to be physically in a place any more. So it's like, what do they think is going to happen?  The "demand" for San Francisco is going to stay the same or go up?  When the employees will eventually just work from anywhere they want?  They're going to pick San Francisco when they could get a greater salary return and lower cost of living by working out of Portland? Or the tropics?


You're not seeing the forest for the trees.

One of the reasons that so many people want to live in California and especially the Bay Area is that it's simply a nice place to live. Good weather all year. Lots of outdoor activities. Good nightlife. Culture. Liberal politics. And so on. I know plenty of people who have moved out west without a job because they wanted to live in a place with all of those things.

If people and companies wanted to be located in places with the lowest taxes and the lowest cost of living, population growth in Alabama and Mississippi would be through the roof.
 
2018-07-08 09:41:15 PM  
I guarantee you people are gaming the system again add lots of people will be under water long before global warming get fully cranked up.
 
2018-07-08 09:41:18 PM  

fusillade762: not enough beer: Nope, no zero hedge bad subby. Bad no.

Why?


For starters they are a far right conspiracy site that if you followed their advice you would be much poorer today.
 
2018-07-08 09:43:11 PM  

gingerjet: As a well paid tech person who lives in the middle of San Francisco (looking over that new SalesForce tower as I type) - that's largely bullshiat.  I only moved here because the company wrote me a check.  After my three years - I'm out.  The Bay Area is a tech bro echo chamber and its largely damaged goods.  For anyone getting into the game - I say go anywhere else.  And Austin is one of the places I would recommend (since you bring up central Texas).


I love Austin, but talk about a city that's soon going to be very expensive to live because everyone wants to live there...
 
2018-07-08 09:51:21 PM  

thornhill: gingerjet: As a well paid tech person who lives in the middle of San Francisco (looking over that new SalesForce tower as I type) - that's largely bullshiat.  I only moved here because the company wrote me a check.  After my three years - I'm out.  The Bay Area is a tech bro echo chamber and its largely damaged goods.  For anyone getting into the game - I say go anywhere else.  And Austin is one of the places I would recommend (since you bring up central Texas).

I love Austin, but talk about a city that's soon going to be very expensive to live because everyone wants to live there...


City is affordable,attracts vibrant art scene. City becomes desirable because of art scene,city becomes overpriced.Well paid,well meaning art appreciating (but not art making) crowd moves in, art scene moves somewhere else. Rinse and repeat.
 
2018-07-08 09:54:42 PM  

thornhill: puffy999: So San Francisco's real estate market is basically the world's third best legal ponzi scheme, behind organized religion and the US government.

Clearly you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, but you think you do and you call everything one.


I mean, if fatuousness wasn't your first assumption with that comment (the US government for Christ's sakes? And you sort-of thought I was being serious?), I don't really think there's helping you.
 
2018-07-08 09:56:05 PM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: In 6 months?

If you bought one of those $200,000 houses 6 months ago, flip it and run.


Glad this has been covered.

As a Fark Real Estate Expert(TM), I cannot advise any of you to buy anthing in SF. This is a bubble and it will burst. Unless you plan on living there for 30 years, and can afford to be bled dry by property tax...stay very far away.

/not that any of us can afford it
 
2018-07-08 10:00:10 PM  

drewogatory: The sad truth is San Francisco is a pale shade of the place it was from the post war era to the mid 70's, even though the scenes clung on bitterly into the new century. SF was a mean blue collar town for a long time, with cheap rent as the jobs moved out. The stuff that grew out of that environment is long gone, except at the expensive gigs at expensive venues the tech bros will studiously document on their phones.


My dad would be heartbroken. He loved that place.
 
2018-07-08 10:02:19 PM  
But I was assured, by an article posted here in Fark earlier this weekend, that all the millionaires left California after a tax increase.
 
2018-07-08 10:05:17 PM  

not enough beer: fusillade762: not enough beer: Nope, no zero hedge bad subby. Bad no.

Why?

For starters they are a far right conspiracy site that if you followed their advice you would be much poorer today.


I'm not sure it's possible to be any poorer than I am right now...
 
2018-07-08 10:05:49 PM  

drewogatory: thornhill: gingerjet: As a well paid tech person who lives in the middle of San Francisco (looking over that new SalesForce tower as I type) - that's largely bullshiat.  I only moved here because the company wrote me a check.  After my three years - I'm out.  The Bay Area is a tech bro echo chamber and its largely damaged goods.  For anyone getting into the game - I say go anywhere else.  And Austin is one of the places I would recommend (since you bring up central Texas).

I love Austin, but talk about a city that's soon going to be very expensive to live because everyone wants to live there...

City is affordable,attracts vibrant art scene. City becomes desirable because of art scene,city becomes overpriced.Well paid,well meaning art appreciating (but not art making) crowd moves in, art scene moves somewhere else. Rinse and repeat.


Nah, it's because of the tech industry. The kids moving in to take Salesforce/ Google/ Facebook/ Uber/ Airbnb/ etc jobs really don't care about the funky art scene that's just barely hanging on in the Mission.
 
2018-07-08 10:11:55 PM  

lostcat: But I was assured, by an article posted here in Fark earlier this weekend, that all the millionaires left California after a tax increase.


Think how many people in San Franchise are now millionaires because of this.
 
2018-07-08 10:31:42 PM  

mcreadyblue: Iamos: OptionC: koder: Sounds like a bunch of rich people who weren't taxed enough are, intentionally or not, hell-bent on ruining San Francisco.  I genuinely can't think of a single place where, in the long run, absurd property values haven't rotted away all the best parts about a place.

Besides that, what's weird is you don't really need to be physically in a place any more.  So it's like, what do they think is going to happen?  The "demand" for San Francisco is going to stay the same or go up?  When the employees will eventually just work from anywhere they want?  They're going to pick San Francisco when they could get a greater salary return and lower cost of living by working out of Portland? Or the tropics?

So yeah, bubble.  Here in Dallas I noticed the same spike from a couple years ago; some assholes are clearly buying up South-Dallas-but-mid-city POSes thinking, I guess, that there'll be demand to live in the middle of the city instead of have acres of farmland to grow whatever you want for the same cost?

San Francisco has been extremely expensive for 30+ years, now it is just moreso.  The property values are simply a reflection of the tidal wave of money flowing through Silicon Valley and the Bay Area in general combined with the city being, by far, the hippest place to live in the area and growth restrictions of both the geographic and NIMBY variety.  If you're a wealthy young tech person who wants to be where the action is, you pay to live in SF not on a farm in central Texas.

Not to mention SF is surrounded on three side by water. Hard to lower prices by urban sprawl as opposed to what's happened with Dallas/FW, LA,  LV, or Phoenix.


https://www.star-telegram.com/news/loc​al/community/fort-worth/article2063574​04.html

The Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlingtonmetropolitan area's 146,000-resident jump in 2017 was the most of any metro area in the United States. And six of the top 10 fastest-growing counties in the United States were also in Texas, including ...


Most of the big names are in the suburbs 30 minutes away from where I was talking about, btw.  For example, Frito Lay, PepsiCo, Toyota, HP... they're all in Plano, and while Plano housing prices have, indeed, grown (central Plano's like $270k --> $370k; obviously some monstrosities in the millions), the place I'm talking about outside of Downtown Dallas went from like $80k (2015) --> $600k+ (2018), and all they did was put in new appliances.  There are obviously some businesses that are in downtown, and some master-planned Sodosopas going up, but tbh, it's not much of a functional downtown at the moment to begin with (mainly law offices and related), while several of the high rises are literally half-empty.  The new construction is largely apartments/condos, so again I wonder just who, exactly, is going to want to pay for the ever-skyrocketing prices in an increasingly commute-less future.

I mean yeah, you could probably make a penny or two for the next decade or so on the perception of the future--assuming no economic crash--but I'm saying as a "vanguard millennial," given the ability to work from anywhere in the world with a proper uplink, I'm increasingly feeling like I'm not going to spend that kind of money even if a money tree is sprouting.
 
2018-07-08 10:56:06 PM  
ZEROHEDGE is back!  Zerohedge accurately predicted 328 of 0 recessions between January 2008 and November 2016.
 
2018-07-08 11:16:16 PM  

Dbtucky: Yeah. Anyone else calling bubble?
I'm calling bubble.


If it's a bubble then it's one that's been going on for the last 30 years. Any day now it'll burst and housing will be affordable here.

Bought my house in 2003 and I though prices were high then.
 
2018-07-08 11:20:53 PM  
San Francisco's setting is beautiful.  The people are hideous.  They're either literally shiatting in the street or figuratively shiatting on everyone else.
 
2018-07-08 11:42:42 PM  
Nobody wants to live in the SF Bay Area anymore, it's too crowded.
 
2018-07-08 11:48:47 PM  

fusillade762: not enough beer: Nope, no zero hedge bad subby. Bad no.

Why?


Because anything perceived as right-of-center sends certain members of Fark into mental vapor lock.
 
2018-07-09 12:06:12 AM  

OptionC: koder: Sounds like a bunch of rich people who weren't taxed enough are, intentionally or not, hell-bent on ruining San Francisco.  I genuinely can't think of a single place where, in the long run, absurd property values haven't rotted away all the best parts about a place.

Besides that, what's weird is you don't really need to be physically in a place any more.  So it's like, what do they think is going to happen?  The "demand" for San Francisco is going to stay the same or go up?  When the employees will eventually just work from anywhere they want?  They're going to pick San Francisco when they could get a greater salary return and lower cost of living by working out of Portland? Or the tropics?

So yeah, bubble.  Here in Dallas I noticed the same spike from a couple years ago; some assholes are clearly buying up South-Dallas-but-mid-city POSes thinking, I guess, that there'll be demand to live in the middle of the city instead of have acres of farmland to grow whatever you want for the same cost?

San Francisco has been extremely expensive for 30+ years, now it is just moreso.  The property values are simply a reflection of the tidal wave of money flowing through Silicon Valley and the Bay Area in general combined with the city being, by far, the hippest place to live in the area and growth restrictions of both the geographic and NIMBY variety.  If you're a wealthy young tech person who wants to be where the action is, you pay to live in SF not on a farm in central Texas.


My dad bought a new home that was in what used to be walnut orchards in San Ramon back in the 70s for $50k. Sold it in 82 for $200k. Last I heard, similar homes in the same neighborhood were up over 1 million again after a dip in 2008 to around $800k. And these aren't mc-mansions either. Just basic starter family homes right next to the new (at the time) freeway.

Now a lot of folks that mine still have contact with in the East and South Bay are cashing out and heading out of state. A million bucks for a home you've owned for 40 years pays for a decent spread in Southern Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona.....Montana. With enough cash to last you the last 10-15 years of your life.
 
2018-07-09 12:14:17 AM  

Farxist Marxist: 50% compound annual growth on $1.6 MM for ten years.
$92,264,063.50
I don't know why anyone would think that's not sustainable.


Depends on inflation rates. It might hit that level anyway in ten years.
 
2018-07-09 12:25:31 AM  

lostcat: But I was assured, by an article posted here in Fark earlier this weekend, that all the millionaires left California after a tax increase.


I looked up the numbers. There are an estimated 14.6 million millionaire families in the US. That made the article even more amusing.
 
2018-07-09 12:33:37 AM  

BolloxReader: Farxist Marxist: 50% compound annual growth on $1.6 MM for ten years.
$92,264,063.50
I don't know why anyone would think that's not sustainable.

Depends on inflation rates. It might hit that level anyway in ten years.


50% inflation will cause a few more problems than the cost of a house in the SF Bay area.
 
2018-07-09 12:38:20 AM  

koder: The new construction is largely apartments/condos, so again I wonder just who, exactly, is going to want to pay for the ever-skyrocketing prices in an increasingly commute-less future.


Condos are a crap shoot in Dallas. Last to inflate in value and first to crash while being #1 with real estate swindles.

My company pays an exorbitant amount of money to be in the Platinum Corridor in Plano.  90% of the employees could work from home.  But 0% do. Old school management styles.   They just can't let it happen.

Toyota just built a hugely expensive new HDQ and spent millions physically relocating workers from California.

I think a few successful companies will become even more successful by willing to embrace the future.  But most never will.
 
2018-07-09 01:44:28 AM  

fanbladesaresharp: OptionC: koder: Sounds like a bunch of rich people who weren't taxed enough are, intentionally or not, hell-bent on ruining San Francisco.  I genuinely can't think of a single place where, in the long run, absurd property values haven't rotted away all the best parts about a place.

Besides that, what's weird is you don't really need to be physically in a place any more.  So it's like, what do they think is going to happen?  The "demand" for San Francisco is going to stay the same or go up?  When the employees will eventually just work from anywhere they want?  They're going to pick San Francisco when they could get a greater salary return and lower cost of living by working out of Portland? Or the tropics?

So yeah, bubble.  Here in Dallas I noticed the same spike from a couple years ago; some assholes are clearly buying up South-Dallas-but-mid-city POSes thinking, I guess, that there'll be demand to live in the middle of the city instead of have acres of farmland to grow whatever you want for the same cost?

San Francisco has been extremely expensive for 30+ years, now it is just moreso.  The property values are simply a reflection of the tidal wave of money flowing through Silicon Valley and the Bay Area in general combined with the city being, by far, the hippest place to live in the area and growth restrictions of both the geographic and NIMBY variety.  If you're a wealthy young tech person who wants to be where the action is, you pay to live in SF not on a farm in central Texas.

My dad bought a new home that was in what used to be walnut orchards in San Ramon back in the 70s for $50k. Sold it in 82 for $200k. Last I heard, similar homes in the same neighborhood were up over 1 million again after a dip in 2008 to around $800k. And these aren't mc-mansions either. Just basic starter family homes right next to the new (at the time) freeway.

Now a lot of folks that mine still have contact with in the East and South Bay are cashing out and heading out of state. A million bucks for a home you've owned for 40 years pays for a decent spread in Southern Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona.....Montana. With enough cash to last you the last 10-15 years of your life.


Cool story, bro!
 
2018-07-09 08:16:32 AM  

jjorsett: fusillade762: not enough beer: Nope, no zero hedge bad subby. Bad no.

Why?

Because anything perceived as right-of-center sends certain members of Fark into mental vapor lock.


I wouldn't refer to "completely wrong about everything related to stock markets, investing, and the economy" as a right-of-center idea.  WSJ is right-of-center.  They're not completely wrong about everything related to stock markets, investing, and the economy.

Meh.  It's your money.
 
2018-07-09 09:04:48 AM  

koder: but I'm saying as a "vanguard millennial," given the ability to work from anywhere in the world with a proper uplink


Doing what, exactly?

Every single god damned "work from home via computer" offer I have ever seen in the Net for the past 10 years has been a complete and utter scam.
 
2018-07-09 09:07:06 AM  

thornhill: If people and companies wanted to be located in places with the lowest taxes and the lowest cost of living, population growth in Alabama and Mississippi would be through the roof.


They are.  Well, not those two states specifically, but California isn't even close at #17 in population growth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of​_​U.S._states_and_territories_by_populat​ion_growth_rate

Top 5 states with the greatest population growth are Texas, North Dakota, Utah, Florida, Colorado.
 
2018-07-09 09:50:56 AM  

dittybopper: thornhill: If people and companies wanted to be located in places with the lowest taxes and the lowest cost of living, population growth in Alabama and Mississippi would be through the roof.

They are.  Well, not those two states specifically, but California isn't even close at #17 in population growth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_​U.S._states_and_territories_by_populat​ion_growth_rate

Top 5 states with the greatest population growth are Texas, North Dakota, Utah, Florida, Colorado.


The reasons are not taxes or cost of living.

Texas' growth is due to people having babies, not people moving to the state.

North Dakota is oil/gas jobs.

Utah is also birth rates.

Florida is weather, despite the very high cost of living in major cities.

Colorado is because it's a nice place to live, and it's becoming expensive.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report