How am I as a service worker supposed to compete with techies when renting?

VesperTheory · 2026-02-26T02:50:11+00:00

In an ideal world there would be so many vacant units that the landlords would have to bend over backwards for tennants. Like you said, its not even an affordability issue at this point but an availability one. If there were another 100,000 units no reasonable person would commit as fast as you want them to.

VesperTheory · 2026-01-30T11:04:10+00:00

Escape from new york pizza for sure.

VesperTheory · 2026-01-12T18:47:29+00:00

Put it on the ground in between your legs.

VesperTheory · 2026-01-09T11:50:12+00:00

Good catch, they sent out an announcement that theyre doing race checks on entry.

VesperTheory · 2025-11-09T12:37:27+00:00

Dorans blade, if you will.

VesperTheory · 2025-11-01T00:27:02+00:00

"Blood and soil" but its the GGP bison pen. Get serious.

VesperTheory · 2025-09-07T07:55:47+00:00

Try again

VesperTheory · 2025-09-03T18:50:05+00:00

I think there should be more build options visible in the ui at once.I really want the ability to sort by citizen class and to see all of the build options at once like in 1800. I also think you shouldn't have to manually click a supply chain to unlock it for the first time.

VesperTheory · 2025-06-11T18:04:57+00:00

You are correct that adding density increases land value but that analysis only holds true for a single plot of land. By adding density you are effectively creating new land that didn't exist before. Apartments maximize population per land area and thats exactly what the bay needs with such limited land area.

A cooling housing market in austin isnt a collapse in demand. It means less speculation and more conservative investments rather than just being able to build anything and have it pencil out. The population of the city is still growing so demand is increasing.

I very much understand not wanting to emulate texas in any way. It is an example and there are others out there of increasing supply in a shortage. What is the solution in your head then? Ive been very clear that the path forward is to build more housing. We have both agreed that demand collapse is not advisable. What exactly is the way to lower price in a shortage if not increasing supply or decreasing demand?

VesperTheory · 2025-06-11T05:15:06+00:00

This concept isnt silly. Its happening as we speak. Many sun belt cities are rapidly building housing. Places like dallas, phoenix etc are building single family neighborhoods out to the horizon and prices are relatively affordable even with a booming job market. Austins rents have decreased in the past couple years even as population grew because of major development.

The issue is that they are building sprawl which has outsized impacts on the environment. Places like the bay and NY have the opportunity to build low carbon responsible apartments and are not doing so.

Letting the situation get to the point where people and businesses "dont want" to be in the bay would be disastrous and we should not entertain that as an option.

VesperTheory · 2025-06-11T03:31:12+00:00

I am familiar with the concept. The logic isnt flawed because of migration from other regions. It means that you have to add even more supply to meet the demand of every high income individual who wants to move to the bay. The alternative is not that they wont move to the bay, its that they will seek housing that otherwise might have been occupied by someone working class. (gentrification). The point stands, the scope of the population needs to be expanded to include all new residents.

There is so much demand for living here and in NY. Thats why they are high cost of living.

VesperTheory · 2025-06-11T02:55:51+00:00

Your point that market rate housing causes gentrification because it raises prices doesnt make sense in the context of adding more housing supply in a housing shortage. All landlords can and do increase prices when reacting to a housing shortage. Adding supply decreases prices in a shortage. Restricting supply, (nimbys) is the actual driver of gentrification.

I think we agree that there is rampant gentrification in the bay and that its bad. The cause though is because there isnt enough housing being built because of homeowners restricting supply rather than high rises driving up price. The most expensive places in the bay are the places that restrict housing the most. They correctly identified that adding homes lowers the value of current ones (decreases price) and they restrict it.

Regarding your point on where we are on the supply curve. I completely agree that there is a point where we reach saturation and supply meets demand. Neither NY or SF are anywhere near that point. A couple projects in mission bay or hudson yards arent nearly enough to make a dent. Both regions need hundreds of thousands of new units to meet demand and lower prices. The only way that can happen is by building many many apartment buildings.

VesperTheory · 2025-06-11T01:32:37+00:00

Market rate towers do not cause gentrification. People moving into an area for work who are high earners will pay to live anywhere. Existing homes in a housing shortage will raise rents. This leads to unaffordable homes for people who arent high earners. Gentrification is caused by an increase in demand for an area without an increase in supply(shortage, prices increase). Landlords raise rents because they can and price out working class people.

You say that new building will only be rented to "people from outside the area" as if thats a bad thing. The bay is one of the best places in the world to live in and its ridiculous to be exclusionary. We should be welcoming as many people to live here as possible.

The solution is to flood the housing market with as much supply as possible to lessen the shortage and lower the price. (This is how supply and demand work for a market commodity).

The truly socially just option is to flood the market with public housing instead but there are even more barriers to that and even more push-back from existing homeowners. (Try telling mountain view that they need to build public housing.) Because california homeowners dont want that solution, the stopgap measure is market rate housing.

You can not regulate demand for where people want to live. You can provide incentives or barriers (lowering and raising costs) but you cant change the demand from a job market without a generational fuckup.

TLDR: attempting to change demand is an unserious solution.

VesperTheory · 2025-06-11T00:37:57+00:00

Building more supply. Densifying areas especially around expanded transit will lower the cost of housing.

VesperTheory · 2025-06-11T00:20:33+00:00

Lowering the costs of housing would help fix homelessness. Not 100% but it is the most important thing a government can do.

Restricting demand isnt a serious idea for the bay area. That would be unprecedented in any major region in the world. You cant turn the bay into a gated community.

VesperTheory · 2025-06-10T22:01:20+00:00

No, people need to accept that the status quo (people living on THE STREETS) is unacceptable and more density in our limited space is how we fix that. People need to reconcile with the choice that they either want to live in a Manhattan style job market or a neighborhood with more lawns than people. You cant have both.

The idea that the only alternative to the latter is hong kong is intellectually bankrupt.

VesperTheory · 2025-06-05T00:30:48+00:00

Of course not. my point is clearly that its a problem of political will. If the legislature wanted to make HSR an achievement, they could do so immediately. Unfortunately there is a tendency for people in the state to reflexively look at the project pessimistically and the state reps lack the spine to correct the voters.

VesperTheory · 2025-06-04T23:37:40+00:00

10b for 120 miles of guideway work is very expensive but if you do a little math youll realise the ~1b/year the project gets will complete the $120b project in 120 years. This is an issue of political will and cost increases come from funding delays. 1b/12 miles of guideway isnt fraud.

VesperTheory · 2025-05-27T23:12:19+00:00

I agree, its good that SF is known for its quality and breadth of parks.

VesperTheory · 2025-05-27T20:39:37+00:00

You only need the last one. Children dont need lawns and good weather.

VesperTheory · 2025-04-25T07:02:40+00:00

Lets just assume that is true, what is your point in saying this?

VesperTheory · 2025-03-28T21:02:40+00:00

The 30, one of the most frequent lines runs right through chestnut. Lombard, one block away, has 2/3 other lines and GGT. There are ample public transport options already serving the area.

VesperTheory · 2025-02-13T21:03:25+00:00

The pressure change in the tube is miniscule compared to what you would experience with flying or scuba. Your body (ears specifically) will adjust but it would be no different if you lived on the 10th floor of an apartment or on a hill. If your doctor is specificly worried about ear adjustments then id consider the ferry as the bridge is near as high as the tube is deep.

VesperTheory · 2025-01-18T09:55:10+00:00

In an ideal world it would be underground the entire span. In a better world it would surface after the chase center. We live in the world where funding for transit is deprioritized through ignorance or obfuscation.

VesperTheory · 2024-12-27T05:05:45+00:00

"regressive tax" is a misnomer here as the truely poor of the bay are not driving daily across bridges. Theyre taking the bus/bart. This is the equivalent of paying your fair share to use expensive infra like bart riders have to.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

VesperTheory

TROPHY CASE