If housing and labor markets were entirely elastic, and those are the only two factors your people need to consider, then "go away" could be a reasonable government policy. But people are more than their income and their cost of living.
Consider a recovering opioid addict making minimum wage. Medicaid for health care. They are recovering, not relapsed, because of great support from their parents, brother, and grandparents, all of whom live in (say) Oakland. If we look at the labor market and the housing market, the rational economic decision is to move away. Away from their family, the support network that keeps this person employable (and quite possibly alive). Should the whole family move? Not all jobs are everywhere. Should the brother quit Berkeley? These webs are not easily untangled.
If their support network were a Church, or a local football club, the cost would be same: leave your life behind so the Bay Area can stay suburban.
Expensive housing destroys the small, vital institutions that hold our society together by driving people apart.
Personally, I have definitely noticed many people who have convinced themselves they have to stay despite their miserable conditions. Nevermind they have no family in the area, few friends, and despite their very well paying job they can barely afford food & rent. They could surely never be happy elsewhere!
It's like some kind of bubble, where we imagine the whole rest of the country is a backwater hellhole and won't even imagine we could leave.
No city on Earth is full. (Indeed, estimates of human population growth show planetary population stabilizing at less than one tenth our global carrying capacity, so this is not surprising.) It would be extraordinary for the Bay Area to be the first, and so calls for extraordinary evidence.
Housing is a cost of living. Driving the cost of being alive as low as possible should be a high priority. We should use the tools we have to do it.
We don't need to pack everyone in like sardines. As you already noted, there's plenty of space in the world. (You just have to turn your eyes outside the peninsula).
P.S. I do not live nor aspire to live in the peninsula, or anywhere near it
No other city is full because at some point people decide not to live so tightly packed together, and demand dries up.
Current laws raise prices to enforce low density. That's wrong.
The only thing that does work is confronting the fact that a lot of people need to live here and encouraging housing supply to meet demand.
...and yet, this crisis is only about 5 years old. Between 2008 and 2012, San Francisco rents were going down, not up. San Francisco's population declined in the 1980s. Say what you will about construction rates, but this is an acute housing crisis, brought on by an asset bubble, instigated by historically low interest rates.
One way to look at the current situation is to get upset and say "how dare this community not overturn its way of life to accommodate our industry!", but another, equally valid viewpoint is to acknowledge the simple fact that it's painfully stupid to try to cram the entire tech industry in a 49-square-mile patch of land (or realistically, a 20-square mile patch; nobody in tech believes there's life west of Divisidero or east of Embarcadero).
So no, people don't "need" to live here. There's no practical reason that the tech industry couldn't be spread all over the world. It was actually always kind of dumb and impractical to found startups here. But it's trendy for 20-something tech bros to live here right now, and therefore, everyone else is expected to move aside and make room.
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-housing-supply/
San Francisco rents have sometimes gone down slightly, but they never returned to sane levels, and affordable housing for the poor hasn’t been abundant in many, many years.
http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/11-a-good-walk-spoile...
Ultimately, the original sin was racism.
http://www.oaklandmagazine.com/May-2017/The-Real-Cause-of-Ge...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/zoning-...
The simple fact is that if you own a Bay Area home, you will oppose increased supplies because it makes your home less valuable. Homeowners are simply attempting to protect their equity. If housing prices dropped 20% because of increased supply, suddenly tens of thousands are now upside down on their home.
I know the actual reason, but I still can’t help but wonder why Hong Kong/Seoul/Shanghai style high rises are not more of a thing in the Bay Area. There seems like a ton of good spots along the 280 from San Bruno to Woodside.
I live in one with < 1% vacancy rate and it's also a tourist city. Apartment prices have gone up more than 50% in the past few years.
[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-17/houston-commercial-...
Yeah, this is a bit of "yimby" rhetoric that's pretty simple-minded. People don't oppose new construction because of abstract fears like "property value"...they oppose them because of concrete fears, like changing the character of the neighborhood, or increasing traffic.
I'm not saying I agree with those fears, but it's helpful not to make cartoon characterizations of the other side's arguments, when many of those arguments have merit. If you spent most of your life savings on a house in a cute suburban neighborhood, you'd (rightly) be pretty pissed if people suddenly wanted to surround it with high-rises.
Again, I don't agree with these arguments, but it's helpful to actually understand them.
Traffic goes down when we have mixed use zones vs. Euclidean zoning.
I see. Because people have used this complaint to do bad things, it is therefore always incorrect. Got it.
Writing off the whole notion that people fear their property value falling is illogical.
When you go to planning meetings, people are not generally complaining about property values. They're complaining about neighborhood character, traffic, parking, etc. I'm not going to say it never happens, but when it does, you should dig deeper. There are always real concerns.
What is true is that for decades people who came here at some time in the past complain about how newcomers are overturning its way of life, despite having been newcomers themselves at one point.[1] Aging hippies complained in the 80s that yuppies were ruining the Haight, despite having been "neighborhood-ruiners" themselves when they came in the 1960s; the Mission used to be an Irish and Italian neighborhood before it was the center of Latino culture in the city, but it's the neighborhood most vociferously complaining about newcomers and insisting on building moratoriums to stop the neighborhood from changing.[2] It's all deeply hypocritical and unprincipled, but also completely unsurprising.
tl;dr: San Francisco has always been an expensive place to live and we've never built enough housing to meet demand [3]
[0] https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employme...
[1] https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/04/15/san-franciscos-current-...
[2] http://sfist.com/2015/10/07/san_francisco_has_always_been_a_...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/san-francisco-housing-cr...
Actually, everything I wrote is a fact, and you can verify it. SF rents went down as recently as 2012, and are currently in a pronounced, acute period of hyperinflation [1]. San Francisco's population declined rather dramatically from 1950-1980 [2]
I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your preferred narrative, but citing opinion articles does not provide data for your position.
[1] https://medium.com/@mccannatron/1979-to-2015-average-rent-in...
[2] https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/2FrCiZiCNaMFiUqWC_RK8sh3NnU=...
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4660089/Population-Growth_SF.0.jpg){kind=link}
Edit: even your sfist link confirms the basic facts, despite its (inaccurate and hyperbolic) headline. To wit:
"Dips in the population, urban flight, and a decaying Edwardian housing stock — much of which was built between 1907 and 1910 and was in great disrepair by 1970, when areas like Alamo Square were extremely "low-rent" and dilapidated — may have made life cheaper for the hippies, but that all began to change by the early 1980s."
So yeah...SF hasn't "always" been an expensive city. No more than any other city, anyway.
Yeah, it might be nice if the US tech industry were more geographically distributed throughout the country (though that would also potentially have negative consequences due to constant relocation necessary when switching jobs). But NIMBY policies have broadly failed at getting people to move away. They have, in fact, just made the situation worse.
I'm coming late to this just to make a narrow point, but I'm not sure you should put nurses into that sentence. Take a look at US News Best Jobs and see a roundup of BLS stats for salaries in San Francisco.
Registered Nurses earn a median salary of $133,650 in San Francisco
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/registered-nurse/...
A software developer in SF earns a median salary of $117,770
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-develope...
Now, that does seem suspiciously low to me (in San Jose, the salary is over $140k). And every time I mention this, I am careful to point out that I have no objection whatsoever to nurses making lots of money, more than programmers. It's a tough and important job that deserves good pay, and while I wouldn't argue that it should pay more, I certainly wouldn't argue that it shouldn't, either (I do think programming is a tougher and more stressful job than people generally realize).
But the notion that programmers with their high pay are driving out nurses seems a stretch. I would argue that programmer compensation is higher than what is cited here, and there are other factors. But none of this is enough, to me, to overcome these numbers. While low income people are driven out of SF by the presence of higher earning workers, I don't think you can really say Nurses are driven out by programmers. Doesn't really work.
And programmers, I assure you, are most definitely hurt by the high housing costs in SF.
OK...but that's also an argument for creating public policy that discourages tech companies from locating in the city. We could start by eliminating the mid-Market tax incentives.
The "yimby" movement is at least as much about tech companies who have invaded and now want to change their environment, as it is "everyone else who isn't a programmer." I wish we could be honest about that fact.
My parents are poor, so I watched the market from the bottom end. What I experienced was that the amount we paid for what we got was sort of dumb, but at least we could afford an illegal in-law. Then, in the early 1990s, we got an OMI eviction and moved in with relatives. And now I’m paying twice as much for a fourth of the space in the same neighborhood, while my parents were ripped from their communities and moved out of the Bay Area.
For the low end of the market, any restriction will make housing more scarce, and San Francisco is not short on restrictions. That is why I support the YIMBY movement.
https://sf.curbed.com/2013/4/3/10257506/navigating-the-treac...
Even without the tech boom, California hasn’t been keeping up with housing demand:
“Every generation, civilization is invaded by barbarians - we call them ‘children.’” - Hannah Arendt
http://ochousingnews.com/california-nimbys-dont-love-childre...
Except, it isn't. As I've documented in this thread, like most American cities, the SF population was declining for ~30 years, until the mid/late 1980s. The first tech boom really kicked things off for local real estate again, starting in the early 90s...which was the last time the city saw a building boom. Developers build in times of increasing demand, and that's exactly what happens in SF.
In any case, repeating the "supply and demand" mantra doesn't change basic facts about the timing and cause of this boom. The problem is not that developers "didn't build enough" in 1980...it's that we've disproportionately grown demand starting in ~2012, and large housing projects don't get built that quickly in tiny, landlocked cities.
Cutting the counter-productive tax incentives for tech should be on the very short list of ideas for restoring sanity to SF.
As you say, developers build in times of increasing demand, yet there hasn’t been a real building boom since the early 1990s.[3] In a normal situation, increasing prosperity would bring both jobs and homes to an area. Here, we have the jobs but not the homes.[4]
The developers intimately know how price is caused by supply and demand, and do not build unless they are reasonably certain that they can make a profit. They avoid causing gluts. The problem here is that California has some of the most misguided regulations,[5][6] and municipalities some of the worst processes,[7][8] that prevent housing from being affordable to build.[9] Developers can’t be certain to make back their investment when housing is not in crisis, and we need to fix this.
Like sea urchins in a kelp desert,[10] mega-developers with large projects are not the core issue. Mega-developers work best when trampling over pristine wilderness. We need to build inside cities.[11] The core issue is that we collectively do not have the imagination to enable thousands of small-time landowners to undercut the mega-developers with naturally affordable housing.[12] Zoning makes it illegal,[13] and government process makes it impractical, for ordinary non-developer people to build around here.
The Republican mantra is that “Government is the problem.” But at the local level, the government is the people, or a funhouse subset of them. The policies that create the housing crisis enjoy bipartisan support. My support for the YIMBY Party[14] is not about supply and demand. It’s about creating a political demographic for getting people into humane homes.
[0] http://www.sightline.org/2017/07/05/stop-blaming-foreign-hom...
[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-econ...
[2] https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/12/12945854/bay-area-cities-jo...
[3] https://twitter.com/mottsmith/status/856553360278736896/phot...
[4] https://sf.curbed.com/2017/7/26/16040938/san-francisco-jobs-...
[5] http://www.builderonline.com/building/regulation-policy/the-...
[6] http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2003-07-01...
[7] https://sf.curbed.com/2013/4/3/10257506/navigating-the-treac...
[8] http://www.oaklandmagazine.com/May-2017/The-Real-Cause-of-Ge...
[9] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/6/15/affordable-hou...
[10] https://cdfwmarine.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/perfect-storm-de...
[11] http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-climate-ch...
[12] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/12/the-power-of-g...
[13] https://www.curbed.com/2017/3/7/14837014/affordable-housing-...
No. That's what YIMBY people keep repeating. Regulations account for only ~20% of the cost of new construction in SF. The "cause of the crisis" in SF is acute demand on a tiny peninsula where there is no unbuilt land. I can't speak for the rest of the bay area, but the YIMBY line is almost entirely wrong when it comes to San Francisco.
"In a normal situation, increasing prosperity would bring both jobs and homes to an area. Here, we have the jobs but not the homes."
San Francisco has been in the midst of a dramatic building boom since ~2013. There are projects all across the city. Mission bay went from vacant land to fully developed in less than four years.
In other words, aside from the fact that huge multi-family housing projects take a few years to get built (everywhere!), things are working exactly as they should. But no, you can't build giant housing projects faster than the tech bubble has inflated in SF. That part is true.
"The problem here is that California has some of the most misguided regulations, and municipalities some of the worst processes, that prevent housing from being affordable to build. Developers can’t be certain to make back their investment when housing is not in crisis, and we need to fix this."
Repeat after me: 80% of the cost of building in SF is land, labor and materials. Meditate on that fact every time you're compelled to repeat something about regulations. When developers in SF complain about regulations, they're dog-whistling to the BMR housing subsidy. That's the bulk of their "regulatory" costs.
Also, stop confusing "California" and San Francisco. They're different. Atherton's building policies have nothing to do with SOMA construction projects.
"The core issue is that we collectively do not have the imagination to enable thousands of small-time landowners to undercut the mega-developers with naturally affordable housing. Zoning makes it illegal, and government process makes it impractical, for ordinary non-developer people to build around here."
Nonsense. Small-time landowners cannot fix housing density in dense, fully-built cities like SF. To create any meaningful amount of housing, you need the capital to buy large amounts of land, labor and materials for high-rise buildings. That's why big developers are doing the construction -- not "regulation", and certainly not "zoning" (while I agree that height limits can/should be higher in many places in SF, it wouldn't suddenly enable small landlords to build skyscrapers. Your "evidence" for this claim has very little to say about zoning; it's merely a collection of snarky graphics).
I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention, but San Francisco is in California. Bad state laws are being abused in San Francisco,[2] and the entire state is in housing crisis.[3] Additionally, Atherton affects San Francisco because it is within commuting distance. If Atherton built 500,000 units of housing especially within a mile of their Caltrain station, that would dramatically affect housing prices in San Francisco.
You keep using words like “dense.” San Francisco is not dense.[4] Most of the recent development has been on 20% of the land.[5] Go west or south of the Mission District, and except for small “transit corridors” and a few pockets of housing, it’s like a time capsule from the 1950s. With a lot more cars.
The idea that an area once built is finished, is a disease that threatens the viability of this country.[6] Small-time landowners cannot fix the crisis because around a third of the privately owned land is zoned for single-family homes (even worse down the peninsula).[7] It is actually illegal for most landowners to increase density, so they don’t even try.[8]
We do not need mega-developers with mega-towers at this time. Those have very high building costs. We can satisfy current demand with a whole lot of medium-sized buildings with much lower building costs.[9]
[0] http://sfist.com/2017/02/15/another_study_contends_sf_housin...
[1] https://sf.curbed.com/2017/4/28/15476540/1924-mission-review
[2] https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/how-cities-bypass-...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/california-housing-cri...
[4] https://sf.curbed.com/2017/3/8/14856316/san-francisco-densit...
[5] https://archpaper.com/2017/05/san-francisco-housing/
[6] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/4/17/sprawl-is-not-...
[7] http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/25/bay_area_zoni...
[8] https://yimbyaction.org/upzoningletter/
[9] http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-density-thought...
The equal protection clause of the Constitution establishes freedom of movement for all Americans. Native and longtime San Franciscans have no more or less right to be there than the Iowans and Wisconsinites flooding in.
If you want to change that, then secede from the United States.
It’s been a problem since the 90s but it eases off for a year or 3 every recession.
Same deal here - it’s been crap for decades but the 2008 crash deflated the balooon a little for a while.
As someone from outside of the region, what reasons necessitate that a lot of people be in the Bay Area that is beyond the economic need?
Not only that, the demand side for housing is also the supply side for the job market, so prices are squeezed on both sides.
Because there is usually room to give. If people were on the brink of actually having to leave due to rising costs, incomes would lose their inelasticity pretty quickly, insofar as the need for labour is required. There is always superfluous work that is useful at a low price, but fine to give up completely if costs grow too high.
> Not only that, the demand side for housing is also the supply side for the job market, so prices are squeezed on both sides.
Squeezing is necessary to a point. After all, the economy eventually seeks equilibrium. It has been the case – at least before housing costs grew out of control – that one could make a fortune by moving to the Bay Area, where average incomes are significantly higher than most of the rest of the country. Now the costs are rising to close the gap with lower-income areas.
If someone in a low-cost area has a gross income of $30,000, and expenses of $25,000, then someone in a high-cost area with a gross income of $150,000 can take on expenses of $145,000 without being any worse off. While housing isn't the only cost one has, it is usually among the largest (with taxes being the other major expense). Having $145k to spend on expenses each year can go a long way.
I disagree: $5,000 has a lot more buying power in the low income area than the high-cost area.
Someone in a low-cost area may want to travel to the city to take in the entertainment and amenities available in the big flashy city, in which case that money is being spent in a high-cost area. Similarly, someone in a high-cost area may want to travel to a low-cost area to take in what it has to offer and thus will spend it in a low-cost area. In that case, the person with $5k in a high-cost area is actually still better off.
If you're going buy an iPhone with that money, the price isn't going to vary much in either place. If the $5k is saved in both cases, there is no real difference either.
Lenders also don't seem wild about letting you commit 80% of your take-home to a mortgage, even if your discretionary cash after the mortgage would be the same as in a cheaper place with a mortgage at 25% of your take-home.
or is that a nonsense thing to say in the States? In some places of Europe that would be a pretty normal feeling.
It's a nonsense thing to say in front of the educated American elite.
Most of America agrees with you, but as we've seen, there is a disturbing trend amongst American elites to mock anyone who is unwilling to sacrifice their families, communities, and networks in the name of career development/personal advancement.
I'm not into most aspects of the populism that is sweeping the US right now, but the elite dismissal of basic family- and community-building is IMO completely real. The brutal policies that result - of forced displacement, of people adrift without support networks - are one of the very real reasons why anti-elite sentiment will continue to increase.
It's unclear why migration should stop now. Why is this the status quo that should be locked in, rather than the status quo of 50 years ago or 50 years from now?
The disturbing trend is that migration has slowed to historical lows. Among Americans, being unwilling to move for opportunity is the new development. Of all the settlement patterns that could be locked in for eternity, today's is a poor choice.
The ever increasing urbanization rate suggests otherwise. If the majority of Americans had stuck close to their families, these cities would be small settlements at best, and maybe wouldn't even exist at all. In reality, the high cost (which may come in the form of lower income) of living elsewhere has pushed most into these cities.
More specifically, though, the majority of Americans have stuck close to their families - they may not live in the same exact town they grew up in, but most live within a certain radius of where their family/community/network is. Americans have shown that they are willing to move to follow economic fortunes, but remain tethered to the general area their families and loved ones are in.
And this - at least anecdotally - is a common preference. I've lost count of the number of conversations I've had with colleagues and friends about where they can live where they can still be in range of [parents|grandparents|cousins|organizations|institutions].
And this is where I think the rhetoric goes off the rails - some forcible relocation may be inevitable - after all, we can't ensure there are enough jobs for all people in all places at all times.
But there's a line between acknowledging that forced migration is necessary/inevitable, and regarding those who resist it with derision. God help us if we ever fault someone for wanting to stay near their family and their community.
Nice to see that all the people who actually make the city function -- so that those high-paid "value providers" can live there and get work done there -- are completely written off in your analysis.
Unless there is some reason their function isn't actually necessary, in which case, yes, the jobs may disappear. But I do not see the trouble with unnecessary jobs disappearing. Nobody is crying over the loss of loom operators either.
It is simply supply and demand. If the populace needs police officers, firefighters, garbage collectors, transit operators, cooks, cleaners, waiters, and teachers, there is no reason those jobs cannot also pay $200k per year – if that is what it takes to keep people in the region doing those jobs.
Nobody thinks there is special value in that node.js job. It is simply that $200k is what it takes to incentivize someone to both live in the Bay Area and work on that node.js project. If the VCs could find people matching that criteria to do the job for less, they would be jumping all over those people. Why do you think SV's largest tech companies have been pushing the government so hard to ensure that everyone learn how to code in school? But, for now at least, they don't exist.
And when the people for the other aforementioned jobs don't exist at a lower price, pay has no choice to go up for the jobs as well. Unless the local population decide those jobs aren't as necessary as you claim they are and choose to forego them entirely. Which is always an option too.
With all of the remote work available, why would you stay here? I manage a team with two remote-friendly job openings currently. You could work for me and go live in Telluride, CO for less than that East Bay 1br and still have money left over.
I would like to live in the Bay Area but it’s financial suicide.
Companies can learn from this as well: there's a difference between # of workers working in a field and labor supply vs labor demand.
Having remote-friendliness in my pocket, I can be choosy and can hire strong senior-level folks. I think it's inevitable that the rest of the Valley catches on and figures out how to make remote work for them. When this happens, I think we'll see who things:
- A leveling-up of remote salaries. Not such a big deal at my company and on my team, because we don't hold someone's remoteness against them and we pay fair SFBA salaries. Other companies (GitLab, etc.) adjust salaries based on cost-of-living. This is a reduced-fare lunch for them but probably not sustainable. Other companies are going to catch on and snap up top talent at average SFBA comp levels and the salary-savers will be forced to level up.
- SFBA talent will start leaving the Bay Area for more affordable and enjoyable areas. We'll see engineers moving to Central American beach towns, Colorado ski towns, back home to flyover states, etc.
The Midwest is stereotypical for "affordable living" but I live in New England and it's fairly affordable here too in comparison. I own a three bedroom in town, with 20% down my P+I is $750 a month and PITI is $1275 a month. If I financed the whole thing the PITI would be $1462 a month. I think my housing cost is about average for the US.
5 bedrooms/4 bathrooms
As the other comments have said, remote work is extremely competitive, low paying, and unstable on the whole unfortunately.
It's either tough it out and deal with the gauntlet of traditional tech interviews and sky high rents in the Bay Area, or hustle your ass off 24/7 competing with the millions of new CS grads in India and China who are just as skilled as you (or more) and can work for $4/hr.
Compare that with for example Microsoft Research, who actually do things I find interesting.
Representative of low performers, maybe, but even then I’m not convinced. The idea that a high performer only gives up $5k total comp going to Amazon or Microsoft in Seattle is... well, feel free to believe that. You’re making a ton of money any which way relative to the general population.
But most people I know in the Bay Area don’t report that they’re leaving net income on the table staying here. Maybe all those software engineers are just bad at accounting, seems to be everyone’s analysis.
If you’re interested in earning $300-400k/year after working for a BigCo for 4-5 years, Seattle isn’t going to work out to a better net savings/year.
I think it’s perfectly fine to max out at $100-150k. You’re still extremely rich by any standard. And startups in The Bay Area will pay you vastly less regardless, so Seattle may well be a better place for startups.
But I think you’re doing people a disservice if you convince them they’ll save more money working in Seattle than the Bay Area.
I have hired many people who worked for Seattle BigCos, and I know many people who have gotten offers from Seattle BigCos trying to lure them away from the Bay Area.
And I’ve chatted with people doing competitive analysis on what offers to make to engineers.
The Bay Area generally has 20-30% higher total comp after the first 2-3 years.
Somewhat amusingly, the headline salaries are pretty similar, which makes people think total comp is similar. It’s all about the bonus and RSUs.
*except during summer when it's beautiful
But I get your intention, and it's been our strategy for a few decades now: over exaggerate seattle's rain problem to keep Californians from moving up and driving housing prices up even further. Unfortunately, it's no longer working, Seattle just keeps getting more popular and more pricey every year.
I hate seeing my old classmates and friends move from Fremont to Marysville or further, no good reason why we have to keep every single building in Seattle super short and build parking that will sit empty.
On a more serious note, after spending a few weeks in SoCal with the SO, I have no intention of ever moving to such a hostile climate. No onshore breeze + sunburns from driving for 40min = No bueno. At least it takes more than 40min to burn on a sunny day in Seattle :P
It's really just a symbolic gesture, to appease the base of those in office, that will most likely be overturned.
I really have no idea what the "enclose a bullet" part means.