Or, alternatively, when enough people start voting in politicians who would allow building lots of new homes in central locations.

Manhattan has 3.9× the density of San Francisco. At Manhattan density, the City of San Francisco could house 2.5 million more people.

Construction is a solution that takes long amounts of time to find a lower equilibrium, because nobody knowingly finances real estate projects into a falling market. In contrast, companies can build branch offices quickly. Spread the love.

The value of new multi-story units along good commute in the most expensive housing market in the world would be so high that some taxation of that profit would be more than enough to fund building the required commuter rail or subway lines and also new schools. At least in an ideal world.

This is how Tokyo has funded new commuter rail lines. The increase of the land value in the new to-be-build neighborhood covers the cost of serving the neighborhood with a rail line:

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/why-tokyos-pr...

But I am not sure whether California has the will and skill to tax those profits, and to direct that money for those purposes.

Japan also runs a massive defecit relative to GDP (~250% vs our ~100% value). They spend like drunken sailors on public infrastructure.

"Tokyo Metro is operated by Tokyo Metro Co., Ltd. (東京地下鉄株式会社 Tōkyō Chikatetsu Kabushiki-gaisha), a private company jointly owned by the Japanese government and the Tokyo metropolitan government.

The company replaced the Teito Rapid Transit Authority (帝都高速度交通営団 Teito Kōsokudo Kōtsū Eidan), commonly known as Eidan or TRTA, on April 1, 2004. TRTA was administered by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and jointly funded by the national and metropolitan governments. It was formed in 1941, although its oldest lines date back to 1927 with the opening of the Tokyo Underground Railway the same year."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metro

Most Japanese cities' subway systems are not private, and even many of the "private" train lines were built using extensive public subsidy.

Citation needed. You might also want to tell the construction finance industry of your discovery.

But if the gatekeepers aren't willing to grant permission, then that cost is ∞

Of course ideally the local situation would be everybody works within a couple blocks and so the elevators and sidewalks can handle it. Most zoning boards hate this idea though.

I do agree with you though that if new housing is only built in a small number of areas, those areas could very well see more traffic. A goal of SB-827 was to increase housing across the entire state, particularly near areas well served by mass transit, in the hope it would result in less people commuting by car.

Long term we will (as always) re-create the entire city. Long term we will notice that the street is too busy and do something about it. Long term we might even be do something about it people not working close to their home. Long term will will figure out what the true consequences of our decisions are and make further decisions to mitigate them which in turn will result in a new set of unintended decisions.

Companies only build new offices quickly because they are willing to locate to any new suburb that currently has land. Downtown areas that are already well developed might be more desirable but it takes time to get the land rights. (note they are always re-building something downtown in nearly any city, but it wasn't an overnight thing to decide to do that)

Well, yes. That's my point: construction takes a long time to change housing prices. It's not a universal, drop-the-mic response to every debate.

Paris: 2.9× density, Barcelona: 2.2×.

The article focuses on non-tech workers. Who may not be socially mobile.

These areas need non-tech workers just as they need tech-workers. It's tough to have teachers work and live in Sunnyvale, where the median house price is pushing $2M. Many of your Lyft and Uber drivers will be coming in from 90+ minute commutes.

I haven't lived in Colorado but I did live in Europe and recently looked at the climate/temperature tables of Boulder to compare to Bay Area. It rather seems to me that it has weather similar to where I lived in Europe (hot summers, cold winters) with a large variation of daytime/nighttime temperature and a bit drier climate (in Boulder at least) because of the nearby mountains. All in all, lots of days in Boulder where temperature average would be <15C so not that good.

Funny how different people are.

Now go up into the mountains instead of the foothills, yea, you're gonna get that winter you're talking about.

Now I live in NYC, same salary, but finally have my own place that's not shared with others. I live in a 30th floor studio apartment in Manhattan, take the subway to work, and pay less rent than my friends in the Bay Area who live in 1-bed apartments.

Average rent in SF - $3,558

I don't know your situation but NYC is basically in the same boat (just with a better rail system).

For a more precise comparison, see: https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/new-yor...

As of this writing, rent for a one bedroom apartment is 30% more in SF than in NYC.

My rent is $2640. I know people in Pacifica, Palo Alto, and Mountain View paying anywhere from $2700 to $3200 for a 1 bedroom.

So - how much of the "ridiculous" salary is left after subtracting living costs and taxes, actually?

I live a decent life, 2 annual international trips, own a car, lease a ski house with friends in the winter, if you make over 120k, life in the bay area is quite nice.

I assume you must live a VERY spartan life in the Bay. Basically pay your rent (which must be shared or very cheap for the Bay) and utilities and not do much else...

I mean the average Bay area rent is more than the difference between your take home and your savings...

edit: I'm using ADP's calculator, don't know why SmartAsset is different but ADP is pretty legit so I'm going to continue to lean towards those numbers.

https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator#RZ3V1...

Sharing an apartment isn't "spartan", it's "normal"

It may be "the new normal" in the Bay Area and other hyperstressed markets.

But it's not a living standard most people aspire to.

I was saving much less per month because as a couple we rented our own single bedroom apartment and my SO doesn't work. However, we still managed to save enough in 5 years (while still not having sold most of the vested equity) to buy a house in the Bay Area. So I agree that the pay is worth the hassle, so far at least.

I'm curious how much you spend for food monthly (including restaurants)? Somewhat surprisingly this is the highest cost for us, after rent/mortgage, and we do cook a lot at home (go out maybe twice a month).

From my perspective, as the sole income earner of a family of four, that's a pretty shocking statement.

I feel like I've built a very comfortable life for myself and my family, and I make quite a bit less than that.

The super commuters tend to be lower paid workers.

*Caveat: I'm unmarried and don't have kids. I don't own a house yet. I think that might change the equation a bit.

While $240,000 is a nice salary it's not even close to what you'd need to afford a house in SV. And that's just housing. All in all it feels like a bad deal.

Glassdoor shows Google software engineers make a base of $127k cash plus $75k bonus and stock:

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Salaries-E9079.htm

Senior software engineers make more, but there seem to be many fewer of them relative to software engineer.

This cannot be correct. If you are taking home $20,000 a month and cannot have a house in SV the problem is not affordability but availability. Or what kind of house are you talking about.