NHacker Next
- new
- past
- show
- ask
- show
- jobs
- submit
login
▲San Francisco, AI capital of the world, is an economic laggard (<a href="http://www.economist.com" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">economist.com)
Rendered at 18:52:55 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
I honestly disagree with this article - it seems to be conflating "economic activity" with extremely high-end real estate sales data in certain neighborhoods. The city feels much more alive in the past 12 months than it was previously, and there is a lot more energy and public events. If there's anything specific to complain about, it's that the AI boom has led to the 996+ crowd staying inside and not contributing much to the local scene, but honestly that's probably fine with everyone involved.
But the energy is a bit infectious. I'm happy to see SF on the rise again.
What does this mean?
My hunch is the people that are competing for housing are mostly new AI sector transplants, who will do the same thing that has ruined the city to begin with. Do nothing to support the local community, spend all their time in Hayes Valley and Marina, buy a Tesla or Porsche that they can drive on the 280 to San Jose, Monterey, Napa - then return to the city to order doordash before trading crypto until they fall asleep and repeat.
I have a few friends who are still stuck in SF and they say the city feels the most soulless and rude it’s ever felt. It’s actually made one of my friends turn to anti-depressants as he’s really struggling. He vents to me a lot about how he doesn’t feel like he can connect or talk to anyone anymore, not even baristas at a coffee shop, because everyone has become so anemic.
Oh yeah - dodgers and lakers
Not here to change your mind, but I'm "defending" SF because I've never experienced such a difference between the lived experience in a city and the online vitriol you see constantly about it. It's a true "don't believe your lying eyes" situation and it's honestly a bit disorienting.
you forgot about the rest of america.
Tacoma, WA is pretty choice. Got a 3k sqft house in the bougie burbs for $500k in 2020 for sub 3% lmao. imagine not pouncing on that as a seattlite. you probably live in a 1920s trap house for $800k BUT you're technically still "in Seattle" (LOL)
I've absolutely nothing against transplants [0], but transplants that treat this place as the "mining town" that the major landowners and Supervisors have made it to be definitely suck the life and the weird out of the city.
There may be be a bunch of people driving up rents for the city's criminally-scarce -and frequently substandard- housing, but that doesn't mean that the city's not in deep shit. I roam around the city a whole lot on foot, and I see so, so many shuttered businesses and empty storefronts... even in places that were going gangbusters ten, fifteen years ago. The only places that seem to be doing quite well are the places that serve the poorest in the city -such as much of the Tenderloin-, [1] which are places that these new transplants would probably never, ever set foot in.
[0] I'm sure that you don't, either... not in general, anyway.
[1] I can't explain why these places are still doing great. Perhaps it's because the landowners and business managers understand that there's absolutely no way that they can get anything other than a perfectly normal rate of return from these properties... so the batshit insane stuff we see in the fancier parts of town that keeps commercial spaces in fine locations empty for ten+ years and forces out healthy businesses that have been in their space for decades simply doesn't happen? [2]
[2] For folks who want to retort that I simply don't understand how any of this works: Remember that California has Property Tax Control (by way of the 197X "Proposition 13"), which means that a landowner's property tax increases by a very small percentage of its originally assessed value each year, rather than what would be that property's current assessed value. What this means is that as long as a property does not change hands, the property tax paid by that landowner pretty much never increases... and there are ways to redirect the profits from and effective control of that property to a new human or corporate entity while ensuring that that property fails to legally change hands.
As for
> ...remote work hollowed it out...
there's a simple solution: make it so that ordinary folks can actually afford to raise a family in the city. If folks can afford to raise a family in your city, then they're there for more than just the big paycheck, and won't run screaming the moment their well-paying job stops chaining them to an absurdly expensive city.
"It hosts 91 other AI “unicorns”, private companies worth more than $1bn, collectively valued at a further $600bn."
It was 100% a rugpull but charitably not quite 100% predictable.
What do you mean by "open"?
By "open" did those people mean "free as in beer"?
What does rugpull mean in this context?
Currently, Elon is suing Altman because Altman turned it for profit. Oddly, in that Elon is taking the moral road?
Holding other people to standards he wouldn't hold himself to?
Sounds totally on-brand.
Rugpull means they "pulled the rug out" from underneath those who believed their mission statement, and decided instead to take over the world and screw everyone else.
The surplus is converted in new structure and becomes baseline. Even if a company does not change, their competition does (with AI), and their customers & investors change their values as well. So the structure in which the company exists has changed.
That forces everyone to adapt, but most importantly surplus cannot be captured. Everyone is working harder just to stay in place. AI is like internet, Google search and MS office - everyone has them. They provide no competitive advantage, no moat for using them.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".