San Francisco Residents Are Leaving at an Unprecedented Rate

exhilaration|5 years ago

Per the article, this is based on an analysis of 1,200 searches done on their platform. It seems like a stretch to use those figures to reach conclusions for a city of over 800,000 residents.

einpoklum|5 years ago

But they are making a year-on-year relative analysis, so even for a non-representative sample, you can identify a strong trend.

myspider|5 years ago

Not to be cynical, but this strikes me as more of a ad - or click bait. Search numbers on a website that I, at least, have never heard of is pretty poor evidence for a trend.

_jal|5 years ago

The traditional signal is when U-Haul starts having logistics problems getting trucks back to the City.

kube-system|5 years ago

There is nothing wrong with that sample size. That should give less than a 3% margin of error at 95% confidence.

nikhilsimha|5 years ago

Some stats from https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm Plugged in 800,000 as pop size, and 99% as confidence level and 4 as confidence interval. The number it spits out is 1039 It is a pretty good sample size.

beambot|5 years ago

The outbound relocation effect went from 57% to 90%. I suspect that 1200 samples is more than enough to demonstrate strong statistical confidence intervals. (Though I haven't run the numbers.)

thrownaway954|5 years ago

came hear to say the same thing. the submitter should not have used a over exaggerated title. 1200 people is not an "Unprecedented Rate".

cmckn|5 years ago

> last year, there were 980 move searches involving the Bay Area [in the same time period]

This is microscopic data to make any sort of claim about migration patterns. I live in Denver, and read a similar article a few years ago (more people were moving out than moving in). Didn't seem to have much of an impact on housing prices or the job market, because it wasn't a sustained, significant trend.

gremlinsinc|5 years ago

Well, the difference is a bit bigger... so last year 57% were looking to move out, or 558.

This year it's 1200 * 90% or 1080...that's nearly double.

This is just a sample size though because, I for one have never heard of the site, so I doubt a ton of people use them for moving needs. A lot probably will just use U-haul and other resources for their move.

I could see a lot of people wanting to move from SF esp, if they've been laid off, how could you possibly afford rent in a recession in SF?

dpeck|5 years ago

anecdotal, but I know some young folks who are planning to pack it up and head out after their contractually obligated time is over and their lease is up.

My younger sibling, like many, is very annoyed that their early years of marriage without kids/california adventure is mostly being stuck in a 800 sqft apt and occasionally walking the dog. They love the bay, but having the small apartments combined with quarantine has got them reevaluating where they are and how their lives might look for the next $time while we figure out covid-19 as a country/species.

edit: my bad of the soft/sqft typo. seems my brain was trying to split the different between small and sqft and flubbed the landing.

einpoklum|5 years ago

What is an "800 soft" apartment? ... Oh, do you mean 800 square feet? For non-US readers: That's 74.3 m^2 (square meters), but that figure could:

* include/not include walls

* include/not include balconies

etc.

paxys|5 years ago

There is an article like this every month, yet the Bay Area is consistently among the largest growing population centers in the country. I'll believe any of the claims the author makes once there are numbers to back it up.

opportune|5 years ago

I think a lot of is is also that if you are going to be WFH for the next several months, you can save a lot of money by no longer paying San Francisco-level rent. I know if my lease were expiring now I would not be living here until my job started telling everyone to come back to the office. I feel like that's going to have a much bigger effect than VC funding

TACIXAT|5 years ago

This is exactly what my partner and I did. I'm remote and she is COVID-19 remote, so we're sheltering in place in a city we wanted to see. A furnished unit is 1k cheaper than our Bay Area rent was. The weather is great and we get to walk our dog in new parks.

It is an unprecedented time and we're having trouble coming up with reasons to go back. We moved out there for a big n salary for me. That wasn't the work I wanted to do so I'm part time now doing what I enjoy. That really throws off the rent justification though.

fosk|5 years ago

> But there are many reasons why the region could finally be experiencing a shrinking population:

And yet the author is missing the elephant in the room: the incredibly deteriorating living conditions in a city crammed with drug addicts, human feces and casual violent aggressions at all hours of the day. A city that enables the "homeless lifestyle" without any accountability. Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.

There is of course a certain amount of people that do become homeless because of lack of housing, but for the most part the city administration has been gaslighting us on the real causes: drug addiction and homeless lifestyle.

Most of them are not even native from San Francisco, but they come from elsewhere. I suggest everybody reads this article to learn more about the long history of criminality in San Francisco, enabled by the city officials: https://www.city-journal.org/san-francisco-homelessness

Edit: Everybody in San Francisco talks about the rights of the homeless, but where are my rights as a lawful tax payer who cannot bring his son to the park without risking his life by stepping on a needle?

landryraccoon|5 years ago

High housing costs are probably a causal factor in all of the problems you mention.

When housing costs are as exorbitant as they are, everyone is much closer to homelessness than they were before. If someone is laid off in the bay, they have significantly less time to find a new job before they cannot afford housing compared to more affordable areas.

Once you are actually homeless, mental problems and drug issues can become a self fulfilling prophecy, especially if you moved to the bay from out of state and have no local support network.

> Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.

This is.. a very harsh take. Mental illness and drug abuse I can see, but a choice ? That is a serious claim that requires serious evidence.

jes5199|5 years ago

Lots of folks back East, they say, is leavin' home every day,

Beatin' the hot old dusty way to the California line.

'Cross the desert sands they roll, gettin' out of that old dust bowl,

They think they're goin' to a sugar bowl, but here's what they find

Now, the police at the port of entry say,

"You're number fourteen thousand for today."

Oh, if you ain't got the do re mi, folks, you ain't got the do re mi,

Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.

California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;

But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot

If you ain't got the do re mi.

You want to buy you a home or a farm, that can't deal nobody harm,

Or take your vacation by the mountains or sea.

Don't swap your old cow for a car, you better stay right where you are,

Better take this little tip from me.

'Cause I look through the want ads every day

But the headlines on the papers always say:

If you ain't got the do re mi, boys, you ain't got the do re mi,

Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.

California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;

But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot

If you ain't got the do re mi.

Words and Music by Woody Guthrie

voldacar|5 years ago

As someone who has never lived in SF but vaguely heard of their issues with homelessness, that article is super eye-opening. It talks about city bureaucrats and homeless advocacy organizations, but not so much the attitude of the general public. Aren't democracies supposed to have feedback loops that will eventually solve this problem? If they haven't gotten there already, at what point will the general SF citizenry get pissed off enough to elect leaders focused on fixing this?

einpoklum|5 years ago

> enables the "homeless lifestyle" without any accountability

You mean by not having public housing?

> Homelessness is - for the most part in San Francisco - a choice and/or a result of mental illness and drug addiction.

It's obviously not a choice. It's also not the result of mental illness nor of drug addiction, at least for the most part, as people suffering from mental illness or addicted to some drug also don't want to be homeless and stuck on the streets. And while they are somewhat more likely to lose their house due to mis-managing their life - it is much much more likely to happen when they have no social support: Medical care-givers (no such thing by default in the US), neighborhood/community associations (not much of that in most cities), families etc.

> where are my rights as a lawful tax payer who cannot bring his son to the park without risking his life by stepping on a needle?

Your right is not catered to by social institutions, and municipal ones in particular, who are acting as though homelessness should be addressed by suppressing/harassing the homeless rather than ensuring people have homes.

asdff|5 years ago

One of the facets of the Boise decision which made it legal to camp on sidewalks in the Western United States is that you can make sidewalk camping illegal if you have sufficient shelter space. If you live in SF or anywhere else with homeless issues, and are tired of the status quo, the only solution that will ever work is building shelters and building mental health facilities. The decision for a camper would therefore be, spend a night in a shelter with social workers, move to a mental health treatment facility if they are mentally unsound or addicted so substances, or go to jail. The only way out is to build your way out, which is why opposition to shelter construction is so soooo stupid and morally abhorrent.

aaomidi|5 years ago

How do you propose to solve said drug addiction and homeless lifestyle?

unknown|5 years ago

[deleted]

ahelwer|5 years ago

A place with the highest housing prices in the country, where software engineers make over six figures and still have roommates, also happens to have a large number of homeless people - nope, no causality there, it's just that they're all drug addicts or living the H O M E L E S S L I F E S T Y L E or (some other thing that absolves me of any need to have empathy for my fellow people)

Software engineers who move in and give zero shits about their fellow humans are truly the disease of SF, not the homeless.

MattGaiser|5 years ago

A friend considered it after graduation. 3500 a month for a place in rent.

Eventually even with tech salaries that doesn’t make sense. He went to Seattle.

opportune|5 years ago

Should note that's basically the price for a full 1b to yourself in a nice and convenient area in the city. Most people who move here after graduation are probably paying closer to half that due to living with roommates/not in the super convenient and expensive areas.

bpodgursky|5 years ago

The 10% -> 0% income tax SF -> Seattle is also a pretty big deal.

renewiltord|5 years ago

Seattle is a great choice. Salaries are similar. The politics aren’t idiotic. No state income tax. Standard of living is just as good.

bernardom|5 years ago

As soon as COVID is over we're out.

ulfw|5 years ago

I'm legit curious. What's your definition of "over"?

In a few years when vaccines have been found, 85% of people inoculated and no more proven Covid-19 cases have been found for 30 days?

or...?

HenryKissinger|5 years ago

Where are you going?

lxe|5 years ago

How does this compare to MoveBuddha's "regular" numbers? Maybe only the people who're moving out of SF are using MoveBuddha? It's an interesting insight, but I think there's a high chance it doesn't reflect the situation at large.

MattGaiser|5 years ago

> To put this into perspective, during the same period last year, there were 980 move searches involving the Bay Area on our moving cost calculator. Of those 980 requests, 57% were for outbound moves and 43% were for moves into the Bay Area. This is typical for any major city that has a lot of people coming in and out at any given time.

> But what we’re currently seeing is an incredible 90% of move searches involving the Bay Area are current residents looking to leave and only 10% are people looking to move into the region. That’s a very different picture from just last year.

blakesterz|5 years ago

Interesting to see Columbus (I'm assuming OH) on that top 5 list. That means about 60 people were looking at moving to Columbus I guess? The other cities made sense to me, but Columbus was a stand out. The others just seemed like cities people looking to leave SF that would use movebuddah would be looking at.

I think it's still a major test market because it has the perfect demographics for that kind of thing.

mifreewil|5 years ago

I've heard great things about Columbus, OH. Never been there but sounds like a great midwest city with an affordable cost of living and nice college town (The Ohio State University).

einpoklum|5 years ago

I wonder what the figures really are when you separate regular people (if you'll forgive the loaded term) from the category of "super rich people who can afford $3,000/month rent or whatever it is these days".

RickJWagner|5 years ago

Layoffs, VC defunding, poop on the streets and city-corona troubles.

Yes, I can totally understand a strong outflow. (But in a little while it might be time to buy in. I believe someday SF will again be a desirable place to live.)

paulcnichols|5 years ago

120 comments