> Imagine San Francisco house prices without San Francisco wages, that's why people are talking about a generation of renters.
As someone who lives in both cities, I can assure you that San Francisco is measurably worse. Before I moved here from London I didn't think that was possible.
Directly comparing the advertised prices of housing in London and SF is misleading, because houses in SF in most cases are being sold above their sticker price, whereas that's still very uncommon in London. It is not unheard of to pay a 30% premium on the price the seller has put the house on for in SF. For renters London also isn't nearly as bad: for comparison - an average one bed rent in SF is $3,500 per month [1], whereas in London even in central areas like Bloomsbury it's $2,500 per month (£1700).
This is not to detract from your argument, and SF also has a "generation rent" problem (as does the rest of the bay area). But London's market is more comparable to New York in terms of prices and pressures - both cities have a housing crisis, but one that is at least partly tempered by more supply and a far superior transport network than SF. SF is in an insane world of its own.
And now compare average software developer salaries between London and San Francisco, you'll find the SF one about 50% more.
I'm not sayin that SF, or NY doesn't have a housing crisis, they have their own problems too. But the problem or rather the solutions required are different in each case.
I don't think it is OK to hand wave it away with "it is OK just buy the crash" as someone further up did.
As someone who lives in both cities, I can assure you that San Francisco is measurably worse. Before I moved here from London I didn't think that was possible.
Directly comparing the advertised prices of housing in London and SF is misleading, because houses in SF in most cases are being sold above their sticker price, whereas that's still very uncommon in London. It is not unheard of to pay a 30% premium on the price the seller has put the house on for in SF. For renters London also isn't nearly as bad: for comparison - an average one bed rent in SF is $3,500 per month [1], whereas in London even in central areas like Bloomsbury it's $2,500 per month (£1700).
This is not to detract from your argument, and SF also has a "generation rent" problem (as does the rest of the bay area). But London's market is more comparable to New York in terms of prices and pressures - both cities have a housing crisis, but one that is at least partly tempered by more supply and a far superior transport network than SF. SF is in an insane world of its own.
[1]: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-rent-cos... [2]: http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/average_rental_prices.h...