patrick.net

chanakya4773 says

Who cares, it managed to increase even when we had two crashes, the biggest tech crash of 2000 to 2004 and then housing linked economy crash which affect tech market a lot.

yea... some recovery... are we on the same planet here.. and what exactly will fuel the next boom ? dingbats hustling advertising dollars... wow highly paid 20 year old clowns.. coding what ? web pages... and hand held toys...

Your generation will have to create the same number of companies (400), hire and scale operations to match the same growth trends we had some 2-3 decades ago 5-10M workforce locally.
Are you up for it ?

Feb 17, 2010 -
Vanishing Public Companies Lead To The Incredible Shrinking Silicon Valley

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2010/02/17/vanishing-public-companies-lead-to-the-incredible-shrinking-silicon-valley/

One of the most significant trends I’ve been watching over the past decade is the dramatic drop in public companies in Silicon Valley. Naturally, that number was artificially inflated during the dot-com bubble when it reached 417 in 2000. For our purposes, Silicon Valley includes San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and the southern half of Alameda County.

But the number of public companies has dropped for nine straight years now. Even when IPOs briefly reappeared in 2006 and 2007, they weren’t enough to overcome the net loss of public companies through acquisitions or bankruptcy.

In 2008, the number had fallen to 261. We just updated our records and the latest figure is 241.

That’s not just less than the dot-com era, that’s well below the 315 public companies the valley had in 1994 when the Mercury News started keeping track.

chanakya4773 says

Your company is not a hardcore technology product making company !

300+ is not a big company ..its probably some small random company doing finance/accounting with some software mix. God help your company if you are in control of finance.

no.. i run the finance operations.. we are a start up company B2B software for many vertical industries... backed by top 2 VC firms. We have R&D, Sales, Marketing, and Internal hosting services. There is no such thing as Hardcore Tech..that is just childish...

we earn our revenues from selling real software products that runs major operations of well known customers, from USA, Canada, Europe, Asia and Latin America. That is what Silicon Valley is all about... Enterprise class SW, Storage and Semiconductors.

chanakya4773 says

We probably has all the fake crappy 1000 .dot com companies in 2000 boom .does it mean anything ? nothing!

no... thats childish.. had you been working in SV, then you would know many are real companies making enterprise class products. the media glamorized a few Web Vans to Pets.com... but they dont even count... "dot.com" was really a mislabeled event.

chanakya4773 says

LOL...VCs are still funding these companies!

Enterprise class SW... what does Apple, HP, Intel, GE, US Steel, JC Pennys, Bank of America( or England, Italy, or Japan), GM, Fiat, BMW, Mitsui, Sony, Toyota, Samsung, Diastu, and Campbells soup have all in common.. and no its not a web site... infact even before websites and Internet.

How do they run all their global operations ? I will give you 20 years to figure this out...

chanakya4773 says

no matter how low the interest rates are...eventually a house cannot be more than what it takes to build it. This is true in most places in US except some areas where the value of the house is land value and not build value.

You should have stopped there, because you have a very good point about builders.

We had some great builders in the Seattle area, who got caught up in the hype of the market, over built, got over extended, and lost money on lots they were holding. Big players like Toll Brothers stepped in to "bail them out."

My company has renovated houses in our area since 1972, when I turned 18 and was able to participate in the ownership of the company I had worked for for three years prior.

Ten years ago I would have fought for the idea that we could turn out a better product than new, but not with the codes that we have in place today. We might keep some studs, but the foundations in Seattle have to retrofitted for earth quake.

It's better to tear down or jack up empty framing, but the cost is about the same.

Once the house is built to today's standards it may appreciate for a few years, but technology in building is moving rapidly.

People want new, shiney houses for that Mercedes to look good in front of.

SparrowBell says

And, we rent not because we can't afford, but because when we buy Lexus, we expect Lexus, not Toyota corolla in disguise. Our rent is only $2400. Buying a house of equivalent mortgage is probably a 800k house at San Jose, for those types of houses, we rather rent, we can treat rents as money spent at hotel during vacation except much better deal. At house that would make us move probably cost twice as much. We even consider 500k down for those houses, but then, why?! We might be able to have early retirement elsewhere.

This says it all, about renting compared to owning, but if you have to own, I think new construction is getting to be a better deal all the time.

thomaswong.1986 says

1960........3,638,939 .......35.7%

1970.......4,628,199 .......27.2%

1980 .......5,179,784 .......11.9%

1990 .......6,023,577 .......16.3%

2000 .......6,783,760 .......12.6%

2010 .......7,150,739 .......5.4%

Yup, and be prepared for it to go negative in our lifetime.

2020 ....... 6783,760 .......-5.4%

RentingForHalfTheCost says

thomaswong.1986 says

1960........3,638,939 .......35.7%

1970.......4,628,199 .......27.2%

1980 .......5,179,784 .......11.9%

1990 .......6,023,577 .......16.3%

2000 .......6,783,760 .......12.6%

2010 .......7,150,739 .......5.4%

Yup, and be prepared for it to go negative in our lifetime.

2020 ....... 6783,760 .......-5.4%

Er, and this is what the California Department of Finance projects for the population through to 2060:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/p-1/documents/Projections_Press_Release_2010-2060.pdf

thomaswong.1986 says

Oh how many times, have they told me.. you are freaking crazy paying that much for a crap shack... they are so right!

So why don't you sell it?

Bigsby says

Er, and this is what the California Department of Finance projects for the population through to 2060:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/p-1/documents/Projections_Press_Release_2010-2060.pdf

not different from what was said about NYC... by the end of the 1970s..
because of its insane government mismanagement.

Im sure some of you former New Yorkers now living in the SFBA still remember this.
so now your cursing the west coast with your pestilence.

David,

There's no way CA is reducing any taxes.

Facebooksux says

There's no way CA is reducing any taxes.

Not now, why should they? California is living the dream of an influx of foriegn investment.

However, if the economy should change, if things get worse elsewhere, California could attract a lot of business by lowering taxes, which is the number one complaint about the State.

David Losh says

Not now, why should they? California is living the dream of an influx of foriegn investment.

Oh I don't know, I think CA is on a decline. We have way too many pension obligations guaranteed, and way too few children to propagate the future.

San Francisco might be all right financially, though sounds like it costs an arm and a leg to live there, but it's where all the smart people are heading, but rest of the state is in trouble I tell you.

chanakya4773 says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

good read is "The Next 100 Years" by George Friedman. He makes a good argument why the population growth in developing countries will turn negative pretty quickly. My opinion is quicker than even he thinks. If you remove the immigrants we are already there organically.

also , in 100 years we all in this board are going to die so why not just give up already....

Yah, but I do have some focus on what I am leaving my kids. And then what they leave their kids. My parents screwed me over with their giant ponzi benefit schemes and so far looks like I am doing the same for my kids. Hopefully, by the time I check out I can say I left them at least as good as was given to me.

FortWayne says

San Francisco might be all right financially, though sounds like it costs an arm and a leg to live there, but it's where all the smart people are heading, but rest of the state is in trouble I tell you.

Have you spent any time in San Francisco. There are smart people for sure, but they are not the majority. A lot of silver spoon yuppies that would be homeless if not for the trust fund. There is a medium size population of hard workers, but they have slowly but surely gotten squeezed out.

Go there on a week night and you'll see the hard workers dropping Benny's like they owned the place. They don't understand why everyone didn't have their parents to pay for their degrees, buy their first car, and set them up in a home. It was all too easy. The odd thing is they think they had it rough. They make themselves feel better buy giving a few bucks to the homeless every once in a while.

In a way this is what makes SF so nice as well. These same fortunately people are hardly criminal. They flinch at any sight of violence. An emotional episode is when they curse under their breath after missing the last cable car home on a late Monday night. Even when getting up early Tuesday morning is not really necessary. Their paycheck is dwarfed by what their grandparents left them anyway.

I hate them, but at the same time which I was one. ;)

High speed rail and welfare. California has a long way to fall.

robertoaribas says

I bought 1405 e Atlanta drive in 85040 for $46K...

Is this the property you’re talking about: http://1.usa.gov/ZESUUP

Needless to say, you’re a genius, Fields Medal-winning mathematician and I’m just a stupid Duke University student, but why do Maricopa County records show you bought 1405 E Atlanta Ave Phoenix 85040 for $121,900 in 10/2008? Does $46K = $121,900? And why does it show the bank foreclosed on you on 8/2010 in the amount of $126,362 and you needed a Special Warranty Deed to reclaim it?

I don’t know because I’m an idiot. I’m trying to use a calculator but the power button just turns the TV on and off. Please help!

CameronCrazy says

robertoaribas says

I bought 1405 e Atlanta drive in 85040 for $46K...

Is this the property you’re talking about: http://1.usa.gov/ZESUUP

Needless to say, you’re a genius, Fields Medal-winning mathematician and I’m just a stupid Duke University student, but why do Maricopa County records show you bought 1405 E Atlanta Ave Phoenix 85040 for $121,900 in 10/2008? Does $46K = $121,900? And why does it show the bank foreclosed on you on 8/2010 in the amount of $126,362 and you needed a Special Warranty Deed to reclaim it?

I don’t know because I’m an idiot. I’m trying to use a calculator but the power button just turns the TV on and off. Please help!

Looks rather like the sale price for someone else before the property was foreclosed on in 2010, wouldn't you say? Does his deed date not say 6/17/2011? I know you are trying to score one over Roberto, but I'd hazard a guess that you are rather off target on this one.

Bigsby says

Looks rather like the sale price before the property was foreclosed on in 2010 and presumably Roberto then bought it. I know you are trying to score one over Roberto, but I'd hazard a guess that you are rather off target on this one.

Then it's interesting that there's no record of a sale after the foreclosure, let alone one for $46K.

CameronCrazy says

Bigsby says

Looks rather like the sale price before the property was foreclosed on in 2010 and presumably Roberto then bought it. I know you are trying to score one over Roberto, but I'd hazard a guess that you are rather off target on this one.

Then it's interesting that there's no record of a sale after the foreclosure, let alone one for $46K.

Why is the deed recorded for June 2011 then?

Bigsby says

Why is the deed recorded for June 2011 then?

That's when the Special Warranty Deed was signed and the property was reclaimed. I'm sure I could find a copy of the deed before you could find any record of that property being sold for $46,000.

CameronCrazy says

Bigsby says

Why is the deed recorded for June 2011 then?

That's when the Special Warranty Deed was signed and the property was reclaimed. I'm sure I could find a copy of the deed before you could find any record of that property being sold for $46,000.

Go ahead then as you seem set on trying to show he is lying. As for myself, I was under the impression that a special warranty deed is what the bank would give Roberto when he purchased the property from them so as to limit their liability.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

People talk about the Valley miracle as if it was a miracle.

What the fuck? Detailed, on the spot analysis of a boom era from APOCALYSEFUCK?

Nicely put!

FortWayne says

Oh I don't know, I think CA is on a decline. We have way too many pension
obligations guaranteed, and way too few children to propagate the future.

This. CA will have a problem reducing tax before they figure out ways to tackle public pension and medical cost. Every other state, too, but I think CA is in a deeper hole than some other states.