I don't think this is necessarily true. Consider that the reason many people were in SF in the first place was because their job required them to be there and they didn't have a choice; now that they have a choice, perhaps many of them find SF attractive and stay, while a minority don't and leave.
> Consider that the reason many people were in SF in the first place was because their job required them to be there and they didn't have a choice
I’m not sure how big of a factor that is/was though. I know plenty of people in their 20s who worked in the peninsula or east bay but deliberately took on the high costs (and long commutes!) of living in SF for the usual reasons related to SF being a cultural center.
I think it would be fairer to apply your claim to the reason many people live in the entire Bay Area, but not specifically in SF.
I mean, to be fair, we're talking about 6 out of 100 people moving this year. I can defiantly see 6 out of 100 people being there just because that's where they get paid or their job moved them.
It's even more likely that part of that 6 percent had family obligations, and some just realized they wouldn't buy a house even if they loved the city, and some just hated it.
Around 2010 and before SF was very attractive. The southbay were where most jobs were located but everyone wanted to live in the city. That's what caused a huge amount of companies and startups to move to SF.
The influx of techies, however, changed the city. And SF soon became what it is today.
No. It started in 2000 and proceeded into 2010 where around 2010 and before it became noticeable. By the mid 2010s it reached it's peak.
Prior to 2010 and a little after it was more than a place to work. It was a place where all techies wanted to live; but not because of work. Because they loved the city. That's why those shuttles from SF to mountain view google exist. Too many googlers wanted to live in SF and work in MTV.
