ummm ... not exactly !!! From
(snip)The unemployment rate in San Francisco ticked down to 5.3 percent in October, the second lowest level since the 5.2 percent rate in June of 2008 when 434,000 people out of a labor force of 457,800 were employed in the city.
The drop in San Francisco’s October unemployment rate, however, was driven by a 4,100 person decrease in the current labor force to 481,900 rather than an increase in employment, with the number of employed in San Francisco dropping by 3,600 as the number of unemployed dropped by 500. That being said, some impact from the Federal shutdown was likely in play.
The number of employed in San Francisco now totals 456,400 which is up by 12,600 workers on a year-over-year basis but is 9,100 workers below a December 2000 dot-com peak at which point the unemployment rate measured 3 percent."(snip)
also from
(snip)"The tech boom can’t solve all problems — such as pervasive unemployment among black and Latino youths, many of whom are also not in school.
In the Bay Area, 12.3 percent of youths aged 16 to 24 — more than 58,000 people — are both not working and not in school"(snip)
There is obviously a huge incompatibility between the assertion that '5% of San Franciscans have gained jobs' and the objective measure that, in the latest month reported in the above news blurb, the number of 'employed' dropped by 3,600 while the number of ( officially ) 'unemployed' dropped by 500. In point of fact, the decrease in the official BLS unemployment rate for San Francisco was primarily achieved by the BLS deciding to 'drop' another 4,100 people from the 'labor force'.
In terms of 'raw' employment numbers, the news blurb states that the San Francisco area did add some 12,600 workers over the past year. However, compared to a total population of some 808,000 people, this represents ~1.56% not 5%.
The concept of using 'labor force' instead of 'working age population' as the denominator used for official unemployment statistics is, at the very least, misleading. The official 'labor force' only counts those who are actively looking for work and/or actively receiving unemployment benefits. It does not take into consideration people who have been out of work so long that they have given up trying, young people who have never held an 'on the books' job since leaving high school, etc.
Well there has certainly been a trend by entrepreneurs who are now on a relentless search for 'yield' ... which has led to hedge funds building / buying up rental properties ( with associated increase in property / rent prices in the specific areas where this investment is taking place ). There is also a large amount of entrepreneurial investment in businesses that cater to the 'top 10%' of earners, from upscale restaurants to upscale coffee shops to upscale car dealers to upscale retailers. San Francisco benefits disproportionately from the increased earnings of the 'top 10%', both via tech industry workers and via gov't workers / contractors
Note that adding the four highest earning bar graphs shows that ~38% of San Franciscans earned more than $100,000 per year ... and these 2010 statistics have only gone up due to the recent tech boom. The basic point of course is that San Francisco's percentage of 'top 10%' earners is much higher than that of California in general, and MUCH higher than the USA as a whole. Thus the economic improvements seen in San Francisco are very definitely a 'localized' phenomenon.
Bookmarks