If that is true, do we really want to save Seattle's "culture" from being hollowed out.
> Hmm, and who do you think contributed to the salaries, tips and businesses of the above mentioned groups. I'm quite sure a large part came from tech salaries.
It also turns out people care about more than just money.
This means the median income to house ratio is roughly 1:5.5
This is fairly standard across the US, and was true even 20 years ago.
For example, in 2000 the median household income ($46k [2]) and house price (~$240k [3]) ratio was roughly 1:5.5. This ratio held true in 2024 as well with a median household income of $83k [2] and a median house price of ~430k [3].
As such, the cost of buying a house as a ratio of household income hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the perception.
[0] - https://data.census.gov/profile/Seattle_city,_Washington?g=1...
[1] - https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/seattle-top-cities-home-pr...
[2] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N
[3] - https://www.fedprimerate.com/new_home_sales_price_history.ht...
Edit: This page has a historical slider that you can go back and see the price to income ratio of various metro areas over time. If you go back to the late 90s you will see overwhelming dark blue (dark blue is <3.0). https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/son-2025-price-to-income-map
Also note that the study you mentioned is comparing prices in 2018 with two recession recovery years (2011 and [edit: typo] 1988 - the year of the S&L crisis), which is an unfair comparison against 2018.
[0] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSWAA646N
[1] - https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/ushmc/spring05/ushmc_05q...
If two partners are buying a house together (a fairly common occurrence) per capita ratios would treat both partners as an individual, but a household would help fix for that discrepancy.
Median household incomes take into account households of all sizes (1 person households to n-person households), and if you compare against median price, you can help reduce the risks of outliers tainting any comparison.
"Seattle has the nation’s most expensive Uber rides" (Seattle Times). Rides to the airport have increased 50% for me in the past year, to about $75, and it's at best twice as fast as the $3 train. I doubt it's just fewer tech jobs suppressing Uber activity since 2021.
Sales tax: 10.25% on prepared delivery food.
Commission cap: Apps can only charge restaurants up to 15% per order, which leads to apps passing on fees to consumers
PayUp ordinance from 2024: delivery workers must be paid at least $0.44 per engaged minute + $0.74 per engaged mile, or a minimum of $5 per offer, whichever is greater. For 2025, those rates increase to $0.45/minute, $0.77/mile, or $5.20 per offer.
I tried to order 1 pad Thai and 1 curry the other night and it was going to be over $70. Insanity.
Then tip! The delivery driver can do more with that, plus OP's business, than with just your business and well wishes.
They did. They made money. The delivery staff made money--OP is quoting the real, lived experience of actual gig workers. The government came in and decided that was unsavory, and so now those staff are making less (not counting the ones now unemployed).
> it is better to avoid them altogether imo
Not for the delivery driver!
Gig workers are just bullshit countries invented to hide unemployment. They don't ad anything to the economy. Nobody is buying a house or starting a family as a Uber delivery driver.
I agree. If all the city had done was raise the minimum wage (and make it applicable to these workers), that would have been fine. They didn't. They added a targeted tax.
> Nobody is buying a house or starting a family as a Uber delivery driver
Not in Seattle, but objectively untrue across the country. But also, I don't think it's fair to say we should render unemployed everyone who has a job that they can't start a family or buy a house on.
I agree. Here, the choice is between tipping and rendering that person unemployed (or underemployed) because of projected morality. I'm arguing that it's better for the people one purports to help to hand over a tip and not support reducing their work, or worse, to advocate that others not use their services.
This has always been true for pizza, which is why pizza has offered delivery for decades.
You mean you have to pay for the delivery service you're asking for? Shocking!
IMO it should be 0% of the cost should be borne by the restaurant. You still have a sizeable amount of your convenience being distributed to all patrons of the restaurant with 15%. That's 15% too much. Pay for what you ordered. I like to go in person, I don't want to support single-use delivery waste, Currently I'm forced to foot your bill if I want to go to any restaurant.
Deliveries are marginal business for a restaurant. Like, yes, as a consumer I have a better experience if a restaurant has lower volumes. But that's not as much fun if you're the restaurant!
I'm not convinced that food delivery is a net good for a culture, but that is a different discussion.
The politicians begrudgingly acknowledge the massive drop in business but simultaneously assert they can’t change anything because “it was the right thing to do”. Meanwhile, the people that worked in those businesses aren’t getting paid. Seattle has the highest minimum wage in the country, almost $21/hr before tips, but that is a cold comfort if there isn’t enough business to give you hours.
Seattle is not run by serious people.
What was the rationale?
Is there? Because my understanding is Uber-delivered goods typically weren't profitable for the providers in any case (see: ghost kitchens, with lower costs than traditional restaurants, going bankrupt because of Uber's high fees). Killing the delusion dead is probably the best outcome.
You and all the commenters dont see the bigger problem: too much consumption tax could be the resut of tax cuts somewhere else, on someone with a bigger lobby than ordinary consumers.
If you follow that clue (balanced taxation between capital and labor/consumption, to me, the f'ing elephant in the room), youd might not end your problem descriptions with "look how high the minimum wage is".
I find this to be refreshing in some ways.
Americans have no idea that pretty much their entire country is south of Paris.
Never mind being in the Midwest where it would be even worse.
Chicago is far south of Paris but its low is significantly lower and its high is higher.
For me as someone that grew up in the region the people, nature, and weather are sufficient enough for me. Having lived in several other large metro areas in the US I’ve pretty much felt like an alien species even though it’s not like I don’t feel welcome. In the PNW being weird and unconventional is kind of celebrated regardless of socioeconomic castes historically, but that’s certainly eroded as the problems of hyper growth have strained everyone.
1. The tech companies knew an H1B price change was coming 2. They offshored and front-loaded their H1B hiring 3. AI means much smaller teams, they will just hire 01
The damage has been done, American workers are just bag holders.
Most companies began opening offices abroad with P/L and roadmap ownership responsibilities during the initial Covid layoffs, because the first employees cut were those on work visas. Despite the stereotypes on this forum, this included a lot of PMs, EMs, and Principal Engineers.
When companies began rehiring during the COVID recovery, they began rehiring these former employees, but giving them a significant salary premium while allowing them to open and manage entire offices abroad. On top of that, CEE, Israel, and India all give massive subsidizes and roll the red carpet for companies to open high headcount offices which made it easier to do this move.
Now in 2025, you can see the 75th percentile of TCs in India and Romania in the $50k-60k mark and the 90th percentile breaking the $75k-85k mark, so it's not only cheap back office work.
Salesforce has been laying off in a big way. Maybe they'll change their slogan from "No Software" to "No People".
wewewedxfgdf•4mo ago
When interest rates again are low, money is cheap, people will look for ways to make money on money, there will be another boom and massive demand for people.
Fordec•4mo ago
dboreham•4mo ago
alephnerd•4mo ago
Microsoft, Amazon, and other firms have been steadily moving out of Seattle for the past several years - first doing domestic offshoring in Tier 2 metros like RTP, DMV, and Denver and after that to dramatically expanding their already significant presence in the CEE and India.
A lot of people on work visas who were impacted during the initial COVID visa issues were PMs, EMs, and other mid-level managers who when they shifted back to their home country were given P/L and product responsibilities, and as such the center of gravity has left Seattle.
On top of that, local Seattle area politicians strangled the golden goose by becoming populist tech haters - great for winning an election, but did nothing for the Seattle or Washington economy.
mac-mc•4mo ago
Buildstarted•4mo ago
whycombinetor•4mo ago
SpicyLemonZest•4mo ago
oldpersonintx2•4mo ago
when the next recession hits we will be back at ZIRP and stay there for years
welcome to the forever-MMT economy