Not just Bay Area, pretty much any middle to big cities. Housing ownership dream is dead, cost of education has skyrocketed and healthcare is just a mess. That’s everywhere. The only thing on top of that we have got in Bay Area is increasing petty crime rates with no consequences. But that is on Bay Area residents for consistently electing egghead politicians.
Well, public schools are still free everywhere. And in state public universities are still fairly affordable - the one in my hometown offers $1k tuition for the year now.
Take a city like Columbus, Ohio. Home ownership is relatively cheap and easy, school are great, healthcare is no more messy than the average in the US. Crime is negligible, it's clean, has tons of great restaurants, good sports, very cool and unique neighborhoods with easy access to everywhere else. There are so many cities like that around the US that people on the coasts seem almost blind to.
The main downside is winter but aside from that it's a pretty great area. Especially on a tech salary. People say, "Yeah but... Ohio". To which I say, they really, acutely and deeply don't know what they are talking about.
I grew up in Western New York before moving to the Bay Area for work. People really love my hometown.
It’s okay, you can adapt to any place and make the most of it. But I think the coastal cities are much better places to live. More opportunity, more food, more people to learn from and things to do, more variety. There are cost of living trade offs for sure, but I wouldn’t go back.
I hope Garry Tan is successful fixing SF. I’ll do what I can to get the bad politicians out.
Not sure you can say Columbus has negligible crime, unless you mean Dublin or something. Columbus has had around 200 homicides this year. SF, with swhichlmist identical population in city limits, looks like it's had fewer than 60. Columbus is only marginally (25% or so) less murderous per capita than Chicago, where I live, and certainly nobody says we have negligible crime!
I live in a city that most of HN would call a rust belt post-industrial shithole. The kinds of petty crime, squalid behavior and cost of living issues I see people say "is only in a few areas" in defense of SF I haven't seen in any area.
I first started seeing these blog posts and Twitter threads documenting reasons for leaving SF at the start of the pandemic, and they tend to get a significant amount of engagement/comments/likes. I had never before seen anyone write such long and detailed reasons for something as routine and boring as moving cities. I can only imagine the reason for doing this is to increase their following on social media. Just stoking the rage-engagement machine.
I visited LA for a week in 2018 and SF for two weeks in 2016. Never have I felt so unliked on a personal level (weird scowls in the Mission district, didn't get one match on Tinder lmao).
I made it a point that I would never return to California for as long as I lived (unless you're willing to pay me a lot).
For point of reference, I'm from NYC so this isn't a blue-state/red-state thing like it has become for a lot of people. There's something about the California vibe that does not mesh with me.
> As they're leaving behind a network, a likely fractured group of friends
I'm not sure how exactly to say this, but I imagine it's a lot less worse for us than it could be if we worked in many other professions. I get the impressive that relative to a lot of careers and industries, our network and even friend group in many cases is much more global by nature.
Of course, you can't go throw a frisbee with your online friends, so they'll have to find new people to do those things with. I guess I'm just trying to say that if there's any demographic that could keep in touch if they want to, I get the impression that we're it.
I don't understand that, because nobody I personally know has felt "stuck" in SF. I know many people who genuinely like the Bay Area, many people who hated it until they moved to a different tech hub after a their first lease was up, and a few people who didn't like cities in general but wanted to save up for a dream house back home. I could be in a social bubble somehow, I don't want to rule that out, but the phenomenon of having to live here despite hating it is something I've only ever encountered on social media.
I had a mostly positive experience in the bay area, but I felt stuck there. Until the pandemic happened it was hard to not work there. The companies were forward thinking, pay was higher, work was more interesting. There are some terrible jobs, companies and managers out there in the world
> something as routine and boring as moving cities
How many times in a life do you move across the country with a spouse? I wouldn't call that routine, you need to ensure both of you can find new jobs etc, and likely they are thinking about their future kids and where they should be brought up. When you move on your own, sure, but the more things you add to your life the harder it gets.
Most people have friends and family so uprooting oneself from a community and moving to another city is actually a big deal. It’s a very cynical take to dismiss their complaints about a place they probably once loved as clickbait.
Native-born Californians are a minority of San Francisco's residents. Most people who are leaving are more likely relatively recent migrants to the Bay Area following the tech boom; social connections for these people do not run particularly deep in the city.
There’s certainly valid reasons for wanting to move away. But these posts aren’t really saying anything new, they tend to feed off of each other creating an online impression of SF as some kind of hellhole.
:| Moving is not routine and it is not boring. It's stressful and expensive as hell. I wouldn't describe "we have to get the hell out of here" and "throw all your things in trash bags and transport it in 24 hours" as boring, but more as "I hope I don't have to do this again because it's definitely going to shed some years off my life."
I should have clarified - of course it's stressful and expensive and exhausting, but only to the person/family experiencing it. Assuming that the rest of the internet cares about your move... no, they do not. But clearly it provides a platform for people to vent their feelings about the Bay Area.
Ah I get what you mean now. For you, it's just another listicle that rehashes the same criticisms you've already heard. From the outside (of the Bay Area) looking in, I find it interesting. You've already seen my thoughts on moving, so finding out what makes a person want to move is enlightening.
Just so you know, our author's perspective on the Bay Area isn't how everyone experiences it. At best, his criticisms only apply to the city of San Francisco. I've had precisely zero of the things he's mentioned happen to me living in the East Bay.
One of the ringleaders of this sort of stuff on Twitter posted a screenshot of one of her tweets being seen a million times and remarked that she never got engagement like that before she started tweeting about how terrible SF is. It didn't stay up long; I think she realized she was giving away the game.
Anecdotally, responses to these types of posts by people I know are mostly from people who have never been/visited, who have political leanings which oppose all of SF/liberal policies, and who love any opportunity to “dunk on” their political rivals. The SF residents (current and former) I know are much more muted and nuanced in their criticism.
>"On the one hand, I think any rational individual would acknowledge that privilege has made for a rigged system. But on the other hand, in the spirit of deconstructing those imbalances, we’ve dismantled upward mobility for everyone — not just the underprivileged.
Instead of a definition of equity that raises the floor (a rising tide floats all boats), we’ve adopted a definition that institutes a ceiling on achievement:"
Despite repeating the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" motto literally ten times, it should be noted that upwards mobility is highest precisely in countries that implement policies the author laments (a phenomenon known as the 'Great Gatsby Curve' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve#/media/File...).
The explanation is fairly straight-forward and intuitive, shorter ladders are easier to climb.
I’m a big ol’ hippie but one sticking point I always have with my friends is that to have upward mobility there must also be the chance for downward mobility. There can be no success without a chance for failure. And I don’t mean this in a zero-sum sort of way.
Ideally every person would be able to invest in themselves and their community to the fullest extent. Teach themselves and others new skills, start their own business, sell themselves and their talents to others, and create a robust ecosystem of success and opportunity at scales ranging from the individual to the mega-corporation. I dream of a culture (both interpersonal and governmental) that strives for such an ideal.
In practice this does not happen though because it is a lot of work, not all people are able, not all people are willing, not all people are as open, sinscere, and imaginative, “the system” is not really favorable to being so self-starting, and the reality is that most available jobs are awful and it is very hard to have such a clear and vivid imagining of one’s own future when bogged down by a series of dead-end line cook jobs.
When I see things like the anti-work meme/movement I get where it’s coming from, but I also wonder what such a person would do once their goal of anti-work is achieved.
Economic policy has had a huge role in that. If you are wealthy, you can borrow money for free, you can pay no taxes, and you can invest your free money at 10%+...oh, and the govt will bail you out if it goes wrong.
I worked in equity research at a financial adviser, I am not anti-markets at all (although am probably towards the left of things, for economics more than anything...substantial inequality is not sustainable economically) but the reason why the US doesn't have downward mobility is because rich people do not need skills. You need money to get rich, not skills.
If you look at other countries with similar economic models, for example the UK, you see much higher downward mobility. Again, the simple reason for that is less buoyant financial markets (and btw, UK property has gone through the roof and wealthier individuals in the UK own proportionally more property...the US is really, really out there). The only place that is really comparable are explicitly corporatist states like Germany and China...and the former has (tbf, fairly weak) mechanisms to guarantee a certain living standard.
I don't really understand the US system at all. The welfare state is Bezos and Musk's space projects. And people wonder why their fellow citizens are struggling? You are rich, but you live in a society where many other people are suffering...that isn't wealth.
The bay area seems to have combined the pernicious conservatism of aging "liberals", the worst of leftist politics, and the bizarre, culturally illiterate excesses of SV tech and grind culture into a noxious stew I'm surprised anybody can tolerate for any length of time.
Coming from a Southern US state, I expected that the Bay Area would be more egalitarian given the language. Instead, I've found that it's more like an idea incubator setup by generational wealth that people need to leave if they can't become nouveau riche before they want to build a family. Even when you win the lottery, your reward is living the same type of life in CA that you could in 45 other US states without pushing yourself. 1849 Gold Rush. Same as it ever was.
Cog Dis is part of the human condition. There is no significantly populated place in the US where there is a lack of Cog Dis about at least some political policies
SF is just a city, it cannot change America into a European style democratic socialist system- provided anyone in the US would actually want that and not immediately start crying about 21% VAT.
VAT is one of those weird mismatches between US and European politics. It would be regarded as very regressive in the US, since sales taxes disproportionately harm the poor.
The parts of the Southern US that are comparable to San Francisco in terms of physical setup and living experience are Charleston and Savannah. They also cost just as much.
There is one crucial difference. CA is a decade ahead of the rest of the United States in terms of both the lifestyle it offers and social problems it grapples with.
In lifestyle, California is simply unmatched in the United States. It offers a level of abundance in produce that is just unheard of anywhere in the world. It's only natural given that California has some of the most fertile land in the world and produces roughly 30-40% of the US's fruit and vegetable output. The moderate Mediterranean weather is really great in the Bay Area, getting even better in Southern California with a large number of sunny days, low humidity, and mild temperatures for much of the year. The variety and proximity of natural beauty, whether it be pristine beaches, fragrant oak and cedar forests, majestic sequoias, towering edifices of rock and ice in the Sierras, the picturesque and barren Mojave desert or strangely lunar Mono Lake and Inyo National Forest, is simply unparalleled anywhere else. Drive 15 minutes out of a bustling metropolitan area, and you will find plenty of nature trails in breathtaking settings.
In terms of social problems, their scale just boggles the mind. The persistent homelessness that is the result of other states dumping their homeless and the complete heartlessness of the liberal coastal elites when it comes to housing; the eye-watering taxation and rampant mismanagement of revenues (and rampant corruption leading to brazen giveaways to public employees) leading to boom-and-bust budgets that swing with the fortunes of the wealthiest dozen Californians (literally); the widespread environmental degradation resulting from toxic industries including mining and semiconductors; permanently depleted water tables in the central valley because of harmful cash crops such as Alfalfa and almonds; and encroachment upon dry chaparral habitats by housing development and sprawl, not to mention the resulting forest fires. On top of all this, there is a massive underclass of internal and external migrants who have zero upward mobility because of the permanently high costs of living (a feature of California since at least the Gold Rush) and find themselves permanently on the margins. The economic dynamism of the state is shrinking rapidly and businesses are falling over themselves moving to friendlier locales. The politics is a monoculture, with one party ruling unchallenged for decades, thus causing deeply entrenched corruption and a genuine lack of ideas (one of CA's senators is 88 years old. Biden is a spring chicken in comparison).
You would be forgiven if you thought the rest of the US is free of these problems: they will soon be the problem of the rest of the US; California is just on the leading edge, that's all.
I do not know if @EarlKing is part of solution but I can guarantee the smug douchebag who wrote the article is going to be a problem for Miami. This guy was drooling with contempt in his second sentence.
> his fellow locust [...] Better they fly off to Miami [...] rest of us can clean up the mess and restore some sanity around here.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are you going to afford food if all the techies leave?
Every economy (not just nations) trades with its neighbors and has imports and exports. One of San Francisco's imports is food. But what does San Francisco produce to export/trade for that food?
Today one of the exports is generalized "tech" (software licenses, X as a Service, design of products that are built in China).
What else? When tech leaves, what do you produce that can be sold to people outside San Francisco?
If you look at any former rust-belt mill town, it's not just the factory workers that are affected when the plant closes. Unemployed mill workers can't afford new trucks (so salespeople make less). They can't afford haircuts, so the barber closes up shop. The can't afford to go out to eat or drink, so the entire service industry feels the pain.
Remember the part where I said, "The Bay Area is not San Francisco"? I don't live in San Francisco. I genuinely don't care what San Francisco produces for export. Also, you're implying that San Francisco, or the greater Bay Area, somehow didn't produce anything before the tech locusts arrived. That is false. California's economy consists of far more than just tech drek.
You are missing the step where the people who refuse the medical procedure are also taking up a disproportionate medical resources when they get sick. And it seems to be, at least according to the data, more prevalent with conservative ideology. Nice try though
No, I am not. People are paying for the medical resources they use. Nice try though (I would learn more about social policy, the point of social policy is that it is for everyone, not people who agree to a medical procedure, not people who have political views you agree with...this is why the US doesn't have a welfare state, because people believe money will go to people "who aren't like them").
People aren't being denied COVID treatment so the social policy isn't being violated. Unless getting your feelings hurt by Twitter comments is a violation of social policy?
You can't break the site guidelines by attacking others like this. We've asked you multiple times before to stop posting in the flamewar style. Since you've continued to do so, I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Flamewar comments like your posts to this thread are not allowed on HN and will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
They are also using resources that should be utilized by people that have done the right thing and taken a vaccine to prevent hospitalization.
In my opinion, the unvaccinated should simply not go to the hospital if they get infected and instead recuperate at home. Sadly, they’ll continue to leech off of the work of those that have taken the bare minimum steps.
This is what happens when people try and make value judgements about policy decisions based on what team is doing them rather than from ideological principals.
The only consistent people these days seems to be the true extremists who are so far from either party's official platform that they can call it how they see it.
It always seemed very tiring to me: work out who the person is, work out what political allegiance they have, and then decide to agree or disagree with them/potentially having to reorder or reinterpret X or Y to make it all fit.
Regardless of that: if I am someone who believes that vaccines do not work (and btw, in the context of American politics...this does not seem a wild conspiracy, you see the same level of nonsense distributed by people on the left too) then am I likely to be convinced by the govt attempting to rescind support from me? No. If anything, that suggests to me that I am probably correct.
In other words, the point of removing unemployment insurance is to hurt people who disagree with me...this is not smart (and again, an ironic position to take from people who view themselves as very liberal and open...next-level stuff).
> likely to be convinced by the govt attempting to rescind support from me?
Except rescinding support for anyone who would have qualified was never even discussed. The question is about making an exception to _extend_ support to a group that _wouldn't_ have otherwise gotten it. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but the status quo is that being dismissed for cause for refusing to abide by legal employment requirements is disqualifying for receiving unemployment.
Doctors, police, nurses and home health aides directly harm the public they serve by not getting vaccinated. They are themselves more at risk to spread the virus in higher viral load quantities over longer periods of time and are more at risk of death themselves. They should be fired and not coddled for taking a stance against modern medicine.
> To be totally clear: your employer cannot require you to have a medical procedure, and then fire if you do not comply
The principle of requiring healthcare staff to get the vaccine is already established. Most countries in Europe already do this. This is not the same thing as requiring all employees to be fired if they fail to have a medical procedure that the President deems necessary. Your point, however, is totally anti-science: 500 years ago, would you ask for someone to be fired because they didn't use the appropriate amount of leeches? It is amazing that the people who go on about this kind of thing don't understand basic elements of what science is.
So your employer is allowed to sterilise employees with disabilities? Perhaps only those employees with mental illness? If you question whether this is realistic, this happened in the US 70 years ago, and the very same principle was used to sterilise disabled people en masse. The ends do not justify the means, this is ubermensch ideology (only those who can rise above morality and do things that others are unwilling to do will possess the future...it is madness, it is something that hasn't existed in politics since the 30s...and, to be clear, it existed in the US too).
> To be totally clear: your employer cannot require you to have a medical procedure, and then fire if you do not comply...
Citation needed.
Vaccine requirements are not out of the norm for most jobs. And in “at will” work states, if your demand to not have a vaccine isn’t in your employment contract, you are most likely out of luck. It is not protected under labor law, employment law (unless your union negotiated that point specifically), and is not a protected category.
I personally would prefer the frequent testing or proof of antibodies as alternatives (it would lessen the political polarity of the issue), but I’m not overreacting and pretending like a vaccine mandate is equivalent to rounding up Jews in German-occupied Poland. In the scheme of things that Americans have suffered (but legally and illegally) at the hands of our governments and our employers, this vaccine is diminutive.
Biden’s mandate that covers private companies which are not government contractors is questionable (I’m interested to see how the appeals go), but any org/company which has existing service/vendor contracts with the federal government is likely to be reaffirmed.
SCOTUS ruled over a century ago that vaccines are reasonable to be mandated by governments under certain conditions. There is no federal mandate for all residents, but any city/state that wants to mandate it is supported by jurisprudence. It is honestly really worrying that Republican legislators in many states are rolling back legal requirements for vaccines of far deadlier diseases while virtue signaling their political allegiance against COVID vaccines.
I think you also ignore how much Americans already tolerate when you pretend like one of three well tested vaccines is something that will cause mass unrest.
> SCOTUS ruled over a century ago that vaccines are reasonable to be mandated by governments under certain conditions.
So are we ok with anything that has been "ruled" already? Or only when the ruled thing goes in line with what we think? Because a lot of stuff has been ruled in the past 2 centuries that I'm sure you would scream bloody murder if someone from the other side defended it.
You've fallen for a misconception that there are 2 types of states in the US as regards the type of reasons an employee can be fired: "at will," and "right to work." That's incorrect. In fact, when it comes to being able to be fired for almost arbitrary reasons (e.g. boss doesn't like the color of your car, or something), there are 2 types of states, but they are "at will," and "Montana."
Let me explain that a bit.
First of all, "at will" and "right to work" are neither opposites nor mutually exclusive. "Right to work" simply means that, if there is a union in the company, people who join the union can't be forced to contribute to the union. [0] In other words, it bans what are called "union shops." As you can tell, this has literally nothing to do with the legal reasons which one can be fired for. Every "right to work" state is also an "at-will" state.
"At will" means pretty much what you think it does: that, absent a specific employment contract stating otherwise, an employee can be fired for almost any reason that isn't considered discriminatory or retaliatory under federal law. [1] There are some nuances to this, but, employers know how to do the dance to get around these things, for the most part, so, you're probably not going to fall under any of the exceptions. Chances are pretty good, actually, that you acknowledged that you are an at-will employee in your offer letter.
Now... Montana. Montana is the oddball here. In Montana, once you've worked for an employer for 1 year, or the length of the probation period specified in that employer's policies, you can't be fired without "good cause." Under Montana law, "Good cause is generally defined, in Montana, as reasonable job related grounds for dismissal based upon (1) a failure to satisfactorily perform job duties, (2) disruption of the employer’s operation, or (3) other legitimate business reasons." [2]. Specifically, an employee can't be fired for "no reason," or a silly reason like "boss doesn't like the color of your car."
Montana is completely unique in this regard. No other state offers this kind of protection to an employee.
So, to summarize: "right to work" has nothing to do with "at-will," and all states are "at-will" except for Montana.
The ruling that you mention was also used to sterilize disabled people. It is funny that you mention Nazi Germany...they did that there too. But, of course, everyone else is just overreacting, the ends justify the means, only people of true vision can break free of the rules that limit others, the ubermensch has appeared, hail.
And yes, there are medical exemptions, there are religious exemptions, there are lots of exemptions because, again, it is fairly obvious that the state forcing people to have medical procedures is not a good idea. Trying to say that you have suffered so much already (please, pathetic) so the vaccine is fine is one of the weakest arguments. That can be used to justify anything if you just tell people how hard your life is. You have no moral compass. Something is a good idea or not.
Wow. Your projection of my opinions / morals is pretty telling.
My statements were about the legal current state of things, not how they _should_ be. The grandparent comment was not arguing ethics, but what “cannot” be done, hence I didn’t discuss ethics/morals.
The state only exists _because_ individuals can’t do everything on their own. The state forces people to pay taxes, forces people into cages when they violate criminal laws, forces young men into the military during times of war, etc. Yes, the state (in practice, and likely should) force people to take significant interventions to prevent deadly contagious diseases. There is an argument to be had about whether COVID-19 qualifies or whether specific interventions should be mandated for this particular disease, but this intervention follows directly from state efforts to mitigate the harm of Smallpox, Polio, Influenza, etc.
My comment did not state that _I_ have suffered. It was a comment about the society that I live in and therefore the social contract that we have with the government.
And on the core issue: Florida makes qualifying for unemployment extremely difficult for anyone who applies. The current governor even blamed the previous one (both Republicans) for creating an unemployment application website that is designed to improve denied claims rates. It is an “at will” work state last I checked, so your employer has _lots_ of freedom to fire Florida employees.
This new legislation is a blatant move by the legislature to signal political allegiance with vaccine resisters and given them special treatment that people who are fired for different reasons don’t get — this is what your parent comment was pointing out.
As a recent (~6 years) newcomer from the poor parts of Europe ... eh it's fine.
Yes it would be nice if people cared more about doing good than being seen to talk about caring about the correct things, but I can't imagine any other place in the world where I could've grown my personal wealth from zero to "As much as my parents did in a lifetime" in 6 years. Whether that's because of or in spite of the environment I don't know, but it sure wasn't happening back home.
That said, would be nice if all the friends I made in the past few years stopped salmoning and stayed in the city. You don't have to move back out to the burbs just because it's family time. Cities are a strictly superior place to live (imo) and being exposed to the riffraff is a feature, not a bug.
edit: There is research that says mixed income neighborhoods are the fastest way to lowering crime, lifting kids out of poverty, and improving life outcomes for all.
The beauty of words and law is they can be incredibly absolute and incredibly vague, so people can project their feelings into this domain and then go to the state to justify its existence. Its just another form of religion in a way and no doubt uses the same techniques religion uses.
Plus how many sock puppets exist, has anyone every met anyone featured in the news and witnessed this sort of crime, or is social media an amplifying echo chamber?
Who would have thought AI on social media could be such expert trolls?
This article quotes `Twitter users` too much. Twitter users are not representative of the populace at large all too often.
The interspaced boxes with emojis make the text harder to read.
"I think it’s now officially more inconvenient to live in San Francisco or Oakland than when I lived in Chennai or Bombay growing up." - I definitely don't think this is a fair assessment objectively.
Ultimately the root cause of SFs problems (and Bay Area in general) is lack of housing. It’s a city that should be as dense (or more) than NYC considering the amount of economic activity it generates, but the existing landed Gentry has opposed any and all measures to remedy the situation since the status quo increases their wealth.
If SF built enough housing, it would mostly solve the homelessness crisis, but also generate even more tax revenue for investing in better social services, transit etc. As a resident, it feels like a lost opportunity: the pandemic has made remote work common and fewer people will want to move to the SF in the future.
Building housing isn't going to "solve homelessness". The majority of "visible homeless" that you see on the streets, etc. have mental health and addiction issues. Also, most housing, especially those catering to those "on the streets" have rules. More than a few living on the street don't want to have rules and structure.
So, building housing isn't going to a total solution.
Mental health issues need wrap around services and the ability to restrict their actions - which years of legislation and rulings (many will blame the ACLU) doesn't allow for such in nearly all cases.
Addicts, for them, they need to WANT to get better. Even then it is still a long road. Hitting bottom may not even happen for some.
> So, building housing isn't going to a total solution.
It's not a total solution but it's a prerequisite to any solution. You will never be able to get the homeless into permanent housing when that permanent housing costs 2.5k/month.
Because the essential jobs that support the techies lavish lives don’t pay the $50k+ Needed to afford a $1k apartment. Get that rent down to 30% average median, with a healthy supply of housing at said cost, net income and then you’ll see that people do in fact want to work and provide for themselves. When that ability is robbed of then you’ll see all kinds of horrific antisocial behaviors. This is basic stuff. Many, and I’ll argue all, houseless people are put in impossible situations by the apathy, capriciousness, and greed of American society from the local level to thin air of the highest offices.
Not every one can be a highly paid techie with a fancy pad and delivery services for everything. Geniuses are stuck working menial jobs all around the world because they’re necessary. To whom much is given, much is required. If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. We can’t provide sprawling estates and yachts for everyone. I’m in favor of getting rid of the yachts over a genocide of those unlucky enough to be born into privilege.
> If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone.
When people stop risking their lives and the lives of their children to leave counties with marxist governments, I’ll consider your argument. Until then I am just going to assume that the Marxism brochures were really good at taking the pictures from the right angles.
Care to be more specific about the countries you’re thinking of so I can pull up the relevant documents detailing the USA funded terrorism campaigns there?
Your statement is blatantly factually false. I’m trying to decide if you meant it to be literal or hyperbole.
People already work low paying jobs in SF. They are likely living with multiple roommates or commuting from far away. Given a large influx of cheap housing would absolutely put downward pressure on housing insecurity.
Also, your perception of homeless is probably limited to the visible population that is chronically homeless perhaps in tents. Most homelessness is acute and occurs when rental prices increase, temporary unemployment, during bankruptcy, or when the renter/owner kicks out a roommate. These homeless tend to live out of their car or try to couch surf often. Acute homeless tend to have much better odds of finding housing again (maybe not in SF and maybe not during the worst of economic downturns). Lowering rent costs by 60% absolutely would help reduce acute homelessness.
You missed the word “jobless” in the comment. The jobless, especially when the person is in essence unemployable due to mental illness is not going to be successful at self maintaining housing at $2.5k, $1k, or even $100/mo.
You are applying a boolean data type, when the facts on the ground are more complicated.
The fact is that “mental illness” is super common, has many aspects (some are significant hurdles to employment and others are less significant. “Unemployable” changes over time as employers look at the cost trade offs and the hiring market.
And Section 8 vouchers (one of the largest programs to increase housing stability) already pay $x00/mo, so there is absolutely some dollar about above $100/mo where additional rental supply does start to reduce the homeless population.
> People already work low paying jobs in SF. They are likely living with multiple roommates or commuting from far away. Given a large influx of cheap housing would absolutely put downward pressure on housing insecurity.
I think you are agreeing with the parent comment here even if you dont think so. These are the people that would take new inexpensive housing - people living with roommates or parents that want their own place, people commuting from far away. These people aren't homeless.
You _assume_ homeless are not among that population, but I would argue there are. Obviously not 100%, but we are arguing about moving the supply curve up, so there is a corresponding adjustment as we move along the demand curve.
But the core point I’m making is that the difference between enough rental units to move an average rental price of $2500/mo to $1000/mo means there are A TON of new units and it would reduce rent pressure even for rental units that are cheaper than $1000/mo.
What do you mean by getting the homeless into permanent housing?
The state will give the homeless apartments free of charge for the rest of their lives? For a limited period of time?
Any homeless person who relocates to California?
How long does the person need to be homeless for before getting free permanent housing?
I interpreted your parent as discussing an outcome of a policy change which involves reducing cost / increasing supply of housing in which “permanent housing” is a permanent structure/dwelling (eg. Not a tent/car) that more people would have access to (including existing Section 8 housing subsidies).
You seem to have interpreted that phrase as the new policy itself.
Mental health and addiction problems are substantially ameliorated by inexpensive housing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206 and it is easier to maintain housing that is inexpensive than housing that is expensive.
The extent to which people ignore the obvious point that homelessness is exploding in the most expensive cities, like SF, but not in less expensive cities, I find mind boggling.
The obvious explanation would be that expensive cities are more desirable to live in and thus see both higher property values and more homeless.
Having spoken to a number of homeless folks, a common pattern is that they really aren’t interested in housing. If you have no dependents, would you rather spend your life a slave to the capitalist corporation/mortgage/property-tax/landlord complex, or just camp out in an area with nice weather year-round, in a community of like-minded people, doing whatever suits your fancy?
I was homeless for years, not by choice. My relationships with homeless people did and still do go a lot farther than "spoken to a number of them" and I don't think this is accurate at all. I can't speak for anyone but myself but this was never my attitude and I doubt anyone I know now would endorse it.
I don't know what dynamics were at play when you asked this question or what you specifically asked, but those things can affect the answers quite a lot.
It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered."
Were you living in year-round gorgeous weather areas alike I mentioned? (Coastal Southern California)
> It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered."
What’s the difference? Being “interested” in something means being willing to pay its price it in order to reap its benefits. There exist plenty of folks who aren’t willing to pay the price of “work all day and live in a less desirable area” to reap the benefits of “have an address” when they can pay the price of “live as a vagabond” to reap “do as they please 24/7 in some of the most desirable regions on earth”.
My experience of homelessness, including two years in coastal southern california yes, was a lot more miserable and desperate than the one you had or are imagining. I don't remember anyone else around me having that great a time either.
Anyway they got homeless people in frozen ass places like the twin cities too. What's your read on the benefits they are reaping?
I’m sorry you did not enjoy your experience. However that does not invalidate the experiences of the people I have spoken with, despite your attempts to project otherwise.
Regarding homeless folks in areas with inclement weather, as I have not had the opportunity to get to know any of them I will not attempt to speak to their experience.
You can’t wish away the fact that SFBA has lots of high paying jobs and attracts lots of people from around the country and around the world. The people are already here. All your mentality is doing is dragging any potential remedy out so it takes longer and costs more. You are applying a Heckler’s Veto.
We might as well increase QoL for everyone who actually lives here (and those who are likely to move here in the immediate future), not some idealistic memory of how some of the metro area used to be 30 years ago.
A better option would be to set government policies that encourage growth of high paying jobs in other areas instead of cramming everyone into one geographically constrained area.
Yes based on the history of Silicon Valley other factors are also important. Some of those include: proximity to multiple high-quality research universities, laws that generally prohibit employee non-compete agreements, and generous funding through military-industrial complex contracts.
I don't want to attack you, but its hard not to attack a comment like this. Building more housing won't solve the homelessness problem, building a lot more housing might lower prices a little bit which might mean that some middle class families might be able to buy a home, but that is about it.
Nobody is living on the streets in SF because houses cost too much money. If money was the only issue then they could easily move to a different town where housing is cheaper, there are many places to live that are cheaper than SF.
In my opinion whenever someone says the main problem is the price of housing they are saying it because that is their own personal problem. They want to buy a house, and they think the prices are too high. Why do they not mention unemployment? Or addiction? Or lots of other issues? Because those aren't their own personal problems, so they focus on the one thing that matters to them personally, and that's the price of housing.
This is extremely short-sighted. Expensive real estate is a blood-sucking vampire squid on the real economy, on every economically productive citizen
You are paying for that overpriced housing every time you buy a coffee, you pay $1 for the coffee beans and you $4 for the coffee shop rent. You pay rent of every person who's services they need, from a delivery man to a plumber.
The idea that rising house prices are okay because you own a house is just as daft as the idea that rising food prices are okay because you have a full fridge.
The optimal strategy is to drive down relative cost of food, housing and energy, and other nessesities of life to zero, that's what we call 'economic growth'. Thats why we no longer live like peasants.
>>you pay $1 for the coffee beans and you $4 for the coffee shop rent
Not just this, every last bit of economy is designed to benefit the exclusivity enjoyed by land lords.
No wonder the biggest beneficiary of the big salaries in Bay Area, CA is eventually the real estate market.
If land/housing/space is in short supply then every economic transaction is a kind of rent, you just don't notice it because you are paying for it instalments, its rent nevertheless.
This is just my own personal hair brained idea, but my own idea on the best way to reduce the price of housing is simply to make it harder for people to buy a home. Hear me out. I do not mean increase the price of homes. I mean to drive prices down, you must restrict peoples ability to buy a home.
Essentially, if you make it easier for people to buy a home, then you will end up with more buyers, when you have more buyers then the demand for the product is increased and that results in the price of the product to rise. If you restrict the buyers then there is less demand for the product, and less demand results in the price of the product dropping. If less people are able to buy, then less people are able to sell, if people can't sell then they will lower prices.
It is hard to restrict buyers for houses, the only way I've thought of that is possible is to increase the minimum down payment size. If the minimum down payment size was increased to something really big like 50% for a few years, that would drastically reduce the number of people that would be able to buy a home, and that drastic decrease in buying demand would result in a drastic decrease in prices.
Conversely, where I live the minimum down payment is 5% if tomorrow the gov were to say "we want to make it easier for people to buy a home, and so we are reducing the minimum down payment to 2%" that would mean that more people would qualify to buy a home. More people qualifying would mean that there are more buyers and buying pressure is increased, and increased buying pressure would result in rising prices. So lowering the minimum down payment size, while well meaning, would soon result in the prices for homes going even higher and we would be right back where we started with many people being priced out of the market.
Increasing the minimum down payment size would also mean people effectively get priced out of the market because they would be unable to afford the minimum down payment, but conversely, the prices of houses would fall drastically because of the decreased buying pressure. People would be forced to save for a bigger downpayment, but the total they would pay when they actually buy the home would be decreased.
I feel like the young, single person's American dream is still alive and well in SF. If you're willing and able to bend your life around work, there are few better places to do it.
And for those with families, especially those with young children, I think life is pretty hard right now, just about everywhere.
Only if you work in tech, and only if you're a software engineer or PM. It is straight up not possible to live in a reasonably safe area in SF on a salary less than $100k before tax. And the biggest reason is the toxic cost of living caused by refusal to build high density housing.
I know software engineers who went from living with roommates in a tiny apartment in SF to paying less for a penthouse in other big cities.
Not disagreeing, but I think it has more to do with not having kids. You can find a one bedroom on Craigslist in almost any neighborhood in SF for less than $2,000 a month. How much more do you need to survive as a single person? Another $2K a month? That puts you at $4k/month, or $48K a year, which most full-time jobs will pay.
Assuming healthy, no kids, and that the landlord agrees to rent you the place, which may be difficult if you’re a person of color or have a low salary.
A "safe" and not particularly conservative budgeting rule of thumb is to not spend more than a third of your take-home income on housing... so your numbers pretty much match up exactly with what GP said about <$100k salary.
True, but I’ve read that most people don’t budget or spend conservatively, so it is theoretically possible to get by on a normal paycheck in SF. At that rate you probably qualify for stuff like BMR housing and may be able to own a home in the Bay well before someone earning $100K-120K. However, it’s very unlikely you will win the BMR lottery or qualify for the loan.
Pre-COVID you couldn't find a 1br in a safe neighborhood for less than $3-3.5k. Less than 2k gets you something in the Tenderloin, which is the opposite of safe. Add food (~$700 because high cost of living), car payments (~$450 for an econobox), car insurance (~$200 because SF has a lot of break-ins and theft), health insurance, utilities (also expensive as fuck in NorCal due to cost of living), phone/internet bills, and you can realistically hit $5k/mo in expenses.
According to this calculator [1] post-tax a $100k salary nets you $5500/mo in San Francisco. This is mostly due to high state taxes. So you are basically living paycheck to paycheck despite making 6 figures and living a pretty standard life, which is moronic no matter how much you look at it.
Author spends a lot of time discussing the social contract and then laments an elected official calling out a billionaire for disobeying a public health mandate during a world historic pandemic to reopen a factory.
Why? Because the politician must be right, while the “billionaire” (aka “a citizen”) wanting to actually pay people money to actually make things must be wrong?
California has the highest or second highest poverty rate in the country when you account for cost of living.
California policies are an absolute disaster for poor people. This is true for most other big cities in blue states as well. Although California and Bay Area are far and away the worst offenders.
I live in Seattle. It’s not nearly as bad as the Bay. We’ve made a lot of the same bad decisions. And a handful of better ones. But the trend line is very bad and getting worse.
Another article from the same SF crowd that voted in people like Chesa Boudin. Now they are wondering why you can't walk down the street in peace. All this without once acknowledging their responsibility.
Sleep with the dogs - you'll wake up with the fleas.
The article is by an immigrant worker in tech. It is exceedingly unlikely he votes in any sort of election, and is almost certainly not the kind to elect Chesa Boudin.
There are a large amount of people that think the Republican subservience to trump is a “political train wreck” and also hate the progressive politics of the far left.
A lot of people that would have preferred Bloomberg, some center left, or any center right non-trump Republican.
I’d guess the author is in this more moderate camp.
I live in SF and have spent a lot of time thinking about the problems here.
I don't think you can understand SF today without starting from this foundational assumption, which is something of a narrative violation, actually. I don't see many starting from this point of view - but I do, and I think it explains almost everything in his article.
That assumption is:
San Francisco is a city for the rich.
That's what really explains the motivations and the things that matter, politically.
Furthermore (starting from there), as a city for the rich, SF cares proportionately less than other metropolises would, about things that in other places would make for strong incentives.
So, housing. Remember, city for the rich: they are housed, in nice houses that should keep their value (not have it lowered by apartments). So new housing doesn't get built.
Thefts: Eh, too bad, but if most if your shopping takes place through Postmates & Instacart... did it really happen? Do you really care? You don't feel the pain all that much. So your response is kind of lethargic. You're not personally losing money so it's not so bad really.
BART: You don't use that, lol. I mean it'll keep running and you can get from place to place on it, for the sake of working people, sure. But beyond that... whatever.
School Board: Your kids go to private school. Next.
Tech: We already have money, and jobs. We (the voters) are already very well off. It's fine it tech wants to add to our economy, but we don't need tech and we're not threatened by its departure. And that's very much what happened.
If you look at most of the problems in SF, and the way the voting public has responded, to me this model has the most explanatory power.
Now maybe the average SF voter isn't rich - but the people who shape the conversation & have the most impact are. SF is very much a city that caters to them.
Philly cost of living is fantastic. The local job opportunities don't pay as well as DC or Boston or NYC or SF. But you can just work remotely for a big company and get a reasonable wage. Not being a parent I don't know about the school system.
The Philadelphia school district is garbage. The other kids will be less affluent than you for the most part. Anyone who cares about their kid's future moves to a suburban school district asap. It's seriously a networking thing because socially life long friends get minted in elementary and middle school.
Yup not arguing just adding my perspective. There are some gems though like science leadership academy which is a charter magnet school. If you're stuck in Philly it's probably the best school. I personally know someone that used to work there doing IT and teaching kids programming.
The actual city of Philly is generally a mess, similar to what is described above.
SEPTA is meh. Every few years they strike and you're stranded. Short, direct trips are OK. It's a long complicated process for certain trips. Payment can be different for each type. High speed line - put bills in the money feeder, subway - tokens, regional line - buy a ticket, etc.
Schools... most are junk. It's basically a moot point though. If you have money and a family you live in the suburbs where the schools are better, not the actual city. Philly is the poorest county in the state and one of the poorest cities in the nation. Meanwhile, Bucks, Chester, and Delaware counties are very affluent.
Housing is expensive relative to pay opportunities in the area. You can find cheaper housing, but it's probably not a safe neighborhood. We are in a tech desert. It seems most jobs in the area are at or slight below the national average for pay. Living expenses are a bit above average, I think.
I grew up in the Philly suburbs and went to Temple..I laugh at the idea of rich people choosing to live in center city. They fixed the payment thing for septa but during covid all the progress made on crime went out the window. They also tear gassed some affluent white techies in the crowd during the protests because the blue collar cops in Philly are some of the dumbest individuals I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with.
I literally moved to Maui during covid and was able to pay the same rent I was throwing away on an apartment in Northern liberties but instead I was 500 ft from the ocean
Paraphrasing/shortening a bit:
"Something remarkable happened in New Jersey in the late 1990s... as part of a school funding lawsuit known as Abbott v. Burke, the state increased spending in 31 of its then-poorest districts... spending in some of the districts eclipsed some of the state's wealthiest districts."
"But, all these years later, many are still "spending 2.5 times the national average, and there's no real evidence that they're closing the achievement gap"
It's self evident that funding doesn't matter beyond some low threshold amount where basic necessities are met. Success is about culture and especially culture of your peers. Kids are highly influenced by their parents/peers in terms of what they aspire to do and be.
Kids in wealthy districts don't succeed because of educational funding; they succeed because wealthy parents are more likely to set high academics standards for their kids. And those kids become friends with other kids with high standards. And they carry that culture forward with them.
I've been to schools in Russia, and I have never heard of some of the problems I read about in schools in US. I do not understand how you can have those issues with 10X the GDP. It sounds like a caste system, children being set up from the start of their life
Culture matters, sure, but if you are freesing in class, that's definately distracting.
It's the result of people choosing freely who they associate with. Wealthy people tend to flock together because they can afford areas with nice amenities and share similar culture to other, typically, white collar people.
It's often touted, but Asian students (of some persuasions) tend to be high achieving (on average) regardless of economic circumstances. A lot of that is due to cultural focus on education.
There are many ways the gap could be narrowed. One major one is to build mass housing, and stop encouraging housing as an investment. This would lower barrier to poorer families from living in certain areas/less "ghettoization" derived from cost disparity. Of course the nice areas will always be more expensive, but disparity doesn't have to be as wide as it is now.
Anyway, many other programs that could more directly attack problem, such as social programs to support regular meals etc for poorer students. But the answer is definitely not putting more funding into education. Anyone expecting good results from that is going to be disappointed, and is ignoring the real world evidence.
Did you read any of the linked document or were you put off by the term "antiracist"? I have to admit I was initially put off by the entire concept but reading through what it recommends it seems pretty standard stuff, just couched in terms that are a bit... contrived for the piece.
I think there's two things to understand, broadly:
No one is saying that math itself is racist, nor is the teaching of math itself inherently racist. Only that the way we teach math is steeped in the dominant culture and doing some pretty simple stuff like incorporating cultural artifacts relevant to your students might help them learn better.
Sadly, as many other commenters have pointed out, besides the rare private school where the teachers have adequate pay and a decent teacher to student ratio, full implementation of any of it is kind of a stretch.
I did read it. Did you? It's full of silly propaganda draped around bits of well-known issues (such as language fluency). 2/3rds of the actual text is weird anti-racist propaganda about white supremacy.
Your point is analogous to telling someone looking at a Christian school guidebook full of Jesus/etc. and then saying "yeah, but what about the non-Christian parts that are completely well understood and normal? Were you just put off by the religious aspects?"
What specifically about the antiracist message do you take issue with? Seems innoucous enough to me.
To your point about religious texts -- good analogy. I'm able to read those texts and find things I agree with, and things I don't, but I'm not put off by it being a religious text.
I think we should stop here. If you would tolerate people taking a weird Christian sect’s propaganda as legitimate for public school educational instructional materials, the gulf between us it too wide.
The “white supremacy” verbiage in that document is a religion and not based on facts. I get that seems okay to you, but it is no different than any other religion masquerading as truth, none of which are appropriate.
I do not believe you are responding in good faith, however.
techie - you missed something.. SF has the highest ratio of ethnic chinese to overall population, in the USA. SF is for "the rich" and "the chinese" and they BOTH have insular coping mechanisms. Most other ethnic groups in the entire world are also there, of course, but often move away when they can (like my own infant grandmother and her family btw). side note - one of my actual relatives was Mayor of San Francisco, long ago.
If the Chinese population had their way, the black underclass would have been expelled from San Francisco a long time ago. You should see what SF residents post on Wechat.
The analysis you usually see is that the Democratic method of getting rid of the underclass is to sweat them out with a rising cost of living until they choose to leave.
On this analysis, the effect is certainly there -- a reduction over time is nothing to sneeze at -- and yet not very effective in terms of actually cleaning up the problem.
But note that this strategy would be severely undermined by letting the price of housing in SF fall.
Yeah but I live in China myself and I sort of see what he means lol.
It's fine, it's fair game after all I m sure it s not easy being Chinese in Africa, but you cant deny there s a sort of lack of politeness in Chinese (the nationality) people when it comes to describe our friends who were born under a warmer sun... or any other sun for that matter :D
As an outsider and recent transplant, this tracks. Earlier this morning I was busy getting spammed on the Bay Area subreddit where redditor after redditor assumed I must have financial problems because I can't buy a house here. That is, in fact, not the case.
The major problem in the Bay Area and other metropolitan regions is that the house cost / salary ratio has increased a lot.
Sadly, this is also the case in Europe, where most major cities that were a good deal 10 years ago are very expensive now. Even taking into consideration that tech salaries are way above average.
Another thread argued the Midwest is more balanced. What are other US areas with good universities and on-site tech job opportunities?
I'd say that the housing crisis is broader than that, but also agree with you. Even if you solve an inventory problem, there also exists a "commute to work" problem, whereby if I'm not rich enough to live near work then I drive over an hour or take complicated public transport (in the US). That far out, things also get more expensive and inconvenient, which creates another class-based issue.
I have empathy for the people solving these problems, because inevitably they're going to screw someone.
> Sadly, this is also the case in Europe, where most major cities that were a good deal 10 years ago are very expensive now. Even taking into consideration that tech salaries are way above average.
Yup, I've moved to Stockholm 6 years ago, house prices in this short period have shot up considerably, with a minor slump around 2018-2019 when some new regulations on credit were introduced. Still appreciating after that, getting more and more unaffordable for me even with a pretty nice salary in tech.
I don't come from a wealthy family, I don't have family money from a house sale that I could use as a downpayment. I will have to save a lot to cover a downpayment and then I will just add to the problem, getting cheap credit that will then inflate house prices. I feel completely trapped, getting into this game is personally beneficial but pretty detrimental to society in the long run.
Also, getting in the game in this all-time high feels bonkers, I don't think that timing the market is doable but it just feels pointless to embark on a 30-year mortgage without knowing what's the future in housing, simply because it already looks unsustainable this can keep going for another 20-30 years. Absolutely unsustainable.
Feel the same. I don't understand why a lot of people are rejoicing that the price of their house increases. Unless you move for something smaller, which people rarely do or you are a speculator, you have nothing to gain from ever increasing prices.
It's because housing in the United States is viewed as two distinctly different things under one umbrella. Housing is an investment, the loans (and collateral) of which are traded on the stock market. Secondarily, housing is also a domicile. When your investment goes from $400k to $2M over the course of 20 years that's a significant return on investment and can be the difference between retiring and not retiring.
I don't understand your first point. Could you please explain?
As for the second, you realize your gain when you sell your house at which point you need to buy another which price has also skyrocketed. So unless you end up renting or you buy a smaller house, those gains will be lost. Even if you buy a smaller house, the gain might not be that important as having to sell your own house that you took care for many years could also have a psychological effect... people think of those things in theoretical terms but selling a house is not like selling stock.
That's why my point is that rising prices should not be presented as a universal good news.
I don't think this really makes sense. If the city were really just for rich people who don't care about others, then why don't they kick out all the homeless? And why would they pass a high tax on businesses? And how can you say the wealthy don't care about jobs leaving or tech decline when most of the money here is from tech and the rich people work in tech?
I could just as easily say the poorest run city policies:
Housing - don't want gentrification and are rent-controlled anyway
Thefts - don't care about rich store owners or home owners and don't want to be hassled by the police
Schools - if they can't do advanced math then get rid of it so that no one is ahead of them
Tech - they don't work in tech and don't want to compete against rich techies for housing
I think the truth is that it's run by the entrenched, which is a mix of the rich and poor: people who already own property (because their families have been here a long time or because they're rich) and people who have rent-controlled apartments
I think you’ve never really lived in a city that caters to the rich. SF is a far cry from that, believe me.
What you’ll notice is:
* Cops have a visible presence everywhere. They will scrutinize each and every person entering the city.
* Gated communities and guard gated communities. Neighborhoods are designed to be extremely confusing with bizarre zigzags and traffic circles, to trap would be burglars and robbers.
* Neighborhood watch patrolling the streets during the night to make sure suspicious persons are identified and monitored.
In short, SF is a city that caters to government elites and their stooges. The tech elites live in Menlo Park, Los Altos, Saratoga, Los Gatos, etc…
Edit: if you want to see a comedic rendition of what it’s like to accidentally stumble into one of these cities, I highly recommend the Big Lebowski, particularly the scene where the Dude ends up in Malibu. Someone who is not me can corroborate similar events happening when entering such enclaves. ;)
> Thefts: Eh, too bad, but if most if your shopping takes place through Postmates & Instacart... did it really happen? Do you really care? You don't feel the pain all that much. So your response is kind of lethargic. You're not personally losing money so it's not so bad really.
Coming up with such an explanation involves a lot of mental gymnastics. We all know why this phenomenon is happening, why the guards are not intervening and so on.
As for your other points: the idea that the rich prefer to live in a city plagued by homeless drug addicts and robbers getting away unpunished is absurd.
Whole Bay Area, is also a kind of poverty filter, or at least in a way luck filter
To make it here you need to pass through a long filter of luck, hard work and lottery to eventually make it. Most people arrive, almost all of those have to leave. In the case of immigrants this is even more true.
You are not going to Bay Area, CA to start a family, you are going there to test your luck. Its ok, to not make it, its no reflection on the merit of your case. But there's only that many bricks that go on the top of a pyramid, by very definition.
Wasn't going to respond, but just feel compelled to...
I have lived in the Bay Area for over 20 years, 12 years in SF, and now in the East Bay. I'm in SF, Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville, and Contra Costa at least once a week.
Personally I do not know anybody who has been assaulted or robbed and I have never been assaulted or robbed. I frequently am in SF downtown, and in Oakland/Emeryville. Both considered "hotspots"; nothing ever happened to me and never felt unsafe.
I do not feel exhausted. I never did anything more than my job (and, yes, I'm in "tech". And nobody ever yelled at me for it.)
The nature, landscape, the parks, hikes, culture, weather are pretty awesome and I'll likely never move away.
Is everything perfect? Of course not!
Is there a problem with homelessness? Yes there is! Maybe we should do what other cities and counties have done and just chase the homeless out to somewhere else, kick the can down the road? HELL NO! I happen to work at a company that actually does something about that.
My sampling set is obviously small (my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances), and so seems the author's sampling set.
The author undoubtedly had his experiences and that's a shame. I'm just here to convey a different view on things and not all of us feel that way.
Appreciate your perspective. It was in the news that people are leaving their car windows and trunk open to prevent theft. Smash and grabs are rampant throughout the city. Is this not your experience or has someone already stolen your car so it's not an issue anymore?
Heh. We all know that news are sensational by their very nature. Nobody reports all the good things that happen, or on the bad stuff that did not happen.
No, my car was not stolen and no it hasn't been broken into, yet. (knock knock knock)
Don't doubt it's happening, I have never seen a car with the window or trunk open.
I lived in SF 10 years and early on I was robbed at knife point just walking around The Mission district at around 7 PM (though it was dark because it was winter time).
I wasn't robbed but there was a person that burst out of the Victoria's secret downtown right in front of me.
My friend had her laptop stolen in the coffee shop I used to frequent, and while the thief was caught they could not recover any of the stolen stuff and she was eventually released.
Someone grabbed my iPhone out of my pocket (though I chased him down and forced him to return it).
Friend had parked a car in The Mission for their wedding held there. It was broken into and some wedding gifts including cash were stolen.
Friend had a guy "accidentally" open his back balcony door.
While working out of a pretty crowded Starbucks in the financial district some thugs came in and attempted a snatch and grab. He basically leaned in really quickly towards me but then apparently aborted when I braced and held the laptop. I wasn't even sure until the guy next to me told me after they left that they were planning to snatch it, and that one time he saw them do this and while trying to leave run full speed into a door that opened in-ward only.
I also for several years took the BART around midnight daily (after working out of a coffee shop downtown) so there's a long list of stuff I'm not even mentioning.
I think if you do short restricted trips to SF to nice areas, go with groups, take Ubers or your own car, etc, you can be pretty insulated. It wouldn't be hard to be sensible and take obvious precautions to greatly limit your exposure to crime. In fact, almost all of my friends who are there find it a great place to live because they basically do not have to interact with any of the undesirable parts or peoples of SF. I personally tried to take as much public transit (bus, walking, and BART) as much as I could, ate in The Tenderloin almost daily (and walked through it), and worked from public places frequently, so maybe I was asking for it but also I didn't want to give up the freedom to be able to do those things and not live some "alternate" city insulated life.
It's no wonder there's an anti-techie sentiment because the techies live on a complete different plane of existence here, never having to interact with the lower classes except when giving a tip, accepting a delivery, or writing a roommate rejection letter, and never having to interact with the public infrastructure that a whole class of people depend on and have no choice but to use. Some of my friends never had to leave the house except to go to work (delivery for food and groceries, Uber if they had to go somewhere specific). Yea if you can keep yourself in this bubble life is great; the city is great; the pay is great.
Of course, I did feel exhausted and left last year. If I wanted an insulated city life I'd have moved to the suburbs or LA. Planning to move to Tokyo as soon as they open up, where I can hopefully at least live in the city amongst the people, rather than above them.
This reliance on delivery is baffling to me. I've tried and had them half the time give me incorrect replacements and as a foodie I just can't abide it. Quality of the produce is also hit or miss. I also just stare at the screen and waste time not able to decide but in person I can be in and out fairly quickly. I guess I'm not affluent enough (I just bought a house for 935k).
BTW how are you planning to live in Tokyo? Also my dream.
As an employee, you'd have to find a job or go as a "language student." As a founder, you can either incorporate over there (expensive but not prohibitively so) or set up a representative office and move yourself as the employee over there (actually cheaper than going as a language student).
> I think if you do short restricted trips to SF to nice areas, go with groups, take Ubers or your own car, etc, you can be pretty insulated. It wouldn't be hard to be sensible and take obvious precautions to greatly limit your exposure to crime. In fact, almost all of my friends who are there find it a great place to live because they basically do not have to interact with any of the undesirable parts or peoples of SF. I personally tried to take as much public transit (bus, walking, and BART) as much as I could
Other people have noted that San Francisco residents will fight like hell against the idea of opening a BART station, whereas anywhere else in the world a subway station is a very valuable amenity that dramatically increases the value of nearby apartments.
If you take BART and Muni trains regularly you'll notice the crowd is very very different, with BART probably mostly being used by out-of-city commuters working in the service industry and the occasional Berkley students, and MUNI servicing more SF residents. Most of the wealthy tech class avoid the BART like the plague, and it's easy to see why because a good 10-20% of the BART passengers are just homeless people roaming around the trains. So seeing as how rich people never use BART, it's easy to understand why they associate it with just undesirable people and a vessel for transporting them into the city.
> Friend had parked a car in The Mission for their wedding held there. It was broken into and some wedding gifts including cash were stolen.
That someone would park like this with a car full of stuff is mind boggling to me. The mission is not somewhere I’d leave anything in sight in my car let alone a car full of wedding presents.
It’s unfortunate that this happened to your friend, and it’s not right that it happened, but it’s also obvious that it would happen. Were they from out of town?
I guess some people are like that and others are more paranoid. I’ve never had anything stolen from my car, knock on wood, but I’m rather paranoid about it because replacing windows would be a major bummer.
I guess if we're offering data points - I lived in SF for 17 years. My car (during the years I had a car) was broken into multiple times to steal completely worthless crap. A couple friends got mugged on the street. One person I know had to have her jaw wired back together when some random homeless guy ran up to her (unprovoked, completely by surprise) and shattered a glass bottle on her face.
I personally don't feel at all unsafe in SF, but I do feel pretty icky there these days. Expensive and dirty and not really any fun. I moved to the country and don't regret it in the slightest.
That said, I think the east bay is still pretty fun. Much of the life that used to be in SF seems to still exist in Oakland.
This is what really blows my mind. SF is the only city I know of where you can walk out the doors of a multi-billion dollar company to be greeted by absolute filth. I'm sure there are parts of NY/DC/Boston that are comparable but I don't understand why they're so central in SF. Even in DTLA most of the economic activity is reasonably separated from skid row.
I would call it a consequence of the two-party system. San Francisco's commitment to subsidizing their own criminal underclass can only really exist in the context of the dispute between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party over how an underclass should be dealt with. The Democrats control California for other reasons, and their control is so solid that they're free to implement their worst ideas.
This ignores some upstream decisions that were done by powers other than Democrats.
Governor Reagan closed most mental institutions in the state. Lots of them were terrible places because we humans (even doctors) are not kind to others with mental illness, especially the ones that dislike being held against their will. Also, asylum inmates are kind of hidden and politically “voiceless”. The jail/prison system was the de facto replacement, but US incarceration largely increases mental illness and our corrections system isn’t great at helping people avoid being put away again.
Then the SCOCA ruled that the prisons and jails in California were so overcrowded that it violated the rights of inmates, so the state had to quickly work to whittle down incarcerated populations while prosecutors were trying to pretend like they had any chance at a defendant would do long time for a light crime. Then the voters passed a state prop to reduce some classes of crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.
There are 2 silver linings as I see them: (1) some jurisdictions in CA are experimenting with voting other than First Past the Post and (2) voters in SF and other cities see some of these issues as political and policy losers and are eager to reject them (if given a reasonable alternative).
This Fall I moved to NYC after 16 years residing in San Francisco. I’ve been amazed how clean and safe the Manhattan streets seem relative to SF. Over the course of my life in San Francisco I’ve:
1) Had a crazy homeless person try to push me under a moving Bart.
2) Was assulted by two thugs outside of City Lights Books
3) Seen multiple laptop snatches at various coffee shops
4) Had a good friend who twice got punched in the face out on the streets.
I loved SF back in the day, but that city feels gone. Buried under a pile of dangerous filth. Now that I’m in New York, I couldn’t be happier!
1. have seen people get their laptops snatched in coffee shops, right in front of them
2. friend mugged at gunpoint at emeryville bart station, and pistol whipped on the head even after giving up his belongings
3. had someone break into an apartment in our apartment complex
4. had a drunk guy follow me & my wife, while waving a bottle in his hand. I honestly thought a confrontation was going to be unavoidable, but luckily we got home before he caught up with us
5. a friend had her old, beat-up car broken into so often, she stopped getting the window replaced
San Francisco loves to impose regulations and collect taxes. Meanwhile tax payers and lawful citizens have to not only deal with filthy streets and mentally unstable individuals, but are also shamed for pointing out the existence of any of these problems.
the only thing keeping me sane is that I’m moving out of this shithole of a city in a month.
Agreed, this seems like another article complaining about SF but saying “Bay Area” instead. Most of the complaints here are very specific to SF, especially the usual tropes of violence and poop. Not sure why articles dunking on SF have yo drag the whole bay into it.
+1. As I mentioned in another comment, I've lived in the East Bay for longer than the author has lived in SF, and I've experienced precisely none of what he's talking about.
Hear, hear! I have lived in the Bay Area for a couple years longer than the author of the article, and I haven't experienced any of what they say they have. Specifically, I've experienced 0 home break-ins, 0 car break-in, 0 other thefts, and never been accosted or chased by anyone, much less someone who seemed homeless or mentally ill. I've always lived in the East Bay and commuted into SF for work, except for the past couple of years, due to COVID, of course. My typical commute has been to either walk or drive to the nearest BART station, ride the train to my stop in SF, then walk the remaining distance. I've never felt truly unsafe in all the hundreds of times I've made that trip.
Other than the fact that I may never be able to afford to buy a home here, I love it in the Bay Area. The only thing that will ever force me out is money, and I'm doing my damndest to make sure that doesn't happen.
> Is there a problem with homelessness? Yes there is! Maybe we should do what other cities and counties have done and just chase the homeless out to somewhere else, kick the can down the road? HELL NO! I happen to work at a company that actually does something about that.
We totally agree here. BTW, I'm looking for a job. I have an email in my profile (not my "main" email, but it will reach me), and I'd be interested to know more about your company. I'm very interested in doing something that does some good, if your company is hiring a software engineer.
> The Californian experiment was audacious and brave
Yet you can’t be brave enough to give any kudos to Florida’s red politics, and instead call it a “political train wreck”. This kind of social fear is the other half of the bay areas failure. It’s not just the politicians, it’s the people.
You’ll need to get over your holier-than-thou political perception to enjoy Miami (and life).
Texas and Florida are having a huge upswell because they are basically making an anti-political stand to go “back to normal”. It’s attractive to people who don’t want politics.
"back to normal" is not an anti-political stand - no politics wants to keep us from normal. However rather a lot of politics wants to pretend that Covid isn't happening, both for financial and ideological reasons.
> politics wants to pretend that Covid isn't happening, both for financial and ideological
or their constituents don't care about covid, in that case the govt is getting out of the way. which seems more correct, and why Miami is attracting so many. the people want it.
Ah 'the people' (or at least a large chunk of them) are easily told what they want - by those financially and ideologically motivated politicians.
The idea of government 'getting out the way' is itself a political/propaganda construct, if people actually sat down and thought about it they'd realise that in fact they actually quite like the government getting in the way.
Well, if you look at the data, covid outcomes in TX/FL aren't much different than CA/NY despite completely different policy routes.
People in the south have been able to live without restriction, as if covid doesn't exist, and the result is pretty much the same. So are the authoritarian/mandate style policies doing anything meaningful to help?
Obviously there are many variables to consider such as age, prevalence of obesity, density etc, but you would expect to see stark differences in outcomes if mandate/lockdown policies had a substantial impact.
Somewhere along the way the covid hardliners lost the plot and continue to focus on the case counts rather than consider the holistic/multivariate model of second order effects of policy. Seems pretty unscientific to me to have a policy function with a single variable input.
> People in the south have been able to live without restriction, as if covid doesn't exist, and the result is pretty much the same.
That might have been true pre-Delta. The delta wave was about 4x worse in deaths per capita in Texas and about 7 x worse in Florida than in California or New York [1].
Overall, New York has 2 bad months at the start of the pandemic, and then has done pretty well in the subsequent months. Florida, Texas, and California have been doing worse than New York for most of the time after those first couple of months. Florida and Texas were substantially worse that California for about 2 months of the late summer 2020 wave. California was slightly worse than Texas, and Florida was the best of the 4, for a month during the early 2021 wave. This was enough to put Texas above Florida on deaths per capita, but not enough to unset California at the lowest deaths per capita of the 4. Then delta moved Florida to near New York totals and moved Texas to about 60% of the way between California and New York [2].
On other words, statistically if you survived the first two months of the pandemic and then had a choice between New York, California, Texas, and Florida until the present the chances of dying from COVID were lowest in New York. In California they were about 28% higher than New York. In Texas they were about 35% higher than in California and about 73% higher than in New York. In Florida they were about 12% higher than in Texas, 52% higher than in California, and 93% higher than New York.
You're putting a lot of significance on that 'if' as if it weren't a 98.3% chance you were going to live even if you did get covid (not even taking into account differences in demographics). This is about trade-offs, and if the trade-off is living life as normal while still being in the same statistically significant bounds in regards to covid outcomes as those states that institute harsher lockdowns then it is not irrational to choose the former.
The core of the problem is housing. The passage of recent bills that grant homeowners the right to subdivide their lots and potentially put 4 houses without objections from their neighbors is a good step. But it's too little, too late. The two main groups of people who have built wealth: (a) Highly skilled immigrants who came here in droves and (b) Young people who came here in pursuit of their dreams are both utterly unwelcome here. Existing residents who own housing are open in their disdain for these groups of people, and wish that tech had never exploded, threatening their "lifestyle". The dysfunctional politics at the national level treat highly skilled immigrants as a nonentity, focusing all their efforts on appeasing or amnestying illegal immigrants, because their sizable numbers guarantee that they will be a significant source of support for them. The worst outcomes are for the young immigrants, who see that they have no future here because they can't make long-term plans because of neverending waits for permanent residence and citizenship, and can't own even modest homes because of the utter indifference of locals to the housing needs of others. Add to this the neverending turf wars of the dozens of jurisdictions that prevent mass transit from ever built (which enable other large conurbations such as the NYC/Northern NJ area to provide housing to much larger numbers of workers), and it's a miracle tech and the workforce that drives it is still here. Something's gotta give, and the pandemic has made the other shoe drop. It remains to be seen if the past two years and perhaps the coming year are just an aberration, or whether the changes are permanent.
You should report the other break ins. They sometimes use crime stats to allocate resources.
On a related note, it would be a good idea to harden your home so future break ins are only "attempted" break ins.
The American Dream is generally in a similarly bad position all across the country. At least my area doesn't have a severe crime problem and the state comparatively allows us to defend ourselves. But the rest of it seems just normal.
Not really. Better window hardware and window locks, as well as window films are a significant improvement. Strong exterior doors/frames should really be a no brainer. Good lock design including key types and door frame strength go a long way.
Nothing is impervious. The goal is to slow them down and potentially make it too difficult for the majority of the unskilled criminals to be successful. Or for them to choose a weaker target. Of course Good security hygiene is another one that is sometimes overlooked (not using the deadbolt, leaving a spare key out, etc).
I feel fortunate to have moved just north of SF 15 years ago. It was a compromise since there is not much work so you have to commute to SF or the east bay. But now with the ability to work remote, it's just about perfect. I'm sure other people in lifestyle areas, are feeling the same now.
You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you willfully ignore the whole meaning of the metaphor: it is impossible to lift oneself up by tugging on one's own bootstraps.
268 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 235 ms ] threadThe main downside is winter but aside from that it's a pretty great area. Especially on a tech salary. People say, "Yeah but... Ohio". To which I say, they really, acutely and deeply don't know what they are talking about.
It’s okay, you can adapt to any place and make the most of it. But I think the coastal cities are much better places to live. More opportunity, more food, more people to learn from and things to do, more variety. There are cost of living trade offs for sure, but I wouldn’t go back.
I hope Garry Tan is successful fixing SF. I’ll do what I can to get the bad politicians out.
The pandemic has made a lot of things (everything?) about the city much worse while opening up an avenue to leave. Thus, many people have taken it.
As they're leaving behind a network, a likely fractured group of friends, and a never ending lockdown threat, it's created complicated feelings.
I made it a point that I would never return to California for as long as I lived (unless you're willing to pay me a lot).
For point of reference, I'm from NYC so this isn't a blue-state/red-state thing like it has become for a lot of people. There's something about the California vibe that does not mesh with me.
I'm not sure how exactly to say this, but I imagine it's a lot less worse for us than it could be if we worked in many other professions. I get the impressive that relative to a lot of careers and industries, our network and even friend group in many cases is much more global by nature.
Of course, you can't go throw a frisbee with your online friends, so they'll have to find new people to do those things with. I guess I'm just trying to say that if there's any demographic that could keep in touch if they want to, I get the impression that we're it.
How many times in a life do you move across the country with a spouse? I wouldn't call that routine, you need to ensure both of you can find new jobs etc, and likely they are thinking about their future kids and where they should be brought up. When you move on your own, sure, but the more things you add to your life the harder it gets.
There’s certainly valid reasons for wanting to move away. But these posts aren’t really saying anything new, they tend to feed off of each other creating an online impression of SF as some kind of hellhole.
Instead of a definition of equity that raises the floor (a rising tide floats all boats), we’ve adopted a definition that institutes a ceiling on achievement:"
Despite repeating the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" motto literally ten times, it should be noted that upwards mobility is highest precisely in countries that implement policies the author laments (a phenomenon known as the 'Great Gatsby Curve' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve#/media/File...).
The explanation is fairly straight-forward and intuitive, shorter ladders are easier to climb.
Ideally every person would be able to invest in themselves and their community to the fullest extent. Teach themselves and others new skills, start their own business, sell themselves and their talents to others, and create a robust ecosystem of success and opportunity at scales ranging from the individual to the mega-corporation. I dream of a culture (both interpersonal and governmental) that strives for such an ideal.
In practice this does not happen though because it is a lot of work, not all people are able, not all people are willing, not all people are as open, sinscere, and imaginative, “the system” is not really favorable to being so self-starting, and the reality is that most available jobs are awful and it is very hard to have such a clear and vivid imagining of one’s own future when bogged down by a series of dead-end line cook jobs.
When I see things like the anti-work meme/movement I get where it’s coming from, but I also wonder what such a person would do once their goal of anti-work is achieved.
I worked in equity research at a financial adviser, I am not anti-markets at all (although am probably towards the left of things, for economics more than anything...substantial inequality is not sustainable economically) but the reason why the US doesn't have downward mobility is because rich people do not need skills. You need money to get rich, not skills.
If you look at other countries with similar economic models, for example the UK, you see much higher downward mobility. Again, the simple reason for that is less buoyant financial markets (and btw, UK property has gone through the roof and wealthier individuals in the UK own proportionally more property...the US is really, really out there). The only place that is really comparable are explicitly corporatist states like Germany and China...and the former has (tbf, fairly weak) mechanisms to guarantee a certain living standard.
I don't really understand the US system at all. The welfare state is Bezos and Musk's space projects. And people wonder why their fellow citizens are struggling? You are rich, but you live in a society where many other people are suffering...that isn't wealth.
The US's starting point was revolting over a few percent on a couple random assortments of goods (and a few other affronts).
[0] https://img.ifunny.co/images/bfab53583fcce050029cd61cfea5c6d...
In lifestyle, California is simply unmatched in the United States. It offers a level of abundance in produce that is just unheard of anywhere in the world. It's only natural given that California has some of the most fertile land in the world and produces roughly 30-40% of the US's fruit and vegetable output. The moderate Mediterranean weather is really great in the Bay Area, getting even better in Southern California with a large number of sunny days, low humidity, and mild temperatures for much of the year. The variety and proximity of natural beauty, whether it be pristine beaches, fragrant oak and cedar forests, majestic sequoias, towering edifices of rock and ice in the Sierras, the picturesque and barren Mojave desert or strangely lunar Mono Lake and Inyo National Forest, is simply unparalleled anywhere else. Drive 15 minutes out of a bustling metropolitan area, and you will find plenty of nature trails in breathtaking settings.
In terms of social problems, their scale just boggles the mind. The persistent homelessness that is the result of other states dumping their homeless and the complete heartlessness of the liberal coastal elites when it comes to housing; the eye-watering taxation and rampant mismanagement of revenues (and rampant corruption leading to brazen giveaways to public employees) leading to boom-and-bust budgets that swing with the fortunes of the wealthiest dozen Californians (literally); the widespread environmental degradation resulting from toxic industries including mining and semiconductors; permanently depleted water tables in the central valley because of harmful cash crops such as Alfalfa and almonds; and encroachment upon dry chaparral habitats by housing development and sprawl, not to mention the resulting forest fires. On top of all this, there is a massive underclass of internal and external migrants who have zero upward mobility because of the permanently high costs of living (a feature of California since at least the Gold Rush) and find themselves permanently on the margins. The economic dynamism of the state is shrinking rapidly and businesses are falling over themselves moving to friendlier locales. The politics is a monoculture, with one party ruling unchallenged for decades, thus causing deeply entrenched corruption and a genuine lack of ideas (one of CA's senators is 88 years old. Biden is a spring chicken in comparison).
You would be forgiven if you thought the rest of the US is free of these problems: they will soon be the problem of the rest of the US; California is just on the leading edge, that's all.
Yeah, /you're/ part of the solution.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are you going to afford food if all the techies leave?
Every economy (not just nations) trades with its neighbors and has imports and exports. One of San Francisco's imports is food. But what does San Francisco produce to export/trade for that food?
Today one of the exports is generalized "tech" (software licenses, X as a Service, design of products that are built in China).
What else? When tech leaves, what do you produce that can be sold to people outside San Francisco?
If you look at any former rust-belt mill town, it's not just the factory workers that are affected when the plant closes. Unemployed mill workers can't afford new trucks (so salespeople make less). They can't afford haircuts, so the barber closes up shop. The can't afford to go out to eat or drink, so the entire service industry feels the pain.
Remember the part where I said, "The Bay Area is not San Francisco"? I don't live in San Francisco. I genuinely don't care what San Francisco produces for export. Also, you're implying that San Francisco, or the greater Bay Area, somehow didn't produce anything before the tech locusts arrived. That is false. California's economy consists of far more than just tech drek.
Ok, so does Oakland not eat? What about Milpitas? Are they photosynthesizing their food too?
> Also, you're implying that San Francisco, or the greater Bay Area, somehow didn't produce anything before the tech locusts arrived.
I implied nothing of the sort. But you haven’t addressed my question. What do they produce today? Hmm?
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
In my opinion, the unvaccinated should simply not go to the hospital if they get infected and instead recuperate at home. Sadly, they’ll continue to leech off of the work of those that have taken the bare minimum steps.
The only consistent people these days seems to be the true extremists who are so far from either party's official platform that they can call it how they see it.
Regardless of that: if I am someone who believes that vaccines do not work (and btw, in the context of American politics...this does not seem a wild conspiracy, you see the same level of nonsense distributed by people on the left too) then am I likely to be convinced by the govt attempting to rescind support from me? No. If anything, that suggests to me that I am probably correct.
In other words, the point of removing unemployment insurance is to hurt people who disagree with me...this is not smart (and again, an ironic position to take from people who view themselves as very liberal and open...next-level stuff).
Except rescinding support for anyone who would have qualified was never even discussed. The question is about making an exception to _extend_ support to a group that _wouldn't_ have otherwise gotten it. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but the status quo is that being dismissed for cause for refusing to abide by legal employment requirements is disqualifying for receiving unemployment.
> To be totally clear: your employer cannot require you to have a medical procedure, and then fire if you do not comply
They can, have, and should.
So your employer is allowed to sterilise employees with disabilities? Perhaps only those employees with mental illness? If you question whether this is realistic, this happened in the US 70 years ago, and the very same principle was used to sterilise disabled people en masse. The ends do not justify the means, this is ubermensch ideology (only those who can rise above morality and do things that others are unwilling to do will possess the future...it is madness, it is something that hasn't existed in politics since the 30s...and, to be clear, it existed in the US too).
Citation needed.
Vaccine requirements are not out of the norm for most jobs. And in “at will” work states, if your demand to not have a vaccine isn’t in your employment contract, you are most likely out of luck. It is not protected under labor law, employment law (unless your union negotiated that point specifically), and is not a protected category.
I personally would prefer the frequent testing or proof of antibodies as alternatives (it would lessen the political polarity of the issue), but I’m not overreacting and pretending like a vaccine mandate is equivalent to rounding up Jews in German-occupied Poland. In the scheme of things that Americans have suffered (but legally and illegally) at the hands of our governments and our employers, this vaccine is diminutive.
Biden’s mandate that covers private companies which are not government contractors is questionable (I’m interested to see how the appeals go), but any org/company which has existing service/vendor contracts with the federal government is likely to be reaffirmed.
SCOTUS ruled over a century ago that vaccines are reasonable to be mandated by governments under certain conditions. There is no federal mandate for all residents, but any city/state that wants to mandate it is supported by jurisprudence. It is honestly really worrying that Republican legislators in many states are rolling back legal requirements for vaccines of far deadlier diseases while virtue signaling their political allegiance against COVID vaccines.
I think you also ignore how much Americans already tolerate when you pretend like one of three well tested vaccines is something that will cause mass unrest.
So are we ok with anything that has been "ruled" already? Or only when the ruled thing goes in line with what we think? Because a lot of stuff has been ruled in the past 2 centuries that I'm sure you would scream bloody murder if someone from the other side defended it.
I would probably agree with you if we were tabula rasa writing a new legal framework, but we aren’t.
You've fallen for a misconception that there are 2 types of states in the US as regards the type of reasons an employee can be fired: "at will," and "right to work." That's incorrect. In fact, when it comes to being able to be fired for almost arbitrary reasons (e.g. boss doesn't like the color of your car, or something), there are 2 types of states, but they are "at will," and "Montana."
Let me explain that a bit.
First of all, "at will" and "right to work" are neither opposites nor mutually exclusive. "Right to work" simply means that, if there is a union in the company, people who join the union can't be forced to contribute to the union. [0] In other words, it bans what are called "union shops." As you can tell, this has literally nothing to do with the legal reasons which one can be fired for. Every "right to work" state is also an "at-will" state.
"At will" means pretty much what you think it does: that, absent a specific employment contract stating otherwise, an employee can be fired for almost any reason that isn't considered discriminatory or retaliatory under federal law. [1] There are some nuances to this, but, employers know how to do the dance to get around these things, for the most part, so, you're probably not going to fall under any of the exceptions. Chances are pretty good, actually, that you acknowledged that you are an at-will employee in your offer letter.
Now... Montana. Montana is the oddball here. In Montana, once you've worked for an employer for 1 year, or the length of the probation period specified in that employer's policies, you can't be fired without "good cause." Under Montana law, "Good cause is generally defined, in Montana, as reasonable job related grounds for dismissal based upon (1) a failure to satisfactorily perform job duties, (2) disruption of the employer’s operation, or (3) other legitimate business reasons." [2]. Specifically, an employee can't be fired for "no reason," or a silly reason like "boss doesn't like the color of your car."
Montana is completely unique in this regard. No other state offers this kind of protection to an employee.
So, to summarize: "right to work" has nothing to do with "at-will," and all states are "at-will" except for Montana.
---
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
[2]: https://kortumlawoffice.com/areas-of-practice/employment-law...
And yes, there are medical exemptions, there are religious exemptions, there are lots of exemptions because, again, it is fairly obvious that the state forcing people to have medical procedures is not a good idea. Trying to say that you have suffered so much already (please, pathetic) so the vaccine is fine is one of the weakest arguments. That can be used to justify anything if you just tell people how hard your life is. You have no moral compass. Something is a good idea or not.
My statements were about the legal current state of things, not how they _should_ be. The grandparent comment was not arguing ethics, but what “cannot” be done, hence I didn’t discuss ethics/morals.
The state only exists _because_ individuals can’t do everything on their own. The state forces people to pay taxes, forces people into cages when they violate criminal laws, forces young men into the military during times of war, etc. Yes, the state (in practice, and likely should) force people to take significant interventions to prevent deadly contagious diseases. There is an argument to be had about whether COVID-19 qualifies or whether specific interventions should be mandated for this particular disease, but this intervention follows directly from state efforts to mitigate the harm of Smallpox, Polio, Influenza, etc.
My comment did not state that _I_ have suffered. It was a comment about the society that I live in and therefore the social contract that we have with the government.
This new legislation is a blatant move by the legislature to signal political allegiance with vaccine resisters and given them special treatment that people who are fired for different reasons don’t get — this is what your parent comment was pointing out.
I don’t know if that’s liberal or not. I don’t really care about the ideological underpinnings to know it’s an asinine incentive design.
Yes it would be nice if people cared more about doing good than being seen to talk about caring about the correct things, but I can't imagine any other place in the world where I could've grown my personal wealth from zero to "As much as my parents did in a lifetime" in 6 years. Whether that's because of or in spite of the environment I don't know, but it sure wasn't happening back home.
That said, would be nice if all the friends I made in the past few years stopped salmoning and stayed in the city. You don't have to move back out to the burbs just because it's family time. Cities are a strictly superior place to live (imo) and being exposed to the riffraff is a feature, not a bug.
edit: There is research that says mixed income neighborhoods are the fastest way to lowering crime, lifting kids out of poverty, and improving life outcomes for all.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/27116/...
The beauty of words and law is they can be incredibly absolute and incredibly vague, so people can project their feelings into this domain and then go to the state to justify its existence. Its just another form of religion in a way and no doubt uses the same techniques religion uses.
Plus how many sock puppets exist, has anyone every met anyone featured in the news and witnessed this sort of crime, or is social media an amplifying echo chamber?
Who would have thought AI on social media could be such expert trolls?
The interspaced boxes with emojis make the text harder to read.
"I think it’s now officially more inconvenient to live in San Francisco or Oakland than when I lived in Chennai or Bombay growing up." - I definitely don't think this is a fair assessment objectively.
If SF built enough housing, it would mostly solve the homelessness crisis, but also generate even more tax revenue for investing in better social services, transit etc. As a resident, it feels like a lost opportunity: the pandemic has made remote work common and fewer people will want to move to the SF in the future.
So, building housing isn't going to a total solution.
Mental health issues need wrap around services and the ability to restrict their actions - which years of legislation and rulings (many will blame the ACLU) doesn't allow for such in nearly all cases.
Addicts, for them, they need to WANT to get better. Even then it is still a long road. Hitting bottom may not even happen for some.
It's not a total solution but it's a prerequisite to any solution. You will never be able to get the homeless into permanent housing when that permanent housing costs 2.5k/month.
Hint: zero.
Not every one can be a highly paid techie with a fancy pad and delivery services for everything. Geniuses are stuck working menial jobs all around the world because they’re necessary. To whom much is given, much is required. If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. We can’t provide sprawling estates and yachts for everyone. I’m in favor of getting rid of the yachts over a genocide of those unlucky enough to be born into privilege.
When people stop risking their lives and the lives of their children to leave counties with marxist governments, I’ll consider your argument. Until then I am just going to assume that the Marxism brochures were really good at taking the pictures from the right angles.
People already work low paying jobs in SF. They are likely living with multiple roommates or commuting from far away. Given a large influx of cheap housing would absolutely put downward pressure on housing insecurity.
Also, your perception of homeless is probably limited to the visible population that is chronically homeless perhaps in tents. Most homelessness is acute and occurs when rental prices increase, temporary unemployment, during bankruptcy, or when the renter/owner kicks out a roommate. These homeless tend to live out of their car or try to couch surf often. Acute homeless tend to have much better odds of finding housing again (maybe not in SF and maybe not during the worst of economic downturns). Lowering rent costs by 60% absolutely would help reduce acute homelessness.
The fact is that “mental illness” is super common, has many aspects (some are significant hurdles to employment and others are less significant. “Unemployable” changes over time as employers look at the cost trade offs and the hiring market.
And Section 8 vouchers (one of the largest programs to increase housing stability) already pay $x00/mo, so there is absolutely some dollar about above $100/mo where additional rental supply does start to reduce the homeless population.
Those were the people I’m speaking about, those are people that many of us see daily, and those are a large portion of the homeless wrecking havoc.
I think you are agreeing with the parent comment here even if you dont think so. These are the people that would take new inexpensive housing - people living with roommates or parents that want their own place, people commuting from far away. These people aren't homeless.
You _assume_ homeless are not among that population, but I would argue there are. Obviously not 100%, but we are arguing about moving the supply curve up, so there is a corresponding adjustment as we move along the demand curve.
But the core point I’m making is that the difference between enough rental units to move an average rental price of $2500/mo to $1000/mo means there are A TON of new units and it would reduce rent pressure even for rental units that are cheaper than $1000/mo.
You seem to have interpreted that phrase as the new policy itself.
Then something happened…
The extent to which people ignore the obvious point that homelessness is exploding in the most expensive cities, like SF, but not in less expensive cities, I find mind boggling.
Having spoken to a number of homeless folks, a common pattern is that they really aren’t interested in housing. If you have no dependents, would you rather spend your life a slave to the capitalist corporation/mortgage/property-tax/landlord complex, or just camp out in an area with nice weather year-round, in a community of like-minded people, doing whatever suits your fancy?
I don't know what dynamics were at play when you asked this question or what you specifically asked, but those things can affect the answers quite a lot.
It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered."
> It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered."
What’s the difference? Being “interested” in something means being willing to pay its price it in order to reap its benefits. There exist plenty of folks who aren’t willing to pay the price of “work all day and live in a less desirable area” to reap the benefits of “have an address” when they can pay the price of “live as a vagabond” to reap “do as they please 24/7 in some of the most desirable regions on earth”.
Anyway they got homeless people in frozen ass places like the twin cities too. What's your read on the benefits they are reaping?
Regarding homeless folks in areas with inclement weather, as I have not had the opportunity to get to know any of them I will not attempt to speak to their experience.
You can’t wish away the fact that SFBA has lots of high paying jobs and attracts lots of people from around the country and around the world. The people are already here. All your mentality is doing is dragging any potential remedy out so it takes longer and costs more. You are applying a Heckler’s Veto.
We might as well increase QoL for everyone who actually lives here (and those who are likely to move here in the immediate future), not some idealistic memory of how some of the metro area used to be 30 years ago.
Those conditions are insufficient to cause the effect you think they should.
Nobody is living on the streets in SF because houses cost too much money. If money was the only issue then they could easily move to a different town where housing is cheaper, there are many places to live that are cheaper than SF.
In my opinion whenever someone says the main problem is the price of housing they are saying it because that is their own personal problem. They want to buy a house, and they think the prices are too high. Why do they not mention unemployment? Or addiction? Or lots of other issues? Because those aren't their own personal problems, so they focus on the one thing that matters to them personally, and that's the price of housing.
"Solve" is a big word, but substantially ameliorate? Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206
https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2021/mar/...
This is extremely short-sighted. Expensive real estate is a blood-sucking vampire squid on the real economy, on every economically productive citizen
You are paying for that overpriced housing every time you buy a coffee, you pay $1 for the coffee beans and you $4 for the coffee shop rent. You pay rent of every person who's services they need, from a delivery man to a plumber.
The idea that rising house prices are okay because you own a house is just as daft as the idea that rising food prices are okay because you have a full fridge.
The optimal strategy is to drive down relative cost of food, housing and energy, and other nessesities of life to zero, that's what we call 'economic growth'. Thats why we no longer live like peasants.
Now do food, utilities, energy, transportation and government.
The idea that amount of people's resources is dedicated to these "overhead of modern life" type things shouldn't be minimized is mind boggling.
Not just this, every last bit of economy is designed to benefit the exclusivity enjoyed by land lords.
No wonder the biggest beneficiary of the big salaries in Bay Area, CA is eventually the real estate market.
If land/housing/space is in short supply then every economic transaction is a kind of rent, you just don't notice it because you are paying for it instalments, its rent nevertheless.
Essentially, if you make it easier for people to buy a home, then you will end up with more buyers, when you have more buyers then the demand for the product is increased and that results in the price of the product to rise. If you restrict the buyers then there is less demand for the product, and less demand results in the price of the product dropping. If less people are able to buy, then less people are able to sell, if people can't sell then they will lower prices.
It is hard to restrict buyers for houses, the only way I've thought of that is possible is to increase the minimum down payment size. If the minimum down payment size was increased to something really big like 50% for a few years, that would drastically reduce the number of people that would be able to buy a home, and that drastic decrease in buying demand would result in a drastic decrease in prices.
Conversely, where I live the minimum down payment is 5% if tomorrow the gov were to say "we want to make it easier for people to buy a home, and so we are reducing the minimum down payment to 2%" that would mean that more people would qualify to buy a home. More people qualifying would mean that there are more buyers and buying pressure is increased, and increased buying pressure would result in rising prices. So lowering the minimum down payment size, while well meaning, would soon result in the prices for homes going even higher and we would be right back where we started with many people being priced out of the market.
Increasing the minimum down payment size would also mean people effectively get priced out of the market because they would be unable to afford the minimum down payment, but conversely, the prices of houses would fall drastically because of the decreased buying pressure. People would be forced to save for a bigger downpayment, but the total they would pay when they actually buy the home would be decreased.
And for those with families, especially those with young children, I think life is pretty hard right now, just about everywhere.
I know software engineers who went from living with roommates in a tiny apartment in SF to paying less for a penthouse in other big cities.
Assuming healthy, no kids, and that the landlord agrees to rent you the place, which may be difficult if you’re a person of color or have a low salary.
According to this calculator [1] post-tax a $100k salary nets you $5500/mo in San Francisco. This is mostly due to high state taxes. So you are basically living paycheck to paycheck despite making 6 figures and living a pretty standard life, which is moronic no matter how much you look at it.
[1]: https://smartasset.com/taxes/paycheck-calculator#XhSaiPp5Sy
California policies are an absolute disaster for poor people. This is true for most other big cities in blue states as well. Although California and Bay Area are far and away the worst offenders.
I live in Seattle. It’s not nearly as bad as the Bay. We’ve made a lot of the same bad decisions. And a handful of better ones. But the trend line is very bad and getting worse.
It's really just one policy and it's the policy of making it near impossible to build housing.
Sleep with the dogs - you'll wake up with the fleas.
A lot of people that would have preferred Bloomberg, some center left, or any center right non-trump Republican.
I’d guess the author is in this more moderate camp.
I don't think you can understand SF today without starting from this foundational assumption, which is something of a narrative violation, actually. I don't see many starting from this point of view - but I do, and I think it explains almost everything in his article.
That assumption is:
San Francisco is a city for the rich.
That's what really explains the motivations and the things that matter, politically.
Furthermore (starting from there), as a city for the rich, SF cares proportionately less than other metropolises would, about things that in other places would make for strong incentives.
So, housing. Remember, city for the rich: they are housed, in nice houses that should keep their value (not have it lowered by apartments). So new housing doesn't get built.
Thefts: Eh, too bad, but if most if your shopping takes place through Postmates & Instacart... did it really happen? Do you really care? You don't feel the pain all that much. So your response is kind of lethargic. You're not personally losing money so it's not so bad really.
BART: You don't use that, lol. I mean it'll keep running and you can get from place to place on it, for the sake of working people, sure. But beyond that... whatever.
School Board: Your kids go to private school. Next.
Tech: We already have money, and jobs. We (the voters) are already very well off. It's fine it tech wants to add to our economy, but we don't need tech and we're not threatened by its departure. And that's very much what happened.
If you look at most of the problems in SF, and the way the voting public has responded, to me this model has the most explanatory power.
Now maybe the average SF voter isn't rich - but the people who shape the conversation & have the most impact are. SF is very much a city that caters to them.
SEPTA is meh. Every few years they strike and you're stranded. Short, direct trips are OK. It's a long complicated process for certain trips. Payment can be different for each type. High speed line - put bills in the money feeder, subway - tokens, regional line - buy a ticket, etc.
Schools... most are junk. It's basically a moot point though. If you have money and a family you live in the suburbs where the schools are better, not the actual city. Philly is the poorest county in the state and one of the poorest cities in the nation. Meanwhile, Bucks, Chester, and Delaware counties are very affluent.
Housing is expensive relative to pay opportunities in the area. You can find cheaper housing, but it's probably not a safe neighborhood. We are in a tech desert. It seems most jobs in the area are at or slight below the national average for pay. Living expenses are a bit above average, I think.
I literally moved to Maui during covid and was able to pay the same rent I was throwing away on an apartment in Northern liberties but instead I was 500 ft from the ocean
Maybe policies like these aren't really helping [0]. Who would blame the parents for that?
[0] https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...
Is the issue you linked in the top 3? Top 5? I suspect top 5 or 10 issues will be about money.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/25/468157856/can-mor...
Paraphrasing/shortening a bit: "Something remarkable happened in New Jersey in the late 1990s... as part of a school funding lawsuit known as Abbott v. Burke, the state increased spending in 31 of its then-poorest districts... spending in some of the districts eclipsed some of the state's wealthiest districts."
"But, all these years later, many are still "spending 2.5 times the national average, and there's no real evidence that they're closing the achievement gap"
It's self evident that funding doesn't matter beyond some low threshold amount where basic necessities are met. Success is about culture and especially culture of your peers. Kids are highly influenced by their parents/peers in terms of what they aspire to do and be.
Kids in wealthy districts don't succeed because of educational funding; they succeed because wealthy parents are more likely to set high academics standards for their kids. And those kids become friends with other kids with high standards. And they carry that culture forward with them.
Culture matters, sure, but if you are freesing in class, that's definately distracting.
It's often touted, but Asian students (of some persuasions) tend to be high achieving (on average) regardless of economic circumstances. A lot of that is due to cultural focus on education.
There are many ways the gap could be narrowed. One major one is to build mass housing, and stop encouraging housing as an investment. This would lower barrier to poorer families from living in certain areas/less "ghettoization" derived from cost disparity. Of course the nice areas will always be more expensive, but disparity doesn't have to be as wide as it is now.
Anyway, many other programs that could more directly attack problem, such as social programs to support regular meals etc for poorer students. But the answer is definitely not putting more funding into education. Anyone expecting good results from that is going to be disappointed, and is ignoring the real world evidence.
I think there's two things to understand, broadly:
No one is saying that math itself is racist, nor is the teaching of math itself inherently racist. Only that the way we teach math is steeped in the dominant culture and doing some pretty simple stuff like incorporating cultural artifacts relevant to your students might help them learn better.
Sadly, as many other commenters have pointed out, besides the rare private school where the teachers have adequate pay and a decent teacher to student ratio, full implementation of any of it is kind of a stretch.
Your point is analogous to telling someone looking at a Christian school guidebook full of Jesus/etc. and then saying "yeah, but what about the non-Christian parts that are completely well understood and normal? Were you just put off by the religious aspects?"
Yes. And that is a legitimate take on the issue.
To your point about religious texts -- good analogy. I'm able to read those texts and find things I agree with, and things I don't, but I'm not put off by it being a religious text.
The “white supremacy” verbiage in that document is a religion and not based on facts. I get that seems okay to you, but it is no different than any other religion masquerading as truth, none of which are appropriate.
I do not believe you are responding in good faith, however.
No idea what the factors are.
On this analysis, the effect is certainly there -- a reduction over time is nothing to sneeze at -- and yet not very effective in terms of actually cleaning up the problem.
But note that this strategy would be severely undermined by letting the price of housing in SF fall.
It's fine, it's fair game after all I m sure it s not easy being Chinese in Africa, but you cant deny there s a sort of lack of politeness in Chinese (the nationality) people when it comes to describe our friends who were born under a warmer sun... or any other sun for that matter :D
Please elaborate on this.
Sadly, this is also the case in Europe, where most major cities that were a good deal 10 years ago are very expensive now. Even taking into consideration that tech salaries are way above average.
Another thread argued the Midwest is more balanced. What are other US areas with good universities and on-site tech job opportunities?
I have empathy for the people solving these problems, because inevitably they're going to screw someone.
Yup, I've moved to Stockholm 6 years ago, house prices in this short period have shot up considerably, with a minor slump around 2018-2019 when some new regulations on credit were introduced. Still appreciating after that, getting more and more unaffordable for me even with a pretty nice salary in tech.
I don't come from a wealthy family, I don't have family money from a house sale that I could use as a downpayment. I will have to save a lot to cover a downpayment and then I will just add to the problem, getting cheap credit that will then inflate house prices. I feel completely trapped, getting into this game is personally beneficial but pretty detrimental to society in the long run.
Also, getting in the game in this all-time high feels bonkers, I don't think that timing the market is doable but it just feels pointless to embark on a 30-year mortgage without knowing what's the future in housing, simply because it already looks unsustainable this can keep going for another 20-30 years. Absolutely unsustainable.
As for the second, you realize your gain when you sell your house at which point you need to buy another which price has also skyrocketed. So unless you end up renting or you buy a smaller house, those gains will be lost. Even if you buy a smaller house, the gain might not be that important as having to sell your own house that you took care for many years could also have a psychological effect... people think of those things in theoretical terms but selling a house is not like selling stock.
That's why my point is that rising prices should not be presented as a universal good news.
I could just as easily say the poorest run city policies:
Housing - don't want gentrification and are rent-controlled anyway
Thefts - don't care about rich store owners or home owners and don't want to be hassled by the police
Schools - if they can't do advanced math then get rid of it so that no one is ahead of them
Tech - they don't work in tech and don't want to compete against rich techies for housing
I think the truth is that it's run by the entrenched, which is a mix of the rich and poor: people who already own property (because their families have been here a long time or because they're rich) and people who have rent-controlled apartments
Maybe they’re mostly liberal?
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Rent-control-s...
To the first commenter's point, most of the policies you mentioned are painful for middle class residents, but don't really affect the wealthy elite.
What you’ll notice is:
* Cops have a visible presence everywhere. They will scrutinize each and every person entering the city.
* Gated communities and guard gated communities. Neighborhoods are designed to be extremely confusing with bizarre zigzags and traffic circles, to trap would be burglars and robbers.
* Neighborhood watch patrolling the streets during the night to make sure suspicious persons are identified and monitored.
In short, SF is a city that caters to government elites and their stooges. The tech elites live in Menlo Park, Los Altos, Saratoga, Los Gatos, etc…
Edit: if you want to see a comedic rendition of what it’s like to accidentally stumble into one of these cities, I highly recommend the Big Lebowski, particularly the scene where the Dude ends up in Malibu. Someone who is not me can corroborate similar events happening when entering such enclaves. ;)
We care deeply about our schools and donate millions every year to support them.
We absolutely care about Caltrain.
We absolutely care about crime.
The whole point of living in Burlingame is good schools and low crime. Why else would we pay such insane prices for housing?
Coming up with such an explanation involves a lot of mental gymnastics. We all know why this phenomenon is happening, why the guards are not intervening and so on.
As for your other points: the idea that the rich prefer to live in a city plagued by homeless drug addicts and robbers getting away unpunished is absurd.
Whole Bay Area, is also a kind of poverty filter, or at least in a way luck filter
To make it here you need to pass through a long filter of luck, hard work and lottery to eventually make it. Most people arrive, almost all of those have to leave. In the case of immigrants this is even more true.
You are not going to Bay Area, CA to start a family, you are going there to test your luck. Its ok, to not make it, its no reflection on the merit of your case. But there's only that many bricks that go on the top of a pyramid, by very definition.
I have lived in the Bay Area for over 20 years, 12 years in SF, and now in the East Bay. I'm in SF, Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville, and Contra Costa at least once a week.
Personally I do not know anybody who has been assaulted or robbed and I have never been assaulted or robbed. I frequently am in SF downtown, and in Oakland/Emeryville. Both considered "hotspots"; nothing ever happened to me and never felt unsafe.
I do not feel exhausted. I never did anything more than my job (and, yes, I'm in "tech". And nobody ever yelled at me for it.)
The nature, landscape, the parks, hikes, culture, weather are pretty awesome and I'll likely never move away.
Is everything perfect? Of course not!
Is there a problem with homelessness? Yes there is! Maybe we should do what other cities and counties have done and just chase the homeless out to somewhere else, kick the can down the road? HELL NO! I happen to work at a company that actually does something about that.
My sampling set is obviously small (my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances), and so seems the author's sampling set.
The author undoubtedly had his experiences and that's a shame. I'm just here to convey a different view on things and not all of us feel that way.
No, my car was not stolen and no it hasn't been broken into, yet. (knock knock knock)
Don't doubt it's happening, I have never seen a car with the window or trunk open.
I wasn't robbed but there was a person that burst out of the Victoria's secret downtown right in front of me.
My friend had her laptop stolen in the coffee shop I used to frequent, and while the thief was caught they could not recover any of the stolen stuff and she was eventually released.
Someone grabbed my iPhone out of my pocket (though I chased him down and forced him to return it).
Friend had parked a car in The Mission for their wedding held there. It was broken into and some wedding gifts including cash were stolen.
Friend had a guy "accidentally" open his back balcony door.
While working out of a pretty crowded Starbucks in the financial district some thugs came in and attempted a snatch and grab. He basically leaned in really quickly towards me but then apparently aborted when I braced and held the laptop. I wasn't even sure until the guy next to me told me after they left that they were planning to snatch it, and that one time he saw them do this and while trying to leave run full speed into a door that opened in-ward only.
I also for several years took the BART around midnight daily (after working out of a coffee shop downtown) so there's a long list of stuff I'm not even mentioning.
I think if you do short restricted trips to SF to nice areas, go with groups, take Ubers or your own car, etc, you can be pretty insulated. It wouldn't be hard to be sensible and take obvious precautions to greatly limit your exposure to crime. In fact, almost all of my friends who are there find it a great place to live because they basically do not have to interact with any of the undesirable parts or peoples of SF. I personally tried to take as much public transit (bus, walking, and BART) as much as I could, ate in The Tenderloin almost daily (and walked through it), and worked from public places frequently, so maybe I was asking for it but also I didn't want to give up the freedom to be able to do those things and not live some "alternate" city insulated life.
It's no wonder there's an anti-techie sentiment because the techies live on a complete different plane of existence here, never having to interact with the lower classes except when giving a tip, accepting a delivery, or writing a roommate rejection letter, and never having to interact with the public infrastructure that a whole class of people depend on and have no choice but to use. Some of my friends never had to leave the house except to go to work (delivery for food and groceries, Uber if they had to go somewhere specific). Yea if you can keep yourself in this bubble life is great; the city is great; the pay is great.
Of course, I did feel exhausted and left last year. If I wanted an insulated city life I'd have moved to the suburbs or LA. Planning to move to Tokyo as soon as they open up, where I can hopefully at least live in the city amongst the people, rather than above them.
BTW how are you planning to live in Tokyo? Also my dream.
Other people have noted that San Francisco residents will fight like hell against the idea of opening a BART station, whereas anywhere else in the world a subway station is a very valuable amenity that dramatically increases the value of nearby apartments.
That someone would park like this with a car full of stuff is mind boggling to me. The mission is not somewhere I’d leave anything in sight in my car let alone a car full of wedding presents.
It’s unfortunate that this happened to your friend, and it’s not right that it happened, but it’s also obvious that it would happen. Were they from out of town?
I personally don't feel at all unsafe in SF, but I do feel pretty icky there these days. Expensive and dirty and not really any fun. I moved to the country and don't regret it in the slightest.
That said, I think the east bay is still pretty fun. Much of the life that used to be in SF seems to still exist in Oakland.
This is what really blows my mind. SF is the only city I know of where you can walk out the doors of a multi-billion dollar company to be greeted by absolute filth. I'm sure there are parts of NY/DC/Boston that are comparable but I don't understand why they're so central in SF. Even in DTLA most of the economic activity is reasonably separated from skid row.
Governor Reagan closed most mental institutions in the state. Lots of them were terrible places because we humans (even doctors) are not kind to others with mental illness, especially the ones that dislike being held against their will. Also, asylum inmates are kind of hidden and politically “voiceless”. The jail/prison system was the de facto replacement, but US incarceration largely increases mental illness and our corrections system isn’t great at helping people avoid being put away again.
Then the SCOCA ruled that the prisons and jails in California were so overcrowded that it violated the rights of inmates, so the state had to quickly work to whittle down incarcerated populations while prosecutors were trying to pretend like they had any chance at a defendant would do long time for a light crime. Then the voters passed a state prop to reduce some classes of crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.
There are 2 silver linings as I see them: (1) some jurisdictions in CA are experimenting with voting other than First Past the Post and (2) voters in SF and other cities see some of these issues as political and policy losers and are eager to reject them (if given a reasonable alternative).
I loved SF back in the day, but that city feels gone. Buried under a pile of dangerous filth. Now that I’m in New York, I couldn’t be happier!
1. have seen people get their laptops snatched in coffee shops, right in front of them
2. friend mugged at gunpoint at emeryville bart station, and pistol whipped on the head even after giving up his belongings
3. had someone break into an apartment in our apartment complex
4. had a drunk guy follow me & my wife, while waving a bottle in his hand. I honestly thought a confrontation was going to be unavoidable, but luckily we got home before he caught up with us
5. a friend had her old, beat-up car broken into so often, she stopped getting the window replaced
San Francisco loves to impose regulations and collect taxes. Meanwhile tax payers and lawful citizens have to not only deal with filthy streets and mentally unstable individuals, but are also shamed for pointing out the existence of any of these problems.
the only thing keeping me sane is that I’m moving out of this shithole of a city in a month.
Other than the fact that I may never be able to afford to buy a home here, I love it in the Bay Area. The only thing that will ever force me out is money, and I'm doing my damndest to make sure that doesn't happen.
> Is there a problem with homelessness? Yes there is! Maybe we should do what other cities and counties have done and just chase the homeless out to somewhere else, kick the can down the road? HELL NO! I happen to work at a company that actually does something about that.
We totally agree here. BTW, I'm looking for a job. I have an email in my profile (not my "main" email, but it will reach me), and I'd be interested to know more about your company. I'm very interested in doing something that does some good, if your company is hiring a software engineer.
Yet you can’t be brave enough to give any kudos to Florida’s red politics, and instead call it a “political train wreck”. This kind of social fear is the other half of the bay areas failure. It’s not just the politicians, it’s the people. You’ll need to get over your holier-than-thou political perception to enjoy Miami (and life).
Texas and Florida are having a huge upswell because they are basically making an anti-political stand to go “back to normal”. It’s attractive to people who don’t want politics.
I think for many citizens it is the same, they finally have their "moments" of importance, just as previous generations had their wars.
or their constituents don't care about covid, in that case the govt is getting out of the way. which seems more correct, and why Miami is attracting so many. the people want it.
The idea of government 'getting out the way' is itself a political/propaganda construct, if people actually sat down and thought about it they'd realise that in fact they actually quite like the government getting in the way.
People in the south have been able to live without restriction, as if covid doesn't exist, and the result is pretty much the same. So are the authoritarian/mandate style policies doing anything meaningful to help?
Obviously there are many variables to consider such as age, prevalence of obesity, density etc, but you would expect to see stark differences in outcomes if mandate/lockdown policies had a substantial impact.
Somewhere along the way the covid hardliners lost the plot and continue to focus on the case counts rather than consider the holistic/multivariate model of second order effects of policy. Seems pretty unscientific to me to have a policy function with a single variable input.
That might have been true pre-Delta. The delta wave was about 4x worse in deaths per capita in Texas and about 7 x worse in Florida than in California or New York [1].
Overall, New York has 2 bad months at the start of the pandemic, and then has done pretty well in the subsequent months. Florida, Texas, and California have been doing worse than New York for most of the time after those first couple of months. Florida and Texas were substantially worse that California for about 2 months of the late summer 2020 wave. California was slightly worse than Texas, and Florida was the best of the 4, for a month during the early 2021 wave. This was enough to put Texas above Florida on deaths per capita, but not enough to unset California at the lowest deaths per capita of the 4. Then delta moved Florida to near New York totals and moved Texas to about 60% of the way between California and New York [2].
On other words, statistically if you survived the first two months of the pandemic and then had a choice between New York, California, Texas, and Florida until the present the chances of dying from COVID were lowest in New York. In California they were about 28% higher than New York. In Texas they were about 35% higher than in California and about 73% higher than in New York. In Florida they were about 12% higher than in Texas, 52% higher than in California, and 93% higher than New York.
[1] http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states-...
[2] http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states-...
On a related note, it would be a good idea to harden your home so future break ins are only "attempted" break ins.
The American Dream is generally in a similarly bad position all across the country. At least my area doesn't have a severe crime problem and the state comparatively allows us to defend ourselves. But the rest of it seems just normal.
That would mean reinforced doors and no windows.
Nothing is impervious. The goal is to slow them down and potentially make it too difficult for the majority of the unskilled criminals to be successful. Or for them to choose a weaker target. Of course Good security hygiene is another one that is sometimes overlooked (not using the deadbolt, leaving a spare key out, etc).