Live data from Hacker News

Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

latimes.com

171–180 of 488 posts

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#171
I’ve thought about this quite carefully, and I’m convinced we need to kick California out of the union. There is too big of an impedance mismatch with the rest of the country, and it creates and exports too much economic inequality.

The usual retort to this is “what will you do without California’s economic engine?” And that’s a fair point—America without California will be less wealthy. But that will be fine; and in fact probably better. Think about it. People reminisce about the 1950s and 1960s as the good times. What did America look like back then? It looked a lot more like Iowa. Poorer than California on average, but economically flat with a low ceiling (few high income people) and a high floor (few really poor people). There are few upper middle class people (very little knowledge industry jobs) and consequently very little of the ecosystem that upper middle class people bring with them (housing, retail, restaurants, etc., that are unaffordable to normal people). Upper middle class people are what drive malaise among the rest of the population.

People in places like San Francisco, Portland, etc., complain about the tech industry people moving in. And the response of tech industry people is “hey, we’re not billionaire, we’re working stiffs like everyone else.” Jeff Bezos might have oodles of money, but it’s just on paper. He’s not buying enough houses to move the market prices. It’s Amazon engineers that are buying houses with their high salaries in sufficient numbers to drive up property prices. And as a result, people can’t afford to live and raise kids where they grew up. And that imposes devastating costs on middle class people. For middle class people for whom child care is a major expense, being able to drop the kids off at their grandparents regularly is a huge boon economically and socially. (Remember, the median American adult lives less than 18 miles from their mom.) Then comes all the other stuff. The corner burger joint is replaced by a fancy one that charges $18 for a cheeseburger. The diner where you can get a $1.00 coffee is replaced by a fancy coffee that charges $5.00 for a coffee. Conveniences and frivolities become far more expensive. The local gymnastics studio where you can send your kid twice a week to get her out of your hair doubles it’s prices. Etc. Jeff Bezos, by contrast, has no impact on any of that.

I think the natives complaining about the influx of high income professionals actually perceive the reality correctly. Most of them aren’t qualified for high paying jobs at Google and Facebook anyway. These industries moving in won’t help them in that regard. It will simply create a large contingent of people who can now outbid them on access to fixed resources, which will make their lives worse.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#172
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't understand this comment? Did SF encourage tech companies to locate in the Tenderloin?

It's more sarcasm than not. He's saying it was never a desirable area but tech companies moved there anyway despite theoretically having the money to be nicer places.

Name a tech company with an office in the Tenderloin.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NIMBYism is a scourge

It's puzzling to me that NIMBYism seems so common among people who identify as liberal. It's clearly just another way of kicking away the ladder and is inherently with the stated goals of liberalism. At least neo-liberals seems to have gotten this one 100% correct.

I'm wondering what you think of the idea that the people we call "liberal" in this country aren't really all that "leftist" - they're just more left than our "conservatives". This is especially true for economic beliefs, I find. Like, ask an Italian communist (they still exist!) whether Joe Biden is a leftist and he'll choke from laughter on his ravioli. And after all, Barack Obama's world leader bff wasn't some Green Party guy in Bolivia or something - it was Angela Merkel.

I came around to this some time ago and I'm always curious if it makes sense to others.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#174
post #123
post #6

I'm leaving San Francisco next month also. I just see no reason to continue living here. The weather is nice in California, but the city is so mismanaged it's a joke. The homelessness has been an issue for decades now and local politicians always talk about it, but what do they actually do to help? I genuinely have no clue where the high taxes go. I just find it so ironic that San Francisco is a bastion of liberalism…

> I genuinely have no clue where the high taxes go. I just find it so ironic that San Francisco is a bastion of liberalism, yet... Have you ever stopped to seriously consider if this is the realistic end result of liberalism? This is a very common trend for major cities that have been under liberal control for decades (Philly, Baltimore, Chicago, etc). And yet somehow the politicians convince the population that this…

While I agree, the recent Texas power outage is the result of a free-market system for energy. California hasn't done well with energy either, but for different reasons. My point is that funny things happen when markets fail and when empathy-driven policy goes too far.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#176
post #106
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing new housing to be built to satisfy demand.

SF is surrounded by water on 3 sides. Where do you propose all these new houses be built?

What did Hong Kong do?

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can actually, but you need to provide enough basic services so that people in desperate situations have free, healthy, and convenient food, housing, medical care, and education.

Yes, San Francisco is lagging cities in Texas in providing social services, which is why its homelesssness/street-disorder/drug-abuse problem is so much worse. There is a point at which you have to realize/admit that your ideological narrative, and the public sector interests who popularize it, are wrong. The left coast cities, from San Fran to Vancouver, have prioritized decriminalization of drugs, social services,…

San Francisco is lagging cities in Texas because Texas actually has seasons and would rather not have a bunch of rotting corpses under their many overpasses.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#178
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These days, tents. https://sfist.com/2021/03/04/insanely-it-is-costing-san-fran...

Worth noting that the actual tents are cheap and what's expensive is the security, social services, meals, etc that come along with it. For comparison, the cost to incarcerate someone in California is around $7k/mo and what that money is spent on is broken down at https://lao.ca.gov/PolicyAreas/CJ/6_cj_inmatecost

> tents are cheap

But that plot of land its pitched on might be worth $200 per month (using FiDi pre-pandemic parking rates).

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"By relocating our manufacturing facility to China and laying off the corresponding employees domestically we have been able to vastly improve workforce diversity numbers".

IIRC East Asians don’t count toward diversity number.

Yeah because equal outcomes and partitioning based on race and other irrelevant characteristics is a really great idea.

Sarcasm is on a roll this evening.

Re: Californians aren’t leaving the state en masse but are leaving San Francisco

#180
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People of San Francisco passed a law to allow any robbery under $1000 That’s just not true at all, come on, you’re intentionally spreading misinformation. It raised the limit to $950 for the felony threshold for simple theft. Robbery is still a felony. “Prop 47 doesn’t cover robberies, theft by the use of force or fear. It doesn’t cover burglaries,” Gascón said. “If you break into a structure with the intent to com…

That's a very high limit for simple theft, so now simple theft is what occurs the most. Why would anyone commit felonies or robberies when they can just walk in and take below that limit without any enforcement or consequence? Making crime easier to commit doesn't reduce crime.

Theft under the $950 threshold is still a crime, specifically a misdemeanor, which can result in jail time. The whole idea that theft is going totally unpunished is a false narrative.
Post reply on HN