Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

321–330 of 488 posts

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

#321
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Closeness to the Stanford university ecosystem which promoted tech. Berkeley isn't too far away physically, though it may not be very near ideologically. Talent helps. 2. Matthew Effect: The (talent-)rich (cities) get richer. 3. Weather. I have lived at some point in the midwest. Shovelling snow in a morning storm so that you can get in the car to go to office is not something I'd want to do again. Maybe Denver ha…

5. Because in 1956 William Shockley moved there, for somewhat arbitrary reasons

I believe it was to take care of his ailing mother.

Maybe if she had decided to retire to Florida, Silicon Valley would be in the Sunshine State.

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

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re uninformed about the situation in Texas. Electricity is regulated in Texas more of less the same way as its regulated everywhere else: regulated monopolies control the distribution grid, and power is generated in regulated markets and fed into the grid. That basic mechanism is used not only in the US, but Europe too: https://fsr.eui.eu/electricity-markets-in-the-eu/ (“Please note that while in the EU electrici…

My understanding is that no one provided incentives to cold harden production or keep surplus capacity on standby. p999 events like that are where markets fail because it's rare for utilities or consumers to have that time horizon, and "we're only sending power during a cold spell to customers already on the premium plan" isn't politically viable.

Your point is why “deregulated” energy systems don’t actually leave those choices completely up to the market. Regional Transmission Organizations, like ERCOT, are quasi regulatory entities that are supposed to ensure grid reliability. These entities actually engage in all sorts of central planning, and then conduct various types of auctions with precise parameters to set prices. The “deregulation” part is mainly about shifting from government regulators setting prices to having artificially constructed markets setting prices. It’s nothing like the free-for-all people are imagining.

ERCOT is a bit different in that it doesn’t use what’s called a forward capacity auction. All RTOs in the country have markets where users pay generators for instantaneous electrical production. RTOs other than ERCOT, however, also have what’s called a forward capacity market. The RTO projects how much peak power will be required three years from now, and conducts auctions to provide the required capacity at the lowest price. Then there are various mechanisms attached to that which ensure that a generator that commits to providing a certain amount of capacity actually does so when the RTO calls it in. ERCOT instead maintains a fixed reserve margin—it tries to ensure that capacity is about 13.5% higher than peak projected demand. That’s different, but it’s still not a free-for-all.

Amusingly, many people called the lack of a capacity market a positive thing. In practice it tends to prop up coal plants, because those can reliably commit to providing a particular generation capacity years in advance, unlike renewables: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/flexibility-wit....

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

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn’t the wealthy people per se. The problem is industries like tech that generate highly paid upper middle class jobs that most people aren’t qualified for (and realistically will never be qualified for), as opposed to a larger number of middle class jobs that most people can be qualified for. There is a reason people pine for coal and oil jobs. Head out to east or west Texas sometime. Lots of prosperity…

The financial sector is probably a larger driver of income inequality than tech. Do you kick out NYC too?

A corollary to my thesis is that local inequality is what drives resentment among the middle class. Finance is peculiarly concentrated in NYC. It’s not like JP Morgan has an office in Portland where it hires investment bankers who drive up housing prices.

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

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a false narrative, though what is a false narrative is that it's directly because of prop 47, and not retailers adopting policies directed at limiting employees confronting thieves, resulting in fewer being caught. To the extent prop 47 plays a role, it's because police departments deemphasize followup enforcement on misdemeanors, though there is no legal requirement that they do so: a crime shouldn't need a disproportionate punishment for police to enforce it. And since the same police leaders choosing nonenforcement are also using the increase in crime to lobby for reincreasing punishment, there's an argument that, insofar as Prop 47 is involved, it's because police policymakers are conducting a lobbying campaign by deliberately allowing crime to occur to build support for greater punishment.

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

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying the homeless and mentally ill in San Francisco are just lazy and grifting the system? There's plenty of data available to show how naive that statement is. What would be your proposed solution?

Link the data. I’m saying it attracts people who need something. You stop services to people maintaining the status of quo and invest in rehabilitating and upon failure, removing people. The problem is (idk how many homeless you’ve spoken with in SF). Most chose to be there, you have to make it somewhere they can’t live like that. This is a failure of policy. Other cities have solved this, SF can too.

Cut off services and have them go where? Also, how do you ban someone from a city? This is just a purely NIMBY response and not in any way realistic or helpful. You just really don't like it in your backyard and want it in someone else's backyard. I feel like your next suggestion is euthanasia.

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

#326

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,…

Last I heard rents were astronomical in SF, which appears to be the opposite of what I was talking about.

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

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

As someone whos nowhere near liberal enough to want to live in San Francisco, isn't there some kind of diminishing return effect where the better you're homeless services are, the more homeless come to take advantage, and the worse the problem becomes? Especially with the fantastic weather so less exposure deaths? If Texas spends no money on homeless people who don't help themselves they have to leave or die. What's…

If you have better services, you attract more potential workers to your city. If you provide resources to educate them, you grow GDP. If you treat people like trash, then you get a bizarre dystopian landscape.

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

#328
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To say that Vancouver built built built requires an ignorance of historical building rates. Vancouver, like the American west coast cities, severely underbuilt for decades and only recently returned to historical average rate of home building, which does not help address the accumulated deficit. For example in 2009 the whole city only built 9000 new homes, which is 1/3rd the average historical per-capita rate.

"severely underbuilt for decades " First - there is no such thing as 'under built'. A community can house as many people as it houses - and that's that. There can be an 'amount of new development relative to other places' - but not without a massive dose of 'housing ideology' can you say how much is over or under. Second, the notion that 'there was less building for decades and then a lot of building, but not enough…

My question is did they build houses or apartments?

Because building houses generally does nothing for prices. Zoning for managed apartments is the best way to increase the housing supply.

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

#329
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people call "homelessness", are different (yet overlapping) problems that can be mitigated separately: 1) Public urination / defecation: There is a need for more public bathrooms. That's cheaper than spending millions of dollars cleaning poop and urine from the streets. 2) Public intoxication and substance abuse: Decriminalizing drugs and letting people get as intoxicated as they want is not a responsible approa…

Public intoxication and substance abuse: Decriminalizing drugs and letting people get as intoxicated as they want is not a responsible approach. You won't stop me or anyone else with your nanny-state laws. It's easy to get bricks in Cali, good luck!

[deleted]

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

#330
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people call "homelessness", are different (yet overlapping) problems that can be mitigated separately: 1) Public urination / defecation: There is a need for more public bathrooms. That's cheaper than spending millions of dollars cleaning poop and urine from the streets. 2) Public intoxication and substance abuse: Decriminalizing drugs and letting people get as intoxicated as they want is not a responsible approa…

I support opening up more public restrooms but those are extremely expensive to maintain and secure in areas with large homeless populations. People use them for drug dealing and prostitution, and vandalism is constant.

Public bathrooms smell pretty horrible, I doubt someone may feel sexually aroused in there.
Post reply on HN