Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–488 of 488 posts

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

#481

Post by babesh »

babesh wrote: post #479
reducesuffering wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure I could've focused on explicitly the Peninsula like you originally mentioned, but 75% of the Peninsula is living in Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, not the 4 adjacent tiny towns you mentioned + San Mateo.

So go add focus on those towns as well or go limit it to mid Peninsula.

I also consider Mountain View on south to be part of the South Bay but Wikipedia doesn’t. Most SF Bay natives also draw the line the way I draw it but it doesn’t matter much.

The distinction people I know made is how far south or north people were willing to commute. So commuting from Palo Alto or Mountain View to SF was considered a really long commute. Commuting from Sunnyvale was considered untenable long term.

Most recent SF residents seem to have an additional line around SF and consider anything outside SF far. Oh well.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/30qv6d/help_is_mou...

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

#482

Post by mcguire »

Kalium wrote: post #477
viklove wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope this is better! Thank you for the chance to improve my communications skills. Have a nice day. Unrelated, but I've always found it interesting how people try to avoid appearing like they're actually invested in the conversation they're having and the effect the results have on them. "I'm not here to exchange ideas and make my understanding of the world better, no, I'm just here to improve my communication sk…

I use it to place the blame of someone refusing or failing to understand on myself. The goal is not to signal a lack of investment, but to give someone a way to admit to being wrong without actually having to admit to anything. It sometimes helps remove a person's ego as an obstacle. It's the difference between "I failed to be understandable" and "You failed to understand". With the former, they can come back and say…

As an aside, I understand your argument. I simply disagree.

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

#483

Post by viklove »

Kalium wrote: post #477
viklove wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope this is better! Thank you for the chance to improve my communications skills. Have a nice day. Unrelated, but I've always found it interesting how people try to avoid appearing like they're actually invested in the conversation they're having and the effect the results have on them. "I'm not here to exchange ideas and make my understanding of the world better, no, I'm just here to improve my communication sk…

I use it to place the blame of someone refusing or failing to understand on myself. The goal is not to signal a lack of investment, but to give someone a way to admit to being wrong without actually having to admit to anything. It sometimes helps remove a person's ego as an obstacle. It's the difference between "I failed to be understandable" and "You failed to understand". With the former, they can come back and say…

> but to give someone a way to admit to being wrong without actually having to admit to anything

It also shows that you have no humility and can't accept that you might be wrong. That's what I'm trying to say.

> It's the difference between "I failed to be understandable" and "You failed to understand".

You can't even imagine a situation where the other party in the discussion understands your perspective but simply disagrees?

> It sometimes helps remove a person's ego as an obstacle.

Start with yourself.

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

#484

Post by [deleted] »

viklove wrote: post #483
Kalium wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use it to place the blame of someone refusing or failing to understand on myself. The goal is not to signal a lack of investment, but to give someone a way to admit to being wrong without actually having to admit to anything. It sometimes helps remove a person's ego as an obstacle. It's the difference between "I failed to be understandable" and "You failed to understand". With the former, they can come back and say…

> but to give someone a way to admit to being wrong without actually having to admit to anything It also shows that you have no humility and can't accept that you might be wrong. That's what I'm trying to say. > It's the difference between "I failed to be understandable" and "You failed to understand". You can't even imagine a situation where the other party in the discussion understands your perspective but simply d…

[deleted]

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

#485

Post by [deleted] »

viklove wrote: post #483
Kalium wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use it to place the blame of someone refusing or failing to understand on myself. The goal is not to signal a lack of investment, but to give someone a way to admit to being wrong without actually having to admit to anything. It sometimes helps remove a person's ego as an obstacle. It's the difference between "I failed to be understandable" and "You failed to understand". With the former, they can come back and say…

> but to give someone a way to admit to being wrong without actually having to admit to anything It also shows that you have no humility and can't accept that you might be wrong. That's what I'm trying to say. > It's the difference between "I failed to be understandable" and "You failed to understand". You can't even imagine a situation where the other party in the discussion understands your perspective but simply d…

[deleted]

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

#486

Post by [deleted] »

mcguire wrote: post #482
Kalium wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use it to place the blame of someone refusing or failing to understand on myself. The goal is not to signal a lack of investment, but to give someone a way to admit to being wrong without actually having to admit to anything. It sometimes helps remove a person's ego as an obstacle. It's the difference between "I failed to be understandable" and "You failed to understand". With the former, they can come back and say…

As an aside, I understand your argument. I simply disagree.

[deleted]

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

#487

Post by season2episode3 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #47
khuey wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Last I checked, California cost per inmate was more than double the national average. Interestingly, from what I remember, 20 years ago the same cost in California was about national average. California should investigate contracting the prison service to Oklahoma: Oklahoma spends per prisoner something like a quarter of California spends, so California could save lots of money this way, and Oklahoma would make a lot…

Right off the bat I'm not sure you want to look at Oklahoma as a shining example of how to treat prisoners.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/feb/5/oklahoma-num...

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

#488

Post by TeeMassive »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #231
TeeMassive wrote: post #214

I don't understand the framing of the article when they say > The number of people leaving California typically tracks with the amount entering the state. But the findings show that wasn’t the case in the fourth quarter of 2020, when 267,000 people left the state and only 128,000 entered. So that's 130k people leaving for one year (not a quarter like the way it's phrased, I've looked up the statistics and 130k a year…

> I'm failing to see how losing 0.3% of your population is not the beginning of an exodus? It could be the beginning of an exodus, but it is not strong evidence that an exodus will follow. If done for affordability reasons, it reduces demand a bit to create a new equilibrium with supply. Anyways, I’m not clear why anyone with a background in tech would be confident that a 0.3% drop was evidence that a huge drop was j…

You would not be wrong if that was the first year. But it follows a multiple years long trend. The only reason the population of California kept increasing was because births were offsetting the net lost of migration until 2018.
Post reply on HN