101–110 of 185 posts
Three hours ago this unit was $1600. It was updated to $1800. http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/4726648527.html
It doesn't even have a kitchen. It's just a room with a toilet - at nearly $10 per sq. ft.
"...tech growth in cities like Seattle has been the same to San Francisco relative to its size, but the rise in the cost of living is less than a third of that experienced in San Francisco. This is largely attributed to the city building more housing to meet demand." This seems to be the root of the problem. So much of the blame gets put on tech companies or the rich getting richer, but no one blames the elected offi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I don't think you would ever hear those words coming from a millennial." Probably because Millennials grew up knowing there were wolves just outside the gates, and that your employer might throw you to them at any time. We're the first generation of Americans, in quite some time, to have experienced one significant crash or stagnation after the next. There is no "normal" in the job market, the stock market, the hous…
This is an understandable but extremely ahistorical perspective. The reality is that the belief that wolves weren't outside the gates was a historical blip from the middle of the 20th century.
Since memories only stretch back so far, and appear to be limited to generations, it's fair to say that Todd's generational (proximate) perspective was his "normal," and the "normal" for most people growing up over the last 50-odd years. This can still be true, even if that period was abnormal within the broader sweep of human history.
Furthermore, I'd argue that today's instability is something quite different from the historical mean. We're not simply regressing to the natural state of economics. We're moving out of an aberrant era of atypically shared prosperity, but at the same time, we're being rocked by the result of a decades-long experiment in supply-side economics that has confounded and further destabilized our position. What we were in then was not normal. What we're in now is not entirely normal, either. But your broader point is very true: there have always been wolves outside the gates. That we paid no attention to them for 50-something years is unusual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I don't think you would ever hear those words coming from a millennial." Probably because Millennials grew up knowing there were wolves just outside the gates, and that your employer might throw you to them at any time. We're the first generation of Americans, in quite some time, to have experienced one significant crash or stagnation after the next. There is no "normal" in the job market, the stock market, the hous…
I agree, I didn't call him entitled either. Maybe he lacked training or maybe not, and maybe he saved well or maybe not (he did last for 18 months in SF after he was laid off, after all). No, I wouldn't call him entitled. If anything, I think he was deceived: he bought in to a social contract and it turned out he was more invested in it than his employer was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many may interpret this as victim blaming but I think it's a valid question: why have we as a country/culture become so much more resistant to moving? I know I've read more comprehensive literature on this before a but a quick google brought up these starting points: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/11/declining_ame... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/generati... I understand that we dev…
places where greater opportunity exists like where? You might as well ask why tech companies don't set up elsewhere and start their own little versions of Silicon Valley instead of spending $$$ to headquarter in SF.
Why don't these people just move to more affordable places?
Because people believe that once they've lived somewhere long enough, they have a right to live there forever. There are a lot of issues with this article. It talks about the Ellis act as if it isn't standard in every other part of the country. (in fact, the only thing non-standard is the state of the world pre-ellis act, where landlords in california could never evict people and decide to stop being landlords )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As opposed to what other sort of communism? Also, note that "Prop G" is more or less the opposite of legislative, it's a ballot initiative, direct democracy.
> Also, note that "Prop G" is more or less the opposite of legislative Legislative = law making. Prop G is more or less exactly legislative. > it's a ballot initiative, direct democracy. Yes, its a ballot initiative, which is a direct form of citizen exercise of legislative power (expressly, along with the power of referendum, reserved by the people in the otherwise-general assignment of legislative power to the Stat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As opposed to what other sort of communism? Also, note that "Prop G" is more or less the opposite of legislative, it's a ballot initiative, direct democracy.
Three wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner is also a direct democracy. Just saying ...
"...tech growth in cities like Seattle has been the same to San Francisco relative to its size, but the rise in the cost of living is less than a third of that experienced in San Francisco. This is largely attributed to the city building more housing to meet demand." This seems to be the root of the problem. So much of the blame gets put on tech companies or the rich getting richer, but no one blames the elected offi…
And yet this thread will be filled with tech employees shitting on those less fortunate than themselves. And what tech ceo is showing up at city council meetings up and down the peninsula demanding more housing, or in any fucking way using the platform their job gives them to help even their own employees, let alone other people in their communities? Ladies and gentlemen, DanBlake: If you are a 90 year old grandmothe…
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/18/technology/google_zoning/
Care to guess how that went? Tech CEOs are doing the jobs you proclaim them to not be.
> Yup. Fuck grannie -- why didn't she anticipate rental prices doubling in 5 years?
She didn't need to. She just needed to know that since she didn't own the property, she was at risk. That's the risk you take when you rent - you don't get the safety of owning.
This has been true for centuries. Don't treat it like a novelty.
> Piss on off out of your community, family, job, network, etc etc etc.
I don't know about you, but I've done this. Multiple times. It hasn't killed me. It's not always fun, but that's life.
Since you're here, I'll ask you - what do you think the correct and acceptable way for someone to move to and live in SF is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My problem is this: a lot of tech companies, based outside San Francisco go out of their way to make it easy for employees to live in SF and get to work outside of it. This is not accurate, for two reasons. First off: Many of the peninsula cities (where these tech companies are located) make it even harder to build housing, especially for immigrants. Most of the housing in cities like PA and MV are single family ho…
>> "Painting Google busses as "going out of their way to make it easy for employees to live in SF" is (at least as of last month) not accurate" Ok but as you allude to those buses have been going on much longer than the last month. Also - they aren't public transit. They're private transport. I don't know the specifics of that law but I don't think private transport provided by the company would count.
You're right. I did. Because they have. I don't know the details of any legislation that may have applied before the one that I linked. But I would like to highlight the irony of the voters (via the government) of California legally mandating that these busses be run (see Kalium's comment), even after they have become such a hot button issue.
It's no wonder that we have so many social problems we can't manage, when our voters and legislators act so schizophrenically.
In terms of "a lot of tech companies, based outside San Francisco go out of their way to make it easy for employees to live in SF and get to work outside of it", this argument could be applied verbatim to the government paying for freeways to allow cars to efficiently drive back and forth between cities. This argument could also be applied to people who commute in from the suburbs (look to the bay bridge; there is a metric ton of them) and 'take' high-paying jobs that could be given to the locals who can't afford the rent here. But it doesn't matter. Criticizing the commuter busses for allowing people to live somewhere other than they work is an unrealistic perspective that ignores reality. People will live where they want to and can live. People will work where they want to and can work. Neither of these facts are the busses faults