Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States IT

Are Tech Workers Fleeing the San Francisco Bay Area? (nbcnews.com) 196

NBC News reports: Many urban centers have seen residents move out in large numbers since the start of stay-at-home orders in March, but the shift has been especially dramatic for San Francisco, a city that was already experiencing rapid change because of the tech industry. Software engineers, CEOs and venture capitalists have chosen to jump from the Bay Area to places such as Denver, Miami and Austin, Texas, citing housing costs, California's relatively high income tax and the Bay Area's general resistance to rapid growth and change.

The scale of the departures is visible in vacant high-end apartments, moth-balled offices and quieter streets in neighborhoods popular with tech workers. And while no one is exactly celebrating, especially as Covid-19 has devastated the incomes of many people, some residents were ready to take a break from the rich.... Rents may have fallen 20 percent or more from a year ago, but they're still high by national standards, and many artists left the city a long time ago.

Although some companies such as Pinterest have canceled leases, Google is expanding its offices in San Francisco, a sign of the tech industry's attachment to the city despite the local hostility and the predictions of a permanent work-from-home culture...

Tracy Rosenberg, executive director of Media Alliance, a San Francisco nonprofit that is often critical of the power of tech companies, said she wonders whether tech workers will want to return to a place where they've received a mixed welcome. "The level of tech blowback in San Francisco and the Bay Area was going up in intensity," she said. "I think there'll be sort of a reluctance to come back and face that, because that was reaching a level that was hard to live with — when you are the cause of all social problems, in the eyes of a significant part of the population, at least."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Tech Workers Fleeing the San Francisco Bay Area?

Comments Filter:
  • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Monday November 30, 2020 @08:12AM (#60777912)

    The rule of headlines vs. slashdot "experts". Let's see how it plays out...

  • ...from a sinking ship.
  • What part? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by unixcorn ( 120825 ) on Monday November 30, 2020 @08:20AM (#60777928)

    "....when you are the cause of all social problems, in the eyes of a significant part of the population, at least."

    It's a sad day when creating and providing jobs to folks is being billed as the cause of all social problems.

    • Re:What part? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Monday November 30, 2020 @08:33AM (#60777956)
      And somehow, not the politicians who have been running the city for generations and made the decisions that directly caused those problems. Granted, the companies getting the blame have supported those politicians in order to curry favor, but if the people of San Fransisco are upset over social problems then they should blame those responsible - the leaders they keep voting for.
      • ^^ THIS ^^

        They are not taking any accountability for the end result of their votes. Even as their urban centers burn, shops are plundered, the forests burn, homeless litter the sidewalks, and the cost of living and taxes are some of the highest in the country, they don't connect the dots.

        Why on Earth would anyone want to leave a paradise like that???

      • Georgia (while narrowly going Democrat for the presidential election) as been a conservative state, however their level of homelessness percentages is about the same as California. A large city is a complex system to run, and many of its functions are outside of partisan politics.

        A City is rarely self sufficient. It will need resources from other areas to keep it running. However it is a major economic driver who keeps all these areas in business. As it is easier to ship say 100tons of Beef to a city, tha

        • by tsqr ( 808554 )

          Georgia (while narrowly going Democrat for the presidential election) as been a conservative state, however their level of homelessness percentages is about the same as California.

          According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness [endhomelessness.org], Georgia has 9 homeless per 10,000 in the general population, while California has 33 homeless per 10,000 in the general population.

          I don't believe that any reasonable person would consider those numbers to be "about the same". DC, New York, Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Washington [endhomelessness.org] lead the nation in homelessness by percentage of population.

    • Consumers create jobs. Cash hoarders prevent them from existing.

      The new thing for wealthy people is to stick their cash in a tax haven instead of investing it. Their money doesn't create any jobs while sitting still. It has to move to have currency, that's what the name means.

      • Can you blame them? When you are taxed as heavily as Californians, and the tax havens are legal, why wouldn't they play it safe by sequestering your dollars in a tax haven. This goes right back to the elected officials who are making the tax laws to benefit their own pockets or those of their benefactors.

        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          Because if you do that, you get a bunch of homeless people sleeping in your driveway and a fire department that doesn't have enough resources to put out a fire before it burns your home down.

      • Consumers create jobs. Cash hoarders prevent them from existing.

        The new thing for wealthy people is to stick their cash in a tax haven instead of investing it. Their money doesn't create any jobs while sitting still. It has to move to have currency, that's what the name means.

        I have to presume the tax havens pay interest. Interest is born out of loans. Loans tend to lead to productivity of some kind and tend to be part of consumption. So, while I agree that hoarding is a problem... is it as big a problem as you suggest?

        • Re:What part? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday November 30, 2020 @09:46AM (#60778198) Homepage Journal

          I have to presume the tax havens pay interest.

          They mostly don't, or they pay so little that they don't keep up with inflation. In fact it COSTS money to hide your cash in an overseas/offshore haven. However, a few US states now make it possible to create perpetuities, which are typically used as a kind of tax haven. Those fictional creations can put their money wherever they want, so SOME of them are certainly earning interest. However, the loans are mostly being made to already-wealthy people shuffling cash around in ways that don't perform any work, i.e. they don't provide any employment.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Smashing windows creates jobs, doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing.

      Obviously the problem here is that while there are some good tech jobs they are all bunched up and the end result is that the locals get forced out of the area. Their rents shoot up and they are forced to move further away from friends and their jobs.

      This is a great opportunity for those jobs to be spread around. Better for everyone that way, more business opportunities to provide services and cheaper for the employees and the emplo

    • by fermion ( 181285 )
      Providing job for the residents is the governments partial responsibility. So is insuring that those people have food, shelter, transportation. But is is the markets job to regulate how the worker allocates the funds they have, and how much that worker is funded by their job. The government can fund both sides within reason by imposing a minimum wage, direct welfare payment, and as well as subsidized housing and public transportation.

      What we are seeing in places like San franscisco is that some people fee

  • This is why... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by martynhare ( 7125343 ) on Monday November 30, 2020 @08:38AM (#60777966)
    Every bit of progress we make socially should be done at a very manageable pace. Fix one problem at a time and every problem will eventually be solved, try to fix everything all at once, and you will solve nothing. San Francisco fits strongly into the latter category and now has more problems as a result than it ever did before.

    It's easy to fix one issue at a time, let's take rampant homelessness: While there will always be temporary homelessness of one kind or another, authorities could start to fix a major problem (using the excessive tax money they've already collected) by creating social housing under non-profit charities which can never, ever be bought/sold on the free market. These non-profits could then charge tenants (relative to gross income) at a rate which is at worst just below that of equivalent private housing. This would force for-profit private landlords to compete with ever-reducing costs over time.

    While this may sound infeasible given existing property prices, it really isn't. Spawning non-profits creates a situation where larger tech companies (e.g. Apple, Google) can make tax write-offs through regular charitable donations which would go towards making housing costs cheaper for everyone, including their own employees, while also keeping money out of the hands of potentially corrupt politicians. Donations would not only be a nice tax-dodge for accounting purposes but they would almost become investments (in a manner of speaking), as cheaper housing means one can also get away with paying new employees a cheaper salary.

    Even hellholes like London have started to implement this approach, where planning permission (in practice) isn't given unless fair and equal provisions for social housing are made available, under the control of independent, non-profit entities, which then contract to have access. This even covers the permits for the dedicated shops, security services and concierge services, which would otherwise be exclusive to higher paying tenants but can also technically be used by the poorer residents too.

    Of course, this would require a lot of investment and the balls to tell people who campaign about other less important issues to STFU for a bit. Something that I doubt SF politicians will ever dare to do.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      People are only fleeing SF in droves because of Coronavirus, and knock-on problems caused by it. Despite the many things that suck about it (and I've lived there, mind you, unlike most of the cacklers who cry about street turds here on the dot) there are also many appealing things about it... normally. Not so much right now. Even as a place to hide out and lay low it's pretty slick, due to all the great take-out, which I presume is still going strong. However, without a job, it's untenable. And the current

    • Government is about managing problems, not fixing them. If you fix a problem then the need for the agency goes away. Government never gets any smaller.

    • by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Monday November 30, 2020 @09:09AM (#60778070)

      It's easy to fix one issue at a time, let's take rampant homelessness: While there will always be temporary homelessness of one kind or another, authorities could start to fix a major problem (using the excessive tax money they've already collected) by creating social housing under non-profit charities which can never, ever be bought/sold on the free market. These non-profits could then charge tenants (relative to gross income) at a rate which is at worst just below that of equivalent private housing. This would force for-profit private landlords to compete with ever-reducing costs over time.

      When you see a homeless beggar, it's a sign of failure on your entire society. You've made a very intelligent sounding argument, but I think it's very flawed at its core. Most Europeans are shocked by how bad our homeless problem is. Yet when you read stats, Sweden has a similar number of people in the same economic boat, but the gov actually takes care of them. They don't rely on charities and the kindness of elites because they have a more competent government.

      Before you troll me, I'm no hippie. The homeless piss me off. I honestly just don't like them. I worked hard all my life to get out of poverty and some addict thinks he deserves money because he confronts me and makes me feel awkward in front of my small kids? Fuck him.

      That said, as I've grown up, I realize my anger is misplaced. A certain percentage of people can't function in society...and civilized societies take care of them. Every country has people like that, the USA is just terrible at helping them because we think they need to be punished for failing. It doesn't have to be nice accommodations, but they should be off the streets. Our gov is failing us when you see a beggar. If he's an addict, he should get free help. If he truly is starving, he should get a basic meal and shitty place to sleep. They need to be taken off the street so they stop harassing the rest of us.

      As Americans, we seem determined to cut off our nose to spite our face. So many Americans think people need to suffer the worst life has to offer because they don't work. As a result, we have entire neighborhoods in every major city that are scary to be in and lack development or investment. The homeless tent cities around the underpass are costing you money. That's entire areas that need extra policing and that miss out on investment and development. That's communities with inferior schools and less productive workforces. If America just put them in shelters, even shitty ones, we'd save a lot of other costs. How much would the crime rate go down if we paid for addiction treatment for anyone who needs it?...how much would your nearest city's economy be boosted if everyone felt safe walking around at night? How much would the crime went down if every kid in a bad neighborhood got the same education as kids in average neighborhoods?

      Your argument relies on rich people to bail us out. Fuck that. I don't want to rely on the generosity of Jeff Bezos as we live in a new gilded age with historically low taxes for the 0.001% while my taxes were barely cut in the last 4 years. I fucking hate charities that tackle systemic issues the gov should be doing. Privately funded homeless shelters are a sign our local government can't take care of its citizens. Most of the civilized world does this. Scandinavia doesn't have a beggar problem as bad as San Francisco does. I've been to Italy, France and England and it's not nearly as bad as here.

      As a middle class person, I'm sick of footing the bill to keep the gov running while the 1% live like kings with unprecedentedly low taxes, hoping they somehow make up for their vast fortunes by giving their scraps back as donations. As an American, I take pride in saying fuck you to the King of England so long ago...we're not a monarchy! Yet today, so many poor Americans seem so eager to cut taxes on the wealthy only so they can foot a higher share of the bill to keep the country running and live with the consequences of cash-starved governments.

      • by prisoner-of-enigma ( 535770 ) on Monday November 30, 2020 @09:30AM (#60778132) Homepage

        When you see a homeless beggar, it's a sign of failure on your entire society.

        Because, obviously, the homeless beggar in question bears absolutely no responsibility for their predicament, right?

        Every country has people like that, the USA is just terrible at helping them because we think they need to be punished for failing.

        There's a notable difference between "we think they need to be punished" versus "we object to them being rewarded for bad behavior." The rest of us have to work hard to obtain food, housing, medical care, etc. Why should someone who dropped out of school, did drugs, became an alcoholic, and shits on the sidewalk be rewarded with free stuff? Stuff that I have to pay for if I want it and, worse, if it's "free" to them then I am the one paying for them to get it.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          There's a notable difference between "we think they need to be punished" versus "we object to them being rewarded for bad behavior." The rest of us have to work hard to obtain food, housing, medical care, etc.

          Most people that I know have never had a truly "hard" job in their life. That's something you tell yourself so that you can feel morally superior to others because you don't have a gap in your employment history. Good job, you.

          Why should someone who dropped out of school, did drugs, became an alcoholic, and shits on the sidewalk be rewarded with free stuff?

          Well, at the very least, you should do it so you don't have to step in their shit on the sidewalk.

          Stuff that I have to pay for if I want it and, worse, if it's "free" to them then I am the one paying for them to get it.

          Perhaps a penny of your income would go to social programs that could greatly reduce the social ills in society that lead to drug addicts and alcoholics shitting in alley ways instead of

        • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

          When you see a homeless beggar, it's a sign of failure on your entire society.

          Because, obviously, the homeless beggar in question bears absolutely no responsibility for their predicament, right?. . . The rest of us have to work hard to obtain food, housing, medical care, etc. Why should someone who dropped out of school, did drugs, became an alcoholic, and shits on the sidewalk be rewarded with free stuff?

          You do realize that its's very easy to reach the level of homelessness, and once you it is very difficult to climb out of, right? Hooked on drugs? All it takes for that is to get in a bad car accident, have a dr who is encouraged by the drug maker to hand out addictive painkillers like candy (hello, Purdue Pharma); now you're hooked since we can't have real substance abuse programs in this country and, once the prescription runs out, you're forced to move to other drugs like heroin that are much cheaper.

        • by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Monday November 30, 2020 @11:43AM (#60778660)

          Because, obviously, the homeless beggar in question bears absolutely no responsibility for their predicament, right?

          Every country has people like that, the USA is just terrible at helping them because we think they need to be punished for failing.

          There's a notable difference between "we think they need to be punished" versus "we object to them being rewarded for bad behavior." The rest of us have to work hard to obtain food, housing, medical care, etc. Why should someone who dropped out of school, did drugs, became an alcoholic, and shits on the sidewalk be rewarded with free stuff? Stuff that I have to pay for if I want it and, worse, if it's "free" to them then I am the one paying for them to get it.

          You're paying for their behavior today. Arrests are expensive. Extra security in bad neighborhoods is expensive. Driving far way from cities because no one wants to deal with the crime is expensive. Adding extra road capacity for the evening urban exodus is expensive. ER visits because they have no routine healthcare is expensive.

          Also, sure, they bear responsibility. Why do you feel the need to punish them? Do you want just punishment for economic failures or better economic health for you and your community? How much does it matter whose fault it is? I'd rather pay for a homeless shelter than a jail cell. My end goal is a better economy and getting them off the streets. I don't really even care that much how they got there. I just don't want them to be a threat to my safety or nuisance in my daily life.

          I'd consider adjusting your attitude. The number of jobs is declining year over year. The number of jobs for unskilled individuals is dropping rapidly. The number of jobs for someone without a specialty skill paying a living wage are declining. It's not so simple that one can work hard and not do anything stupid and thrive. Many homeless have full-time jobs (the ones you don't see shitting on the sidewalk who are living in their car). Many are not addicts. As you get older, you will certainly see loved ones who are good people, do everything right, and end up on public assistance...one bad hospital stay would send most into bankruptcy.

          No matter how they got there, it's our problem to get them out and very much in our economic interests to get them off the streets.

        • In the US those beggars are typically human garbage who are beyond help because they refuse self-discipline. Mental illness isn't treatable on the street and general degeneracy isn't treatable without the active determination of the degenerate.
          Before we lied about that we referred to them honestly as "winos", "bums" and "psychos".
          They cannot be "helped" without forcibly confining them to "lunatic asylums" where we used to get them out of our way. Our free society cannot do that so here we are.
          I suggest we s

        • by tflf ( 4410717 ) on Monday November 30, 2020 @01:21PM (#60779068)

          There's a notable difference between "we think they need to be punished" versus "we object to them being rewarded for bad behavior." The rest of us have to work hard to obtain food, housing, medical care, etc. Why should someone who dropped out of school, did drugs, became an alcoholic, and shits on the sidewalk be rewarded with free stuff? Stuff that I have to pay for if I want it and, worse, if it's "free" to them then I am the one paying for them to get it.

          That feels right, but, not really supported by the numbers. If done properly, significantly cheaper for the taxpayer to give them "free stuff" than to have them clogging up the legal system, homeless shelters, etc. Comes down to how you do it.
              Check out the experience of the city of Medicine Hat, Alberta. Since 2009, they have been running a program to end homelessness that includes free housing, robust support networks, no goals and few conditions. The program works: homelessness is greatly reduced, crime rates have dropped, addiction recovery rates are higher, and, it saves the city millions of dollars a year. Not perfect, but, a huge improvement for the city, especially financially.
                All of which explain why this right-wing bastion of hardcore true-blue Conservatives has been doing this for over 10 years.
          https://winnipegsun.com/news/n... [winnipegsun.com]

          • This sort of blind, hate-filled selfishness is really the root of the problem. And unfortunately, far too many people are infected with it for us to really make a dent in poverty and homelessness.

            ER visits in place of primary care cost something like 10x as much money! Police and ambulance calls to deal with the homeless cost substantially more than just giving them shelter and food.

            But despite the money being dramatically in the favor of providing housing and social services, the majority of the world does

        • As someone who works hard to obtain food and housing, and who has paid plenty of taxes over the 20+ years of my working life, I find it incredibly objectionable that these people are out on the streets. Why do I even pay taxes if not to bring up the level of the whole society? What is my role as someone in a community if not to contribute back to the community? I pay for roads and police, for public healthcare (Canada) and public schools. My well being relies on the common good, and people on the street des

      • by sid crimson ( 46823 ) on Monday November 30, 2020 @09:40AM (#60778166)

        I agree with much of your post. However, putting people into shelters and offering free services for drugs doesn't solve the problem as cleanly as your post suggests.

        First, the will of the homeless person comes into play. They have to *want* to be helped. Most homeless people you see don't want the help, even if they want the handout.

        Second, the government has all sorts of trouble doing things well and inexpensively... and will never do both of them together. It is costing Los Angeles upwards of half-million per unit (or more) to get housing built for homeless. Call it regulation, call it corruption... whatever it is, it's dificult for neighbors to accept that their hard work results in less than what's "given" for free. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-09/high-of-746-000-for-homeless-housing-audit-says-try-rehabbing-motels-instead)

        Third, nonprofits can fill the gap but NIMBYism tends to get in the way. Search for "https://news.google.com/search?q=skateland%20northridge&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen" if you want a current example.

        Much of this started in the USA when Reagan defunded "insane assylums" (more aptly called Mental Health Hospitals) in the early 1980s, making it a state-by-state issue. Interestingly, one problem was solved and several more created.

        That, in turn, led to some states to realize that a one-way bus ticket to another state was cheaper than providing in-state care for each homeless individual. The states with more support ended up growing their support (i.e. California) and those with less support were able to reduce. Hey, if I were homeless, I too would prefer the So Cal beaches - it never freezes there.

        • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          First, the will of the homeless person comes into play. They have to *want* to be helped. Most homeless people you see don't want the help, even if they want the handout.

          We don't give them a secure place to store their belongings, we kick them out onto the streets every morning, and they have to get back in line by 4pm to get a bed...and then we think the fact that few take us up on our offer is evidence that they don't want our help.

          We're just not very bright!

        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          I agree with much of your post. However, putting people into shelters and offering free services for drugs doesn't solve the problem as cleanly as your post suggests.

          First, the will of the homeless person comes into play. They have to *want* to be helped. Most homeless people you see don't want the help, even if they want the handout.

          Most of the chronically homeless have psychiatric issues, and need to be institutionalized until they can find the right combination of medications to bring their disorders under control, then allowed to live in a semi-supervised environment that provides them with shelter and meets their basic needs while they get back on their feet. Until you correct the chemical imbalances (and, in many cases, addiction problems), they won't want to be helped. That's why civilized countries don't give them that choice

        • Giving homeless people homes honestly works really well. Several jurisdictions have tried it; it saves money basically every time they do because it turns out trying to manage homeless people out in the street is difficult and expensive. No real surprise.

          I'm personally a big fan of the Singapore solution, where you just keep building apartments until people have a place to live. Vienna also has a robust public housing system. (I know there are weird legal impediments in the USA to public housing; that doesn't make it not a good idea.)

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
          https://thetyee.ca/Solutions/2... [thetyee.ca]

          But really what's at issue here isn't which particular solution is best or most appropriate, it's that many solutions exist and in North America, it seems nearly impossible to get the government to even TRY one of them. We're so unwilling to look to places that have solved or mitigate the social problems we see, and then we throw our hands up and declare it can't be done, homeless people gonna homeless.

        • I agree with much of your post. However, putting people into shelters and offering free services for drugs doesn't solve the problem as cleanly as your post suggests.

          First, the will of the homeless person comes into play. They have to *want* to be helped. Most homeless people you see don't want the help, even if they want the handout.

          How's it going in Europe? You're speaking in hypotheticals, but we have great examples all throughout the world. Let's assume America is not that special and there's just as many addicts and mentally ill people throughout Europe, Asia, and anywhere else. If what you are saying is true, there are about 44 countries in Europe. To my knowledge nearly all, if not all, have less homeless people wandering the streets than the United States. This is not uncharted territory. It's just a matter of looking at t

      • You knew and were taught better ways to cope... And maybe didn't have to cope with what the homeless cope with. Sometimes what seems to be an answer to an intractable problem has it's own set of hidden problems down the road... And becomes and even greater problem.

        See how you answer this question in your mind... Do you REALLY think anyone sets out to live in such misery deliberately?

        Corporations and high wage earners actually pay taxes in those countries too so the government has resources to take care of

      • When you see a homeless beggar, it's a sign of failure on your entire society. You've made a very intelligent sounding argument, but I think it's very flawed at its core. Most Europeans are shocked by how bad our homeless problem is. Yet when you read stats, Sweden has a similar number of people in the same economic boat, but the gov actually takes care of them. They don't rely on charities and the kindness of elites because they have a more competent government.

        There are homeless people living on the streets in Sweden too: https://borgenproject.org/the-... [borgenproject.org]

        The causes of homelessness are sometimes financial, but often are about mental health and drug addiction. Just creating housing doesn't solve those problems. Cities have created tons of low and no income housing, but the supply perversely often creates more demand.
        In addition, cities that have tried to remove homeless people from the streets by putting them in shelters and treatment facilities have been sued by

        • There are homeless people living on the streets in Sweden too: https://borgenproject.org/the-... [borgenproject.org]

          The causes of homelessness are sometimes financial, but often are about mental health and drug addiction. Just creating housing doesn't solve those problems. Cities have created tons of low and no income housing, but the supply perversely often creates more demand. In addition, cities that have tried to remove homeless people from the streets by putting them in shelters and treatment facilities have been sued by people that advocate for the freedom to live in the street.

          Yeah, homeless people are everywhere. You'll never get rid of 100% of them. It's like crime. It exists everywhere, but is MUCH worse in some places than others, even factoring in GDP, thus one should question why is it better over there and worse over here?

          Arguments saying "you'll never eliminate the problem, so don't try" are fucking stupid. It's like a obese binge-eating alcoholic saying since she'll never get a beach body, she should continue on drinking a box of wine and eating and 5,000 calorie

          • There are homeless people living on the streets in Sweden too: https://borgenproject.org/the-... [borgenproject.org]

            The causes of homelessness are sometimes financial, but often are about mental health and drug addiction. Just creating housing doesn't solve those problems. Cities have created tons of low and no income housing, but the supply perversely often creates more demand.
            In addition, cities that have tried to remove homeless people from the streets by putting them in shelters and treatment facilities have been sued by people that advocate for the freedom to live in the street.

            Yeah, homeless people are everywhere. You'll never get rid of 100% of them. It's like crime. It exists everywhere, but is MUCH worse in some places than others, even factoring in GDP, thus one should question why is it better over there and worse over here?

            Arguments saying "you'll never eliminate the problem, so don't try" are fucking stupid. It's like a obese binge-eating alcoholic saying since she'll never get a beach body, she should continue on drinking a box of wine and eating and 5,000 calories a day of junk food every day.

            Also, what about Europe? Are their governments constantly being sued for helping people? We have a lot of data to compare to. This is not a hypothetical.

            Here's an example of a lawsuit that I remember. The mayor of NYC tried to force mentally ill homeless people into treatment programs. The NYCLU sued to protect the right of mentally ill people to live in the street: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • by jlar ( 584848 )

        As a middle class person, I'm sick of footing the bill to keep the gov running while the 1% live like kings with unprecedentedly low taxes, hoping they somehow make up for their vast fortunes by giving their scraps back as donations. As an American, I take pride in saying fuck you to the King of England so long ago...we're not a monarchy! Yet today, so many poor Americans seem so eager to cut taxes on the wealthy only so they can foot a higher share of the bill to keep the country running and live with the consequences of cash-starved governments.

        Is this true? FactCheck.org states that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is effectively higher than that of all income brackets below:

        https://www.factcheck.org/2019... [factcheck.org]

        Tax rates can of course have higher progression. But if Northern Europe is your model you should rather look at much higher tax rates for the entire population with a slight progression. In Denmark the top 10% income bracket (>7.700 USD per month before tax) will for example pay a combined (including sales tax etc.) marginal tax of aroun

      • If it is so hard to get a job and a home in San Francisco, why don't the homeless move to a place where there is work for the unskilled, and housing is cheaper? Why are the skilled and tax-paying moving out instead?

      • and if homeless have to much they lose medicaid in some states.
        We need to fix that or make health care like europe

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      "One thing at a time" has been tried and it doesn't work. These problems rarely exist in isolation so solving them cannot be done in isolation either.

      To take your example of temporary homelessness, it's caused by a number of different things all interacting. Just building some social housing won't fix it because to become not homeless and not dependent on the state those people need to fix the things that caused them to become homeless in the first place. Unemployment, health problems, crime, cops, gentrifi

    • They could not build shelters fast enough. Ask yourself, why do migrants sneak across the border to live in CA? Is it because, compared to where they lived, they get free money (EBT, SNAP, food stamps), free and better healthcare (Medicaid) ? Dont you think people living below poverty in the US do the same thing?

      You can provide for people without giving things away free. Instead of welfare how about a | Everybody has a Job | program. Show up at 6am clean and showered. We have daycare to watch and educate yo

    • Sounds great. But before you fix that you've got to fix zoning, which requires getting buy-in from the various residents of neighborhoods who don't want social housing in their (expensive) backyards, but who do vote and give money to politicians. Two things that the homeless generally don't do.

    • by JBMcB ( 73720 )

      While there will always be temporary homelessness of one kind or another, authorities could start to fix a major problem (using the excessive tax money they've already collected) by creating social housing under non-profit charities which can never, ever be bought/sold on the free market.

      In San Francisco, there is no free market for housing. It is regulated to the point that just about anyone can prevent a housing complex from being built. Existing landowners, union groups, and some environmental groups all have an interest in preventing housing from being built. There was a somewhat infamous case that just wrapped up a few months ago, where a laundromat owner wanted to build, on his own property, a replacement laundromat, along with a coffee shop and a few apartments above the existing pro

  • San Francisco recently passed a "CEO tax" to make things fair. I have not seen so much stupidity from a city. This will just make companies relocate to San Mateo, or even "South San Francisco" (which is another city). Even in Bay Area the cities are trying to push people away.

    For the larger area, things are not getting any better. Yes, the commute is much better thanks to pandemic, but it is also irrelevant. The kids stay home, parents stay home. But the homes do not have enough rooms. One of my friends is

    • San Francisco recently passed a "CEO tax" to make things fair. I have not seen so much stupidity from a city. This will just make companies relocate to San Mateo, or even "South San Francisco" (which is another city).

      You make a big assumption that's not what San Franciscans want.

  • But if you can work from home, why not from a nice place that costs a third?

    • Agreed, but keep in mind, that if you can do your job from someplace else, then, very probably, so can someone in Bengaluru or Mogadishu.

      A protracted COVID-19 lockdown will have the effect - as it was probably intended to - of leveling out costs of living across multiple cities, states, and countries.

  • The pandemic has widely shown that they don't have to be geographically in San Francisco to participate. They didn't care about the negative blow back at the outset... GOLD in them thar hills! They won't care working remotely.

    The REAL questions are if and when the pandemic abates, will companies continue to permit remote working and what happens in locations where remote workers congregate.

    • The REAL questions are if and when the pandemic abates, will companies continue to permit remote working

      My CEO was 100% opposed to remote working, and he still is, but eventually people convinced him to relent because "only local" in Silicon Valley is too hard now.

  • As much as there's a right-wing misconception that San Francisco is a city buried in the feces of the homeless and high taxes, which has lead to it's destruction, that's simply not true.

    Rents tend to be high where people want to be and the available housing supply is limited. San Francisco had fit both requirements - not only is it on a peninsula, but it was a tech hub. And homelessness is a problem in all large US cities for various reasons.

    Now with covid and the raise of WFH, some people are moving

  • It isn't important because a short term sag in the market is just more opportunity for investors. Growth will continue, old SF will never come back and the gummers old enough to remember it will be dead in ten years.
    It's only a city and nobody's concern if they do not personally live there. The rich who live there will be fine and anyone else is there by choice and can GTFO if they don't like it after which they'll be immediately replaced. The US is vast and if one city doesn't suit pick another. We're ric

  • I'm sure, right now, places like Denver are salivating because they're blinded by the (largely illusory) dollars - but, once they've had to live with them, they'll get tired of their resident big tech companies soon enough.

  • To ruin other areas too.

    That's how I see it

  • SF is not silicon valley. Not in the least. The reason techies wanted to be in SF was for the culture and nightlife. Especially as ever more of tech work was web design, commercial art, technical editing, and other basically non-technical work, the folks doing that were more interested in the cultural features of where they live, especially who they can find to hook up with, preferably not just nerds and geeks.

    The virus killed the nightlife and all the cultural stuff, and then they were offered the optio

  • Silicon Valley thrives because it's a hub of experts and specialists. Handling cutting-edge requires a high degree of collaboration, which is dampened under telecommuting. While it may be possible to improve remote collaboration to be nearly on par with face-to-face and water cooler talk, both the technology and worker/manager habits are not "there" yet.

    I suspect a lot of the exodus is from employees on the margin of doing relatively routine work. Covidness merely accelerated the pace. It has long been the

  • The data they're citing is largely from single bedroom apartment rental prices, which only makes up a small fraction of the total units in the city. Single bedroom rental prices are down ~20% whereas 3bd, houses etc are only down about 5%. Prices for sale units show a similar pattern. Price swings are largely localized to the SOMA (near downtown) and Mission Bay neighborhoods.

    A mere 5% price drop on 2/3 bedrooms and houses seems to indicate that the seasonal demand for 1 bedrooms has dropped sharply

Veni, Vidi, VISA: I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.

Working...