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."
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."
Gonna be a good one (Score:3)
The rule of headlines vs. slashdot "experts". Let's see how it plays out...
Like rats... (Score:2)
What part? (Score:3, Insightful)
"....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)
Re: (Score:2)
^^ 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???
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
What we are seeing in places like San franscisco is that some people fee
This is why... (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
How's the homeless problem in Northern Europe? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How's the homeless problem in Northern Europe? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
you pay for it one way or the other (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Our "beggars" really are human garbage. (Score:2)
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
Re:How's the homeless problem in Northern Europe? (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:How's the homeless problem in Northern Europe? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:How's the homeless problem in Northern Europe? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
How did it work in Europe? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
bad excuse for American inaction (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
and if homeless have to much they lose medicaid in some states.
We need to fix that or make health care like europe
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: This is why... (Score:2)
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
creating social housing under non-profit charities (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
CEO tax (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Fleeing? No. (Score:2)
But if you can work from home, why not from a nice place that costs a third?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Tech workes came for the percieved gold rush (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Much politics about nothing (Score:2)
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
Slow news day, this subjhas been done to death. (Score:2)
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
Tech companies tend to not be good neighbors (Score:2)
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.
The locusts spread. (Score:2)
To ruin other areas too.
That's how I see it
Why stay? (Score:2)
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
Cutting edge is not about cheapest labor (Score:2)
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
Headline based on single bedroom apartments (Score:2)
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
Re: Maybe now they can... (Score:2)
Spreaking from experience, the drug addicts who shit on everything ARE those with a "job" in the Bay area.
Look like bums too with their hipster beards.
And by "job" I mean bullshit jobs, batshit idiotic businesse, bordeline criminal scams and being a scourge on humanity like no homeles junkie ever could. WeWork, Twitter, Facebook and all that other cancer.
Also, in a world of automation, where we should aspire to only *have* to work as much as necessary to build the automation that creates our wealth so we ca
Because..... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
So why did these businesses locate in San Francisco in the first place? It's not like these problems just started yesterday.
Back in the olden days (before the dot-com and social media nonsense), start-ups went there for the capital and talent. It has a reputation because of Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Apple Computer, and other technological innovators - when innovation was not some marketing/IP buzz-word and had meaning. Networking with other geeks and nerds. Networking with capital that knew what you were doing - unlike some Wall Street bank 3,000 miles away.
Being in an environment with like minded and creative people. If Steve Jobs was born in Bumfuck, Potatohoe instead of San Francisco, the Apple I would have been just a hobbyist machine lost in history; probably not even that (some prototype in an old mans basement).
Silly Valley has become a parody of itself and I found it ironic that many VCs are going elsewhere for investments. However, if you want to get rich quick on something totally silly, SoftBank and others still think SV is the place to be. Start a pizza parlor there, create an ordering app and social media presence, say you are disruptive and you too will get a 100 billion dollar valuation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The chain goes back further. The Gold Rush made SF a financial capital. For the longest time the South Bay was agricultural. WW2 brought in a huge surge of defense activity, which stayed after the war. The defense contractors and their workers expanded south as part of the post-war suburban trend. Fairchild Semiconductor and the "Traitorous eight" who left it to start their own companies began the modern era as we know it. All of these events primed the pump. Once the capital was flowing, it became s
Re: (Score:2)
We'd have to go back and check.
But recently we've seen how companies like Amazon basically hold a "Dutch Auction" [wikipedia.org] with different states and cities to try and wrangle tax concessions from them. Is it possible, therefore, that these companies based themselves in the Bay Area for business or tax concessions?
Re: (Score:3)
It was just a network effect. MIT aside, the great tech unis were out here. Also, when the silly valley started, land was still affordable out here. So the sales pitch for talent was "come to sunny California, where the weather is great, and the housing costs are surprisingly affordable". Now the whole thing just has momentum which will carry it straight into a wall if history is any indication.
Re: (Score:2)
The momentum consists of some things that are unimportant and some things that are important.
If you are pitching an idea to VCs that is supposed to create a billion dollar company, somewhere in your optimistic forward thinking timeline will be something like "...and then after we achieve Milestone 1, we can high 100 experienced engineers to build out Milestone 2..." There are very few places on the planet where a small company can hire 100 experienced engineers in a 12-18 month window, and not be paying th
Re: Maybe now they can... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the SF Bee claims people are leaving SF in droves because they cannot eat at a restaurant and dine on their patio without smelling human shit, and watching 3 homeless people shoot heroin/fentanyl right there in the corner of their patio. SF has always treated homeless like passenger pigeons instead of actually working on the problem. They then tell people other states _dump_ homeless in their states. Thats total BS. I bet mexico _dumps_ illegal migrants in their state too, Not! When your policy is appeasement and enablement, OF COURSE, people will migrate there. Its not because they were _dumped_ any more than leaving solutions of sugar and water laying around causes your neighbors to _dump_ bees, ants, and other insects in your yard.
Re: (Score:2)
They then tell people other states _dump_ homeless in their states. Thats total BS. I bet mexico _dumps_ illegal migrants in their state too, Not! When your policy is appeasement and enablement, OF COURSE, people will migrate there. Its not because they were _dumped_ any more than leaving solutions of sugar and water laying around causes your neighbors to _dump_ bees, ants, and other insects in your yard.
Some newspapers disagree with you (though not all landed in San Francisco)
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Some newspapers disagree with you (though not all landed in San Francisco) https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Um, you'd better re-read your source. It 100% agrees with e3m4n when he says "They [San Francisco] then tell people other states _dump_ homeless in their states. Thats total BS."
From the article:
"Not!" (Score:2)
Funny you can't cite that article. I'm a Nor Cal native and the most off putting thing that has sprung up in SF in the last 20 years is the tech yuppies.
Also, it's super hard to take you seriously with the "Not!" comment mixed in there. I'm not saying you are one but it makes you sound like an idiot from the 90's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe now they can... (Score:5, Interesting)
Right Wing News has been exaggerating the problems of major cities in traditional Blue States for a while now. LA, New York, Chicago especially as their large population tends to give Democrats a good set of easy to be elected Representatives and Electoral votes. As many of these problems are also in Cities in Red states, but they are not covered as much. Because there is an agenda narrative to show how the Democrats policies just lead to problems and disaster.
To the question on why did these businesses set up shop in these cities even with all these problems. It is because they are major economic hubs.
Want to start up a Tech Company, you start up in California. Because that is where you can find labor (as people who graduate from college to become tech guys will often move to California to find work), business partnerships (For a startup company, you will need some support with the big players, that will mean that you will need to physically meet up and talk to many of the big companies, being close by, means you can meet on their schedule, as your company grow, the innovative startups will be near you so they can work with you on different jobs. )
Cities are attractive to young adults who just left college life, they are a lot of services and entertainment, as well people to meet. (As finding a mate is on top of the minds of most young adults).
Determining on how you measure quality of life, City life could be much better for a lot of people, even with higher taxes as they are also getting a lot of services, which they will be apt to use.
We can paint Suburban or Rural areas to be just as unbearable to live and such a miserable place to start a business. I myself live in a Rural area, and many businesses have a hard time starting up where I live. Even with lower taxes and property prices, because it is very hard to get customers in the door. As well there are a lot of poor people who live in these areas as well. While not shown as homeless, they are living in warn down building, often too cold or too hot. With less than adequate water supply (some of the well water in my area is polluted with PFOA from industrial pollution)
Suburban areas tend to put a lot of effort into hiding and denying their problems. Poor Families are often pushed to the outskirts with little to no services at all. Because they are so far away, they often need to beg for transportation just to get food. The schools while often wealthy, will do little for special needs, and will just kinda pass the kids up grades, until they decide to drop out. Because having a special needs classes is an embarrassment to the perfect community they want to appear to be.
We can look at any area and focus on the negative then say how would someone choose to live there, while also looking at a different area and show it with Rose colored glasses, make it seem like the closest version of Utopia you can have on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Right Wing News has been exaggerating the problems of major cities in traditional Blue States for a while now. LA, New York, Chicago especially
Ummm, have you seen how many people get shot in Chicago each and every day? I don't think it's possible to exaggerate that problem. If anything, the problems in the big cities are being seriously understated.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said I was an expert. However I had lived in Urban areas before, they were not perfect and had a lot of problems, but they were rarely as unlivable as the media wants you believe them to be. Also to the point there are problems everywhere else, where you can paint how there is just a mess there as it is in SF
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Republican polities do lead to disaster.
Preventing care and support to drug addiction, causing people to stay on a downward cycle.
Treating people with such problems as criminals, where they are afraid to admit to having a problem because it will lead them to jail.
Creating a gentrification type of environment where communities don't confront their problems but try to shift them to an other community to deal with them.
Re: (Score:3)
I think we're seeing hysteresis.
The first time I visited San Francisco back in the 80s, it was a funky, slightly run down place. The combination of a Goldilocks climate and affordability made it a magnet for marginalized and counter culture groups like gays, hippies, musicians, and assorted people seeking a Dharma bum [wikipedia.org] lifestyle. It was the kind of place where if you bought a house you sometimes inherited a guy who'd been crashing there since before the previous owners.
Tech companies and workers attracted
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
CA has like half the homeless people in the country. If they're trying to reduce homelessness they're doing it wrong.
Re:There's going to be some carnage. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is trying to take your fucking guns.
Ammo is in short supply because the gun nuts and preppers are hoarding the shit out of it. Ammo has been in short supply and priced high since well before Covid, and well before your imaginary liberal migration to Gunville.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama didn't take your guns. Clinton didn't take your guns. Newsom didn't take your guns. Harris didn't take your guns. Nobody is trying to take your fucking guns. Ammo is in short supply because the gun nuts and preppers are hoarding the shit out of it. Ammo has been in short supply and priced high since well before Covid, and well before your imaginary liberal migration to Gunville.
This. The gun industry is taking you to the cleaners but has convinced you that somehow it's the fault of the liberals.
Re:There's going to be some carnage. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, that's news to me.
Let's see, in Jan-Feb I was readily able to buy 9mm ammo for about $0.19/round shipped.
I believe for .223 and .556 ammo the going rate was about $0.26/round.
Those were the prices before covid hit and there was a run on guns and ammo....it was VERY easy to find and purchase.
If you like to go to the range and shoot, you can knock out 500-1000 rounds quite easily....and until just recently it was easy to buy and reasonably priced.
So, no..this is VERY recent....and all those new gun purchasers, according to the FBI were not prepares and folks with guns already....most of them were 1st time purchasers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: There's going to be some carnage. (Score:2)
Yet guns have become progressively more and more expensive in California and the supply is shrinking, and ammunition is both expensive and harder to come by. That did not happen in a vacuum.
So, yes, they did come to take away legal guns. If they cannot outright ban them they can certainly make them difficult to get/own.
In the mean time, it seems the local gangs are more tooled up than ever. But then, California is short on brain power in government, as is further evidenced by the boom in illegal marijuana a
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, you STILL can hardly find any guns to buy, and ammo is still in every short supply and what you can find is priced outrageously.
in the past months we have had new records of new gun purchases,
As far as guns becoming "more and more expensive" in California... isn't that just the "free market" doing what it does? I thought the Rubes liked the free market? Or is that only when it suits your interests? Are you seriously suggesting that only liberals live in California and only liberals in California are buying up all the guns?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, CA has the added artificial problem in that the state severely limits what models of guns (rifles AND handguns) to a small list of what's legal to sell in CA.
So, not only are guns hard to find nationwide of all models and makes...but California limits their citizens to a small subset list of available weapons which makes things even more difficult out there...at least for law abi
Re:There's going to be some carnage. (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody is trying to take your fucking guns.
I'm not understanding why everyone keeps making this statement. Last time I checked, Biden's campaign platform indicated specifically his goals on firearms - https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/ - and that includes specific bans and mandatory buybacks.
I've had friends and colleagues who have made the statement that "nobody is trying to take away your guns" and then turn around and post on social media that we need to ban and confiscate AR-15s.
Why past administrations or politicians have not 'tried' is specifically based on what they are able to get passed. It is well known that politicians have specifically stated their desire to confiscate AR-15s and semi-automatic rifles.
California has not 'taken' guns from citizens at scale, but they certainly have taken away the ability to buy guns from California citizens. Look at the "safe handgun roster". That in itself has become a defacto handgun ban due to the fact that essentially no handgun design manufactured after 2013 is not legal for purchase in CA.
CA SB 23 pretty much banned AR-15s in 2000 and various subsequent laws since then have created further limitations.
As far as California's shortage of firearms and ammo, that is a by product of COVID-19 pandemic fears and the election. Not to mention the ammo supply shortage is also heightened in California because of the faux background check on ammo purchases that is now law. Ammo sales generally require an officially licensed ammunition dealer and purchasers go through a 'background' check which isn't a true background check in a sense (and more of a "is this person disqualified from owning a firearm" in California). This also means that generally people in CA cannot order ammunition online.
Ammunition dealer requirements resulted in many retailers from discontinuing ammo sales because of the overhead.
Thus, in California this translated to less legal ammunition retailers. While the rest of the country is going through the same ammo (and ammo component) shortage issue, it is far more difficult for a person in California to get ammunition because ammo is less available to them vs the rest of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And really, no matter who is president, I prefer to keep split government in the congress....when you have it too easy to pass legislation, you get things like the Patriot Act.
And once you have laws passed....its damned near impossible to get rid of them no matter how bad they are.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are way too worried. Even if the Democrats manage to win the two Georgia seats, they will have a single-vote majority. This is pretty fragile - only a single defector is needed (and even the Republicans regularly have a defector or two - and they are better at holding their coalition together). Serious gun control would get a few Democrats to defect without a doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno...with the Dems in charge of both houses of congress and the Presidency....I fear we might be in danger of more of "we have
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrat tactics on gun control mimic the Republican tactics on abortion - make an end-run around the Constitution by legislation, regulation and taxation.
Re:There's going to be some carnage. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, let's see.
I believe Biden is still looking to make "Beto" O'Rouke his Guns Czar, and in the debates he said specifically he wants to take them away .
Here's Joe saying Beto will take "care" of the gun problem for him [youtube.com].
Here Biden is with Beto dining and puts AR owners on notice that if I win, I'm coming for you [youtube.com].
And aside from just outright confiscation, the House has already been pushing bills such as HR 5717...that are so broadly worded and extensive that they would defacto prevent anyone that wasn't wealthy enough to get around the rules to own many weapons for self defense.
And unlike the "assault weapons" ban of the past (Clinton Presidency and Biden voted for it)....these new anti-2A laws they are trying to push, are not grandfathering in weapons already legally purchased by law abiding citizens.
Hell, the bureaucracy of the ATF is already working on its own, to ignore the current admin and even congress critters questioning them, with AR style pistol braced weapons, that for years have been termed perfectly legal and now, they are trying to reclassify them (basically making the law up themselves at the ATF) and in the process, could instantly make millions of law abiding citizens immediately into felons, which could lead to 10 year sentences and well, of course confiscations of ALL their weapons.
The Dems are salivating at the new ATF trends as a very sneaky backdoor method to get the ball rolling.
So, yes, overtly they let it slip they want to take them aways, and covertly, through very oppressive policies they will make it so hard to own and operate a weapon they will make it almost impossible for all but the well to do to even own one.
And one really sneaky part of this, is the mandatory gun checks which would require a national database and mandatory registration of all weapons....which makes it very easy to confiscate them.
If they are not working. on all fronts to try to do this...well, it's hard to see what else they are doing with all of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama didn't take your guns. Clinton didn't take your guns. Newsom didn't take your guns. Harris didn't take your guns.
Nobody is trying to take your fucking guns.
Ammo is in short supply because the gun nuts and preppers are hoarding the shit out of it. Ammo has been in short supply and priced high since well before Covid, and well before your imaginary liberal migration to Gunville.
Open your eyes and see what is happening around you! After guns, the government is going to ban paper products! Look at how people are buying out toilet paper and paper towels! ... do I need /s?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama didn't take your guns. Clinton didn't take your guns. Newsom didn't take your guns. Harris didn't take your guns.
Very true.
Nobody is trying to take your fucking guns.
That part's not true though. [youtube.com] California politicians have been trying to take guns ever since Black Panther started using them.
Re: (Score:2)
The NRA was one of the greatest marketing arms of any industry, ever. They convinced many people to buy not just one or two guns and a couple hundred rounds of ammo, b
Re: There's going to be some carnage. (Score:2)
There's quite a difference between trying to do it and failing, vs not doing it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in. mind, that what makes these states attractive, were the mindsets and politics of the area.
The primary thing that makes these places more attractive to some people is that those places aren't as attractive to most people. Or at least haven't been until recently. Places like Austin, Denver and Miami (the places mentioned in the summary) now have many of the benefits which attracted people to California, but at a lower cost because these improvements are more recent and they simply have more space to expand. Arguably they don't have everything California has to offer, but for many people they have
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an interesting clip from CNBC with some numbers [youtube.com].
With the numbers of background checks hitting ALL time highs, you have to guess that those cannot all possibly be existing gun owners.
I'll try to go find some other figures, they are out there, but this was just a quick search to get started.
As for taking guns (confiscation) please see my earlier post with video references to the Democrat debates where Beto outright le
Re:San Francisco (Score:4, Insightful)
Yawn! Is that all you got.
That is getting really tiresome argument.
A lot of cities (including those in Red States) have a homeless population problem with inadequate resources and too many callous people who choose not to use resources to help solve the problem.
The GOP Yelling you need to stop homelessness, these people should get jobs and buy their own homes.
However. They will not hire Homeless people as they are high risk employees, who may not do a good job, only feed their additions, and also makes their companies look bad.
So these people are stuck. Where they cannot break out of their problems, because every attempt to get free puts them in a system where you are at a disadvantage if you get out.
Re: San Francisco (Score:2)
Dont forget the needles everywhere. One volunteer told the SF Bee that within a 1 city block area that she works, she picks up 300 needles a day. Nobody wants their kids taking HIV drugs while they wait the dreaded bloodtest to come back simply because their kid got stuck while trying to play with their friends.
Re: San Francisco (Score:5, Insightful)
Want to know when it all went wrong? It was when Ronald Reagan opened up all the asylums, dumped all the severely mentally ill people on the street, and destroyed the state's ability to mandate that people either stay on their psychiatric medications or be committed. Want to know why the rest of the country is catching up? Because he did the same thing as POTUS. Forty-five years later, California is *still* struggling to undo the damage caused by his governorship and presidency.
Re: (Score:2)
Addiction is a mental illness, so yes, by definition.
Re: (Score:3)
A surprisingly large percentage of homeless drug addicts are mentally ill or have suffered a brain injury. Certainly not all, though.