You can't bar anyone from cities. You can't bar them just like they can't bar you. It isn't policy that's driving anyone out. It's pricing, which is above the control of any one person or even group of people.
Some people will be forced out due to pricing. The local economy of every city is going to be unworkable at some income floor. The more expensive the city, the higher the floor.
If that floor is higher than what you make, it doesn't mean that no poor people live in SF. It just means that they feel poor even at a relatively higher income.
To illustrate, 80k per year is still a decent income in some towns. But it is definitely poor in NYC.
San Francisco politics are complicated. There is a lot of appeasing and stuff that's done for show, to try and and curry favor from the various highly ideological and disunited, often impractical population segments. Getting nothing done while complaining about it seems to be an art in my opinion that ... what is it, city council, participates in. Boldly proposing impossible plans or shutting things down.
Just because ex-mayor Breed vetoed something doesn't mean that the moneyed rich are THE PROBLEM. SF during Breed's term had a lot of negative growth as the pandemic, extremely cheap fentanyl plus a very aggressive fentanyl user base, and work from home making ghost towns out of business and mixed business/residential neighborhoods, strangulated city operations, making for an extra stressful operations challenge for the mayor's office in my opinion.
This article is under-researched and / or highly opinionated, in my opinion.
The article could be much better, if it were more factually accurate about "conclusions" and less biased towards any particular political goal. I do like the the article is overtly biased and is not hiding its bias.
Politicians rise to the top not on the basis of accountability and the contest of ideas, but due to political favors and backroom deals.
Its how you get someone like Gavin Newsom.
If the republican had an agenda Californian found suitable and worthy, they would vote for them. They do have candidates at all elections.
California has multiple legitimate candidates at each elections.
What happened when the government started writing stimulus checks? Assets inflated greatly. Meme coins became a thing and scammy crypto currencies and JPEGs shot up. Some people were paid more in benefits than they made working prolonging inflation. About 68% of unemployed workers received benefits that were greater than their lost earnings [0]. Pretty soon the stock market was about 20% higher than it was pre-covid.
If you were to ask economists or anyone with a basic grasp of reality how the stock market should react with a global pandemic and shutdown, most would say it should adjust down, not shoot up 20% from pre-pandemic levels. It was obviously the money printing. To be fair, the money printing wasn't 100% given to people directly, but nearly $2 trillion was income assistance and direct payment [1] and other measures had similar effects in that they resulted in money in people's pocket, more than they had lost. That money fueled the asset bubble.
Fast forward a few years, and the result was double digit inflation that we're still working through. Not a resounding win as the dem-socialists would have you believe.
> "Could we have a Zohran in San Francisco?”
I'm pretty sure San Fransisco has many of the same policies Zohran promotes like rent control and soft on crime like social workers rather than police, drug legalization and acceptance of "minor" shoplifting. They also have some of the highest tax rates in the country. Combined city and county sales tax rate is 8.625% + an additional 12.3% for CA [2]
The article mentions free buses and tax on vacant properties, but is that the biggest problem? Bus fares? I feel like this whole post is an incredible exercise in gaslighting.
[0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-gett...
> As a result, though, many people may now be eligible for substantially more money while unemployed
According to your source, "Some people were paid more in benefits than they made working" was only true for the very poor.
The link to shitcoins is dubious. It strikes me like the 21st century equivalent of complaining how folks spent money on nice cars.
It really doesn't matter if it was the "very poor". I guess inflation doesn't matter if it's caused by very poor people people spending more
These are rhetorical questions and frankly kind of silly. You're implying that the poorest, unemployed Americans temporarily receiving $600/wk caused the creation of shitcoins. There are so many leaps and bounds and no context. So no, I can't offer you another explanation.
Also personal savings rate jumped to 30% during that time due to covid stimulus. Your retort is some moral argument about it doesn't feel right because poor people.
You're not having a serious conversation so I'm going to bow out. Reconsider the facts and put your moral indignation aside
ccvannorman•5mo ago
ncr100•5mo ago