4 ms·

>I don't see why any of those desires should be in conflict with my progressive ideals This is precisely the origin of the problem.

andrewflnr 10y ago
Are you seriously suggesting that progressive ideals require tolerating elevated risk of suffering violence and property damage?
- malchow 10y ago
  There are many people–social scientists and economists among them–who would suggest to you exactly that. The U.S. has spent (i.e. transferred) trillions fighting poverty. The result? Not much. The good stuff that has happened to poor people since 1945 mostly comes about through private innovation. The thought that reducing safety nets could result in better outcomes for both their intended beneficiaries and those who fund the government is scary, perhaps. But not at all beyond the realm of civil discussion.
  - whateveridunno 10y ago
    >The good stuff that has happened to poor people since 1945 mostly comes about through private innovation. Would really like a citation on that.
    - andrewflnr 10y ago
      I don't have a citation, but I think it's reasonably to say that a large part of the good things for poor people have just been things getting cheaper, so that the same amount of economic output buys you more comfort. That's largely a result of private innovation driving down prices. That may or may not be what GP was referring to.
  - andrewflnr 10y ago
    We can have a civil discussion, sure, but when you're talking about tolerating violence, what we're civilly discussing is no longer a civilization. I'm basically with you on the private innovation thing and thinking carefully about safety nets. That's not what I was initially objecting to, so I'm actually not sure where you're coming from.
twelvechairs 10y ago
Genuinely curious - why do you see a problem here? Typically its the 'progressive' countries like northern europe with the highest taxes and the safest, cleanest streets.
manyxcxi 10y ago
>> I don't see why any of those desires should be in conflict with my progressive ideals > This is precisely the origin of the problem. And, WHY, exactly is this the origin of the problem? The poster said they'd be willing to pay drastically higher taxes to fund the programs that should benefit many people forced onto the streets and also wants a city appropriately staffed to handle criminals and those still on the street causing problems (i.e. mentally ill). The parent comment didn't suggest rounding them up and getting rid of them or to act in any way that was discompassionate. How's this conflict with progressive ideals? It's not progressive to have a shit filled city that's so poorly staffed it can't keep its streets cleaned and safe to an acceptable level. Since you seem to know where the problem starts, what's your solution?
- refurb 10y ago
  San Francisco has the 2nd highest spending per person of all cities in the US at almost $10K per person. Only DC is higher at $15K and that probably has something to do with the way the district is funded. It's not a lack of money that causes all of SF's problems, it's how the city is run.
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    > it's how the city is run One issue is that the City is basically run by a single party. I'm proud that the City has ranked voting now, which should support third parties, but that hasn't translated into that yet... The fact that we hold elections in off years, means that there is lower voter turnout and increases the chances that party faithful will elect the same people each year. The election rules encourage the current political situation in the City.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dang 10y ago
Please don't post generically ideological comments to HN. They're a particularly harmful form of unsubstantive comment because they provoke generically ideological flamewars, which are the worst sort of thread. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11562004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11562004 and marked it off-topic.
- pervycreeper 10y ago
  I fully agree, in fact, the comment's intention was to counteract generic ideological thinking. I do see how it could be interpreted as ideological crusading, though, and it probably was excessively inflammatory in any case. I will avoid doing that in the future.

andrewflnr 10y ago

Are you seriously suggesting that progressive ideals require tolerating elevated risk of suffering violence and property damage?

malchow 10y ago
There are many people–social scientists and economists among them–who would suggest to you exactly that. The U.S. has spent (i.e. transferred) trillions fighting poverty. The result? Not much. The good stuff that has happened to poor people since 1945 mostly comes about through private innovation. The thought that reducing safety nets could result in better outcomes for both their intended beneficiaries and those who fund the government is scary, perhaps. But not at all beyond the realm of civil discussion.
- whateveridunno 10y ago
  >The good stuff that has happened to poor people since 1945 mostly comes about through private innovation. Would really like a citation on that.
  - andrewflnr 10y ago
    I don't have a citation, but I think it's reasonably to say that a large part of the good things for poor people have just been things getting cheaper, so that the same amount of economic output buys you more comfort. That's largely a result of private innovation driving down prices. That may or may not be what GP was referring to.
- andrewflnr 10y ago
  We can have a civil discussion, sure, but when you're talking about tolerating violence, what we're civilly discussing is no longer a civilization. I'm basically with you on the private innovation thing and thinking carefully about safety nets. That's not what I was initially objecting to, so I'm actually not sure where you're coming from.

twelvechairs 10y ago

Genuinely curious - why do you see a problem here? Typically its the 'progressive' countries like northern europe with the highest taxes and the safest, cleanest streets.

manyxcxi 10y ago

>> I don't see why any of those desires should be in conflict with my progressive ideals > This is precisely the origin of the problem. And, WHY, exactly is this the origin of the problem? The poster said they'd be willing to pay drastically higher taxes to fund the programs that should benefit many people forced onto the streets and also wants a city appropriately staffed to handle criminals and those still on the street causing problems (i.e. mentally ill). The parent comment didn't suggest rounding them up and getting rid of them or to act in any way that was discompassionate. How's this conflict with progressive ideals? It's not progressive to have a shit filled city that's so poorly staffed it can't keep its streets cleaned and safe to an acceptable level. Since you seem to know where the problem starts, what's your solution?

refurb 10y ago
San Francisco has the 2nd highest spending per person of all cities in the US at almost $10K per person. Only DC is higher at $15K and that probably has something to do with the way the district is funded. It's not a lack of money that causes all of SF's problems, it's how the city is run.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  > it's how the city is run One issue is that the City is basically run by a single party. I'm proud that the City has ranked voting now, which should support third parties, but that hasn't translated into that yet... The fact that we hold elections in off years, means that there is lower voter turnout and increases the chances that party faithful will elect the same people each year. The election rules encourage the current political situation in the City.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dang 10y ago

Please don't post generically ideological comments to HN. They're a particularly harmful form of unsubstantive comment because they provoke generically ideological flamewars, which are the worst sort of thread. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11562004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11562004 and marked it off-topic.

pervycreeper 10y ago
I fully agree, in fact, the comment's intention was to counteract generic ideological thinking. I do see how it could be interpreted as ideological crusading, though, and it probably was excessively inflammatory in any case. I will avoid doing that in the future.