5 ms·

>I don't really get it because I've lived here my whole life and you can pretty much 100% guarantee the more a locality taxes their populace the better the qual

by ves 10y ago

>I don't really get it because I've lived here my whole life and you can pretty much 100% guarantee the more a locality taxes their populace the better the quality of life is, at least in the states. ..what? This makes no sense. My quality of life was significantly better when I lived in TX than when I lived in SF, and you already know which one taxed me more. Even a lot of public infrastructure, like roads and highways especially, was just so much better. Plus, even though TX doesn't do much to help the homeless, the likelihood that the author would have ended up homeless in the first place is lower because home ownership is feasible. And the programs the OP is referring to, social safety net type things, aren't local but national in scale. That said, I do like the idea but the quoted statement just makes no sense to me.

zajd 10y ago
Yeah I mean if you think the quality of life is higher anywhere in Texas than San Francisco obviously I'm not going to convince you of much. edit. yeehaw, downvotes
- nojvek 10y ago
  Quality of life at $600 a month is greater in SF than Texas? You must be kidding right.
  - owdadithurts 10y ago
    People like him equate cost with quality of life. "SF is more expensive, therefore it must be a better place to live". It's a sad and naive outlook that a lot of consumers grow up with.
    - zajd 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life hth
- beachstartup 10y ago
  the quality of life in san francisco is absolutely abysmal unless you are the top 10% in either wealth or income. being able to spend $300 on a multi-course crudo and wine prix fixe dinner for 2 is not 'quality of life', that just means you're rich and you like nice shit. you can do that anywhere there are other rich people, texas included. most people consider quality of life to be cleanliness, low crime, affordable property, personal freedoms, etc., all of which are in dramatic short supply in san francisco.
  - zajd 10y ago
    San Fransisco does have a great deal of personal freedoms, has low crime and is clean compared to tons of cities across the states. Beyond that, I don't know that San Fransisco would be the ideal model because they aren't really what I'm talking about, cities that collectively pitch in to use taxes to provide more services. In many cases, SF isn't doing that. All of that being said, Texas, by any measure, is a way worse place to live in the US than SF if you actually do value things like a criminal justice system that doesn't make a point of murdering the mentally disabled.
- undersuit 10y ago
  Constant arguments along the same lines with my friends. Half of us live in big cities, the other half live in Montana. "Homeless tent city outside my apartment has grown 2x in the last week" -1 Big City "I went to Glacier Park last Saturday" -1 Big City "I make >$180k" +1 Big City "I ordered pizza from a place that wasn't Dominos" +1 Big City
  - zajd 10y ago
    Yeah the problem comes when you have cities like Boulder which are very close to natural wonders and are actively pursuing policies to deal with homelessness in the local community instead of throwing their hands up with statements like this: > And the programs the OP is referring to, social safety net type things, aren't local but national in scale. They are because you choose to make it that way, and that's why Texas is a shithole. It's not that here is perfect, it's that they actually are taking steps that make sense to try to improve things. Texas's laws as a state pretty much preclude any sort of development there in that direction. That's beyond the absurd political climate you have to deal with in a state where Rick Perry was governor multiple times.
enraged_camel 10y ago
I used to live in LA, now I live in Austin and travel all over Texas for a living. I have no idea what you're talking about. Texas has shitty roads that are way too narrow and full of potholes, a non-existent public transport system, and quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF. The difference with the last one is that you don't see them as often, because Texans aren't nearly as tolerant as homeless people as Bay Area residents, so the homeless hang out in places such as highway underpasses and the wilderness areas surrounding the cities. You know, out of sight of the rich.
- kodablah 10y ago
  > quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF Citation please. This is an issue with comparing large states with cities. You can't compare LA or SF w/ Texas anymore than you can compare Austin with Dallas. It makes statements like "quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF" unfair (or possibly just straight false in your case). For instance, you could easily say "CA has WAY more homeless per capita than Texas" and actually be accurate. Similarly, you can't making sweeping generalizations about potholes across the state in TX or CA since people don't live in every area of the state all of the time. And wrt quality of life, which is an extremely subjective measure, public transport may not be what the local citizens want compared with road infrastructure that isn't well known to be mired in traffic (again, depends on where you are, but CA consistently ranks worst here). It's bad enough comparing two states at that high level, it's even worse to throw in subjective opinions about quality of life on specific things.
hackuser 10y ago
> My quality of life was significantly better when I lived in TX than when I lived in SF I'm not sure what your personal experience represents. We really need some data.

by ves 10y ago

zajd 10y ago

Yeah I mean if you think the quality of life is higher anywhere in Texas than San Francisco obviously I'm not going to convince you of much. edit. yeehaw, downvotes

nojvek 10y ago
Quality of life at $600 a month is greater in SF than Texas? You must be kidding right.
- owdadithurts 10y ago
  People like him equate cost with quality of life. "SF is more expensive, therefore it must be a better place to live". It's a sad and naive outlook that a lot of consumers grow up with.
  - zajd 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life hth
beachstartup 10y ago
the quality of life in san francisco is absolutely abysmal unless you are the top 10% in either wealth or income. being able to spend $300 on a multi-course crudo and wine prix fixe dinner for 2 is not 'quality of life', that just means you're rich and you like nice shit. you can do that anywhere there are other rich people, texas included. most people consider quality of life to be cleanliness, low crime, affordable property, personal freedoms, etc., all of which are in dramatic short supply in san francisco.
- zajd 10y ago
  San Fransisco does have a great deal of personal freedoms, has low crime and is clean compared to tons of cities across the states. Beyond that, I don't know that San Fransisco would be the ideal model because they aren't really what I'm talking about, cities that collectively pitch in to use taxes to provide more services. In many cases, SF isn't doing that. All of that being said, Texas, by any measure, is a way worse place to live in the US than SF if you actually do value things like a criminal justice system that doesn't make a point of murdering the mentally disabled.
undersuit 10y ago
Constant arguments along the same lines with my friends. Half of us live in big cities, the other half live in Montana. "Homeless tent city outside my apartment has grown 2x in the last week" -1 Big City "I went to Glacier Park last Saturday" -1 Big City "I make >$180k" +1 Big City "I ordered pizza from a place that wasn't Dominos" +1 Big City
- zajd 10y ago
  Yeah the problem comes when you have cities like Boulder which are very close to natural wonders and are actively pursuing policies to deal with homelessness in the local community instead of throwing their hands up with statements like this: > And the programs the OP is referring to, social safety net type things, aren't local but national in scale. They are because you choose to make it that way, and that's why Texas is a shithole. It's not that here is perfect, it's that they actually are taking steps that make sense to try to improve things. Texas's laws as a state pretty much preclude any sort of development there in that direction. That's beyond the absurd political climate you have to deal with in a state where Rick Perry was governor multiple times.

enraged_camel 10y ago

I used to live in LA, now I live in Austin and travel all over Texas for a living. I have no idea what you're talking about. Texas has shitty roads that are way too narrow and full of potholes, a non-existent public transport system, and quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF. The difference with the last one is that you don't see them as often, because Texans aren't nearly as tolerant as homeless people as Bay Area residents, so the homeless hang out in places such as highway underpasses and the wilderness areas surrounding the cities. You know, out of sight of the rich.

kodablah 10y ago
> quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF Citation please. This is an issue with comparing large states with cities. You can't compare LA or SF w/ Texas anymore than you can compare Austin with Dallas. It makes statements like "quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF" unfair (or possibly just straight false in your case). For instance, you could easily say "CA has WAY more homeless per capita than Texas" and actually be accurate. Similarly, you can't making sweeping generalizations about potholes across the state in TX or CA since people don't live in every area of the state all of the time. And wrt quality of life, which is an extremely subjective measure, public transport may not be what the local citizens want compared with road infrastructure that isn't well known to be mired in traffic (again, depends on where you are, but CA consistently ranks worst here). It's bad enough comparing two states at that high level, it's even worse to throw in subjective opinions about quality of life on specific things.

hackuser 10y ago

> My quality of life was significantly better when I lived in TX than when I lived in SF I'm not sure what your personal experience represents. We really need some data.