4 ms·

> I have seen WAY more homeless, poor, disabled, and generally disadvantaged in California (and heroin users) than any other state. Perhaps they are just more v

by klipt 10y ago

> I have seen WAY more homeless, poor, disabled, and generally disadvantaged in California (and heroin users) than any other state. Perhaps they are just more visible, but the breakdown of the stats seem to agree with me[1]. Generally, conservative states just deal with things differently than liberal states For example, if other states' way of dealing with homeless people was "buy them a bus ticket to California", wouldn't that have exactly the outcome you are describing? http://www.mintpressnews.com/500-homeless-mental-patients-were-given-bus-pass-california-by-nevada-government-program/210607/ http://www.mintpressnews.com/500-homeless-mental-patients-we... The problem with one state treating the homeless well is that it simply attracts more homeless from other states, overloading the system. Homelessness really needs to be addressed on a federal level.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
But if you actually follow the news in the Bay Area, you'd know tech companies growing and raising the cost and demand for housing is a large part of why you can't walk through San Francisco without tripping over a homeless guy. People are being driven from their apartments to make room for higher paying tech employees.
- Decade 10y ago
  And if you actually looked into the issues, you’d know that tech companies don’t like it that costs are so high. Most of them are trying to become profitable before they run out of runway. Tech companies grow and raise the demand: True. Tech companies increase the cost: False. Most of the cost increases have been NIMBYs and misguided community organizers and environmentalists. For example, a major source of funding against homes near the T light rail line has been a retired insurance industry executive and consultant. That’s not tech. If there are not enough houses near the jobs, then somebody is going to be driven out. If you had to choose for your own property, then it would be irrational not to pick the higher paying tech employee.
- r00fus 10y ago
  Don't blame Tech for what FIRE [1] is mainly responsible for. Ownership^W Rentership society and all that - it's here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_economy

by klipt 10y ago

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

But if you actually follow the news in the Bay Area, you'd know tech companies growing and raising the cost and demand for housing is a large part of why you can't walk through San Francisco without tripping over a homeless guy. People are being driven from their apartments to make room for higher paying tech employees.

Decade 10y ago
And if you actually looked into the issues, you’d know that tech companies don’t like it that costs are so high. Most of them are trying to become profitable before they run out of runway. Tech companies grow and raise the demand: True. Tech companies increase the cost: False. Most of the cost increases have been NIMBYs and misguided community organizers and environmentalists. For example, a major source of funding against homes near the T light rail line has been a retired insurance industry executive and consultant. That’s not tech. If there are not enough houses near the jobs, then somebody is going to be driven out. If you had to choose for your own property, then it would be irrational not to pick the higher paying tech employee.
r00fus 10y ago
Don't blame Tech for what FIRE [1] is mainly responsible for. Ownership^W Rentership society and all that - it's here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_economy