5 ms·

Here's something that has been making me scratch my head lately. San Francisco has had a Democratic mayor from 1964-now. It's widely regarded as the farthest l

by habosa 8y ago

Here's something that has been making me scratch my head lately. San Francisco has had a Democratic mayor from 1964-now. It's widely regarded as the farthest left city in the country besides maybe Berkeley across the bay. Most Democrats/leftists want to reduce wealth inequality and are proponents of more taxation, welfare, etc. Yet, San Francisco is one of the most economically unequal cities in this country [0]. So what's up? Why have the city's Democrats been so unable to help the poor if that's really something they believe in? Democrats always say that if you elect the Republicans then the city will belong to the rich and powerful. But that's what we have now... Note: I am a Democrat, I already voted for SF mayor this cycle and I voted for a Democratic candidate. 0: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/15/income-inequality-in-the-bay-area-is-among-nations-highest/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/15/income-inequality-in-...

raldi 8y ago
> San Francisco is one of the most economically unequal cities in this country. So what's up? Show me a city with low inequality, and I'll show you a city that's driven away all its poor people.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  San Francisco is unequal. It is also driving away all its poor people, because they can't afford to live there. (The homeless, clearly, are the exception.)
- habosa 8y ago
  I am not one to claim that what I want is complete equality. Or even anything close. But the richest city in the richest state should not have thousands of people living on the streets and rents so high that nobody working a low or middle tier job can afford to live within an hour, let alone raise a family.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    If SF decided to fix the homeless situation by providing them with psychiatric care and/or housing, all, then all the homeless around the country would start heading to SF and they would end up subsidizing it for the whole country. Even as it is, the nice weather and tolerance makes it attractive for homeless to move there, hence the inequality. There needs to be a national solution to the drug addiction and (lack of) mental care that the US is suffering from.
- cvwright 8y ago
  Really? Incomes tend to follow a power law distribution. Zoom in on the upper tail of a power law, and what do you see? Another power law.
rubicon33 8y ago
> Note: I am a Democrat, I already voted for SF mayor this cycle and I voted for a Democratic candidate. Would you mind elaborating on why you voted Democrat this time, after having just pointed out that for the last ~60 years a democratic mayor failed to live up to the virtues they espouse? Not trying to be sarcastic. Generally curious if you considered republican but decided against it for some reason... Or if you just hardline vote one way?
- habosa 8y ago
  1) Theres not a serious/viable candidate from another party. 2) I do believe that the candidate I voted for has good ideas on the issues I care about, despite the party's previous failures.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Valid question. I think the point was that habosa isn't some Republican demagogue trying to score points on the Democrats. That is, habosa is saying, "Don't dismiss my point as just a political harangue. I'm dis-satisfied with my own side here. Why are we doing this?" I would guess that the answer to your question is that someone can see a lot of problems with their own side, and still think that their side is better overall than the other side. Just a guess, though; I don't speak for habosa.
- Redoubts 8y ago
  It is true, the situation does set the stage for a "Law & Order" Republican to make an entrance some day.
- archagon 8y ago
  Is there an implementation of Republican policy anywhere that has reduced wealth inequality?
  - rubicon33 8y ago
    True. It's almost as if politicians in general suck, and are unable to foster an environment that promotes the wellbeing of their constituents.
slg 8y ago
It is a two part problem. The first part is money. City budgets are tiny compared to state budgets which are tiny compared to the federal budgets. The second part is the ease of moving between cities. If any city sets up a program that is truly fantastic for poor individuals, poor people from neighboring areas will move their and overload the program. Combine these two and it is hard to create large scale programs on the city or even state level.
- bassman9000 8y ago
  10B is not a tiny budget. https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/CSF_Budget_Book_2017_Final_CMYK_LowRes.pdf https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/CSF_Budget_Book_2017... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets It's larger than 13 states' budget.
  - slg 8y ago
    It is misleading to cite an overall budget total without considering the context. San Francisco has a larger population than a number of states and that population grows when you include the commuting population which is less of a factor at the state level. There is also the simple fact that liberals generally prefer a larger government than conservatives. San Francisco is one of the most liberal cities with one of the largest city budgets. You shouldn't compare it to some of the smallest and most conservative states with the smallest state budgets. Either way, my original comment was that it is hard to create these program "on the city or even state level".
    - bassman9000 8y ago
      According to http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-francisco-population/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-francisco-pop... SF pop is 870,887. Budget for 17/18 is 10,106 millions, which make it $11,604 per capita: that means more budget per capita than most states, except Minnesota, Washington, Kentucky, Wyoming, Oregon, and North Dakota. Your first point was City budgets are tiny compared to state budgets which are tiny compared to the federal budgets. which is simply not true when speaking of SF. You shouldn't compare it to some of the smallest and most conservative states with the smallest state budgets. You're saying I should cherry pick the data so SF doesn't look that bad in comparison?
bassman9000 8y ago
So what's up? If I'd answer honestly, I'd be downvoted to hell. That's what's up.
Shivetya 8y ago
because they aren't there to help the poor. i really wish people would get it out of their heads that the Democratic party is the people, the poor, the downtrodden. They are very much at their core the same as the Republican party. they are party of specific people who have money who can use this money and influence to continue the careers of those who in turn dole out rewards. when you pretty much have the press locked up you can turn any story good or bad to your favor. when you need to look like you care you can trot out look good but limited impact programs and check off the box in the list. the problem is not easy to fix and there is a desire to not fix it because the problem is political currency. just like race strife is political currency. your question about SF can be applied to any large city which has had decades of Democratic control, why isn't problem X fixed? because the feel good solution isn't what is needed and it only exist as a bullet point in a campaign. it isn't a matter of money, lord knows the promises to public employee pensions plans proves the states and cities had the money. it just went to reward those who keep them in power. the best voter is one who votes out whomever doesn't deliver and flips the control party to party or faction within each cycle till control returns to the people. however politicians and the press are very adept at exploiting fears and hate of the people and know how to put one group against another. you fall for it every single time, do the honest look into your choices.
bsder 8y ago
> Yet, San Francisco is one of the most economically unequal cities in this country [0]. So what's up? Why have the city's Democrats been so unable to help the poor if that's really something they believe in? Because even as recently as 2005, there were still some really rotten sections of San Francisco that had yet to be gentrified. So, you still had lots of people with lower income living in certain areas. All those areas are now basically gone so it's actually becoming critical.
eanzenberg 8y ago
Conservatives protect the already-rich. Liberals prevent mobility up to the already-rich. Both support the already-rich.

by habosa 8y ago

raldi 8y ago

> San Francisco is one of the most economically unequal cities in this country. So what's up? Show me a city with low inequality, and I'll show you a city that's driven away all its poor people.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
San Francisco is unequal. It is also driving away all its poor people, because they can't afford to live there. (The homeless, clearly, are the exception.)
habosa 8y ago
I am not one to claim that what I want is complete equality. Or even anything close. But the richest city in the richest state should not have thousands of people living on the streets and rents so high that nobody working a low or middle tier job can afford to live within an hour, let alone raise a family.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  If SF decided to fix the homeless situation by providing them with psychiatric care and/or housing, all, then all the homeless around the country would start heading to SF and they would end up subsidizing it for the whole country. Even as it is, the nice weather and tolerance makes it attractive for homeless to move there, hence the inequality. There needs to be a national solution to the drug addiction and (lack of) mental care that the US is suffering from.
cvwright 8y ago
Really? Incomes tend to follow a power law distribution. Zoom in on the upper tail of a power law, and what do you see? Another power law.

rubicon33 8y ago

> Note: I am a Democrat, I already voted for SF mayor this cycle and I voted for a Democratic candidate. Would you mind elaborating on why you voted Democrat this time, after having just pointed out that for the last ~60 years a democratic mayor failed to live up to the virtues they espouse? Not trying to be sarcastic. Generally curious if you considered republican but decided against it for some reason... Or if you just hardline vote one way?

habosa 8y ago
1) Theres not a serious/viable candidate from another party. 2) I do believe that the candidate I voted for has good ideas on the issues I care about, despite the party's previous failures.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Valid question. I think the point was that habosa isn't some Republican demagogue trying to score points on the Democrats. That is, habosa is saying, "Don't dismiss my point as just a political harangue. I'm dis-satisfied with my own side here. Why are we doing this?" I would guess that the answer to your question is that someone can see a lot of problems with their own side, and still think that their side is better overall than the other side. Just a guess, though; I don't speak for habosa.
Redoubts 8y ago
It is true, the situation does set the stage for a "Law & Order" Republican to make an entrance some day.
archagon 8y ago
Is there an implementation of Republican policy anywhere that has reduced wealth inequality?
- rubicon33 8y ago
  True. It's almost as if politicians in general suck, and are unable to foster an environment that promotes the wellbeing of their constituents.

slg 8y ago

It is a two part problem. The first part is money. City budgets are tiny compared to state budgets which are tiny compared to the federal budgets. The second part is the ease of moving between cities. If any city sets up a program that is truly fantastic for poor individuals, poor people from neighboring areas will move their and overload the program. Combine these two and it is hard to create large scale programs on the city or even state level.

bassman9000 8y ago
10B is not a tiny budget. https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/CSF_Budget_Book_2017_Final_CMYK_LowRes.pdf https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/CSF_Budget_Book_2017... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets It's larger than 13 states' budget.
- slg 8y ago
  It is misleading to cite an overall budget total without considering the context. San Francisco has a larger population than a number of states and that population grows when you include the commuting population which is less of a factor at the state level. There is also the simple fact that liberals generally prefer a larger government than conservatives. San Francisco is one of the most liberal cities with one of the largest city budgets. You shouldn't compare it to some of the smallest and most conservative states with the smallest state budgets. Either way, my original comment was that it is hard to create these program "on the city or even state level".
  - bassman9000 8y ago
    According to http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-francisco-population/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-francisco-pop... SF pop is 870,887. Budget for 17/18 is 10,106 millions, which make it $11,604 per capita: that means more budget per capita than most states, except Minnesota, Washington, Kentucky, Wyoming, Oregon, and North Dakota. Your first point was City budgets are tiny compared to state budgets which are tiny compared to the federal budgets. which is simply not true when speaking of SF. You shouldn't compare it to some of the smallest and most conservative states with the smallest state budgets. You're saying I should cherry pick the data so SF doesn't look that bad in comparison?

bassman9000 8y ago

So what's up? If I'd answer honestly, I'd be downvoted to hell. That's what's up.

Shivetya 8y ago

because they aren't there to help the poor. i really wish people would get it out of their heads that the Democratic party is the people, the poor, the downtrodden. They are very much at their core the same as the Republican party. they are party of specific people who have money who can use this money and influence to continue the careers of those who in turn dole out rewards. when you pretty much have the press locked up you can turn any story good or bad to your favor. when you need to look like you care you can trot out look good but limited impact programs and check off the box in the list. the problem is not easy to fix and there is a desire to not fix it because the problem is political currency. just like race strife is political currency. your question about SF can be applied to any large city which has had decades of Democratic control, why isn't problem X fixed? because the feel good solution isn't what is needed and it only exist as a bullet point in a campaign. it isn't a matter of money, lord knows the promises to public employee pensions plans proves the states and cities had the money. it just went to reward those who keep them in power. the best voter is one who votes out whomever doesn't deliver and flips the control party to party or faction within each cycle till control returns to the people. however politicians and the press are very adept at exploiting fears and hate of the people and know how to put one group against another. you fall for it every single time, do the honest look into your choices.

bsder 8y ago

> Yet, San Francisco is one of the most economically unequal cities in this country [0]. So what's up? Why have the city's Democrats been so unable to help the poor if that's really something they believe in? Because even as recently as 2005, there were still some really rotten sections of San Francisco that had yet to be gentrified. So, you still had lots of people with lower income living in certain areas. All those areas are now basically gone so it's actually becoming critical.

eanzenberg 8y ago

Conservatives protect the already-rich. Liberals prevent mobility up to the already-rich. Both support the already-rich.