4 ms·

Oh they understand. They are not actually trying to solve the problem, but inflate the problem. They own real estate, the regulations give them a lever to get

Oh they understand. They are not actually trying to solve the problem, but inflate the problem. They own real estate, the regulations give them a lever to get contributions from developers, higher property prices equals higher tax revenue, and doing something dumb like this IPO stunt makes foolish property-less people think that they are on the same side of them. They are not -- they are on the side of property prices going up.

robertAngst 8y ago
Apply this to Federal Healthcare. Physicians want to get paid 300k/yr. Pharma is obsolete by computers and paid over 100k/yr. Not to mention the pharma companies and hospitals. Its why healthcare only gets worse with legislation.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Pharmacy is obsolete by computers? Not yet, it's not. I mean, retail pharmacy, maybe, mostly, but all of pharmacy? No. And pharma companies? You think computers are going to automate drug discovery? Not for a long time, they won't.
- bdcravens 8y ago
  To be fair, many physicians went into significant debt based on an ROI of making $300k a year.
  - germinalphrase 8y ago
    Maybe that too is a problem.
    - bdcravens 8y ago
      I've long held that if you want to get healthcare costs under control, if you end up impacting provider salaries, you have to tackle the education side of the equation as well.
    - adventured 8y ago
      The most important thing the US needs to do to its healthcare system, is cut costs by 1/3 to match the top end of what the other wealthiest developed nations are spending. That will require hammering downward what doctors (for one example) are earning. No more radiologists making $650k per year. The side conflict to that, is you have to simultaneously make it a lot cheaper to become a doctor, otherwise you generate a shortgage of doctors that gets worse by the year. As the Federal and State governments take on ever larger responsibility in the US healthcare system, I'll be curious to see how this problem is dealt with. I suspect at first they'll simply avoid the conflict entirely, and try to keep paying healthcare workers what they're presently earning. However, you can't have universal healthcare in the US in any manner at the current expense levels, it's financially impossible. Something will have to give, and it ultimately will have to be the costs in the system.
      - ericd 8y ago
        I think the other thing is that it's not only expensive to become a doctor, but fairly grueling as well. Some number will still do it for altruistic reasons, similar to how you get some amazing teachers despite the terrible pay, but it'll probably be a lot harder for most extremely effective people to justify doing that over another, more lucrative field. One thing that might help is eliminating the undergrad requirement before medical school.
    - austenallred 8y ago
      It’s only a tiny, tiny part of the problem.
wbl 8y ago
SF property tax revenue does not rise when prices do.
- rsuttongee 8y ago
  The parent is saying that the council members themselves are the property owners - that they are profiting directly, not the city.

robertAngst 8y ago

Apply this to Federal Healthcare. Physicians want to get paid 300k/yr. Pharma is obsolete by computers and paid over 100k/yr. Not to mention the pharma companies and hospitals. Its why healthcare only gets worse with legislation.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Pharmacy is obsolete by computers? Not yet, it's not. I mean, retail pharmacy, maybe, mostly, but all of pharmacy? No. And pharma companies? You think computers are going to automate drug discovery? Not for a long time, they won't.
bdcravens 8y ago
To be fair, many physicians went into significant debt based on an ROI of making $300k a year.
- germinalphrase 8y ago
  Maybe that too is a problem.
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    I've long held that if you want to get healthcare costs under control, if you end up impacting provider salaries, you have to tackle the education side of the equation as well.
  - adventured 8y ago
    The most important thing the US needs to do to its healthcare system, is cut costs by 1/3 to match the top end of what the other wealthiest developed nations are spending. That will require hammering downward what doctors (for one example) are earning. No more radiologists making $650k per year. The side conflict to that, is you have to simultaneously make it a lot cheaper to become a doctor, otherwise you generate a shortgage of doctors that gets worse by the year. As the Federal and State governments take on ever larger responsibility in the US healthcare system, I'll be curious to see how this problem is dealt with. I suspect at first they'll simply avoid the conflict entirely, and try to keep paying healthcare workers what they're presently earning. However, you can't have universal healthcare in the US in any manner at the current expense levels, it's financially impossible. Something will have to give, and it ultimately will have to be the costs in the system.
    - ericd 8y ago
      I think the other thing is that it's not only expensive to become a doctor, but fairly grueling as well. Some number will still do it for altruistic reasons, similar to how you get some amazing teachers despite the terrible pay, but it'll probably be a lot harder for most extremely effective people to justify doing that over another, more lucrative field. One thing that might help is eliminating the undergrad requirement before medical school.
  - austenallred 8y ago
    It’s only a tiny, tiny part of the problem.

wbl 8y ago

SF property tax revenue does not rise when prices do.

rsuttongee 8y ago
The parent is saying that the council members themselves are the property owners - that they are profiting directly, not the city.