4 ms·

Suggestion: Walk under a highway overpass, observe tent city, revise opinion.

pcwalton 7y ago
I live in San Francisco and observe homelessness every day. What I see is a rich state that is failing to distribute its wealth equitably.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  It's not just homelessness. How would you live in this state making 50k/yr? 40k? The state is completely dystopian outside of tech, especially once you get out of San Francisco (hell I was there yesterday - place seems pretty damn poor to me) Just as an anecdote I live in a 650 sq ft 1 bedroom apartment. The previous tenants were a family of four. My good friend lives a block away - he's cycled through phases of 3-4 room mates in a run-down 2 bedroom apartment. There are millions of people in this state packed together like sardines and paying 40-50% of their meager income for that privilege. This state is riddled with economic inequality, we may not be a poor economy but we have an enormous number of poor people shouldering its weight.
  - pcwalton 7y ago
    There are plenty of people I know happily employed in the entertainment industry in the largest city in the state. "Completely dystopian outside of tech" is a total exaggeration.
    - unlinked_dll 7y ago
      I'm in the entertainment industry in that city. It's the most dystopian place in the state in my opinion. It pays worse and burns people out faster than tech from what I've seen. Some people get lucky and have a stable job with decent income. There are far more scraping by on the odd PA gig trying to make something happen. And the city itself is a dump outside a few outrageously priced neighborhoods.
      - pcwalton 7y ago
        I mean, I was a grad student without much money in L.A. for over a year and quite enjoyed my time there. I don't see the "dystopia" at all, but to each their own.
    - pchristensen 7y ago
      How many of those people live in rent-controlled apartments, or bought their home a long time ago? There can be thousands of dollars monthly cost difference in identical houses from huge appreciation and very low tax growth.
      - pcwalton 7y ago
        None I know.
    - not_real_acct 7y ago
      I'd be curious to know if they have kids. I think California is far more tolerable if you don't have kids. Without kids, you don't need a big place. A couple could live comfortably in California in a home that's 1000'. But once you have kids, you need to live in a zip code with good schools, and you need SPACE. That gets expensive.
      - pcwalton 7y ago
        It's a good point. They don't have kids.
- at-fates-hands 7y ago
  Its not the distribution of the wealth that's the problem: Myriad state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200 percent above the poverty line receive benefits, according to the California Policy Center. California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments, and “other public welfare,” according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Unfortunately, California, with 12 percent of the American population, is home today to roughly one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients. The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse. And you know who gets hit the worse when we enact punitive "climate change" policies? The poor: Extensive environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon-dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also hurting the poor. On some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50 percent higher than the national average. Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics, author of a 2015 Manhattan Institute study, “Less Carbon, Higher Prices,” found that “in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced ‘energy poverty’—defined as energy expenditures exceeding 10 percent of household income. In certain California counties, the rate of energy poverty was as high as 15 percent of all households.” A Pacific Research Institute study by Wayne Winegarden found that the rate could exceed 17 percent of median income in some areas. “The impacts on the poorest households are not only the largest,” states Winegarden. “They are clearly unaffordable.” The fact California is a one-party state is also a huge cause: California’s de facto status as a one-party state lies at the heart of its poverty problem. With a permanent majority in the state senate and the assembly, a prolonged dominance in the executive branch, and a weak opposition, California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price. The state’s poverty problem is unlikely to improve while policymakers remain unwilling to unleash the engines of economic prosperity that drove California to its golden years. https://www.city-journal.org/html/california-poverty-capital-15659.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/california-poverty-capital...

I live in San Francisco and observe homelessness every day. What I see is a rich state that is failing to distribute its wealth equitably.

unlinked_dll 7y ago
It's not just homelessness. How would you live in this state making 50k/yr? 40k? The state is completely dystopian outside of tech, especially once you get out of San Francisco (hell I was there yesterday - place seems pretty damn poor to me) Just as an anecdote I live in a 650 sq ft 1 bedroom apartment. The previous tenants were a family of four. My good friend lives a block away - he's cycled through phases of 3-4 room mates in a run-down 2 bedroom apartment. There are millions of people in this state packed together like sardines and paying 40-50% of their meager income for that privilege. This state is riddled with economic inequality, we may not be a poor economy but we have an enormous number of poor people shouldering its weight.
- pcwalton 7y ago
  There are plenty of people I know happily employed in the entertainment industry in the largest city in the state. "Completely dystopian outside of tech" is a total exaggeration.
  - unlinked_dll 7y ago
    I'm in the entertainment industry in that city. It's the most dystopian place in the state in my opinion. It pays worse and burns people out faster than tech from what I've seen. Some people get lucky and have a stable job with decent income. There are far more scraping by on the odd PA gig trying to make something happen. And the city itself is a dump outside a few outrageously priced neighborhoods.
    - pcwalton 7y ago
      I mean, I was a grad student without much money in L.A. for over a year and quite enjoyed my time there. I don't see the "dystopia" at all, but to each their own.
  - pchristensen 7y ago
    How many of those people live in rent-controlled apartments, or bought their home a long time ago? There can be thousands of dollars monthly cost difference in identical houses from huge appreciation and very low tax growth.
    - pcwalton 7y ago
      None I know.
  - not_real_acct 7y ago
    I'd be curious to know if they have kids. I think California is far more tolerable if you don't have kids. Without kids, you don't need a big place. A couple could live comfortably in California in a home that's 1000'. But once you have kids, you need to live in a zip code with good schools, and you need SPACE. That gets expensive.
    - pcwalton 7y ago
      It's a good point. They don't have kids.
at-fates-hands 7y ago
Its not the distribution of the wealth that's the problem: Myriad state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200 percent above the poverty line receive benefits, according to the California Policy Center. California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments, and “other public welfare,” according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Unfortunately, California, with 12 percent of the American population, is home today to roughly one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients. The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse. And you know who gets hit the worse when we enact punitive "climate change" policies? The poor: Extensive environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon-dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also hurting the poor. On some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50 percent higher than the national average. Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics, author of a 2015 Manhattan Institute study, “Less Carbon, Higher Prices,” found that “in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced ‘energy poverty’—defined as energy expenditures exceeding 10 percent of household income. In certain California counties, the rate of energy poverty was as high as 15 percent of all households.” A Pacific Research Institute study by Wayne Winegarden found that the rate could exceed 17 percent of median income in some areas. “The impacts on the poorest households are not only the largest,” states Winegarden. “They are clearly unaffordable.” The fact California is a one-party state is also a huge cause: California’s de facto status as a one-party state lies at the heart of its poverty problem. With a permanent majority in the state senate and the assembly, a prolonged dominance in the executive branch, and a weak opposition, California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price. The state’s poverty problem is unlikely to improve while policymakers remain unwilling to unleash the engines of economic prosperity that drove California to its golden years. https://www.city-journal.org/html/california-poverty-capital-15659.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/california-poverty-capital...