3 ms·

We left in 2015 because: 1) The extremely high cost of living which makes everyone poor. only 25% of the housing there is market rate and thus available. Our

We left in 2015 because: 1) The extremely high cost of living which makes everyone poor. only 25% of the housing there is market rate and thus available. Our salaries were pretty high working in tech, but not high enough to afford a nice place to live in SF. 2) Homelessness 3) The politics. 4) Poop (although much worse now). It's not so much the poop itself that bothers me. It's the attitude of the politicians in SF. we just really disliked the way things were being handled and are currently being handled in SF. They are "progressive" in title only. there's really no progress in living standard at all. if anything, things are getting worse and worse and worse, based on the things I've read and the stories I'm hearing. 5) we didn't want to live in a city that might not even be able to provide schooling for our child. 6) Day care costs would have been astronomical (by now it's up to 3000 per month, i've heard)

nostrademons 7y ago
> They are "progressive" in title only. there's really no progress in living standard at all. "Progressive" usually refers to progress in equality & social justice. There've been many instances in American history where a small group has made significant progress at the expense of some larger outside group: initial settlement, slavery, Manifest Destiny, industrialization, redlining, the software boom. These are usually not labeled as progressive. The in-group usually labels them with terms like "destiny", "building the future", "progress" (not "progressive"), "technology", and "rationalization", while the out-group labels them as "colonialism", "imperialism", "conquest", and "corporate greed". The other major eras of progressivism in the U.S. (1900-1929 and the Civil Rights era from 1965-1980) also did not feature rising living standards for the dominant social group. The former involved a plateau in the rate of technological development & industrialization while increasing unionization started sharing those fruits more broadly, while the latter involved an extension of basic civil rights to non-whites, at the same time that stagflation was taking root and the wages of the white working class started to plateau. Keep that in mind: when you hear "progressive" it might not be progress for you.
- Nuzzerino 7y ago
  > Keep that in mind: when you hear "progressive" it might not be progress for you. You're missing the point. While it's debatable whether the theory of progressivism is working out for the homelessness, I hope we can agree that the execution has been horrible. Progressives have controlled the local government there for some time now, and since they've done so, things have grown worse. The situation hasn't been much better in Seattle, Chicago, or Detroit. Progressives like to point fingers to blame others for the problems, but there's a very real possibility that, yes, they really are in actuality regressive for everyone, homeless included.
- thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
  Well, it may not be progress for "me", but it's also not progress for the poor. CA has one of the highest poverty rates (SPA living cost adjusted rate of nearly 21%) in the entire nation. You have entire families that make over 45k per year (a salary considered middle class in the rest of the nation), living in garages in Palo Alto. I don't see many winners from the policies we have in CA/SF.

nostrademons 7y ago

> They are "progressive" in title only. there's really no progress in living standard at all. "Progressive" usually refers to progress in equality & social justice. There've been many instances in American history where a small group has made significant progress at the expense of some larger outside group: initial settlement, slavery, Manifest Destiny, industrialization, redlining, the software boom. These are usually not labeled as progressive. The in-group usually labels them with terms like "destiny", "building the future", "progress" (not "progressive"), "technology", and "rationalization", while the out-group labels them as "colonialism", "imperialism", "conquest", and "corporate greed". The other major eras of progressivism in the U.S. (1900-1929 and the Civil Rights era from 1965-1980) also did not feature rising living standards for the dominant social group. The former involved a plateau in the rate of technological development & industrialization while increasing unionization started sharing those fruits more broadly, while the latter involved an extension of basic civil rights to non-whites, at the same time that stagflation was taking root and the wages of the white working class started to plateau. Keep that in mind: when you hear "progressive" it might not be progress for you.

Nuzzerino 7y ago
> Keep that in mind: when you hear "progressive" it might not be progress for you. You're missing the point. While it's debatable whether the theory of progressivism is working out for the homelessness, I hope we can agree that the execution has been horrible. Progressives have controlled the local government there for some time now, and since they've done so, things have grown worse. The situation hasn't been much better in Seattle, Chicago, or Detroit. Progressives like to point fingers to blame others for the problems, but there's a very real possibility that, yes, they really are in actuality regressive for everyone, homeless included.
thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
Well, it may not be progress for "me", but it's also not progress for the poor. CA has one of the highest poverty rates (SPA living cost adjusted rate of nearly 21%) in the entire nation. You have entire families that make over 45k per year (a salary considered middle class in the rest of the nation), living in garages in Palo Alto. I don't see many winners from the policies we have in CA/SF.