3 ms·

This reads like a clickbait article with an agenda. Also, who cares? SF is one of the most expensive cities in the world - it's probably fair to expect city em

by adt2bt 6y ago

This reads like a clickbait article with an agenda. Also, who cares? SF is one of the most expensive cities in the world - it's probably fair to expect city employees to make a liveable wage in the city they serve.

bb88 6y ago
That gets to the point. Normally, as a city, you'd probably want your employees to live in the city that they service. If you don't live there, you're not going to care about hypodermic needles on the street as much. "Meh, it's San Francisco. Who cares?"
kyleblarson 6y ago
SF residents facing ever increasing taxes and an increasingly dilapidated and unsafe city likely care.
supernova87a 6y ago
Except that the city's negotiating abilities are so incompetent that these overtime $ costs (which in the past had guarantees like "required to ratchet up and remain the 2nd highest paid scale in the US") and expansion of employees numbers gets further baked into pension and debt costs far into the future. https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/why-muni-cant-find-good-drivers/ https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/why-muni-cant-find-good-driv... https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/City-and-Muni-operators-agree-on-new-contract-5590634.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/City-and-Muni-operato...
content_sesh 6y ago
It's breathless pearl clutching targeted at Forbes readers who would be scandalized that their perceived inferiors are making what amounts to a moderately livable wage in one of the most expensive places on earth. As a quick example, here we can see the author making an extremely weird argument that the guy running the agency that serves the homeless in the city is somehow doing a bad job because there are more homeless people now than there were in 2016. > In 2016, the city added a new agency to serve its homeless residents. By 2019, the department had 148 employees, and 53 of them made more than $100,000. > The director, Jeff Kosinsky, brought home up to $238,182 annually, but each year the city’s homeless population continued to grow.
alehul 6y ago
That's the thing - the livable wage is changing in San Francisco. SF is seeing a steep reduction in cost-of-living, yet these extremely high salaries won't decrease accordingly. Also, the herds of people moving out and companies shifting remote will mean lower revenue for the city, meaning these high salaries won't be fiscally sustainable.
- athms 6y ago
  The city will take on debt load like Vallejo and Orange County. They will try to win concessions, but most likely the unions won't budge. Worst case, SF files for Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

by adt2bt 6y ago

bb88 6y ago

That gets to the point. Normally, as a city, you'd probably want your employees to live in the city that they service. If you don't live there, you're not going to care about hypodermic needles on the street as much. "Meh, it's San Francisco. Who cares?"

kyleblarson 6y ago

SF residents facing ever increasing taxes and an increasingly dilapidated and unsafe city likely care.

supernova87a 6y ago

Except that the city's negotiating abilities are so incompetent that these overtime $ costs (which in the past had guarantees like "required to ratchet up and remain the 2nd highest paid scale in the US") and expansion of employees numbers gets further baked into pension and debt costs far into the future. https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/why-muni-cant-find-good-drivers/ https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/why-muni-cant-find-good-driv... https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/City-and-Muni-operators-agree-on-new-contract-5590634.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/City-and-Muni-operato...

content_sesh 6y ago

It's breathless pearl clutching targeted at Forbes readers who would be scandalized that their perceived inferiors are making what amounts to a moderately livable wage in one of the most expensive places on earth. As a quick example, here we can see the author making an extremely weird argument that the guy running the agency that serves the homeless in the city is somehow doing a bad job because there are more homeless people now than there were in 2016. > In 2016, the city added a new agency to serve its homeless residents. By 2019, the department had 148 employees, and 53 of them made more than $100,000. > The director, Jeff Kosinsky, brought home up to $238,182 annually, but each year the city’s homeless population continued to grow.

alehul 6y ago

That's the thing - the livable wage is changing in San Francisco. SF is seeing a steep reduction in cost-of-living, yet these extremely high salaries won't decrease accordingly. Also, the herds of people moving out and companies shifting remote will mean lower revenue for the city, meaning these high salaries won't be fiscally sustainable.

athms 6y ago
The city will take on debt load like Vallejo and Orange County. They will try to win concessions, but most likely the unions won't budge. Worst case, SF files for Chapter 9 bankruptcy.