3 ms·

The income distribution, housing ownership, education, etc. stats for the USA would seem to disagree. The 3rd world level dilapidation surrounding rich enclaves

by sershe 6y ago

The income distribution, housing ownership, education, etc. stats for the USA would seem to disagree. The 3rd world level dilapidation surrounding rich enclaves is very specific to liberal-run cities as far as I can tell (my favorite quote from a Nob Hill condo owner - "It's only nice here because the homeless are too lazy to walk uphill"). Even super depressed places I've been to, like Spokane, WA, or rural Illinois by Kentucky border, look far more orderly, safe and well-run. Clearly you've never been to the actual 3rd world ;)

qqqwerty 6y ago
A quick google search about Spokane turned up this[1] and this[2]. Maybe the only difference between SF and Spokane is that the real estate prices means it is easier to hide the problems from public view. Pretty much every city and state, liberal or conservative, has a fair share of population that is struggling with drug addiction, mental health issues, and poverty. The difference between SF and other areas, is we have higher real estate prices and better weather, so these issues are much more visible than else where. [1] https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/ https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/ [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Spokane/comments/bchlna/how_ghetto_really_is_spokane/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Spokane/comments/bchlna/how_ghetto_...
- sershe 6y ago
  I guess Spokane went downhill, I've last been there several years ago and the comments also seem to say the last couple of years homeless population exploded. Still, they seem to be describing abandoned parts of a shrinking city, not the entire place. In SF it's all over (I've lived in SOMA and Inner Richmond, and worked near Union Square). I'd expect the fact that SF is swimming in money (compared to Spokane) would have an opposite effect. So I don't think it's that "every city has problems". Even the cities on the same train line as SF don't have the same problems, nor do better run cities with less money with good weather (Texas, Utah, Florida). Same deal with Seattle, quickly going downhill with increasingly progressive City Council and major, while less-progressive cities across the bridge are doing just fine; and even stereo-typically poorer cities to the North and South don't look nearly as bad.
nostrademons 6y ago
The supreme levels of wealth is largely specific to liberal-run cities as well. Home cities of the top 10 billionaires in the U.S. are Seattle, Bay Area, Seattle, Bay Area, Omaha, Bay Area, Seattle, Bay Area, Bay Area, Bentonville. The list of metro areas by per capita income is DC, San Jose, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston. I think you may have causality backwards: liberal policies are enacted as a way to paper over the huge income disparities that are generated by having a dominant global industry. Regional wealth and inequality cause liberal policies, liberal policies don't cause wealth & inequality.
- sershe 6y ago
  I don't think so; the 3rd-world-like situation is limited mostly to SF, many other cities in the same area are not as progressive and doing better. Ditto for Seattle - the East Side has greater wealth, more expensive housing, is less progressive, and is doing much better. Tacoma has far less wealth, is less progressive and is doing better anyway. There's a common pattern here... There's a grain of truth in what you say in terms of progressive policies used to "paper over" stuff - some places prevent the problem via non-progressive policies, and those stupid enough to use progressive ones are left with the 3rd world conditions in need of papering over. I have a pet theory... I think compassion is the worst basis for policy, proven by study after study to be irrational, scope insensitive, biased in many ways. The 2nd worst basis for policy are slogans. However, most people are compassionate and are fired up by slogans, so they vote for compassionate simple policies. That predictably causes horrible results, at which point the smarter/richer people become a bit more likely to leave, and the less smart/less rich people stay, or are not able to leave financially; that causes more compassionate and slogan-based policies; rinse, repeat.

by sershe 6y ago

qqqwerty 6y ago

A quick google search about Spokane turned up this[1] and this[2]. Maybe the only difference between SF and Spokane is that the real estate prices means it is easier to hide the problems from public view. Pretty much every city and state, liberal or conservative, has a fair share of population that is struggling with drug addiction, mental health issues, and poverty. The difference between SF and other areas, is we have higher real estate prices and better weather, so these issues are much more visible than else where. [1] https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/ https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/ [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Spokane/comments/bchlna/how_ghetto_really_is_spokane/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Spokane/comments/bchlna/how_ghetto_...

sershe 6y ago
I guess Spokane went downhill, I've last been there several years ago and the comments also seem to say the last couple of years homeless population exploded. Still, they seem to be describing abandoned parts of a shrinking city, not the entire place. In SF it's all over (I've lived in SOMA and Inner Richmond, and worked near Union Square). I'd expect the fact that SF is swimming in money (compared to Spokane) would have an opposite effect. So I don't think it's that "every city has problems". Even the cities on the same train line as SF don't have the same problems, nor do better run cities with less money with good weather (Texas, Utah, Florida). Same deal with Seattle, quickly going downhill with increasingly progressive City Council and major, while less-progressive cities across the bridge are doing just fine; and even stereo-typically poorer cities to the North and South don't look nearly as bad.

nostrademons 6y ago

The supreme levels of wealth is largely specific to liberal-run cities as well. Home cities of the top 10 billionaires in the U.S. are Seattle, Bay Area, Seattle, Bay Area, Omaha, Bay Area, Seattle, Bay Area, Bay Area, Bentonville. The list of metro areas by per capita income is DC, San Jose, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston. I think you may have causality backwards: liberal policies are enacted as a way to paper over the huge income disparities that are generated by having a dominant global industry. Regional wealth and inequality cause liberal policies, liberal policies don't cause wealth & inequality.

sershe 6y ago
I don't think so; the 3rd-world-like situation is limited mostly to SF, many other cities in the same area are not as progressive and doing better. Ditto for Seattle - the East Side has greater wealth, more expensive housing, is less progressive, and is doing much better. Tacoma has far less wealth, is less progressive and is doing better anyway. There's a common pattern here... There's a grain of truth in what you say in terms of progressive policies used to "paper over" stuff - some places prevent the problem via non-progressive policies, and those stupid enough to use progressive ones are left with the 3rd world conditions in need of papering over. I have a pet theory... I think compassion is the worst basis for policy, proven by study after study to be irrational, scope insensitive, biased in many ways. The 2nd worst basis for policy are slogans. However, most people are compassionate and are fired up by slogans, so they vote for compassionate simple policies. That predictably causes horrible results, at which point the smarter/richer people become a bit more likely to leave, and the less smart/less rich people stay, or are not able to leave financially; that causes more compassionate and slogan-based policies; rinse, repeat.