7 ms·

For such a "progressive" city, San Francisco sure is against progress.

lostgame 4y ago
San Fransisco is the epitome of visually seeing what is so messed up about our current breed of Capitalism. Orlando was very similar when I lived there - with Disney World literally on the other side of the highway from extremely derelict project housing. I would drive through I-437 and just shake my head in sadness. It's an eerie reminder of how fragile life is and how little we collectively care about solving these problems above making money for our individual selves.
- jsnk 4y ago
  I fail to see how the housing issue in SF and the issue you mentioned in Orlando is related to capitalism. I think people with capital would love to develop housing in SF which would ease the housing problem in SF. In fact, people with capital really are the only people that may be able to solve the housing problem in SF. And the reason why they can't do this is the local government. How is this some sort of problem with capitalism?
  - loudmax 4y ago
    People do what they can to prop up the value of the properties into which they've invested their capital. The last thing they want is competition in the property market, hence their support for local government rules to hinder development. This is capitalism shutting down the free market.
    - dmix 4y ago
      Capitalism is when you exploit government policy to exclude others people from a market, in order to make more money? Being incentivized to make money is not all it takes to make it capitalism. If the policy is a net-negative for the market as a whole then the market will work to get rid of the policy, because there will be more people excluded than benefit. The only reason it would stick around is if there are motivations excluding capital/market aspects, such as equity, altruism, and social good.
      - jjoonathan 4y ago
        > Capitalism is when you exploit government policy to exclude others people from a market, in order to make more money? Yes. Markets incentivize anticompetitive behavior. Government policy is far from the only way to exclude others from the market, so you'll want to pursue other strategies as well: dumping to destroy small competitors, merging to incorporate them, deals with peers to avoid competing head-on, etc. In theory these are all illegal, but in practice they are commonplace, so don't neglect them. > Being incentivized to make money is not all it takes to make it capitalism. No, but strong property rights and perpetual private ownership of land are very much capitalism things, as is tilting the power equation away from "people" and towards "owners." In theory this incentivizes good stewardship and investment, but in practice it also incentivizes cornering the market. > If the policy is a net-negative for the market as a whole then the market will work to get rid of the policy Why on earth would you think that? "Monopolize resource, drive up scarcity, profit" is a quintessential capitalist hustle. It leverages the same machinery used to incentivize types of investment that are actually productive, but it's a lot easier than being actually productive. You just have to get in early. > The only reason it would stick around is if there are motivations excluding capital/market aspects, such as equity, altruism, and social good. Lol, so homeowners who don't want to see their property values tank have nothing to do with the problem? NIMBYs are just a bunch of misguided altruistic do-gooders who need to be persuaded of the merits in free market capitalism? My sides.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Certain markets in the US may incentivize anticompetitive behaviour to a sufficient degree to cause such problems. Though that’s only for dynamics in the domestic market. In the global market such behaviour simply weakens the position of the US overall and thus the global market self corrects, eventually. Typically this is done by the global markets via boosting another rising country or bloc to displace the position of the countries with less competitive markets. Of course this is a very long term process that could take centuries, but there was never a guarantee that market forces would resolve itself within a single human lifespan.
    - junofan 4y ago
      Capitalism concerns who owns the means of production. I think you’re confused.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Its textbook definition and how it actually manifests itself in reality are never going to be the same thing. The GP had an issue with a particular "breed of capitalism". Capitalism is an ideal just as much as socialism, and humans aren't great at living up to ideals. "Particular breeds" are all we are ever going to have - our best bet is likely to fix the "breed" rather than attempt to replace the system entirely. Social democracies that can harness the wealth-growing capabilities of capitalism tempered with a degree of socialism so everyone gets to enjoy the benefits seem to work pretty well in much of the developed world.
        erik_seaberg 4y ago
        Capitalism rewards effective producers by routing capital for them to expand. When consumers conspire to force producer shutdowns, the problem is politics rather than capitalism.
        wizofaus 4y ago
        Except that those consumers are doing so because they believe it's the best way to expand (or at least protect) their capital. Such a position wouldn't make any sense in a non-capitalist economy, so at least part of the problem is how to actually ensure capitalism works effectively given human nature.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    Every single land owner in SF, big and small, knows that a huge chunk of their net worth is directly due to the housing crisis and will do anything to avoid seeing that wealth evaporate. That's what it has to do with capitalism.
  - lostgame 4y ago
    >> I fail to see how the housing issue in SF and the issue you mentioned in Orlando is related to capitalism. Then I can only logically concede that you are either blind, or intentionally ignorant of the blindingly obvious correlation. Whether it’s Disney and projects across the highway or something like skid row in a state with the largest collection of wealth in the country, it all boils down to the same ‘I’m comfortable and I don’t want to have to think about not being comfortable’ attitude that allows this country to have billionaires and do absolutely nothing to help these people. Communism isn’t a perfect system, but fundamentally; it’s supposed to care about the individual in a way capitalism has shown it is fundamentally incapable of. It seems we currently have no political system that seems to balance progress with the needs of the people - but this preposterous 1%-bullshit capitalist system is so destined to collapse that if it wasn’t for said 1% so desperately clinging onto it so they can maintain wealth and power, it would have long ago. It’s only greed and selfishness that powers the current American political and economic system. To say it’s ‘disturbing’ would be an extremely shameful understatement.
chongli 4y ago
It's always been "progress for me, not for thee" type of thing. "Let's solve homelessness, but keep them out of my neighbourhood!" When conservatives complain about the "coastal left" this is what they're talking about. People who are wealthy and hypocritical in the extreme.
- tjr225 4y ago
  The coastal left, especially those that are wealthy, do not care whatsoever what these “conservatives” think about them.
- isatty 4y ago
  This is not an issue that can be summarized in a HN comment, but you're not going to get anyone to agree to the extreme end of either spectrum (peak NIMBY or peak progressive), it just won't work.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    YIMBY is not a synonym for progressive. I'm not sure I know any YIMBYs who aren't relatively wealthy libertarians.
    - wk_end 4y ago
      waves I consider myself a YIMBY, and I also consider myself pretty progressive on most issues and certainly not a libertarian...so you know at least one now.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 4y ago
  What blows my mind traveling around the country is that, on the ground, Iowa or Texas are egalitarian paradise compared to NYC or SF. I can’t stand to be in those cities these days because of the yawing wealth and racial divides. I really wonder how much of the progressive drama results from these highly educated folks working in overwhelmingly white/Asian industries and living in places like SF or NYC where nearly all the Black or brown people they meet are working service jobs for them.
pydry 4y ago
With property prices this high I think it's inevitable. Who is going to be pro development with $1.5m on their mortgage and a property worth $1.7m? Their equity and net worth is both fragile and contingent upon vehemently impeding the construction of new housing.
neildahlke 4y ago
The problem has a name, and its name is Dean Preston.
- nerfhammer 4y ago
  That's being unfair to him, there is tremendous local market for millionaire homeowners that still want to think of themselves as socialist revolutionaries as long as the value of their home never ever drops, and he is merely filling that demand
- seehafer 4y ago
  Half of the Board of Supervisors at any given time are just as bad as Dean, they’re just less vocal. The actual problem is the SF electorate.
  - lokar 4y ago
    Exactly Voters are getting exactly what the want: talk about affordability, and action to prevent building.
  - newsclues 4y ago
    Is it the electorate, or the group of people in power(who can and will corrupt anyone elected)?
- renewiltord 4y ago
  The number one thing that voters anywhere do is to prop up sin eaters like Dean Preston. Then everyone is all like "The problem is DEAN PRESTON" as if one moustache twirling guy with an 8 year term could possibly be responsible for 40 years of policy.
sytelus 4y ago
California is complete nightmare state. if weather and geography wasn't there, the state would be unlivable. The legal system there has gone so much to the other extreme that if you ever have to interact with it, you could be the party in ruins. For example, if you ever get divorce in California, you can be turned into ATM slave for your ex for life.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  The nightmare state full of high salaries and high life expectancy. California's housing situation is incredibly bad, there are some other bad parts too, like the water/fire situation, but there are some huge advantages to the state as well.
  - sytelus 4y ago
    Advantages such as...? The high salaries is concertrated in very small part of the state. It is also purely accidental and due to historical reasons. On median basis, the state is among the poorest in the nation. Fire/water is only tip of the issues. The list goes on with school quality (outside of few pockets of ultra-rich neighbourhoods), enormous tax burden, bismal transportation, consistently failed multi-billion $ government projects etc.
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      > Advantages such as...? High life expectancy, high salaries/strong economy, excellent weather, ethnic/cultural diversity, huge range of beautiful nature/geographic diversity, relatively progressive tax burden compared to other states, some labor-friendly regulations like parental leave and ban on non-competes, great food scenes in LA and the bay area, great public colleges/universities, lots of pro sports teams if you're into that.
ryanobjc 4y ago
1 person and their lawyers held up bike lanes for YEARS with lawsuits. The city isn't a monolith, its not all 1 person, and fixing it isn't always easy: state and federal laws have primacy over certain things, and lets face it "permitting reforms" is hardly the ballot box getter. But things have gotten better, the parket situation got a lot better, new bike lines, walkable streets, etc. All it took was a deadly global pandemic! Yay progress!
dang 4y ago
Ok, but please don't post this sort of shallow/generic flamebait in HN threads, especially not on divisive topics. It turns the threads into shallow/generic flamewars, which are much less interesting (and nastier) than what we're hoping for here. "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

San Fransisco is the epitome of visually seeing what is so messed up about our current breed of Capitalism. Orlando was very similar when I lived there - with Disney World literally on the other side of the highway from extremely derelict project housing. I would drive through I-437 and just shake my head in sadness. It's an eerie reminder of how fragile life is and how little we collectively care about solving these problems above making money for our individual selves.

jsnk 4y ago
I fail to see how the housing issue in SF and the issue you mentioned in Orlando is related to capitalism. I think people with capital would love to develop housing in SF which would ease the housing problem in SF. In fact, people with capital really are the only people that may be able to solve the housing problem in SF. And the reason why they can't do this is the local government. How is this some sort of problem with capitalism?
- loudmax 4y ago
  People do what they can to prop up the value of the properties into which they've invested their capital. The last thing they want is competition in the property market, hence their support for local government rules to hinder development. This is capitalism shutting down the free market.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Capitalism is when you exploit government policy to exclude others people from a market, in order to make more money? Being incentivized to make money is not all it takes to make it capitalism. If the policy is a net-negative for the market as a whole then the market will work to get rid of the policy, because there will be more people excluded than benefit. The only reason it would stick around is if there are motivations excluding capital/market aspects, such as equity, altruism, and social good.
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      > Capitalism is when you exploit government policy to exclude others people from a market, in order to make more money? Yes. Markets incentivize anticompetitive behavior. Government policy is far from the only way to exclude others from the market, so you'll want to pursue other strategies as well: dumping to destroy small competitors, merging to incorporate them, deals with peers to avoid competing head-on, etc. In theory these are all illegal, but in practice they are commonplace, so don't neglect them. > Being incentivized to make money is not all it takes to make it capitalism. No, but strong property rights and perpetual private ownership of land are very much capitalism things, as is tilting the power equation away from "people" and towards "owners." In theory this incentivizes good stewardship and investment, but in practice it also incentivizes cornering the market. > If the policy is a net-negative for the market as a whole then the market will work to get rid of the policy Why on earth would you think that? "Monopolize resource, drive up scarcity, profit" is a quintessential capitalist hustle. It leverages the same machinery used to incentivize types of investment that are actually productive, but it's a lot easier than being actually productive. You just have to get in early. > The only reason it would stick around is if there are motivations excluding capital/market aspects, such as equity, altruism, and social good. Lol, so homeowners who don't want to see their property values tank have nothing to do with the problem? NIMBYs are just a bunch of misguided altruistic do-gooders who need to be persuaded of the merits in free market capitalism? My sides.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Certain markets in the US may incentivize anticompetitive behaviour to a sufficient degree to cause such problems. Though that’s only for dynamics in the domestic market. In the global market such behaviour simply weakens the position of the US overall and thus the global market self corrects, eventually. Typically this is done by the global markets via boosting another rising country or bloc to displace the position of the countries with less competitive markets. Of course this is a very long term process that could take centuries, but there was never a guarantee that market forces would resolve itself within a single human lifespan.
  - junofan 4y ago
    Capitalism concerns who owns the means of production. I think you’re confused.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Its textbook definition and how it actually manifests itself in reality are never going to be the same thing. The GP had an issue with a particular "breed of capitalism". Capitalism is an ideal just as much as socialism, and humans aren't great at living up to ideals. "Particular breeds" are all we are ever going to have - our best bet is likely to fix the "breed" rather than attempt to replace the system entirely. Social democracies that can harness the wealth-growing capabilities of capitalism tempered with a degree of socialism so everyone gets to enjoy the benefits seem to work pretty well in much of the developed world.
      - erik_seaberg 4y ago
        Capitalism rewards effective producers by routing capital for them to expand. When consumers conspire to force producer shutdowns, the problem is politics rather than capitalism.
        wizofaus 4y ago
        Except that those consumers are doing so because they believe it's the best way to expand (or at least protect) their capital. Such a position wouldn't make any sense in a non-capitalist economy, so at least part of the problem is how to actually ensure capitalism works effectively given human nature.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  Every single land owner in SF, big and small, knows that a huge chunk of their net worth is directly due to the housing crisis and will do anything to avoid seeing that wealth evaporate. That's what it has to do with capitalism.
- lostgame 4y ago
  >> I fail to see how the housing issue in SF and the issue you mentioned in Orlando is related to capitalism. Then I can only logically concede that you are either blind, or intentionally ignorant of the blindingly obvious correlation. Whether it’s Disney and projects across the highway or something like skid row in a state with the largest collection of wealth in the country, it all boils down to the same ‘I’m comfortable and I don’t want to have to think about not being comfortable’ attitude that allows this country to have billionaires and do absolutely nothing to help these people. Communism isn’t a perfect system, but fundamentally; it’s supposed to care about the individual in a way capitalism has shown it is fundamentally incapable of. It seems we currently have no political system that seems to balance progress with the needs of the people - but this preposterous 1%-bullshit capitalist system is so destined to collapse that if it wasn’t for said 1% so desperately clinging onto it so they can maintain wealth and power, it would have long ago. It’s only greed and selfishness that powers the current American political and economic system. To say it’s ‘disturbing’ would be an extremely shameful understatement.

chongli 4y ago

It's always been "progress for me, not for thee" type of thing. "Let's solve homelessness, but keep them out of my neighbourhood!" When conservatives complain about the "coastal left" this is what they're talking about. People who are wealthy and hypocritical in the extreme.

tjr225 4y ago
The coastal left, especially those that are wealthy, do not care whatsoever what these “conservatives” think about them.
isatty 4y ago
This is not an issue that can be summarized in a HN comment, but you're not going to get anyone to agree to the extreme end of either spectrum (peak NIMBY or peak progressive), it just won't work.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  YIMBY is not a synonym for progressive. I'm not sure I know any YIMBYs who aren't relatively wealthy libertarians.
  - wk_end 4y ago
    waves I consider myself a YIMBY, and I also consider myself pretty progressive on most issues and certainly not a libertarian...so you know at least one now.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 4y ago
What blows my mind traveling around the country is that, on the ground, Iowa or Texas are egalitarian paradise compared to NYC or SF. I can’t stand to be in those cities these days because of the yawing wealth and racial divides. I really wonder how much of the progressive drama results from these highly educated folks working in overwhelmingly white/Asian industries and living in places like SF or NYC where nearly all the Black or brown people they meet are working service jobs for them.

pydry 4y ago

With property prices this high I think it's inevitable. Who is going to be pro development with $1.5m on their mortgage and a property worth $1.7m? Their equity and net worth is both fragile and contingent upon vehemently impeding the construction of new housing.

neildahlke 4y ago

The problem has a name, and its name is Dean Preston.

nerfhammer 4y ago
That's being unfair to him, there is tremendous local market for millionaire homeowners that still want to think of themselves as socialist revolutionaries as long as the value of their home never ever drops, and he is merely filling that demand
seehafer 4y ago
Half of the Board of Supervisors at any given time are just as bad as Dean, they’re just less vocal. The actual problem is the SF electorate.
- lokar 4y ago
  Exactly Voters are getting exactly what the want: talk about affordability, and action to prevent building.
- newsclues 4y ago
  Is it the electorate, or the group of people in power(who can and will corrupt anyone elected)?
renewiltord 4y ago
The number one thing that voters anywhere do is to prop up sin eaters like Dean Preston. Then everyone is all like "The problem is DEAN PRESTON" as if one moustache twirling guy with an 8 year term could possibly be responsible for 40 years of policy.

sytelus 4y ago

California is complete nightmare state. if weather and geography wasn't there, the state would be unlivable. The legal system there has gone so much to the other extreme that if you ever have to interact with it, you could be the party in ruins. For example, if you ever get divorce in California, you can be turned into ATM slave for your ex for life.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
The nightmare state full of high salaries and high life expectancy. California's housing situation is incredibly bad, there are some other bad parts too, like the water/fire situation, but there are some huge advantages to the state as well.
- sytelus 4y ago
  Advantages such as...? The high salaries is concertrated in very small part of the state. It is also purely accidental and due to historical reasons. On median basis, the state is among the poorest in the nation. Fire/water is only tip of the issues. The list goes on with school quality (outside of few pockets of ultra-rich neighbourhoods), enormous tax burden, bismal transportation, consistently failed multi-billion $ government projects etc.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    > Advantages such as...? High life expectancy, high salaries/strong economy, excellent weather, ethnic/cultural diversity, huge range of beautiful nature/geographic diversity, relatively progressive tax burden compared to other states, some labor-friendly regulations like parental leave and ban on non-competes, great food scenes in LA and the bay area, great public colleges/universities, lots of pro sports teams if you're into that.

ryanobjc 4y ago

1 person and their lawyers held up bike lanes for YEARS with lawsuits. The city isn't a monolith, its not all 1 person, and fixing it isn't always easy: state and federal laws have primacy over certain things, and lets face it "permitting reforms" is hardly the ballot box getter. But things have gotten better, the parket situation got a lot better, new bike lines, walkable streets, etc. All it took was a deadly global pandemic! Yay progress!

dang 4y ago

Ok, but please don't post this sort of shallow/generic flamebait in HN threads, especially not on divisive topics. It turns the threads into shallow/generic flamewars, which are much less interesting (and nastier) than what we're hoping for here. "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html