9 ms·

As much as I like the narrative of "yay, inflation is over and we're seeing deflation", isn't it pretty hard to ignore that San Francisco's high cost of living

As much as I like the narrative of "yay, inflation is over and we're seeing deflation", isn't it pretty hard to ignore that San Francisco's high cost of living + homelessness problem has caught up to it from the perspective of "desirable place to live" factor? If I am wrong/that narrative that's spread all over online isn't true, I'd love to learn why the rent falling here suggests something different/is actually due to something different. Otherwise it seems like a pretty simple (boring, stupid) headline/problem/observation? "City that isn't that desirable to live in due to terrible flaw becomes less valuable" Maybe I should be a journalist...

Swizec 4y ago
So I’ve lived in SF for almost 8 years now. It’s fine. The great exodus that made The Narrative explode with how very dead and over the city is? A 0.15% drop in population. We have nowhere to put more people anyway. Where people gonna go if nimbys don’t wanna approve anything? SF isn’t undesirable, it’s just full. But also the place I moved 3 years ago was fairly medium density. Now there are 10 high-ish density brand new residential buildings within a 4 block radius. Where I used to live before built 5+ high density residential towers in a few block radius in the 4ish years I lived there. Perhaps rents are falling because supply is increasing. Drastically and fast.
- Our_Benefactors 4y ago
  > SF isn’t undesirable, it’s just full. Potato potahto
  - Swizec 4y ago
    Well no. There’s a difference between people not wanting to be somewhere and existing people not wanting to make room for more people. I can’t vote so not much I can do about it myself, but I’m def not leaving any time soon.
    - Our_Benefactors 4y ago
      > and existing people not wanting to make room for more people And in the process making it undesirable for other people already living there.
- acchow 4y ago
  > A 0.15% drop in population Are you talking about California? Because SF's population dropped by a lot. SF's population hit 834,046 in July 2022. This is down 6.5% from 881k in 2019
  - Swizec 4y ago
    The data I found said 0.15% population drop in SF metro area https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23130/san-francisco/population https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23130/san-francisco/popul...
    - zdragnar 4y ago
      If people aren't commuting anymore but working remotely instead, that's a pretty bad sign for the city of SF itself.
      - gumby 4y ago
        The city changes. It’s had boom/bust before (from gold rush through WWII) and when I moved here in the 80s it had an utterly dead downtown, some financial industry, a good arts scene, and was a bedroom community for Silicon Valley. I miss its grungy period and hope it returns. It’s a little too clean and fancy for me at the moment.
    - graton 4y ago
      But that isn't the City of San Francisco. San Francisco has a population of ~815,000 people, while the link posted has a population of 3.3 million people. This page shows the population of San Francisco declined 6.72% from 2020 to 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco
  - gumby 4y ago
    Almost all those who moved moved to Silicon Valley or other parts of the Bay Area. Net emigration from the Bay Area itself was, as the GP comment noted, a fraction of a percent and most of those people moved elsewhere in California (mostly nearby Sacramento area or the Sierras).
- mh- 4y ago
  You can't use the population of SF to compare how "dead" the city feels. Something like >300k people commuted into the city every day. That's increasing the population by like 50%. Would be curious if anyone can find reliable data on this.
  - Swizec 4y ago
    Mind you the people who live in SF are also not commuting into downtown. That contributes to it feeling dead during the pandemic. But that doesn’t mean the city died. People are still here, you just see them less. Especially if like me you’re one of those folks continuing to work from home and seeing the same few people all the time. I mean if I judged from my personal experience I’d say there’s 500 people in the city. I even see all the same homeless folk on my runs and can tell who hangs around which block or street corner.
    - mh- 4y ago
      Totally agree with all of that, was just saying you can't use the population numbers to track how many people are in the city on a day-to-day basis.
- photonbeam 4y ago
  Move to Sydney for a while and you’ll quickly see that SF is simply ‘tolerable’ due to availability of specific types of jobs
  - wpietri 4y ago
    I used to live in Sydney. It's been a while, but I don't remember it being overall better, just better for different things.
  - yawnxyz 4y ago
    Been living in Sydney for a year, and everyone who spends time here thinks "wow the food is just as good, prices are kind of cheaper, and the city is much cleaner" Of course, it might be different if we were actual citizens and owned property here etc. etc. but as long-term visitors, Sydney is hands down nicer than SF.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      And Sydney is a dump compared to Melbourne :)
  - an_aparallel 4y ago
    Sydney-sider here - Sydney lacks a real art scene, and a culture with its own identity. Outside of down-town, it is awefully same samey with the proliferation of cheap rental housing. Going out further countryside - things get real nice. Though - we are pretty lucky all that being said :)
    - inferiorhuman 4y ago
      I always thought Newtown kinda fits that bill.
      - an_aparallel 4y ago
        newtown really used to be super cool. Like everything Sydney though - its much much more gentrified - and has just turned into restaurants and bars for yuppies. 10-15 years ago - the whole inner=west was rife with awesome gigs, international electronic acts, lots of pubs were doubling as places to host electronic - but NIMBYism really got the better of Sydney. Hard to get a coffee at night in the city even :(
- wpietri 4y ago
  Yeah, I've been here 20 years, and I see a lot of people getting the vapors over The Shocking and Precipitous Decline of Our Once-Great City, but I'm not seeing it. As you say, it's fine. To me the chatter seems like another round of the far-right panic over "San Francisco values", which has been recurring since the 1990s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_values
- 8note 4y ago
  Full is a weird description of a low density village. "We got 10 people, and that's 9 too many people!" Especially considering how much tent space is still available off sidewalks and the like
  - pb7 4y ago
    Huh? San Francisco is the second densest city in the US after New York.
LZ_Khan 4y ago
Yeah SF is such a crappy city. Everything's overpriced. Cant get around, public transportation sucks so your lifestyle is limited to a 1 mile radius, which totally defeats the point of being in a city. Could uber everywhere, that's what most people do, but that's pricey as well, and you have to deal with human interaction every time you want to go somewhere. Biking through throngs of homeless people and confusing streets also less than ideal. There's hardly a scene for anything you're interested in either. Very small scenes for most things and a real lack of community feel for some strange reason. Maybe it's the lack of mobility around the city? The eccentricness of tech workers? In any case, it sucks. Paradoxically, despite the lack of mobility, everything worth going to is also permanently crowded. Long wait times for food along with high prices, unnecessary taxes, and restaurants that look like they probably house some rats. Weather is not bad compared to other cities, but still annoying. It's always just a bit too cold to walk around comfortably in a T-shirt. It really reminds me of the experience of waiting to get into a nightclub with a mile-long line of dudes (also par for the course in SF, by the way). Walk in, take a look, wonder why anyone waited in the first place, and walk out like a revolving door.
- xarope 4y ago
  when I was in SF about 10+ years ago, there were a lot of e-scooters/e-skateboarders. Is that still not the case?
- doctorwho42 4y ago
  It's simple; scenes are expensive. You need space to have a scene, you need a business for that scene/space, and that business needs to be profitable enough to pay for rent and fair wages while also supporting the scene/community. One of the biggest things I saw in my work travels was how low vs high COL affects availability of scenes and community. Where in low cost cities like Pittsburgh and Rochester you have budding communities and scenes, but in places like Boston and NYC, those same type of scenes can't compete. So they shrink or disappear entirely, to be replaced by name brand chains/companies.
  - selectodude 4y ago
    Also, San Francisco is just…small. Not that many people live there for a major city.
monero-xmr 4y ago
It's also interesting that, up to this moment, nothing appreciable has been done to alleviate the lack of housing. This is simply organic movement of people away from SF thus decreasing demand without ever having to increase the supply. SF invented its way out of its own reason for existing. Companies like Zoom and Google made it possible to work remote, and as the city never diversified its economy, no one really needs to live there. The absurd political situation, where it's illegal to build a house but legal to poop on the sidewalk while smoking meth, has made it also a place no one really wants to live in. It's a story of hubris and the satire writes itself https://babylonbee.com/news/san-francisco-store-clerk-confused-when-shopper-tries-to-pay-for-merchandise https://babylonbee.com/news/san-francisco-store-clerk-confus...
- azinman2 4y ago
  The city’s economy is way more diverse than you’re suggesting. Biotech, law, finance, tourism, trade, etc. I have a feeling you have a tech-centric viewpoint at thus that’s what you see.
- fragmede 4y ago
  Pedantically, Zoom (San Jose) and Google (Mountain View), and most other Silicon Valley companies (Facebook, Apple, HP, Cisco, eBay, Intel, LinkedIn, Nvidia, Paypal, pre-move Oracle, pre-move Tesla) aren't headquartered in San Francisco. The city used to be this adjunct thing, close to the Valley. It's only until recently that it's become the focus.
space_fountain 4y ago
Obviously the market doesn't agree with me, but I actually think SF is under rated. I think the truth is SF is undesirable for maybe these reasons: * Many people were previously forced to live there for jobs * SF doesn't do as much pushing of the homeless out of the dense parts of town as other big cities (which to be clear I think is probably morally the right choice) * Government is bloated and trying to do too much * A motivated political narrative trying to tear the city down On the other hand I think SF has a lot going for it: * It's one of the prettiest cities in the country * It's maybe the most walkable city on the west coast * The rents are now down compared to some other major walkable cities in the US * Some of the highest density of parks around, it's usually not far to some pretty nature * The weather is decent most of the time * Not as impacted by climate change as many other costal cities
- acchow 4y ago
  > SF doesn't do as much pushing of the homeless out of the dense parts of town as other big cities (which to be clear I think is probably morally the right choice) It's not just a moral choice. It's also legal issue in the ninth circuit, which has jurisdiction over all the western states. In these states, you can't just sweep the homeless out.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  > but I actually think SF is under rated https://www.google.com/search?q=san+francisco+homeless+problem https://www.google.com/search?q=san+francisco+homeless+probl... What's the truth/who is lying? You, or all of these pictures on the Internet? I'm not suggesting you're wrong. It's just that... in order for you to be right (that it's a worthwhile city), all of these pictures and articles about mass homelessness in/near/around San Francisco need to be wrong. Or you just have a really high tolerance/aren't bothered by it or its nature/exposure is overstated?
  - wolfgang42 4y ago
    > I think the truth is SF is undesirable for maybe these reasons: [...] > * SF doesn't do as much pushing of the homeless out of the dense parts of town as other big cities (which to be clear I think is probably morally the right choice)
zbrozek 4y ago
I traveled about a mile down Mission street today for the first time since 2010. It's deteriorated a lot. Way more human waste, way more people clearly in a bad mental state, more tents, etc. Private guards outside lots of doors too. It felt like I was walking through a zombie apocalypse movie set. I could live in NYC. I couldn't handle SF.
- _2d30 4y ago
  Go 1 block over and walk a mile down Valencia.
  - TechnicolorByte 4y ago
    Yeah, Mission St is pretty grungy. Had me confused why people thought Mission was such a up and coming place. Then I explored the adjacent streets on either side of Mission St and it’s a lot nicer.
    - zbrozek 4y ago
      I just followed what Google Maps showed me to do given where I was trying to go; I'm not an SF local so I don't really know any better than to take what looks like the direct route. I was on a skateboard, going at fast-walk pace, and was asked for money about a dozen times in that mile, cussed out (for being a yuppie? I think?) twice, and deliberately body checked and knocked off the board once. Back in 2010 I used to work at roughly 7th and Harrison and was generally having a better time of commuting to and within the city.
    - fragmede 4y ago
      Valencia, for sure, but South Van Ness on the other side of Mission st isn't what I'd call nicer. Folsom (one more past South Van Ness) feels downright unsafe!
      - TechnicolorByte 4y ago
        You might be right about that actually. I was probably thinking of some of my favorite restaurants and cafes there (e.g., Stable Cafe) but the street itself is a bit empty and can feel sketchy at times.
timcavel 4y ago
[dead]
closeparen 4y ago
Rents falling due to "high cost of living + homelessness" seems self-limiting... eventually the rent is low enough to stop complaining and the homeless people get indoors. The question is does it eventually settle into an equilibrium, or just endlessly oscillate between pleasant+cheap and apocalyptic+expensive? It will be interesting to watch the progressive establishment switch gears from trying anything and everything to get the influx of money and especially rich migrants to turn the fuck around and go home, to wailing about "disinvestment" (i.e. people doing just that) and how unfair it is that you have to be even minimally responsive to your tax base in order to fund services.
ashwagary 4y ago
>yay, inflation is over The Fed chairman said the opposite today, it seems people believing that narrative have wishful thinking.
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  Well the actual CPI data says 0.9% price increase over the past 6 months, so 1.8% annualized. That's under the inflation target of 2%. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-rate-mom https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-rate-mo...

Swizec 4y ago

So I’ve lived in SF for almost 8 years now. It’s fine. The great exodus that made The Narrative explode with how very dead and over the city is? A 0.15% drop in population. We have nowhere to put more people anyway. Where people gonna go if nimbys don’t wanna approve anything? SF isn’t undesirable, it’s just full. But also the place I moved 3 years ago was fairly medium density. Now there are 10 high-ish density brand new residential buildings within a 4 block radius. Where I used to live before built 5+ high density residential towers in a few block radius in the 4ish years I lived there. Perhaps rents are falling because supply is increasing. Drastically and fast.

Our_Benefactors 4y ago
> SF isn’t undesirable, it’s just full. Potato potahto
- Swizec 4y ago
  Well no. There’s a difference between people not wanting to be somewhere and existing people not wanting to make room for more people. I can’t vote so not much I can do about it myself, but I’m def not leaving any time soon.
  - Our_Benefactors 4y ago
    > and existing people not wanting to make room for more people And in the process making it undesirable for other people already living there.
acchow 4y ago
> A 0.15% drop in population Are you talking about California? Because SF's population dropped by a lot. SF's population hit 834,046 in July 2022. This is down 6.5% from 881k in 2019
- Swizec 4y ago
  The data I found said 0.15% population drop in SF metro area https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23130/san-francisco/population https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23130/san-francisco/popul...
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    If people aren't commuting anymore but working remotely instead, that's a pretty bad sign for the city of SF itself.
    - gumby 4y ago
      The city changes. It’s had boom/bust before (from gold rush through WWII) and when I moved here in the 80s it had an utterly dead downtown, some financial industry, a good arts scene, and was a bedroom community for Silicon Valley. I miss its grungy period and hope it returns. It’s a little too clean and fancy for me at the moment.
  - graton 4y ago
    But that isn't the City of San Francisco. San Francisco has a population of ~815,000 people, while the link posted has a population of 3.3 million people. This page shows the population of San Francisco declined 6.72% from 2020 to 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco
- gumby 4y ago
  Almost all those who moved moved to Silicon Valley or other parts of the Bay Area. Net emigration from the Bay Area itself was, as the GP comment noted, a fraction of a percent and most of those people moved elsewhere in California (mostly nearby Sacramento area or the Sierras).
mh- 4y ago
You can't use the population of SF to compare how "dead" the city feels. Something like >300k people commuted into the city every day. That's increasing the population by like 50%. Would be curious if anyone can find reliable data on this.
- Swizec 4y ago
  Mind you the people who live in SF are also not commuting into downtown. That contributes to it feeling dead during the pandemic. But that doesn’t mean the city died. People are still here, you just see them less. Especially if like me you’re one of those folks continuing to work from home and seeing the same few people all the time. I mean if I judged from my personal experience I’d say there’s 500 people in the city. I even see all the same homeless folk on my runs and can tell who hangs around which block or street corner.
  - mh- 4y ago
    Totally agree with all of that, was just saying you can't use the population numbers to track how many people are in the city on a day-to-day basis.
photonbeam 4y ago
Move to Sydney for a while and you’ll quickly see that SF is simply ‘tolerable’ due to availability of specific types of jobs
- wpietri 4y ago
  I used to live in Sydney. It's been a while, but I don't remember it being overall better, just better for different things.
- yawnxyz 4y ago
  Been living in Sydney for a year, and everyone who spends time here thinks "wow the food is just as good, prices are kind of cheaper, and the city is much cleaner" Of course, it might be different if we were actual citizens and owned property here etc. etc. but as long-term visitors, Sydney is hands down nicer than SF.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    And Sydney is a dump compared to Melbourne :)
- an_aparallel 4y ago
  Sydney-sider here - Sydney lacks a real art scene, and a culture with its own identity. Outside of down-town, it is awefully same samey with the proliferation of cheap rental housing. Going out further countryside - things get real nice. Though - we are pretty lucky all that being said :)
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    I always thought Newtown kinda fits that bill.
    - an_aparallel 4y ago
      newtown really used to be super cool. Like everything Sydney though - its much much more gentrified - and has just turned into restaurants and bars for yuppies. 10-15 years ago - the whole inner=west was rife with awesome gigs, international electronic acts, lots of pubs were doubling as places to host electronic - but NIMBYism really got the better of Sydney. Hard to get a coffee at night in the city even :(
wpietri 4y ago
Yeah, I've been here 20 years, and I see a lot of people getting the vapors over The Shocking and Precipitous Decline of Our Once-Great City, but I'm not seeing it. As you say, it's fine. To me the chatter seems like another round of the far-right panic over "San Francisco values", which has been recurring since the 1990s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_values
8note 4y ago
Full is a weird description of a low density village. "We got 10 people, and that's 9 too many people!" Especially considering how much tent space is still available off sidewalks and the like
- pb7 4y ago
  Huh? San Francisco is the second densest city in the US after New York.

LZ_Khan 4y ago

Yeah SF is such a crappy city. Everything's overpriced. Cant get around, public transportation sucks so your lifestyle is limited to a 1 mile radius, which totally defeats the point of being in a city. Could uber everywhere, that's what most people do, but that's pricey as well, and you have to deal with human interaction every time you want to go somewhere. Biking through throngs of homeless people and confusing streets also less than ideal. There's hardly a scene for anything you're interested in either. Very small scenes for most things and a real lack of community feel for some strange reason. Maybe it's the lack of mobility around the city? The eccentricness of tech workers? In any case, it sucks. Paradoxically, despite the lack of mobility, everything worth going to is also permanently crowded. Long wait times for food along with high prices, unnecessary taxes, and restaurants that look like they probably house some rats. Weather is not bad compared to other cities, but still annoying. It's always just a bit too cold to walk around comfortably in a T-shirt. It really reminds me of the experience of waiting to get into a nightclub with a mile-long line of dudes (also par for the course in SF, by the way). Walk in, take a look, wonder why anyone waited in the first place, and walk out like a revolving door.

xarope 4y ago
when I was in SF about 10+ years ago, there were a lot of e-scooters/e-skateboarders. Is that still not the case?
doctorwho42 4y ago
It's simple; scenes are expensive. You need space to have a scene, you need a business for that scene/space, and that business needs to be profitable enough to pay for rent and fair wages while also supporting the scene/community. One of the biggest things I saw in my work travels was how low vs high COL affects availability of scenes and community. Where in low cost cities like Pittsburgh and Rochester you have budding communities and scenes, but in places like Boston and NYC, those same type of scenes can't compete. So they shrink or disappear entirely, to be replaced by name brand chains/companies.
- selectodude 4y ago
  Also, San Francisco is just…small. Not that many people live there for a major city.

monero-xmr 4y ago

It's also interesting that, up to this moment, nothing appreciable has been done to alleviate the lack of housing. This is simply organic movement of people away from SF thus decreasing demand without ever having to increase the supply. SF invented its way out of its own reason for existing. Companies like Zoom and Google made it possible to work remote, and as the city never diversified its economy, no one really needs to live there. The absurd political situation, where it's illegal to build a house but legal to poop on the sidewalk while smoking meth, has made it also a place no one really wants to live in. It's a story of hubris and the satire writes itself https://babylonbee.com/news/san-francisco-store-clerk-confused-when-shopper-tries-to-pay-for-merchandise https://babylonbee.com/news/san-francisco-store-clerk-confus...

azinman2 4y ago
The city’s economy is way more diverse than you’re suggesting. Biotech, law, finance, tourism, trade, etc. I have a feeling you have a tech-centric viewpoint at thus that’s what you see.
fragmede 4y ago
Pedantically, Zoom (San Jose) and Google (Mountain View), and most other Silicon Valley companies (Facebook, Apple, HP, Cisco, eBay, Intel, LinkedIn, Nvidia, Paypal, pre-move Oracle, pre-move Tesla) aren't headquartered in San Francisco. The city used to be this adjunct thing, close to the Valley. It's only until recently that it's become the focus.

space_fountain 4y ago

Obviously the market doesn't agree with me, but I actually think SF is under rated. I think the truth is SF is undesirable for maybe these reasons: * Many people were previously forced to live there for jobs * SF doesn't do as much pushing of the homeless out of the dense parts of town as other big cities (which to be clear I think is probably morally the right choice) * Government is bloated and trying to do too much * A motivated political narrative trying to tear the city down On the other hand I think SF has a lot going for it: * It's one of the prettiest cities in the country * It's maybe the most walkable city on the west coast * The rents are now down compared to some other major walkable cities in the US * Some of the highest density of parks around, it's usually not far to some pretty nature * The weather is decent most of the time * Not as impacted by climate change as many other costal cities

acchow 4y ago
> SF doesn't do as much pushing of the homeless out of the dense parts of town as other big cities (which to be clear I think is probably morally the right choice) It's not just a moral choice. It's also legal issue in the ninth circuit, which has jurisdiction over all the western states. In these states, you can't just sweep the homeless out.
MuffinFlavored 4y ago
> but I actually think SF is under rated https://www.google.com/search?q=san+francisco+homeless+problem https://www.google.com/search?q=san+francisco+homeless+probl... What's the truth/who is lying? You, or all of these pictures on the Internet? I'm not suggesting you're wrong. It's just that... in order for you to be right (that it's a worthwhile city), all of these pictures and articles about mass homelessness in/near/around San Francisco need to be wrong. Or you just have a really high tolerance/aren't bothered by it or its nature/exposure is overstated?
- wolfgang42 4y ago
  > I think the truth is SF is undesirable for maybe these reasons: [...] > * SF doesn't do as much pushing of the homeless out of the dense parts of town as other big cities (which to be clear I think is probably morally the right choice)

zbrozek 4y ago

I traveled about a mile down Mission street today for the first time since 2010. It's deteriorated a lot. Way more human waste, way more people clearly in a bad mental state, more tents, etc. Private guards outside lots of doors too. It felt like I was walking through a zombie apocalypse movie set. I could live in NYC. I couldn't handle SF.

_2d30 4y ago
Go 1 block over and walk a mile down Valencia.
- TechnicolorByte 4y ago
  Yeah, Mission St is pretty grungy. Had me confused why people thought Mission was such a up and coming place. Then I explored the adjacent streets on either side of Mission St and it’s a lot nicer.
  - zbrozek 4y ago
    I just followed what Google Maps showed me to do given where I was trying to go; I'm not an SF local so I don't really know any better than to take what looks like the direct route. I was on a skateboard, going at fast-walk pace, and was asked for money about a dozen times in that mile, cussed out (for being a yuppie? I think?) twice, and deliberately body checked and knocked off the board once. Back in 2010 I used to work at roughly 7th and Harrison and was generally having a better time of commuting to and within the city.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    Valencia, for sure, but South Van Ness on the other side of Mission st isn't what I'd call nicer. Folsom (one more past South Van Ness) feels downright unsafe!
    - TechnicolorByte 4y ago
      You might be right about that actually. I was probably thinking of some of my favorite restaurants and cafes there (e.g., Stable Cafe) but the street itself is a bit empty and can feel sketchy at times.

timcavel 4y ago

[dead]

closeparen 4y ago

Rents falling due to "high cost of living + homelessness" seems self-limiting... eventually the rent is low enough to stop complaining and the homeless people get indoors. The question is does it eventually settle into an equilibrium, or just endlessly oscillate between pleasant+cheap and apocalyptic+expensive? It will be interesting to watch the progressive establishment switch gears from trying anything and everything to get the influx of money and especially rich migrants to turn the fuck around and go home, to wailing about "disinvestment" (i.e. people doing just that) and how unfair it is that you have to be even minimally responsive to your tax base in order to fund services.

ashwagary 4y ago

>yay, inflation is over The Fed chairman said the opposite today, it seems people believing that narrative have wishful thinking.

reducesuffering 4y ago
Well the actual CPI data says 0.9% price increase over the past 6 months, so 1.8% annualized. That's under the inflation target of 2%. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-rate-mom https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-rate-mo...