While I think the people who think this is a good thing are out of their minds, Detroit had entirely different issues, and probably is not a good example for wh

While I think the people who think this is a good thing are out of their minds, Detroit had entirely different issues, and probably is not a good example for what could happen to SF in the worst case. 1. Detroit has none of the natural advantages SF does. 2. Detroit was hollowed out largely because of the white flight that drove the tax base to the suburbs. 3. Detroit was uniquely built as a highly car friendly city, which meant that once the jobs were gone, there was no good reason to be within Detroit itself. 4. Detroit had no political power at the state level, and if anything, was held up as a punching bag for the rest of the state. This is unlikely to be the case for SF, which is likely to have political support at all levels. I'd say the worst case scenario for SF is probably a city like Philadelphia, which also went through bad years, but has rebounded and has become a pretty great city in many ways, even if it doesn't have the cachet of its past. And I'd imagine that would be the worst case scenario for SF, and the more likely case would be something much better than that, even if all the wealthiest people left SF.