A plea to the tech industry: Please leave our fair city alone (San Diego: 2014, rental market)

[things and stuff]

Originally Posted by GoldCountry80

Everything I hear about SF is awful. And the rich is part of the reason. I am afraid the only way you're going to get rid of them is to push them out by force. Terrorize them. They get off too easy in that city.

Wow.

Yes, lets do something about those rich people!! Lets get rid of tech companies. Lets outlaw being "rich"!!! Make every place like Bakersfield and Compton so it will be affordable.


Genius.

[Blackhawk4440]

The COL is high in San Francisco because there's too much welfare. It's not the 'rich' but the 'poor' who add to the COL anywhere they predominate because subsidies drive up the prices; reduce supply against demand; and lay heavy tax burdens on the productive to support those who produce nothing.

[beaverdance]

Originally Posted by Blackhawk4440

The COL is high in San Francisco because there's too much welfare. It's not the 'rich' but the 'poor' who add to the COL anywhere they predominate because subsidies drive up the prices; reduce supply against demand; and lay heavy tax burdens on the productive to support those who produce nothing.

This is such a tired trope of conservatism that you'd think it would die out simply due to being so stale. Turning the poor from desperate and struggling to functional members of society benefits everyone, including the rrrrrrrich. What "subsidies" actually do is increase consumer spending, which benefits local businesses. Transfer payments recirculate into the economy and produce the economic multiplier effect. Money in circulation benefits society more than money sitting in some rich guy's vault.

There are very few, if any, places in the US where the poor "predominate."

The right-wing shibboleth that the poor "produce nothing" while the rich are the manly mega-producers of society is such utter tripe that it isn't even worth listening to. The worst aspect of it is that it is trumpeted by the rich/conservatives as a pretext for letting the poor suffer and die--the concept that the poor don't deserve any help because they're so lazy--which is why they're poor! See, circular reasoning, carefully constructed to cover up greed and selfishness!

[Sovetsky Medved]

Tech isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Speaking as an outsider, I see that TECH is the San Francisco of the future.
this is definetly no longer a blue collar or working class town.
What I do see is a San Francisco clinging to it's history.
which makes it feel like a living museum.
You can't live in the past all the time, it's nice to visit though.
if you can't afford to live here, then consider moving to a cheaper location.
where your skills are needed.
or upgrade your skills and try to stay here.
I myself would never pay these kind of prices, for the quality of the buildings in this city.
I don't care how desirable a place this may be.
The housing stock is not worth the price there asking for.
San Francisco for me, is just a place to visit maybe once a year.
and Im just fine with that.
I will live in "Phoenix" where my COL is a hell of a lot lower.
our housing stock is actually Newer.
And we don't tend to have earthquakes or many natural disasters.
Yes, it gets Hot there, but So does the East bay here and that's what Air conditioning is for. you have to be happy where you live. and living here would not be happy for me, because it would wipe out like 90% of my income, just for rent.
To me thats just absurd. nobody needs that.
Even if I had TECH worker pay, Id still feel like I was getting ripped off, paying those kind of prices.

[ccm123]

Be careful what you wish for. The technology industry not only employs highly paid engineers, but many other business support functions (e.g. - marketing, finance, law, management, HR, accounting, etc) are hired by technology companies. If we "boot them out" of SF and the Bay Area, you can imagine how high the unemployment rate could go. The position of someone you know (e.g. mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, cousin) could be affected.

[Blackhawk4440]

Beaverdance:

The flaw in your argument is assuming that there are only two classes in society: the rich and the poor. The Middle Class is the productive class (although there a few rich producers too)---and both the effete rich and parasitic poor survive on all the Middle Class' efforts. Subsidies do not increase consumer spending: the very places where the recipients spend money are the places that were taxed for the subsidies in the first place. The local businesses may as well hand out their goods and services free of charge.

The rich are just as dependent on the Middle Class, though in a different way. They monopolize necessities like food and fuel yet at the same time are dependent on Middle Class labor and production to sustain them. Not only that, but the rich hold the reins of government and through enforced taxation, subsidize the poor, who in turn demand more entitlements, the Middle Class gets squeezed again.

It's really not sides in opposition, like the Marxists teach. It's more like a triangle where two sides play both sides against the middle.

[EdJS]

Not only is this issue not unique to San Francisco, but SF doesn't even have it nearly as bad as some other places. The most expensive real estate in North America is in Vancouver, BC. Because every Chinese person who can afford it is buying a second home in that city.

[GoldCountry80]

Originally Posted by things and stuff

Wow.

Yes, lets do something about those rich people!! Lets get rid of tech companies. Lets outlaw being "rich"!!! Make every place like Bakersfield and Compton so it will be affordable.


Genius.

I meant so there can be more balance. People like you turn it around and make it sound like I want it to be Compton. I don't consider myself a democrat either btw. I am a radical centrist with some libertarian leanings. Or should I get more technical and mention National Socialism to you? I am tired of these top 1%'ers having their way but at the same time will not perform "We are the 99%!" chants either.

[GoldCountry80]

Originally Posted by Blackhawk4440

The COL is high in San Francisco because there's too much welfare. It's not the 'rich' but the 'poor' who add to the COL anywhere they predominate because subsidies drive up the prices; reduce supply against demand; and lay heavy tax burdens on the productive to support those who produce nothing.

That's also a good point. If you notice most welfare states have a high COL. I am willing to drive out any element who subsidizes welfare, section 8, and all that and chances are, they are the rich and definitely the rich democrats. I'd rather deal with rich conservatives because they got their money the harder way and don't want to give a dime to social parasites.

[GoldCountry80]

Originally Posted by beaverdance

This is such a tired trope of conservatism that you'd think it would die out simply due to being so stale. Turning the poor from desperate and struggling to functional members of society benefits everyone, including the rrrrrrrich. What "subsidies" actually do is increase consumer spending, which benefits local businesses. Transfer payments recirculate into the economy and produce the economic multiplier effect. Money in circulation benefits society more than money sitting in some rich guy's vault.

There are very few, if any, places in the US where the poor "predominate."

The right-wing shibboleth that the poor "produce nothing" while the rich are the manly mega-producers of society is such utter tripe that it isn't even worth listening to. The worst aspect of it is that it is trumpeted by the rich/conservatives as a pretext for letting the poor suffer and die--the concept that the poor don't deserve any help because they're so lazy--which is why they're poor! See, circular reasoning, carefully constructed to cover up greed and selfishness!

I tend to go between the right and left (Radical Centrist) and feel that some members of the poor society do have talent indeed and should be given a chance, but Section 8 and foodstamps/EBT should be destroyed and the rich who worked hard for their money should not be forced to give any of it away. Its on their free will if they do want to be generous or give money for the things they feel will benefit their lives. The proper things could still be funded if its on someones free will to give that money to charity or to centers that could help the poor get a leg up.. possibly free housing where taxpayers won't have to pay. Maybe alternate housing options? Dirt cheap options to live just as good in any location without it cutting into working peoples taxes so much. Of course whats required is to get rid of all social parasites, rich pretending to be poor begging and gang members and hoodrats, white trash who do nothing with their lives intentionally instead of bettering themselves too. The problem isn't necessarily the down on their luck poor, its the ones who take advantage and some of these do come from rich backgrounds.