Is San Francisco the only city to have completely priced out its middle/working class? (2014, condos)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

A little dramatic right?

She had a job living paycheck to paycheck, lost it, and wants to continue living in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country... should we really pity her? I want a toilet made out of gold too.

I wouldn't expect anything less from you

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I wouldn't expect anything less from you

Hang on there, before you give yourself a pat on the back, how about donating some of your time and money to that lady.

It's easy to say, "aww poor lady, we should forbid anyone making six figures from living in the San Francisco Bay Area and/or tax them to death so we can subsidize her living." I'm sorry, but that requires zero effort or sacrifice from you, so before you get all smug about your "generosity" put your time or your money where your mouth is...

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Hang on there, before you give yourself a pat on the back, how about donating some of your time and money to that lady.

It's easy to say, "aww poor lady, we should forbid anyone making six figures from living in the San Francisco Bay Area and/or tax them to death so we can subsidize her living." I'm sorry, but that requires zero effort or sacrifice from you, so before you get all smug about your "generosity" put your time or your money where your mouth is...

Yep, it is easy to give away other people's money. Republicans give more to charitable organizations than democrats, but that doesn't stop the "republicans don't care about people" mantra that gets parroted by democrats.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=0

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Yep, it is easy to give away other people's money. Republicans give more to charitable organizations than democrats, but that doesn't stop the "republicans don't care about people" mantra that gets parroted by democrats.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=0

What happens if the data is corrected for the religious element from conservative donations? Given the political activism that goes on, a donation to religious charity often has a political motive to it rather than a purely philanthropic one.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

What happens if the data is corrected for the religious element from conservative donations? Given the political activism that goes on, a donation to religious charity often has a political motive to it rather than a purely philanthropic one.

Donations to religious groups is actually rarely political, it is to help the church and local communities who are served by said church. Religion drives a good portion of donations, most religious people are republicans.

I'm not a particularly religious person, but most local groups that help the poor and needy are faith based. It is not really good methodology to remove a large portion of one group then compare what is left.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

well..you could 'maybe' this one to death. Maybe the father of her daughter lives nearby and she has to stay in the area so he can visit (not an unusual court order). In the end it does no good to speculate, and to me the article only serves to illustrate the very difficult housing situation that exists in San Francisco and a number of other parts of the bay area.

Eh? The father can't drive a few more freeway exits and visit the child in San Jose? Besides, if the father can afford San Mateo, she should be getting a decent amount in child support.

Is housing difficult for some people? Yes. Is this article an illustration of that issue? Not all all. She is in some one-off situation that is unique all to herself. Let's hear from families who are forced to live in Pittsburg and commute 90 mins to work in San Francisco. Let's hear from parents who are victims of an insane school lottery system and had to send their kids all the way across the city to attend schools, and finally decide it isn't worth it only to find the next family-friendly town with good schools that doesn't require you to be a billionaire is at least 75 mins away from work. Let's hear from newcomers who find that they have to compete wit 20 other applicants for a rental unit.....
.

[Bisaro TMF]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Yep, it is easy to give away other people's money. Republicans give more to charitable organizations than democrats, but that doesn't stop the "republicans don't care about people" mantra that gets parroted by democrats.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=0

LOL Nice right wing opinion piece.

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Yep, it is easy to give away other people's money. Republicans give more to charitable organizations than democrats, but that doesn't stop the "republicans don't care about people" mantra that gets parroted by democrats.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=0

Republicans also favor policies that cut and eliminate social welfare programs that benefit the poor and middle class, which goes countless times further than mere charity donations.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Bisaro TMF

LOL Nice right wing opinion piece.

I see you didn't read the article. If you did you would have seen as the first paragraph

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

The article is written by a liberal and published in the liberal New York Times. Even the New York Times editor admitted the paper has a liberal bias
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...s-liberal-bias

It's ok, I understand it is easier to dismiss things you do not agree with without even reading them. It is par for the course for many around here.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Stephen1110

Republicans also favor policies that cut and eliminate social welfare programs that benefit the poor and middle class, which goes countless times further than mere charity donations.

Which is the democratic talking point whenever you talk about holding people accountable for rampent abuse, reforming abused programs or showing that more than half (58%) of all federal spending is on various social programs.

But if a republican ever suggest trimming just a little fat or preventing abuse (so we would have money for those that truely need help) the "republicans want to hurt poor people" song and dance starts up.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258