Another article on wanting tech to fail. Just curious..... (unemployment rate, disposal)

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by sav858

They're also part of the population under thread from eviction. Either way I wasn't just referring to just the city of SF. The vast majority of renters in the Bay Area don't have any type of rent control.

Whether or not you consider it a valid complaint/issue is fairly irrelevant considering how many do.

As stated, my original post is referring to the city because that's what all the complaints I've read have referred to (including a myriad of articles in the local papers). I think it's very convenient to make tech the scapegoat for all the problems with inequality. As stated, inequality has been around well before the arrival of of the tech companies in 2011. Sounds like Sanders is your guy in this next election.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

As stated, my original post is referring to the city because that's what all the complaints I've read have come about (including a myriad of articles in the local papers). I think it's very convenient to make tech the scapegoat for all the problems with inequality. As stated, inequality has been around well before the arrival of of the tech companies in 2011. Sounds like Sanders is your guy in this next election.

Ok, and as I've stated I'm talking about the Bay Area as whole. If you think all the complaints about COL are just about SF then you have very selective reading. And either way that is the #1 concern of city residents whether you think it should be or not. And as previously stated, income inequality has gotten worse recently so blaming tech isn't exactly out of line as it has a fair amount to do with it locally.

Oh good, you've resorted to stupid assumptions about me.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by sav858

Ok, and as I've stated I'm talking about the Bay Area as whole. If you think all the complaints about COL are just about SF then you have very selective reading.

Nah, sounds like the local papers have selective writing ability. Or perhaps you should have looked at the first post and saw the article that was referenced, which was titled .....Crazy to want SF tech to fail? It was written in response to a NY Times article that reported on a segment of San Franciscans rooting for the city's booming tech industry to cool off to help make SF more affordable to live in. Obviously the surrounding areas are affected but like anything else, you pick your poison. Anyone could have lived in the city prior to 2011 and locked in on a rent controlled apartment. They chose not to (their choice). But of course, they have no personal responsibility on that decision. They knew the risk. You can pay more for a rent controlled unit in the city and be locked in with a base rent subject to increases by the rent board, or you pay less in a non-rent controlled area outside the city knowing there was no restriction on the increases. They gambled. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Originally Posted by sav858

And either way that is the #1 concern of city residents whether you think it should be or not.

See post #27 (already commented on...you must have missed it)

Originally Posted by sav858

And as previously stated, income inequality has gotten worse recently so blaming tech isn't exactly out of line as it has a fair amount to do with it locally.

Already covered numerous times throughout the thread...mostly for those that came to SF after 2011 and probably more like about the last 3-4 years since it didn't happen immediately

Originally Posted by sav858

Oh good, you've resorted to stupid assumptions about me.

Yep, you sound like a Socialist to me.

I try not to rely on government on how I run my life. I just try to understand the game and use the rules in my favor. But let's do it your way. Let's have tech go to hell in a handbasket. OK, so where are the tax revenues going to come from? Let's have that unemployment go up a few percent. How do people survive now? Welfare? Oh, OK. And how does that get paid? Oh, yeah....let's tax that upper 10%. Oh wait, that's a pretty good portion of the entire Bay Area. Sounds like a win-win for both sides. The upper 10% gets to pay more taxes and the people on welfare gets to live worst than they were.

[boulder2015]

Originally Posted by sav858

Ok, and as I've stated I'm talking about the Bay Area as whole. If you think all the complaints about COL are just about SF then you have very selective reading. And either way that is the #1 concern of city residents whether you think it should be or not. And as previously stated, income inequality has gotten worse recently so blaming tech isn't exactly out of line as it has a fair amount to do with it locally.

Oh good, you've resorted to stupid assumptions about me.

Sent you a dm sav.

[JohnS_15]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

Obviously the surrounding areas are affected but like anything else, you pick your poison. Anyone could have lived in the city prior to 2011 and locked in on a rent controlled apartment. They chose not to (their choice). But of course, they have no personal responsibility on that decision. They knew the risk. You can pay more for a rent controlled unit in the city and be locked in with a base rent subject to increases by the rent board, or you pay less in a non-rent controlled area outside the city knowing there was no restriction on the increases. They gambled. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

This is silly. Just because you are locked in on a rent controlled apartment in the city doesn't mean you never want to move again. Yeah you might not be forced out of your home but maybe you changed jobs and now have a terrible commute and want to move but can't afford it. Or maybe you had kids and want to move but can't afford it. "Locked in" is exactly what you are. It's not just newcomers that are upset at the huge COL increases - it's many bay area residents. And yes tech has played a big role in that increase so it's understandable that some root for tech to fail. Whether or not most of these people complaining would be better off is hard to know.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

Nah, sounds like the local papers have selective writing ability. Or perhaps you should have looked at the first post and saw the article that was referenced, which was titled .....Crazy to want SF tech to fail? It was written in response to a NY Times article that reported on a segment of San Franciscans rooting for the city's booming tech industry to cool off to help make SF more affordable to live in. Obviously the surrounding areas are affected but like anything else, you pick your poison. Anyone could have lived in the city prior to 2011 and locked in on a rent controlled apartment. They chose not to (their choice). But of course, they have no personal responsibility on that decision. They knew the risk. You can pay more for a rent controlled unit in the city and be locked in with a base rent subject to increases by the rent board, or you pay less in a non-rent controlled area outside the city knowing there was no restriction on the increases. They gambled. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose..

No you just have selective reading if you think all of the COL articles are just about the city of SF. In addition to the Bay Area in general, Silicon Valley and Oakland are subject of these articles often. Even that NY Times article itself mentions the greater Bay Area:

"For every person who moves to San Francisco, another two start commuting to work here. Traffic is down to a crawl: The average afternoon speed on the roads feeding into the highways has dropped 20 percent in the last two years. And the BART trains are squeezed tight: Since 2012, average morning rush-hour ridership from the East Bay has risen 30 percent."

Like I said, SF does not exist in a vacuum.

See post #27 (already commented on...you must have missed it)

Not sure how that posts negates anything that has to do with my comment at the COL being the #1 concern for San Franciscan's. That survey includes people who moved here before 2011 too.

Already covered numerous times throughout the thread...mostly for those that came to SF after 2011 and probably more like about the last 3-4 years since it didn't happen immediately

I know you just keep repeating the same stuff without bothering to comprehend anything I've said. If you think income inequality only affects newcomers that's rather ignorant imo. And if you think everyone that lived here before 2011 has a "low mortgage" then you have a terrible memory of what homes costs were in the mid-2000's.

Yep, you sound like a Socialist to me.

Odd because I mentioned nothing about socialism. All I said was that income inequality has increased recently, largely because of tech in the region. From that you somehow deduced I was some Sanders supporter. That's quite a leap and only exemplifies a rather simplistic line of thinking and assumptions you constantly make.

I try not to rely on government on how I run my life. I just try to understand the game and use the rules in my favor. But let's do it your way. Let's have tech go to hell in a handbasket. OK, so where are the tax revenues going to come from? Let's have that unemployment go up a few percent. How do people survive now? Welfare? Oh, OK. And how does that get paid? Oh, yeah....let's tax that upper 10%. Oh wait, that's a pretty good portion of the entire Bay Area. Sounds like a win-win for both sides. The upper 10% gets to pay more taxes and the people on welfare gets to live worst than they were

My way? I never suggested what I want. There you go again with your assumptions.

[bodyforlife99]

Lol. Tech bad....cause problems. By all means. Sav. Do tell everyone your solution. I can't wait to hear it. Or let me guess. You don't have one but like to go on for post after post about all the problems caused by income inequality.

[sav858]

Nice dodge. I've always been an advocate for more housing being built and the associated necessary infrastructure improvements. Not sure how you got from my posts that what I saying was caused by income inequality. You really seem to have quite a tendency to read too much into things and make assumptions.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by sav858

Nice dodge. I've always been an advocate for more housing being built and the associated necessary infrastructure improvements. Not sure how you got from my posts that what I saying was caused by income inequality. You really seem to have quite a tendency to read too much into things and make assumptions.

Lol....dodge. deflect. and backpedal. And then right into government intervention. Spoken just like a socialist. And then when that new housing proves to be inadequate, then what?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

Lol....dodge. deflect. and backpedal. And then right into government intervention. Spoken just like a socialist. And then when that new housing proves to be inadequate, then what?

Still dodging. What govt intervention? Now you're just making up stuff.