San Francisco 1st major US city with $15 wage (Oakland: real estate, homes)

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Natural510

On the upside, tipping is no longer mandatory.

Since when has tipping been mandatory?

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by alliance

Oh good god, I was waiting for you to jump in with your ignorant nonsense. Surprised it took so long. Your blind defense of this without a shred of logic is tiresome. Do you even live here? I do. Do you see that things like sandwiches and burritos that cost $7 before this was instituted are now between $10 and $13? Is that normal inflation...? And that many regular places have been run out of business, being replaced by upscale stupidly expensive hipster havens? Those are the only business models in restaurants that can survive these dramatic increases to overhead. Yes, I live here. I see this every day. Get your head out of the sand.

Hahahahaha yeah right. I just reread this response and remembered who I was talking to. Logic when it comes to economics? Tulemutt??? Hahahahahahaha

And yes, I ran a business successfully in this city for many years and sold a few months ago because I saw the writing in the sand. How many businesses have you run...?

Apologies if you take this personally, but honestly, everyone is thinking it and someone needs to say it.

He/she isn't going to listen to you. Why bother? All someone has to do is visit places with higher min wages to see how much it _doesn't help

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Stop blocking development, especially those that include low-income housing. Their baristas and waiters need somewhere to live.

The aren’t any barristas and waiters in SF now?

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

And why do you think only those earning less would enter in the City with additional housing? No, what it would do is add relief to the current housing stock. Someone paying to stay in the first floor of a rowhouse can instead move to the new development. Then someone commuting from San Lorenzo to work their MW job in The City would theoretically take that first floor rowhouse space. Etc. You've just eased traffic on the Bay Bridge and likely increased transit use via Muni/BART in SF.

Why “relieve” housing stock, regardless of resident income, if it only means increasing population to a city that is already the second most densely populated in the nation? That’s the point. You don’t live in SF and have no history of residence in the City ... yet you want to speak to the population’s vision? Hilarious!

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Is this one of your essential questions? It can't be a serious one.

Let me ask you, was the city better run when it was losing people in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, or has it been better since 2000 when it started growing again?

Well, glad you asked. As a resident of the 60’s and on, as opposed to yourself, speaking first hand: the City of the 60’s and 70’s was marvelously better than present day with renewed growth. Pretty much no comparison.

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

You keep throwing out this peninsula thing as if there isn't any available room on it. There is plenty of space for redevelopment on the peninsula. There are also insignificant shopping centers with parking lots that can be redeveloped first.

. Again: just because you can fit more food in your mouth and belly doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to chew and swallow and gain 1,000 pounds.

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

SF isn't anywhere near maxed out. It only is artificially.

. Residents’ interests are “artifcial”? Compared to a Houstonian-to-LA transplant’s opinion of what should happen where he doesn’t live? Huh.

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Terrible analogy. It's more like working out until you become one of the strongest out there.

. It’s not a terrible analogy. It’s perfect. You haven’t answered how the city improves and becomes stronger through unlimited growth. Gaining 1,000 pounds is unhealthy regardless of how much a person “works out” ...

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Another terrible analogy but I thought that Socialism was becoming more popular in SF? Faux liberalism is all the rage nowadays so not surprised you used this example.

What’s socialism got to do with any of this? Or faux liberalism?

And, still, why don’t you give away your money and clothing so others can have what you’ve earned?

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

I've already answered this for you and no one said develop every square inch. For some reason you're against building residential towers Downtown (taller than 25 floors) or redeveloping dilapidated commercial centers.

. You haven’t answered. At what point do you call a stop? What is to be gained by adding more, that doesn’t already exist?

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

You should have been around in 1900 to stop the development of west SF. So much parkland was paved over in favor of tiny rowhouses. SF should have never developed west of the 1 Highway. But for some reason it did. Can you let me know why?

. What should have been done in the past isn’t at issue, is it? What’s at issue is whether the nation’s second most densely packed city should pack in even more according to the vision of a non-resident.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by nmnita

He/she isn't going to listen to you. Why bother? All someone has to do is visit places with higher min wages to see how much it _doesn't help

Well that’s a scientific analysis! What nita sees with her own eyes covers the issue! Lol.

[alliance]

McDonald's has the logical response to dramatic increases in overhead. Transition to bitching about automation? Instead of raising prices just cut workers. Those are the two real options in reality.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/edrensi.../#53bbb3bb6f14

[alliance]

And yes, automation is going to happen anyway. This is just pushing it faster than it would've been otherwise.

Is it wise to demand wage hikes when there is a viable replacement ready to go? This is more related to a nationwide MW hike vs in SF.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The aren’t any barristas and waiters in SF now?

Why “relieve” housing stock, regardless of resident income, if it only means increasing population to a city that is already the second most densely populated in the nation? That’s the point. You don’t live in SF and have no history of residence in the City ... yet you want to speak to the population’s vision? Hilarious!

Yes and they must share bedrooms (not just overall apartment) to afford it. I don't know why you can't see how building additional housing puts relief on old stock and limits the surge in pricing.

Well, glad you asked. As a resident of the 60’s and on, as opposed to yourself, speaking first hand: the City of the 60’s and 70’s was marvelously better than present day with renewed growth. Pretty much no comparison.

Could that be because all of the people that made SF what it was back then were able to afford it? I wonder how many would have remained had the City been more diligent on housing and less restrictive on growth. Hell, teachers in SF can't even afford to live in the city they work in.

Again: just because you can fit more food in your mouth and belly doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to chew and swallow and gain 1,000 pounds. . It’s not a terrible analogy. It’s perfect. You haven’t answered how the city improves and becomes stronger through unlimited growth. Gaining 1,000 pounds is unhealthy regardless of how much a person “works out” ...

All of the strongest and influential cities in the world are among the most dense. Name one that has tried to limit growth (you can't). All that does is leave the city behind.

Besides, city improvements should be quite obvious to you and something I shouldn't have to answer. When you have more high income and tax paying citizens move into a city, what happens to that city's coffers? There was a thread made recently here on the newly paved roads in SF. Do you think money that came from the new residents' taxes helped pay for those improvements or no?

. Residents’ interests are “artifcial”? Compared to a Houstonian-to-LA transplant’s opinion of what should happen where he doesn’t live? Huh.

It's good to get outside perspectives on things. I've also been to SF more times than I can count as we have an office there.

And yes, the few NIMBY residents are putting artificial restraints on new housing in SF. "Blocking a view" is an artificial reason not to build new development. A real reason would be something like the ground in a particular area not being able to support a structure.

What’s socialism got to do with any of this? Or faux liberalism? And, still, why don’t you give away your money and clothing so others can have what you’ve earned?

Faux liberalism is what I find some of SF to be about. People talk about helping others but not near them. We need affordable housing but don't build it near me. Etc.

. You haven’t answered. At what point do you call a stop? What is to be gained by adding more, that doesn’t already exist?

Tulemutt, just like time, a city doesn't stop evolving. It will continue to reinvent itself and grow until we have flying buses and cars traveling over the Bay Bridge into Oakland like in a Star Wars film.

What should have been done in the past isn’t at issue, is it? What’s at issue is whether the nation’s second most densely packed city should pack in even more according to the vision of a non-resident.

Of course you don't want to look at the past. It goes against your entire premise from the time YOU set foot in SF.

[alliance]

Originally Posted by nmnita

He/she isn't going to listen to you. Why bother? All someone has to do is visit places with higher min wages to see how much it _doesn't help

Engaging tulemutt is like interacting with the guy currently in a confrontation with a lamp post. The only way to avoid being followed home and having your garage door pissed on is if some other poor sap makes eye contact with him and he's passed off.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by alliance

Engaging tulemutt is like interacting with the guy currently in a confrontation with a lamp post. The only way to avoid being followed home and having your garage door pissed on is if some other poor sap makes eye contact with him and he's passed off.

So? Back to personal attacks without any reference to the topic, eh? So far I have addressed issues and you have failed to respond in kind. Still waiting ... happy to debate

[Vanderbiltgrad]

Originally Posted by nmnita

exactly and if anyone even thinks $15 an hour is a living wage they are nuts, especially in the bay area. So, what good does this do? Min wage is not supposed to be a living wage, it is for people, usually kids just starting out in the business world. Or for those who just want to supplement their income. and yes, I think Seattle was the first.

Totally agree that was the point I was making that affordable housing should be priority number one and not raising min wage and people could not literally get it.