Are You Really Sure You Want To Move SF? (Oakland: brokers, lawyers)

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

As a male I think you and I would be more cognizant of female looks than Ruth and I have to agree that socal has more attractive women. The Bay Area has some attractive women but they are definitely located more in certain areas.
I was talking to a guy in the gym in the Bay Area who had moved from socal and he really complained a lot about the looks of nor cal women compared to where he had moved from.

I do think this really depends on where you are in either so Cal or NorCal. The women in Riverside or Hemet, for example, aren't you going to be made up as much as in Santa Monica. And the women in Berkeley or Castro Valley aren't going to be made up as much as in, let's say, Walnut Creek or Danville. I live in San Diego and notice that people look very different here than in LA. Not nearly as fashionable or as made up. But moreso than inland empire, for example. Just saying that it's pretty difficult to stereotype everyone in Northern California and in Southern California. There are millions of people spread out over hundreds of miles in each area. And there are more unglamorous people than glamorous people in either region :-)

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

Did we really need to go there, Ruth? It's amazing to me that someone pointing out simple facts has to have accusations thrown their way. We can't have a reasonable conversation here?

No, I'm not mad. I'm pointing out that this silliness about San Francisco having diversity is a lie and it has been for years (as you pointed out in your accusation).

If I'm going to use the term diversity and throw around comments such as "melting pot" (like so many of my friends have over the years), then I would make sure I had numbers in the nationality category much closer to Oakland or Sacramento, and I think that should also be similar in the income category. San Francisco is nothing like that. And no Ruth, I don't care if San Francisco is 100% Asian. If they're smarter than everyone and can command the type of salary to live in San Francisco, then more power to them. But as I commented on and later proved (since in my first example they were 2010 numbers, and in my 2nd example they were from 2015), it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where things are headed (and I didn't know the 2015 numbers when I made that prediction to you). The city has been gentrified. Areas like the Mission district of old, barely exist any more. And it will continue along these lines

I simply wish people would stop fooling themselves with what is nothing more than an urban legend now. San Francisco is not diverse.

You're probably not meeting different groups of people. Long time locals, for example, are going to have a very different perspective from transplants or young tech workers. You think a middle class Chinese family in the Richmond or Sunset district is going to think like a Google worker who lives in the Haight and commutes on a bus down to Mountain View or San Bruno (YouTube)? Or an old money lawyer living in St. Francis Wood having the same perspective as a working class Latino in the Mission?

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by tstieber

I do think this really depends on where you are in either so Cal or NorCal. The women in Riverside or Hemet, for example, aren't you going to be made up as much as in Santa Monica. And the women in Berkeley or Castro Valley aren't going to be made up as much as in, let's say, Walnut Creek or Danville. I live in San Diego and notice that people look very different here than in LA. Not nearly as fashionable or as made up. But moreso than inland empire, for example. Just saying that it's pretty difficult to stereotype everyone in Northern California and in Southern California. There are millions of people spread out over hundreds of miles in each area. And there are more unglamorous people than glamorous people in either region :-)

I'm with Dodge on this one. I remember going away for a semester to Cal State Long Beach and I got whiplash from all the girls there compared to SF. I've always theorized at least regarding bodies, that people in warm weather tend to work out more since they can't exactly layer up with clothes when they're outside like a colder weather locale. Just my two cents.

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by silverkris

You're probably not meeting different groups of people. Long time locals, for example, are going to have a very different perspective from transplants or young tech workers. You think a middle class Chinese family in the Richmond or Sunset district is going to think like a Google worker who lives in the Haight and commutes on a bus down to Mountain View or San Bruno (YouTube)? Or an old money lawyer living in St. Francis Wood having the same perspective as a working class Latino in the Mission?

Look, the fact remains that if I encounter 20 people in San Francisco (I suspect the peninsula may be similar but we are talking about San Francisco), 17 will be White or Asian, and the other 3 will be a different nationality. If for some reason, you and anyone else thinks that's diverse, I don't know what to tell you. In addition, unless you're like me and bought your house some time ago, the income level will in all likelihood be in the top 5% in the country (also not very diverse). And again, I am a long time local (not sure how many times I need to repeat that...clearly some people aren't reading). Maybe it's just hard for some to believe as I'm not into "group think" like they are. I've been telling my long time local friends since the 80's that this diversity mantra is pure BS. My post doesn't touch upon their "thinking" but that was addressed in another one.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

Look, the fact remains that if I encounter 20 people in San Francisco (I suspect the peninsula may be similar but we are talking about San Francisco), 17 will be White or Asian, and the other 3 will be a different nationality. If for some reason, you and anyone else thinks that's diverse, I don't know what to tell you. In addition, unless you're like me and bought your house some time ago, the income level will in all likelihood be in the top 5% in the country (also not very diverse). And again, I am a long time local (not sure how many times I need to repeat that...clearly some people aren't reading). Maybe it's just hard for some to believe as I'm not into "group think" like they are. I've been telling my long time local friends since the 80's that this diversity mantra is pure BS. My post doesn't touch upon their "thinking" but that was addressed in another one.

I think this all depends on what regions you're using for comparison. Are we diverse compared to NYC, Chicago, or Miami? Not really. But compared to Boise, Portland, Denver, etc? Very much so! I spent a few years in Oregon (Eugene), and even being a college town the lack of diversity was jarring to me at first... sooo many white people, lol. And not just white but CHRISTIAN/WASP white, to the point where I was literally the first Jewish person some of them had met. I heard some real doozies when it came to the stereotypes about us.

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

I think this all depends on what regions you're using for comparison. Are we diverse compared to NYC, Chicago, or Miami? Not really. But compared to Boise, Portland, Denver, etc? Very much so! I spent a few years in Oregon (Eugene), and even being a college town the lack of diversity was jarring to me at first... sooo many white people, lol. And not just white but CHRISTIAN/WASP white, to the point where I was literally the first Jewish person some of them had met. I heard some real doozies when it came to the stereotypes about us.

I'm just looking at numbers quoted and if 17 out of 20 are simply two races, I'm saying that's not diverse (don't need to compare). If you think encountering 3 out of 20 people of different nationalities shows diversity, you're welcome to think that.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

I'm just looking at numbers quoted and if 17 out of 20 are simply two races, I'm saying that's not diverse (don't need to compare). If you think encountering 3 out of 20 people of different nationalities shows diversity, you're welcome to think that.

Here in Silicon Valley, that is definitely not the case! I live in Sunnyvale, and at LEAST 60% of my neighbors are foreign-born (mostly India/China); so it might be different in SF these days, but if we're talking Bay Area in general we are still very diverse. But are we talking nationality or race? On the latter I'd agree, but we have a very wide array of nationalities. Even the white folks aren't often from the US, lol.

Out of the 5 immediate neighbors on my lot, this is the breakdown: Two households are white/American-born (me and my landlord), one is a family from Ukraine, two are couples from India, and the other is a Muslim family of unknown non-US origin. That's pretty mixed by any standards, no?

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Here in Silicon Valley, that is definitely not the case! I live in Sunnyvale, and at LEAST 60% of my neighbors are foreign-born (mostly India/China); so it might be different in SF these days, but if we're talking Bay Area in general we are still very diverse. But are we talking nationality or race? On the latter I'd agree, but we have a very wide array of nationalities. Even the white folks aren't often from the US, lol.

Out of the 5 immediate neighbors on my lot, this is the breakdown: Two households are white/American-born (me and my landlord), one is a family from Ukraine, two are couples from India, and the other is a Muslim family of unknown national origin. That's pretty mixed by any standards, no?

Pretty much just talking San Francisco and the numbers posted in the previous post (they're from 2015)

http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-...co-population/

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

I wasn't the one throwing out accusations (sounds more like you were the one that got triggered). Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not a newcomer (and probably have spent more years in San Francisco than most here). Doesn't sound like you took the time to really understand what I said (in particular that you proved my point by your comment related to Asians).

And your national comparison is one sided. SF also only has 6% Blacks and the average is 12%. The national average on Asians is 5.6%, San Francisco is 35.3%. I have no idea what comparison you're trying to make but you conveniently left out these huge disparities.

I still don't understand your take, either. SF doesn't have as many Blacks as the national average (it used to have more, to which I alluded twice, but didn't mention specifically), so that's bad, but has more Asians than the national average, but somehow, that's also bad? Why is having more Asians bad? I did address that very thoroughly, I didn't leave it out.

SF is doing pretty well diversity-wise, except for fewer African-Americans than the national, or even its own prior, metric. So because of that, it's not diverse? Are African American percentages the measure of diversity, but Asians aren't? This is what you need to clarify: why discount Asians, and give more weight to the size of the Black presence?

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I still don't understand your take, either. SF doesn't have as many Blacks as the national average (it used to have more, to which I alluded twice, but didn't mention specifically), so that's bad, but has more Asians than the national average, but somehow, that's also bad? Why is having more Asians bad? I did address that very thoroughly, I didn't leave it out.

SF is doing pretty well diversity-wise, except for fewer African-Americans than the national, or even its own prior, metric. So because of that, it's not diverse? Are African American percentages the measure of diversity, but Asians aren't? This is what you need to clarify: why discount Asians, and give more weight to the size of the Black presence?

Is this really that hard to understand for you? If you have 17 out of 20 people of just two races, that's not diversity. Not much more to say. If your math tells you differently, good for you. You appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing.