I Hate San Francisco (Oakland: sales, real estate, health insurance)

[2dc]

Originally Posted by City Boy

I go back to Atlanta 3 times a year, I know how it is there. There is a facade that if you move to the south your life will be economically better. Atlanta is so over saturated now with transplants from CA and NY that the jobs are not plentiful like it once was. It used to be that way, but Atlanta is highly overrated and has a ton of crime.

I think for the most part people in ATL like to pretend to have money but are living on credit and are in high debt to pull of some image that they are ballin'. It's very superficial and there is a high foreclosure rate now. But of course if you have to move to the south, the urban area's are where you want to be.

Yep I'm in Atlanta alot too and everything you've said is the truth. But don't tell that to so many people wanting to move there. Everyone seems to think that once they move to the "A" their life will automatically turn good. Not the case at all. I can't tell the number of people who've moved there only to find out that the city is a tad overrated to say the least. Plus with the economic downturn crime is rising in the city tremendously. But on the positive side it is cheaper to live in than the Bay Area.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by BayDude

I can see that happening in SF. I can see what your saying definitely.

Interesting take on those "hipsters". Could hipsterism be really an extension of "whiteness"? A sort of liberal, upper-middle class country club for certain types of whites (and gays) only? They certainly don't seem tolerant of anything else.

A parody, but mostly true:

Stuff White People Like

Interestingly, there are people from all physical races making up this tribe, but admittedly the majority are racially Caucasian. LOLOL!!!

[BayDude]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

A parody, but mostly true:

Stuff White People Like

Interestingly, there are people from all physical races making up this tribe, but admittedly the majority are racially Caucasian. LOLOL!!!

They are an interesting bunch thats for sure. They seem to be 95-99% white so its seems its a mostly white phenomenon. I have yet to see any black hipsters really. Though who knows.

To me they come off as closet racist, fake psuedo-liberals who like skinny jeans, environmentalism (in landrovers) and microbreweries. They come off as trying to hard to do whatever it is they are trying to do. Being racist as they are its no wonder they are 99% white.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by BayDude

They are an interesting bunch thats for sure. They seem to be 95-99% white so its seems its a mostly white phenomenon. I have yet to see any black hipsters really. Though who knows.

There definitely are black hipsters. I've ran into some living in one of The City's hipstervilles and used to run across them in L.A. as well when I lived there.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Let me put it this way. If an overtly bourgeois (or lower) person walks into the middle of hipsterdom, all eyes will view them as a hick, rube or worse. Ironic, especially given the fact that the bourgeois person is more likely than not a native, and those casting aspersions are transplants. Obviously broad brush. The key thing is, said "rube" could be of any race. Although your points are well taken, in that being black will compound all this.

Not to come off like a Marxist but I think you mean "petty bourgeois" (which means US style middle class in Marx-speak)

As for bourgeoisie, that's pretty much who rules San Francisco at the expense of everyone else. "Bourgeois" means "middle class" in the UK sense of the term not the US sense of the term. What Americans would call "middle class" would be called "lower middle class" or "upper working class" in Britain, and likewise "middle class" in the UK would mean "upper middle class" in America. (I've found out the hard way as I've greatly angered British friends of mine by describing their backgrounds as "middle class"- that's a term of offense to many people over there.)

Sorry to be so pedantic about this....

[d-iron]

Originally Posted by BayDude

I can see that happening in SF. I can see what your saying definitely.

Interesting take on those "hipsters". Could hipsterism be really an extension of "whiteness"? A sort of liberal, upper-middle class country club for certain types of whites (and gays) only? They certainly don't seem tolerant of anything else.

Not at all it's totally a class issue like Hillbilly said if a African American had the money trust me they would be on him/her like a Kardashian (Those girls have some serious jungle fever)

African Americans can be uppity too Baydude no disrespect but maybe you have not been around a wide variety of them. Especially now that we have a AA president, expect to see more Bryant Gumbel's.

[Nomadic9460678748]

I LOVE San Francisco. I LOVE the Bay Area. But I was actually more Oaklander than San Franciscan. Sue me. I actually also LOVE Oakland. I know. Who would think it?

I would move back to the Yay Area in a heartbeat if I could find work. Actually, I'd need to find actual, gainful employment in the provincial cesspool I am currently stuck in (aka Austin, Texas) in order to save and return to Oakland, but I can't see that happening any time soon.

I could see why lots of people wouldn't enjoy what the Bay Area has to offer, but the place grew on me. I miss it every single day.

[HookTheBrotherUp]

In a previous job, I used to visit SF a few times a year for about 8 years, and I really loved it, but only because I did not live there. I actually like the cool weather, so that was never an issue for me. But here are some of my observations over the years....

I was single back then, and most of the women I would meet/see were "granola" looking. No makeup, no attempt to dress sexy; those that I did meet who were dressed up sexy, makeup, etc., were not from the area.

Bums everywhere. 'Having to leave early from the hotel each morning, I was always greeted by the smell of urine at every corner. On weekends, it would be vomit at least once. I used to always give change to the bums, but that wained soon when I would see the the look of dismay from the bum because I did not give more. Often the bum would look at the change, lookup at me as if I insulted him/her.

I used to go to Malpitas, Palo Alto, or Redwood on my visits and I got ugly stares by homeowners when I was in the neighborhoods (I'm Latino).

I made friends there, and not a single one who lived in 'the city' as they call it, could ever afford to live alone. Some of them had to write an essay on why the landlord should rent to them in the Mission District.

Driving was a pain in the butt, or non existent. I'd often have to park blocks away, or pay a garage every single time I went to meet people for drinks, or dinner. I do have to say though, I never got a ticket in all my visits, and I was pulled over, but I found the police to be very nice.

Crazy people. Literally crazy people, babbling to themselves, or to me. And no, Blue Tooth was not invented yet when I used to visit. Okay, calling people crazy is not nice, but you get my drift. Mentally disturbed I guess.

That said, I really liked to go to SF, so I'd always add two extra days to my trips and I made the drives Sausalito, Stinson Beach, the light house, Muir Woods, Monterrey, Big Sur, Yosemite and became close friends with someone who lived in Walnut Creek... those places are not SF, but I always associated them with SF.

So I love SF, but am glad I don't live there!

[naomisday]

HooktheBrotherup,

I hate for folks to only get to see Downtown SF...which has a lot problems....if people only
see that part of SF...I would think it is horrible as well..

There are some really nice neighborhoods in SF...most visitors don't get to see them..

It is VERY expensive to live in SF now....unless a person has a great job or perhaps passed
down family property---a lot of folks live outside SF and commute in....

People do dress better back East and even in the South...it is more casual here....

[HookTheBrotherUp]

Originally Posted by naomisday

HooktheBrotherup,

I hate for folks to only get to see Downtown SF...which has a lot problems....if people only
see that part of SF...I would think it is horrible as well..

There are some really nice neighborhoods in SF...most visitors don't get to see them..

It is VERY expensive to live in SF now....unless a person has a great job or perhaps passed
down family property---a lot of folks live outside SF and commute in....

People do dress better back East and even in the South...it is more casual here....

In the early years, I used to cruise all over the place... the Twin Towers, The Mission as I mentioned, the Marina, Nob Hill, the Warf, Golden Gate Park, Haight, North Beach, Pacific Heights... etc. I also used to venture out as I said, Muir Woods, Stinson, Monterrey, Carmel (when Clint Eastwood owned Hog's Breath).

I loved the scenery, the weather, the trees, the hills, the views, Alcatraz, etc. What I was trying to say is that it is expensive, even then, but SF does have too many bums. Being a sanctuary city is nice for those seeking it, but it seemed to me that some of those people were just taking advantage of it. Everytime I was in Hait, someone would walk past me and say "bud" without blinking an eye... I never knew if they were for real, or under cover cops, so I did not even acknowledge them.

You are correct in saying that if you only stay near the Moscone Center for a conference, of the Warf, you never see all of SF and really see the beauty of it. The city itself is very nice, it really is the nicest place to live as far as I am concerned, 'just cannot afford it. Plus, I consider myself to be Conservative!

Interestingly, there was always a sense of "tolerance"... the city government, the demonstrations, parades, but it did not really apply to Conservatives. As long as you go along with the herd, all is well, that is something I neglected to bring up in my earlier post, but it is what it is. I still love SF.