Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Continued Protest in San Fran over Tech/Google Bus Routes
Really kind of an interesting story that shows no signs of quieting down. Now it's not just Google, but bus routes for other tech firms. People are furious at the tech companies for being a reason why the cost of living (rents in particular) are skyrocketing.
Dear Scott: If San Francisco continues on it's present path of a left-wing hippie city government, there will soon be a sign stating that San Francisco is close. Its a real shame, it was once an American gem.
Reply to @Accipiter: I'm going to give everyone in Omaha your ISP #. Nancy Pelosi is the post child of the city by the bay. Regards, Ted Do You Feel The Love ?
Ted, "Left-wing hippie government?" What rock have you been living under? Ed Lee the current mayor is all establishment politics. He's firmly in the tradition of Willie B. and like the former mayor and current octogenarian Senator, fully on board with any and all development projects. Pelosi & Boxer are both very wealthy representatives of (surprise!) wealth. If SF continues on it's present path it will likely look like the American gem you imagine it used to be (although it was actually a fairly gritty place back in the day, industrial plants, shipbuilding, seamen, bohemian as could be.) Pretty as a postcard it may become, but with more who do the actual work in the city forced to live many miles away, commuting in their single occupant vehicles in even larger numbers than they already do, as the young techsters in the splendor of their employers' white cruiser buses do their work while clogging the freeways as they commute to and from the South Bay. Certainly a number of them would choose to live in SF and add to the single occupant gridlock. On the other hand some/many/most would live closer to their places of employment as has been the case. SF is a less attractive place to live if you must spend four hours a day getting to and from work. Life's all about change but not all change is for the better.
Reply to @JimH: Unfortunately, this is very true. Never mind Ted, time seemed to have stopped for him long time ago. He probably meant the left wing hippies protesting capitalistic government.
What is happening in SF is not that different from what happened in Manhattan a couple of decades ago as money from surging Finance irreversibly changed it and pushed a lot of people out. The jazz and blue clubs used to be local hangout places until gentrification created 45 minute sets with $30 cover charges.
In SF, it is tech instead of finance. But it is not just the tech that is creating the problem. There is a flood of offshore money pouring in to buy houses unseen all over SF. It is purely for flipping later and left unoccupied. They all have prices ending in 888.
I saw the town of Tracy in San Joaquin County filling up before the '08 Crash, full of commuters doing 90 minutes to The Bay Area one way to get to work. Pretty nuts. But Tracy housing was affordable. Not SF. Even going back to the 1980s, my cousin bought a home in SF. It was the size of a closet, and cost her half a mil. Seems that dollars shrink a lot once they enter that city.
Speaking as a native born/bred San Franciscan, I have to agree with JimH and cman on this. Currently "City Hall" is acting more responsibly than it has since Willie B. was the kingpin, and that man was good... very good. With respect to the "flood of offshore money pouring in to buy houses", that may be true but it is far from anything new. There have been complaints regarding Chinese money driving up housing prices for the last forty years at least, and now many of our neighborhoods are mainly ethnically Chinese. I'm not editorializing, merely observing. When it's hard to find signage in English on many of the main neighborhood shopping streets, it rather makes the point by itself.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the "bus protest" contingent. San Francisco, like Manhattan, is absolutely limited as to the available space for new housing. The only way to expand the housing stock is to build "up", and since that would drastically change the character of many neighborhoods, there isn't a lot of desire to do that. If people choose to live and/or work in San Francisco, and can afford to do so, I'm afraid that's the nature of the beast. The various (mainly tech related) companies that are providing private bus service are in fact providing a necessary and desirable public service, as our excellent but seriously over-worked public transit system is pretty much running at capacity.
There are lots of places that I might like to live in too, but can't afford. Such is life.
Reply to @anders: No I didn't come from wealth, work all my life, and didn't think the world owed me a living. Every "low Life" has a personal story................. they should never have been born. Regards, Ted
Actually this is a good idea the companies provide transportation. They figured it was the cheapest way to go. Many companies in metro areas offer transportation options like discount bus passes to get employees to ride mass transit. Boeing in Seattle has had a van pool for years. There are hundreds of white vans on the roads daily that say Boeing on them.
This is another example of some people just plain jealous. There is an ongoing war of sorts against the rich these days. Most of these people don't want to put the effort in but feel like they should have the money anyway.
I don't know how to respond to Ted's statement above. That is pretty drastic.
Reply to @Ted: I didn't come from wealth either, worked my whole life, never expected handouts, and have happily retired into a simple middle class lifestyle like where I began but with a whole different attitude towards the underprivileged then you. I believe in the collective good of a civilized society and that most everyone wants to work for their own. You sound very bitter.
In an organized society, we have obligations to one another. The wealthy are not holding up their end of the deal. I'm not jealous, I'm indignant. The truth is, no one can get to be wealthy and still have an intact conscience that knows right from wrong. Then, once they become wealthy, it becomes very easy to simply forget how many people's faces they have ground into the dust in order to get there. And so wealth becomes privilege. "I got mine, I hope you get yours. Better learn how to pretend money has nothing to do with ethics, and you'll be able to sleep better at night."
Yes, but some people see the world through their own blinders and will never realize that...
not too mention people forced into bankruptcy and homelessness due to illness of familly member or themselves, or the mentally ill. Although some mentally ill may still have the bankroll and not need a bedroll to stay off the streets.
A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet a conservative is a liberal who has never been arrested.
Reply to @Accipiter: Why don't you go to one San Francisco famous tattoo parlor's and have it tattooed all over your body "A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet a conservative is a liberal who has never been arrested."
Here's a reply that might get some upset, but here it goes. If someone does well, that is great for them. They can do what they want. Is it great when they help their fellow man? Absolutely.
The government has spent the last 5+ years focused almost entirely on catering to the needs of the financial industry. I'm not saying that it shouldn't have gotten any attention, it's just that it got the majority of it. A huge opportunity to improve things for the whole rather than the few - improvements in education, infrastructure and more - has largely been missed, but despite the fact that these problems haven't been addressed, they certainly haven't gone away - if anything, they've grown worse.
When QE goes away (if it ever does) and reality sets in and maybe we don't have another 2008 but things cool off (possibly substantially), then what?
This country needs to build the runway or create/encourage the conditions for a solid runway for people. They can choose to use it or not, but if it's there no one could say it wasn't. Improvements in infrastructure also would save in terms of efficiency and add to global competitiveness. Infrastructure improvements should be encouraged by corporations, many of whom would likely see cost savings as a result.
We need to have a plan in this country. We need to have unity between our leaders and a unified vision, moreso now than in ages, given the difficulty that many still face. Our leaders need(ed) to come together to create a sustainable and DIVERSIFIED recovery in this country - boosting asset prices is great for those who own them (I won't get into what % the top 1% or 5% own of stocks), but like any other asset price ramp in history, the sustainability is questionable.
The government throws money at problems hoping they will go away rather than actually trying to spend a moment to come up with ideas to solve them. It's no wonder problems keep coming back.
It might surprise some here about the amount of philanthropy and charity the wealthy do involve themselves in. It is easy these days to paint a broad brush.
Many years ago, our nephew was born with cerebral palsy. After the initial shock, options were presented to the family. Included were a number of charities, foundations, and organizations that dealt with this issue. Some of the names on these groups were recognizable as local wealthy citizens and the more well known names known around the world were also represented. Before this we had no idea these people were involved in these ventures. One name that stuck out was Bob Hope. His estate is still giving to these charities long after his passing. Many of the names were those everyone here would recognize. Gates, Allen, Rockefeller. I could go on and on.
These people didn't want the attention that most self minded celebrities ask for these days. Perhaps modesty has gone the way of dinosaurs? In any case, it is easy to go with the crowd who are bemoaning the wealth that someone else had earned. We are all presented with the opportunities. It is how each one of us takes advantage of those opportunities that makes the difference. Having an apathetic view already puts one at a disadvantage.
Finally, we are truly a caring society for the most part. Just look at the amounts of money donated in recent disasters and such. Not to forget are all the volunteers and those who donate items, food, etc. Is this something that should be legislated? Absolutely not. Once charity is forced upon society, it is no longer charity.
(Quoting:) "Once charity is forced upon society, it is no longer charity." True. And philanthropy is certainly not a bad thing. It is the very structure of society which needs the overhaul. The injustices are already built-in. Charitable support ought to be understood as supplemental. The "Royal We" need to be setting-up structures and procedures whereby those with a special and profound or chronic need can get routine help, and EXPECT it. We are all here. We've arrived, out of the womb, to breathe, love, eat, sleep, run, dance, sing, think, travel, learn and enjoy. I do not see anything else that needs to be required in order for anyone to qualify for any assistance they may need.
Reply to @Crash: True. I think sometimes that people's expectations are over what many would call needed. This is where government fails as they hand out benefits to many who could do without thus saving the funds for those who really need them. This entitlement thinking along with emotional politics tends to polarize society. Unemployment benefits are great until they run out. I personally used UE around 1980. If you are old enough you will understand how bad the economy and labor market was back then. After 26 weeks, (I believe) they had ran out and I was applying for an extension. During those times one extension was given but that was it. Now we seem to have eternal benefits which may or may not keep people from finding work. The difference now is that the labor market is changing so fast that jobs are being replaced by offshoring and or automation. It is a subject I cannot find an answer for.
I grew up during the late 50's and the 60's. Welfare was something that was a last resort then. Nobody we knew was on it. Now food stamps and other benefits are common and every other person has them. The definition of needy and poor has changed. Another big change is the family structure. Everyone is on their own these days. Whatever happened to family helping each other? Both these ideals are connected.
This is a subject that can be talked about forever. I don't think we will find an answer here but the conversation is needed. Thanks Charles and Crash.
Reply to @JohnChisum: Interesting section of San Francisco called the 'Tenderloin' where left-wing do-gooders own most of the property keeping the homeless and other assorted misfortunate tapped in dirty living conditions. They won't let the city clean up the area, because its against there economic interest. Regards, Ted http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/san-francisco-working-class-neighborhood-left-behind/
Rent control in SF. With costs the way they are there, I'm not surprised. And surely, a great many need the help that comes in the form of rent control. MOST people work for stinky low wages these days. Here in MFO, we have the luxury to discuss about what to do with extra money.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
Do You Feel The Love ?
> I'm going to give everyone in Omaha your ISP #
Flattery Using Calibrated Keystrokes, Yammering Opprobrium Unappealing
Regards,
Ted
What is happening in SF is not that different from what happened in Manhattan a couple of decades ago as money from surging Finance irreversibly changed it and pushed a lot of people out. The jazz and blue clubs used to be local hangout places until gentrification created 45 minute sets with $30 cover charges.
In SF, it is tech instead of finance. But it is not just the tech that is creating the problem. There is a flood of offshore money pouring in to buy houses unseen all over SF. It is purely for flipping later and left unoccupied. They all have prices ending in 888.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the "bus protest" contingent. San Francisco, like Manhattan, is absolutely limited as to the available space for new housing. The only way to expand the housing stock is to build "up", and since that would drastically change the character of many neighborhoods, there isn't a lot of desire to do that. If people choose to live and/or work in San Francisco, and can afford to do so, I'm afraid that's the nature of the beast. The various (mainly tech related) companies that are providing private bus service are in fact providing a necessary and desirable public service, as our excellent but seriously over-worked public transit system is pretty much running at capacity.
There are lots of places that I might like to live in too, but can't afford. Such is life.
Regards,
Ted
http://nation.time.com/2014/01/30/ed-lee-san-francisco-interview/print/
Wow, are you serious? Every "low life" has a personal story, most probably don't come from wealth. Do you?
Regards,
Ted
This is another example of some people just plain jealous. There is an ongoing war of sorts against the rich these days. Most of these people don't want to put the effort in but feel like they should have the money anyway.
I don't know how to respond to Ted's statement above. That is pretty drastic.
Regards,
Ted
Regards,
Ted
Yes, but some people see the world through their own blinders and will never realize that...
not too mention people forced into bankruptcy and homelessness due to illness of familly member or themselves, or the mentally ill. Although some mentally ill may still have the bankroll and not need a bedroll to stay off the streets.
A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet
a conservative is a liberal who has never been arrested.
a conservative is a liberal who has never been arrested."
The government has spent the last 5+ years focused almost entirely on catering to the needs of the financial industry. I'm not saying that it shouldn't have gotten any attention, it's just that it got the majority of it. A huge opportunity to improve things for the whole rather than the few - improvements in education, infrastructure and more - has largely been missed, but despite the fact that these problems haven't been addressed, they certainly haven't gone away - if anything, they've grown worse.
When QE goes away (if it ever does) and reality sets in and maybe we don't have another 2008 but things cool off (possibly substantially), then what?
This country needs to build the runway or create/encourage the conditions for a solid runway for people. They can choose to use it or not, but if it's there no one could say it wasn't. Improvements in infrastructure also would save in terms of efficiency and add to global competitiveness. Infrastructure improvements should be encouraged by corporations, many of whom would likely see cost savings as a result.
We need to have a plan in this country. We need to have unity between our leaders and a unified vision, moreso now than in ages, given the difficulty that many still face. Our leaders need(ed) to come together to create a sustainable and DIVERSIFIED recovery in this country - boosting asset prices is great for those who own them (I won't get into what % the top 1% or 5% own of stocks), but like any other asset price ramp in history, the sustainability is questionable.
The government throws money at problems hoping they will go away rather than actually trying to spend a moment to come up with ideas to solve them. It's no wonder problems keep coming back.
Regards,
Ted
Hail To President Scott:
It might surprise some here about the amount of philanthropy and charity the wealthy do involve themselves in. It is easy these days to paint a broad brush.
Many years ago, our nephew was born with cerebral palsy. After the initial shock, options were presented to the family. Included were a number of charities, foundations, and organizations that dealt with this issue. Some of the names on these groups were recognizable as local wealthy citizens and the more well known names known around the world were also represented. Before this we had no idea these people were involved in these ventures. One name that stuck out was Bob Hope. His estate is still giving to these charities long after his passing. Many of the names were those everyone here would recognize. Gates, Allen, Rockefeller. I could go on and on.
These people didn't want the attention that most self minded celebrities ask for these days. Perhaps modesty has gone the way of dinosaurs? In any case, it is easy to go with the crowd who are bemoaning the wealth that someone else had earned. We are all presented with the opportunities. It is how each one of us takes advantage of those opportunities that makes the difference. Having an apathetic view already puts one at a disadvantage.
Finally, we are truly a caring society for the most part. Just look at the amounts of money donated in recent disasters and such. Not to forget are all the volunteers and those who donate items, food, etc. Is this something that should be legislated? Absolutely not. Once charity is forced upon society, it is no longer charity.
I grew up during the late 50's and the 60's. Welfare was something that was a last resort then. Nobody we knew was on it. Now food stamps and other benefits are common and every other person has them. The definition of needy and poor has changed. Another big change is the family structure. Everyone is on their own these days. Whatever happened to family helping each other? Both these ideals are connected.
This is a subject that can be talked about forever. I don't think we will find an answer here but the conversation is needed. Thanks Charles and Crash.
Regards,
Ted
Talk-Talk Talk-Talk
Regards,
Ted
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/san-francisco-working-class-neighborhood-left-behind/