• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. Jerry Brown Signs California Climate Change Bill

ocean515 said:
:lamo:2rofll:

Top Analysts Predict Another Year of Growth for SF Economy | SPUR

While growth in 2015–16 is expected to slow to a more moderate rate than experienced in the exceptional boom years of 2013 and 2014, San Francisco’s economy is still expected to grow faster than nearly all other large cities in the country. In the three years between 2011 and 2013, the expansion of San Francisco’s economy outpaced the four largest growth years of the dot-com boom. There are now more people employed in San Francisco than at any point before in the city’s history.​

This pattern of growth is driven by the growth and maturation of the tech sector. Tech has grown as a portion of the local economy from just 1 percent of San Francisco jobs in 1990 to 4 percent in 2010 to 9 percent at the end of 2014 (a broader definition of “tech” pegs the sector at 13 to 14 percent of San Francisco’s economy).​

It would be helpful to your cause and credibility if you took some time to get informed, as opposed to letting your ideological preferences force emotional responses from your fingertips.
Click to expand...

Yes, the tech industry had the most growth.

Tourism is a bigger industry in SF than tech. Did you not realize that when you said "Tech is the only thing holding up SF's economy" ?
 
Born Free said:
Source:


dwalters@sacbee.com

California continues to have – by far – the nation’s highest level of poverty under an alternative method devised by the Census Bureau that takes into account both broader measures of income and the cost of living.

Nearly a quarter of the state’s 38 million residents (8.9 million) live in poverty, a new Census Bureau report says, a level virtually unchanged since the agency first began reporting on the method’s effects.

Under the traditional method of gauging poverty, adopted a half-century ago, California’s rate is 16 percent (6.1 million residents), somewhat above the national rate of 14.9 percent but by no means the highest. That dubious honor goes to New Mexico at 21.5 percent.

But under the alternative method, California rises to the top at 23.4 percent while New Mexico drops to 16 percent and other states decline to as low as 8.7 percent in Iowa.

Read more here: Census Bureau: California still has highest U.S. poverty rate | The Sacramento Bee
Click to expand...

Oh, see, all it takes is a simple shifting of the goalposts. Just redefine poverty until CA is on top.
 
While political arguments are being made that this new law will "kill" jobs, an interesting exercise would involve monitoring developments.

The null hypothesis would be that this law would have no statistically significant difference on California's unemployment rate vis-a-vis the national unemployment rate.

Using a 95% confidence interval based on the most recent three years of unemployment data (to capture the a snapshot of California's current structural situation), California's unemployment rate should range from 1.150 to 1.309 times the national unemployment rate. An unemployment rate above that range would indicate that California has become less competitive relative to the nation when it comes to employment. An unemployment rate below that range would suggest that California has become more competitive relative to the nation when it comes to employment. To reject the null hypothesis, one would look for California's unemployment rate to consistently fall outside the confidence interval e.g., a 12-month moving average that would be above or below the 12-month moving average confidence interval.

Assuming economic competitiveness is a function of many factors beyond tax and regulatory policy, my guess is that the law probably won't have a statistically significant impact on California's employment situation. It won't make it better or worse on a statistical basis.
 
Absentglare said:
Because the poor are the least educated and the most susceptible to undue political influence. Rich people love to donate to charities as tax deductions.

The taxes we like to cut are the FIT, the most progressive tax we have. That means it makes the government overwhelmingly regressive. That has the direct effect of taking money from the public, and handing it over to those with the most income.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you dont get to have it both ways. If the wealthy pay more than their fare share of taxes (and they certainly do), they should also save the most (the same amount) when taxes are cut.
 
Born Free said:
Source:


dwalters@sacbee.com

California continues to have – by far – the nation’s highest level of poverty under an alternative method devised by the Census Bureau that takes into account both broader measures of income and the cost of living.

Nearly a quarter of the state’s 38 million residents (8.9 million) live in poverty, a new Census Bureau report says, a level virtually unchanged since the agency first began reporting on the method’s effects.

Under the traditional method of gauging poverty, adopted a half-century ago, California’s rate is 16 percent (6.1 million residents), somewhat above the national rate of 14.9 percent but by no means the highest. That dubious honor goes to New Mexico at 21.5 percent.

But under the alternative method, California rises to the top at 23.4 percent while New Mexico drops to 16 percent and other states decline to as low as 8.7 percent in Iowa.

Read more here: Census Bureau: California still has highest U.S. poverty rate | The Sacramento Bee
Click to expand...

Im amazed at how many lefties who haven't been here think California is some lefty utopia. A 10 minute drive out of the tourist areas shows a much different picture.
 
Absentglare said:
Yes, the tech industry had the most growth.

Tourism is a bigger industry in SF than tech. Did you not realize that when you said "Tech is the only thing holding up SF's economy" ?
Click to expand...

Seriously?

First, I never wrote that. Please point to that exact phrase in any posts on this thread. You've got I in quotations, so it should be easy to do.

Second, do you honestly think an $859,000 median home price level was created by tourism?

Let's not get so carried away in defending an ideology that nothing of substance results. Why not post a link or two to back up your contentions? I have.
 
US Conservative said:
Sorry, you dont get to have it both ways. If the wealthy pay more than their fare share of taxes (and they certainly do), they should also save the most (the same amount) when taxes are cut.
Click to expand...

If you define "fair share" to mean that the wealthy hoard even more wealth, without having to work for it, then i guess you'd be right.

I'll stick to the actual definition of "fair."
 
ocean515 said:
Seriously?

First, I never wrote that. Please point to that exact phrase in any posts on this thread. You've got I in quotations, so it should be easy to do.

Second, do you honestly think an $859,000 median home price level was created by tourism?

Let's not get so carried away in defending an ideology that nothing of substance results. Why not post a link or two to back up your contentions? I have.
Click to expand...

Wtf? Srsly?

ocean515 said:
LOL. It's driven exclusively by one thing. High tech. That's it. For players in that arena, SF is a liberal playground of elitism. However, the segment of the population not so inclined, is being forced out.

I say it's in decline, because it is.
Click to expand...
 
Absentglare said:
If you define "fair share" to mean that the wealthy hoard even more wealth, without having to work for it, then i guess you'd be right.

I'll stick to the actual definition of "fair."
Click to expand...

The rich pay a disproportionately high amount of taxes in the US. When there is a tax cut, they stand to save the most.

Thats fair, except to a wealth redistributionist. Stop worrying about ways to get other peoples money.
 
Absentglare said:
Wtf? Srsly?
Click to expand...

:screwy

Prove otherwise Absentglare. I've provided the links and the information. Please do the same.

Prove that a sector of the economy that employs @ 85,000 people is responsible for median home prices in the mid $800 thousands. Refute the findings reported in the article I posted and provided links to.
 
US Conservative said:
Im amazed at how many lefties who haven't been here think California is some lefty utopia. A 10 minute drive out of the tourist areas shows a much different picture.
Click to expand...

10 minute drive? more like 2 minute walk. Most of the tourist attractions are in complete dumps. Hollywood? Anaheim? The main tourist district of SF is literally RIGHT NEXT to the tenderloin.

That said, would rather be in CA than other parts of the US - even if the current trend continues and all you have left is trash and rich people.
 
ocean515 said:
Seriously?

First, I never wrote that. Please point to that exact phrase in any posts on this thread. You've got I in quotations, so it should be easy to do.

Second, do you honestly think an $859,000 median home price level was created by tourism?

Let's not get so carried away in defending an ideology that nothing of substance results. Why not post a link or two to back up your contentions? I have.
Click to expand...

I'd say the largest reason for the absurdly high median home prices in SF is NIMBY's. Seriously. They block new residential development projects left and right. There is a serious housing shortage in the city. A big problem right now is people converting rental units into AirBnB units to cater to tourists, which is causing even more problems for available housing.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Citations needed
Click to expand...

Will there come a time when you post a link that refutes what you don't believe is accurate?

http://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/news/documents/2012/07/28/323164_1d29welfare-1.pdf

SACRAMENTO — When Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature overhauled the state’s welfare program last month, some people learned a jarring fact for the first time: California has one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients.

That California has a lot of people on welfare was not a secret. In addition to its size, the state has a long history of heavy focus on social services, in part because of years of Democratic dominance in Sacramento.

But the size of California’s welfare rolls is disproportionate when you consider the state has only 12 percent of the nation’s population. Some of it has to do with the benefits being more generous than in many other states, but experts also point to various economic and social factors.
 
foadi said:
10 minute drive? more like 2 minute walk. Most of the tourist attractions are in complete dumps. Hollywood? Anaheim? The main tourist district of SF is literally RIGHT NEXT to the tenderloin.

That said, would rather be in CA than other parts of the US - even if the current trend continues and all you have left is trash and rich people.
Click to expand...

So i guess we will just have to face facts that California will turn red in 2016 I suppose. lol
 
ocean515 said:
See post #146.

Should the tech sector suffer a similar fate as the dot.com bust that capped the knees of California in '89-'90, San Francisco's collapse will be felt around the country. Who exactly would be beating a path to San Francisco, when it's run by people who champion felons, are anti-business, anti-visitor, and devoid of most generally accepted social norms?
Click to expand...
I would. I love living in SF. Main reason I don't live there anymore is the ridiculous living costs. Cheaper to just split a slip fee with friends up in Marin county and commute to the city every now and then nowadays. But would absolutely love to see SF collapse again. I don't think it will happen, but I sure hope it does. The dot com bust happened in 99/00 btw, not 89/90.
 
poweRob said:
So i guess we will just have to face facts that California will turn red in 2016 I suppose. lol
Click to expand...
I don't think it will turn red any time soon. I think the CAGOP is focusing on the right thing, however. Instead of focusing on the governor, they focused their efforts on getting rid of the democrat supermajority last election, and succeeded. Continue focusing on the legislature and try to get more favorable districts when redistricting comes up again after next census. They need to stop wasting money on bounties for new GOP registrations though, I don't know why they waste their money on that nonsense.
 
foadi said:
I'd say the largest reason for the absurdly high median home prices in SF is NIMBY's. Seriously. They block new residential development projects left and right. There is a serious housing shortage in the city. A big problem right now is people converting rental units into AirBnB units to cater to tourists, which is causing even more problems for available housing.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, I'm sure you can provide some cites indicating your explanation is accurate.

The information I have reviewed indicates the influx of high paid tech industry workers have pushed the pricing higher. Of course, supply will always have an impact on costs. Also, there is considerable push back against development that will impact views of the skyline and beyond - a legitimate issue.

For reference to the information and conclusions I have offered, I refer you to the link below.

Why Housing Is So Expensive In San Francisco - Business Insider

San Francisco is a great place to live, if you can afford it.

The only problem is, many can't. Median rent in the city is more than $1,463 per month. That's higher than every other major city in the U.S.

Like any other economic problem, we can boil this one down to supply and demand.

With all of the recent fervor over employees at tech giants moving to the city, most of the attention has been placed on the demand side of the problem: people are upset that well-paid software engineers are driving up their rents.

But there's also a supply side to the issue that needs to be considered: Maybe there isn't enough housing in the city to go around. If people want to live in San Francisco, and they don't want rent to go up, then we need to build more units for people to live in.​
 
foadi said:
I would. I love living in SF. Main reason I don't live there anymore is the ridiculous living costs. Cheaper to just split a slip fee with friends up in Marin county and commute to the city every now and then nowadays. But would absolutely love to see SF collapse again. I don't think it will happen, but I sure hope it does. The dot com bust happened in 99/00 btw, not 89/90.
Click to expand...

You are correct. 99/00. Wrong transition of decade. There was a time I really enjoyed trips to SF for both business and pleasure. That was many years ago. Will not go there now.
 
ocean515 said:
If that is the case, I'm sure you can provide some cites indicating your explanation is accurate.

The information I have reviewed indicates the influx of high paid tech industry workers have pushed the pricing higher. Of course, supply will always have an impact on costs. Also, there is considerable push back against development that will impact views of the skyline and beyond - a legitimate issue.

For reference to the information and conclusions I have offered, I refer you to the link below.

Why Housing Is So Expensive In San Francisco - Business Insider

San Francisco is a great place to live, if you can afford it.

The only problem is, many can't. Median rent in the city is more than $1,463 per month. That's higher than every other major city in the U.S.

Like any other economic problem, we can boil this one down to supply and demand.

With all of the recent fervor over employees at tech giants moving to the city, most of the attention has been placed on the demand side of the problem: people are upset that well-paid software engineers are driving up their rents.

But there's also a supply side to the issue that needs to be considered: Maybe there isn't enough housing in the city to go around. If people want to live in San Francisco, and they don't want rent to go up, then we need to build more units for people to live in.​
Click to expand...

Bay Area Housing Prices Are Being Driven Up By Very Low Supply, Says Math - The Numbers - Curbed SF

Bay Area Housing Prices Are Being Driven Up By Very Low Supply, Says Math

Low housing supply is leading to high rental prices all across the United States, but in San Francisco the situation is worse than in nearly every other metro area in the country, according to a new report from real estate website Zillow. Renters in the five-county San Francisco metropolitan area (San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, and San Mateo counties) spend an average of 44 percent of their monthly income on rent, a figure that comes in behind only Los Angeles' 48.2 percent. The Zillow report found that areas with slow population growth or high rates of new construction were more affordable, while metros like San Francisco, where there were just 193 new housing units permitted for every new 1,000 residents, saw prices soar.

That figure (only 193 units created for every new 1,000 residents) is about in line with Paragon Real Estate's recent, and equally depressing, report noting that San Francisco proper built only 7,500 new housing units for the 45,000-strong population bump the city has seen since 2010, a longer timespan than Zillow's report.

[. . .]​

The main reason for the low number of new residential units is NIMBYism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom