Thousands of New Millionaires Are About to Eat San Francisco Alive

[Will O' Wisp]

You know San Francisco always makes me wonder. If you live in a tiny apartment, in a bad neighborhood, where the streets are covered with trash and homelessness, you're in heavy debt, and you constantly worry about making rent, does it even matter how much money is in your paycheck? Do you really count as a millionaire when your life is the same as any other working poor?

Perhaps millionaire is a bit of an exaggeration, but that's very much the reality for people making sub-80k in SF.

[mhays]

Most of the city isn't like what you described. At $80k you'd live like a college student, but in your free time you could be out and about in a great city.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

You know San Francisco always makes me wonder. If you live in a tiny apartment, in a bad neighborhood, where the streets are covered with trash and homelessness, you're in heavy debt, and you constantly worry about making rent, does it even matter how much money is in your paycheck? Do you really count as a millionaire when your life is the same as any other working poor?

Perhaps millionaire is a bit of an exaggeration, but that's very much the reality for people making sub-80k in SF.

this narrative is really tiresome. and untrue.

maybe you've lived here a while and your apartment is rent-controlled. maybe you have a roommate. maybe you live in a charming little in-law unit in a quiet part of town. hundreds of thousands people live comfortably here on 70k or 80k.

san francisco is a beautiful city. there are still places to get an incredible burrito for 7 or 8 bucks or a beer and a shot for 5. a cross-town train ride for $2 (bart) or $2.50 (muni.) incredible parks, for free. beaches, for free. museums on some days, for free. public events, for free. you don't need a car. mild weather, incredible views, one of north america's most walkable cities. there are not camps of homeless people "everywhere." yes, it's a problem. yes, it's getting better. no, they're not an impediment to daily life. i walk 6 or 7 miles in the city every single day, to work and meetings and restaurants and bars and parks and with my two little girls and we have never once felt unsafe. sad for people's situation, yes. do we have to constantly step over twitching addicts and feces and needles and whatever else fox news would like you to believe? no. never, in fact.

i work in an office of a couple hundred people were the median salary below the executive level is around 70k. these people aren't miserable. they love it here, or they'd leave. they could, in a heartbeat. no, they don't live in a 150k mcmansion or a brand-new townhouse all by themselves.

your "very much the reality" is bullshit.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

You know San Francisco always makes me wonder. If you live in a tiny apartment, in a bad neighborhood, where the streets are covered with trash and homelessness, you're in heavy debt, and you constantly worry about making rent, does it even matter how much money is in your paycheck? Do you really count as a millionaire when your life is the same as any other working poor?

Perhaps millionaire is a bit of an exaggeration, but that's very much the reality for people making sub-80k in SF.

If your paycheck is fat, you won't live there; you'll live somewhere fancier. But assuming your paycheck is only adequate for that particular lifestyle, it will depend on what makes you happy beyond having the cleanest of streets and multiple rooms you may rarely use.

In the opinion of most of us who live there, and in spite of the national press creating "fake news" on the subject, only a tiny portion of San Francisco can really be called a "bad neighborhood". The city's hotels continue to be packed with tourists enjoying the other 95%. What you are describing really only fits a few blocks in the Tenderloin and perhaps a few more in South of Market, and the bleakest of personal circumstances (the debt, difficulty making rent and so on). The rest of the city is highly walkable, filled with excellent restaurants and clubs and cafes. It has world class haut culture (opera, symphony, ballet) which can be affordable under certain circumstances (standing room tickets and so on), multiple good art galleries that are free at certain times, and a lot of natural beauty. Even those Tenderloin blocks have "dive bars" some enjoy. The climate many of us find exceedingly comfortable--we don't need artifical heating or cooling and can have the windows open all year around (which also means low utility bills).

San Francisco also has rent control and a lot of people enjoy its benefits. One of my best friends has a large studio apartment up the slope of Nob Hill from the Tenderloin (real estate agents call it "baja Nob Hill") and pays under $1000 per month, which he has no trouble making. This is way under the market rate but it's rent controlled. He can and does walk to work. And almost everything else he needs in life is within walking distance--no car required. In spite of a modest income, he has no long term debt (I am not privy to his current credit card balance).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mthd

there are still places to get an incredible burrito for 7 or 8 bucks

Oh, sh*t. Seems like they were 6 bucks when I left in October.

[BrownTown]

I feel like this whole discussion is based on a false premise. The idea here is that people are rational creatures and are logically weighing the pros and cons of different locations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Humans are FAR from rational and do not think or behave in a rational manner. People who have lived in a certain location for a long time get used to that type of lifestyle. People everywhere thing their way of living is the best because that's what they're used to and what makes sense to them. If you've never even lived in multiple part of the country then you really have no basis to even argue which is better or worse.

[mt_climber13]

Medical Convention Cancels on San Francisco Because Its Streets Are So Distressing

Complaints of syringes and feces rise dramatically in SF

New map shows the SF neighborhoods with the most street poop

SF Mayor: 'There's More Feces ... Than I've Ever Seen'

San Francisco's homelessness crisis is so bad, people appear to be using poop to graffiti the sidewalks

SF neighborhood, police powerless against car break-ins

San Francisco is a 'train wreck' because of the 'tech sector,' says Marc Benioff

Hidden Cameras Reveal Rare View of 'Epidemic' as Car Break-Ins Hit Record High of Nearly 30,000 in San Francisco

Despite money and effort, homelessness in SF as bad as ever

San Francisco’s summer of urine and drug-addicted homeless

2 Million Syringes Still Missing As San Francisco's Drug Addicts Outnumber High-School Students

San Francisco streets are so dirty, the city is spending nearly $300,000 on trash bins that send a warning when they’re overflowing

Spotify Abandons Its San Francisco HQ Over Homelessness, Safety Issues

Clean up San Francisco’s streets, tourist industry pleads

SF tourist industry struggles to explain street misery to horrified visitors



Should I go on?
(and not one of them is a Fox News source)

[mthd]

nice work. we have google in san francisco too. the fact that people love to write about something doesn’t correlate to how big of a problem it is, only how interesting it is to write about. it’s intetesting to people to write about because san francisco is so rich, and a popular tourist destination, and because polarized politics sell clicks or papers.

would it be nice if san francisco was cleaner and had less homeless people? yes. the city is working on it. the “problem” is grossly blown out of proportion (as are cost of living estimates based on median rents based only on large multi-unit buildings.)

i just got back from a long walk through three neighborhoods. the absolute worst thing i saw was a stack of cardboard boxes. it really, really sucks living in the nation’a 9th dirtiest city.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/calif...ty-But-NYC-Takes-the-Cake-474780363.html

[mhays]

The city has problems. But the vast majority of it is good or great. Those aren't contradictory points.

[DePaul Bunyan]

I'm 31 and one of the reasons I've worked hard to get a decent career making $80k+ it's so I don't have to "live like a college student." I could probably make over $100k/yr in SF but even then that wouldn't be enough to afford a place without roommates. And forget ever owning a home....

[mhays]

This thread isn't about "SF is for everybody." It's about SF being for a lot of people, and the local economics are about to get a sizable kick.

I wouldn't live there either, but that's not the point.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mt_climber13

Medical Convention Cancels on San Francisco Because Its Streets Are So Distressing

Complaints of syringes and feces rise dramatically in SF

New map shows the SF neighborhoods with the most street poop

SF Mayor: 'There's More Feces ... Than I've Ever Seen'

San Francisco's homelessness crisis is so bad, people appear to be using poop to graffiti the sidewalks

SF neighborhood, police powerless against car break-ins

San Francisco is a 'train wreck' because of the 'tech sector,' says Marc Benioff

Hidden Cameras Reveal Rare View of 'Epidemic' as Car Break-Ins Hit Record High of Nearly 30,000 in San Francisco

Despite money and effort, homelessness in SF as bad as ever

San Francisco’s summer of urine and drug-addicted homeless

2 Million Syringes Still Missing As San Francisco's Drug Addicts Outnumber High-School Students

San Francisco streets are so dirty, the city is spending nearly $300,000 on trash bins that send a warning when they’re overflowing

Spotify Abandons Its San Francisco HQ Over Homelessness, Safety Issues

Clean up San Francisco’s streets, tourist industry pleads

SF tourist industry struggles to explain street misery to horrified visitors



Should I go on?
(and not one of them is a Fox News source)

The press is like a dog with a bone and they are enjoying this one to the max. What sells it is the contrast between the city's extreme wealth and natural beauty, at least one or the other and often both enjoyed by so many, and the isolated areas of poverty which are part of its "image". They exist because we allow them to since we pride ourselves on "tolerance" and "permissiveness" to an extreme few other places do. We could crack down like other cities might--and personally I wish we would--but it wouldn't be "San Franciscan. So the press will keep sending reporters to our fair city to enjoy themselves--I bet they line up to report this story--and film a sidewalk t*rd.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mthd

would it be nice if san francisco was cleaner and had less homeless people? yes. the city is working on it. the “problem” is grossly blown out of proportion (as are cost of living estimates based on median rents based only on large multi-unit buildings.)

i just got back from a long walk through three neighborhoods. the absolute worst thing i saw was a stack of cardboard boxes. it really, really sucks living in the nation’a 9th dirtiest city.

You know we could probably sweep the streets of homeless and their problems in a weekend if we viewed that as "San Franciscan" but we don't. Many of us celebrate "alternative lifestyles" and that includes the right to live "rough" if you prefer it to a city shelter (and it's not hard to see why some do). If all it took was building warehouses for the homeless and forcing them to live there, we could do it but there will likely never be a local majority for that solution. So the tents on sidewalks in some neighborhoods have become just part of the scenery, bothering only those who let themselves be bothered.

I also think it's a false concept that the people we see and their problems are of local making. I think many--maybe most--of themcome to coastal California for the same reason others do: It's the climate, stupid, and the public generosity toward them and their lifestyle. We didn't make them homeless so much as take care of them better than anywhere else in the country would. So they are here. Meh.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

I'm 31 and one of the reasons I've worked hard to get a decent career making $80k+ it's so I don't have to "live like a college student." I could probably make over $100k/yr in SF but even then that wouldn't be enough to afford a place without roommates. And forget ever owning a home....

Sure, but everything comes with tradeoffs. You just have to pick yours.

You can have a 2,500 sq ft McMansion with a huge back yard and a V8 4x4 Chevy Suburban in the driveway, but then you won't be able to walk 30 seconds from your front door to a high-quality $7 burrito. (Or a free museum, etc.)

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

You know we could probably sweep the streets of homeless and their problems in a weekend if we viewed that as "San Franciscan" but we don't. Many of us celebrate "alternative lifestyles" and that includes the right to live "rough" if you prefer it to a city shelter (and it's not hard to see why some do). If all it took was building warehouses for the homeless and forcing them to live there, we could do it but there will likely never be a local majority for that solution. So the tents on sidewalks in some neighborhoods have become just part of the scenery, bothering only those who let themselves be bothered.

Dude, homeless people aren't choosing to be homeless as part of some hippie spirit quest BS, they're doing it because they're seriously fucked in the head. Most homeless people are either addicted to drugs, mentally ill or both. They are not capable of making rational decisions about their own welfare and you're not doing them any favor by letting them live out in the elements.

Originally Posted by lio45

Sure, but everything comes with tradeoffs. You just have to pick yours.

You can have a 2,500 sq ft McMansion with a huge back yard and a V8 4x4 Chevy Suburban in the driveway, but then you won't be able to walk 30 seconds from your front door to a high-quality $7 burrito. (Or a free museum, etc.)

1. A 2,500sq ft home is smaller than the average new home in the US. That is not a "McMansion", it's just a normal home. McMansions are 4000+ sqft.

2. What is it with you are this freaking $7 burrito? Do you think that's some sort of rare thing around the US? Because it's not.. If you're trying to make a case about San Francisco's food choices than at least bring up Asian food, not a burrito.

3. Most people in San Francisco are not 30 seconds away from a museum. They may be closer than the average American, but most people go to the museum like 1-3 times a year. That's not something you need to be across the street from. Also a list of the best museums in the country will show the majority of them are here in the NorthEast corridor. I'm not aware of any in San Francisco that even breaks the top 25 in the US.

[DePaul Bunyan]

Originally Posted by lio45

Sure, but everything comes with tradeoffs. You just have to pick yours.

You can have a 2,500 sq ft McMansion with a huge back yard and a V8 4x4 Chevy Suburban in the driveway, but then you won't be able to walk 30 seconds from your front door to a high-quality $7 burrito. (Or a free museum, etc.)

2,500 SF McMansion and a V8 4x4 Chevy Suburban (I'm more of a Ford Raptor guy myself...) in some sprawling exurb with no character and $2500/m to split a fleabag 3BR in SF with two or more other people are not the only two choices you know, and there's nothing inherently better about people who choose one over the other. I'm the kind of person who looks at where to live and thinks of it from a mostly financial point of view (what is the job situation, etc.). Some of the more urban-minded people here seem to go a bit beyond that and seem to have their identity very much wrapped up in their housing choices. There's this undercurrent of resentment towards the suburbs, as if choosing more space, better schools, cheaper housing, and quiet living is a character flaw. For some, not being able to walk to a variety of ethnic restaurants is a non-starter, for others streets lined with tent cities and littered with dirty needles and human feces is a non-starter.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Dude, homeless people aren't choosing to be homeless as part of some hippie spirit quest BS, they're doing it because they're seriously fucked in the head. Most homeless people are either addicted to drugs, mentally ill or both. They are not capable of making rational decisions about their own welfare and you're not doing them any favor by letting them live out in the elements.


1. A 2,500sq ft home is smaller than the average new home in the US. That is not a "McMansion", it's just a normal home. McMansions are 4000+ sqft.

2. What is it with you are this freaking $7 burrito? Do you think that's some sort of rare thing around the US? Because it's not.. If you're trying to make a case about San Francisco's food choices than at least bring up Asian food, not a burrito.

3. Most people in San Francisco are not 30 seconds away from a museum. They may be closer than the average American, but most people go to the museum like 1-3 times a year. That's not something you need to be across the street from. Also a list of the best museums in the country will show the majority of them are here in the NorthEast corridor. I'm not aware of any in San Francisco that even breaks the top 25 in the US.

Yeah, this. There's definitely an air of superiority complex going on. I commute a decent amount for work, there are decent Mexican places nearly everywhere. I could probably find better Mexican food in an average exurb than in SF since SF has priced out most Mexicans. 2,500 is definitely not a McMansion by any stretch of the imagination, that's a fairly comfortable 3BR house. I wouldn't really want anything over 3kSF unless I won the lottery since that size is a huge pain to maintain. IDK if I would be considered suburban scum if my dream in 10 years is to buy a plot of vacant land or a teardown in some sunbelt city and put up a custom container home and go all solar, with a plug-in commuter car and maybe a nice offroader (Las Vegas is nice, still has cheap housing, a decently large metro with a good airport, commutes aren't terrible, and a lot of parks and outdoor stuff to do - plus no state income tax). And LV has excellent Mexican food, just not 30 seconds away...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

1. A 2,500sq ft home is smaller than the average new home in the US. That is not a "McMansion", it's just a normal home. McMansions are 4000+ sqft.

2. What is it with you are this freaking $7 burrito? Do you think that's some sort of rare thing around the US? Because it's not.. If you're trying to make a case about San Francisco's food choices than at least bring up Asian food, not a burrito.

3. Most people in San Francisco are not 30 seconds away from a museum. They may be closer than the average American, but most people go to the museum like 1-3 times a year. That's not something you need to be across the street from. Also a list of the best museums in the country will show the majority of them are here in the NorthEast corridor. I'm not aware of any in San Francisco that even breaks the top 25 in the US.

Come on, don't act like you didn't get my point. Replace the square footage I typed with whatever you consider "needlessly big", and replace the examples I lifted verbatim from a San Franciscan's list of the perks of living in San Francisco with "the advantages of walkability and a vibrant, dense neighborhood".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

Yeah, this. There's definitely an air of superiority complex going on.

Someone could say this goes both ways, though - your "I'm certainly not going to accept to live a cramped lifestyle like those suckers, I can afford space" could've sounded the same way to people with opposite tastes to yours.

Also, I certainly wasn't intending to lecture you. I have a backyard, and a heated garage (big enough that my 7.3 diesel 4x4 F350 fits and is in there at the moment, while my diesel 4x4 fullsize Chevy is outside). I'm pretty far from sharing a closet in San Francisco with roommates, just pointing out that there are advantages to that lifestyle too, not only drawbacks, and that not everyone has the same tastes.

[DCReid]

There's a thread asking what will Detroit be like in 20 years. Maybe we should speculate what the SF Bay area will be like in 20 years.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by lio45

Come on, don't act like you didn't get my point. Replace the square footage I typed with whatever you consider "needlessly big", and replace the examples I lifted verbatim from a San Franciscan's list of the perks of living in San Francisco with "the advantages of walkability and a vibrant, dense neighborhood".

Well first off as I said earlier it's a little silly for someone who has only lived in one place their whole life to even make claims regarding the pros and cons of different locations. When it comes to people I know who have moved to San Francisco the reason in 100% of cases was due to being offered a high paying job there. I am not personally aware of anyone who has moved to San Francisco for the burritos, museums or any other thing not directly related to their employment. I would personally have no problem moving to San Francisco, I would just need to make at least $300,000/yr to do so.