|
Dusseldorf posted:I don't know anyone under thirty who bought in California in general. The only people I know who have managed that feat (and I only know two) are both engineers whose parents gave them the down payment as a graduation gift.
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
Fruity Rudy posted:I'm fascinated by the escalating microcosm of American inequality transforming San Francisco. This is so true, and so sad. Anyone who thinks the Bay Area is the last bastion of progressive values should read up on last year's BART strike. The union got its rear end kicked in the court of public opinion. Management would have broken the union outright had two workers not been killed during the strike.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:14
|
|
Kobayashi posted:This is so true, and so sad. Anyone who thinks the Bay Area is the last bastion of progressive values should read up on last year's BART strike. The union got its rear end kicked in the court of public opinion. Management would have broken the union outright had two workers not been killed during the strike. I don't even feel like there's any excuse for suffering from this delusion. San Francisco is a major city in the United States, and a finance capitol no less. What chance does it have of being genuinely progressive.
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:This is so true, and so sad. Anyone who thinks the Bay Area is the last bastion of progressive values should read up on last year's BART strike. The union got its rear end kicked in the court of public opinion. Management would have broken the union outright had two workers not been killed during the strike. I'm not really convinced this is a new attitude though, just one that people didn't pay attention to until recently. "gently caress the homeless" definitely isn't new.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Fruity Rudy posted:The Guardian has a nice piece on the subject: "Is San Francisco Losing Its Soul?" That article makes some good points, but it's also full of bullshit claims like: quote:Until recently, San Francisco, California – a small city of around 825,000 poised on the tip of a peninsular on America's western edge that sprang up during the 1840s gold rush – wasn't thought of as a centre for business. Rather, it was famed as an artistic, bohemian place with a history of flowering counter-cultures that spilled over and changed America and the world, from the beats in North Beach to the hippies in the hilly region of Haight- Ashbury to the gay rights movement in the Castro neighbourhood. Jefferson Airplane's Paul Kantner called it "49 square miles surrounded by reality". It's a completely ignorant tourist view of SF. Wasn't thought of as a business center until recently? Yeah, I guess the city's status as a primary business center of the west coast starting in the 1850s was all a dream (and it was the primary business center of the west until the mid 1920s, when LA passed it in population). Wells Fargo, Bank of America, the Pacific stock exchange, Hearst Corporation, Chevron, Visa, Bechtel, etc, etc, etc never were founded/headquartered in SF! poo poo, before tech started booming in SF, there was no business at all! Everyone was a hippie and/or beatnik, and no one worked. And a "small" city of 825,000? Nevermind that the SF Bay Area has over 8 million people, making it the 5th largest metropolitan area in the US. themrguy posted:I know a couple people who work in SF regional politics, and evidently Yee has always had a reputation as something of a slimeball who does shady poo poo. Still, they're pretty shocked that instead of getting busted for getting campaign contributions from illegal sources or something similar, he was loving helping to sneak MANPADS into the country. Jesus. Know when to quit Leland. Yeah, I remember reading about him getting caught picking up hookers in the mission district several years ago. And those aren't even nice hookers. Capp street hookers.  I hope you like grime, meth and/or crack, and pimps that'll stab you if you stare at them too long. Though that's changing now, due to gentrification.
Rah! fucked around with this message at 23:35 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Was wikipedia down? That makes me wonder if Londoners know anything at all about this country. I guess only the mythologized versions of cities make it out of the US intact. Makes me insanely curious about what the author might write about LA.
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
I didn't want to get into this, but if it'll get my writing chops going, fine.Mayor Dave posted:The biggest problem I saw was the absolute failure of the union to inform anyone why they were striking. To a lot of the students, who had already experienced multiple strikes earlier this year, the only messaging was a flier talking about unisex bathrooms and fighting deportation. These might be important issues, but when you're striking over unfair labor practices and the failure of contract negotiations you can't get tied up in the identity politics stuff. A lot of students who might be convinced to support the union's economic issues aren't getting the economic message at all. You didn't read the flyer very closely then, because it discussed the unfair labor practices in detail. They also included elements of the bargaining points for reference. I don't really expect undergrads to read the entire bargaining manifesto, but it's all out there As for the identity politics, they are part of the negotiations! They're part of the unfair labor practices! 1) Gender-neutral bathrooms were one of the bargaining points focused on most heavily between the parties at the time of the strike. Being able to take a piss while working without fear of being attacked is a pretty basic thing that shouldn't have been pushed back on in the first place, but hey, that's just me. All that said, the union successfully got gender-neutral bathrooms in negotiations in the past 2 weeks! 2) The UC relies heavily on international students to make up the grad student ranks and teach/research. Having administration threaten this large population with deportation for participating in entirely legal activities is pretty drat ridiculous. It's a next level up from threatening to fire someone for participating in union activities, which I'm sure you understand is bullshit. 2b) You might have noticed a demand about undocumented workers, which essentially amounts to "if you were unlucky enough to grow up as an undocumented immigrant, you can't legally work as a TA". It would make sense that a union would try to get equitable working conditions for every grad student, right? These things are not some separate nebulous "other" that inhibits negotiation on the economic issues. They're inherent aspects of the agreed upon negotiation process. I will admit, certain people in the current leadership have had tunnel vision on identity politics. That's part of the current holy war at issue in the union election. But it's not some either-or situation, nor do these internal issues de-legitimize the strike. Also, you said "multiple" strikes. There were all of two directly involving the TA union this year: one was a sympathy strike with the service & patient-care workers in AFSCME 3299 (which covered the same issues of management intimidating union people during AFSCME's own negotiations) in November, and one was the aforementioned strike for the TA union only. Both were about UC administration clamping down on organizing in the midst of contract negotiations to gain an upper hand, which was quite clearly articulated by every union involved. I get your skepticism on the effectiveness of these tactics and I will say that I'm not the happiest about how certain things have gone. My complaints, however, are about engagement within the union, which is far outside the complaints voiced in this thread so far. Jerry Manderbilt posted:Will this state become ungovernable again if the Democrats lose their supermajority? At least it's not the Larouchites out by Langson. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:35
|
|
olution!" and there was a booth selling shirts for the Donnelly for Governor campaign saying "got liberty?" 
|
The high ratio of conservatives among STEM majors was the first thing that surprised me about the UC system. Probably because they were more likely to come from high income families and less likely to take any social justice classes in college.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:39
|
|
Telesphorus posted:The high ratio of conservatives among STEM majors was the first thing that surprised about the UC system. Probably because they were more likely to come from high income families and (of course) less likely to take any social justice classes. The d&d thread about this was called Terrible Engineering Political Views. It was, believe it or not, somewhat contentious.
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:Makes me insanely curious about what the author might write about LA. Hollywood, Mexicans, gangs, and NWA probably. When it comes to far off lands (and even close ones!), people tend to only know the stuff that's been sensationalized by the media, unless they've had a reason to learn more. But you'd think that someone writing a giant article for a well known news outlet would do a little more research.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Rah! posted:It's a completely ignorant tourist view of SF. Wasn't thought of as a business center until recently? Yeah, I guess the city's status as a primary business center of the west coast starting in the 1850s was all a dream (and it was the primary business center of the west until the mid 1920s, when LA passed it in population). Wells Fargo, Bank of America, the Pacific stock exchange, Hearst Corporation, Chevron, Visa, Bechtel, etc, etc, etc never were founded/headquartered in SF! poo poo, before tech started booming in SF, there was no business at all! Everyone was a hippie and/or beatnik, and no one worked. And a "small" city of 825,000? Nevermind that the SF Bay Area has over 8 million people, making it the 5th largest metropolitan area in the US. Eh, there's a difference between SF proper and the surrounding Bay Area. And I don't know, my understanding of the area is that SF was kinda-sorta analogous to Manhattan's East Side, in that it really didn't start to heavily gentrify until recently. Unlike the dot com spike, SF's latest wave of change started during the housing crisis and continues to this day. That's how I read it, anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Eh, there's a difference between SF proper and the surrounding Bay Area. Well yeah, but there are also similarities, namely that they're heavily connected economically and culturally, and are connected by unbroken development. Municipal boundaries are political in nature and relatively arbitrary, and measuring things based on them can be pretty meaningless. To get a sense of a city's true scale you should be looking at the metropolitan area or at least the urbanized area.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:The d&d thread about this was called Terrible Engineering Political Views. It was, believe it or not, somewhat contentious. I'm amazed by the amount of nice 40k cars that students drive. Must be parents giving their old cars (i.e. 2-5 years old) to their kids as gifts This college is heavily science-based and by no means a liberal arts college, although it recently had some union strikes. As a non-California native, this state is WAY more conservative than I thought. Stuff like gay marriage and climate change are generally accepted, but taxes are kinda scorned to an extent. I like Joel Stein's description of CA: "the liberal state that wants to spend on everything and the libertarian state that won't pay for anything."
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
I dunno. I'd say it's better than the Koch hellhole Wisconsin has become. Substantially better than Indiana ever was and better politically than NYC. Plenty of FYGM but it is very start-up friendly and the kinds of start-ups that happen here start with more of a shoe-string budget. Sure, it is upper-middle class transitioning to upper-class or living a faux-bohemian lifestyle but the neighborhoods that I see are pretty integrated which is very different from NYC. I tend to heavily value economic leftism over social liberalism, but my fiancee (and many, many people) value social liberalism above economic leftism. Having lived in both, I find the Bay Area to be much better than NYC from that narrow social perspective. Economically, there is a lot of shitlordism though. Frankly, more than I experienced in NYC. Part of that is because I make a lot more money now and a good friend of mine from college is a high-powered immigration lawyer who interned at Google so there is a lot of selection bias. But in NYC the class you belonged to was much more ossified. But Old Money, unlike New Money, knows how to keep their cash. NYC excels at Union-bloat and nicer lower-middle class jobs and opportunities because real money doesn't want a revolution. The social mobility in the Bay Area is a blessing and a curse.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Being socially liberal almost just means mind your own goddamned business, or be busy enough not to care. Being economically left is slightly more taxing and I cringe whenever I meet a libertarian feminist. Yes you're feminist, you're a woman. Yes you're LGBTQ-friendly, possibly because you have LGBTQ friends. You're an environmentalist? Well you do loving live in it. So far, no smug points awarded at all. Like, you could certainly be more of an rear end in a top hat, thank you for not being one I suppose. This is the Republican way of being made to care about a thing (a la Republican congressman whose mind suddenly blossomed when his son came out), and it's too slow to be useful.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:The high ratio of conservatives among STEM majors was the first thing that surprised me about the UC system. Probably because they were more likely to come from high income families and less likely to take any social justice classes in college. It's also pretty much not true unless you're looking for everyone to be a D&D approved leftist.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:Being socially liberal almost just means mind your own goddamned business, or be busy enough not to care. Being economically left is slightly more taxing and I cringe whenever I meet a libertarian feminist. Yes you're feminist, you're a woman. Yes you're LGBTQ-friendly, possibly because you have LGBTQ friends. You're an environmentalist? Well you do loving live in it. So far, no smug points awarded at all. Like, you could certainly be more of an rear end in a top hat, thank you for not being one I suppose. This is the Republican way of being made to care about a thing (a la Republican congressman whose mind suddenly blossomed when his son came out), and it's too slow to be useful. I agree. But having lived in areas where people very much do want to get into your business, the change is quite refreshing. Everyone having a sane view on social issues is a refreshing change of pace. Likewise, for all the problems the Bay Area has with gentrification (and there are a lot of them) where I live (Uptown) there is a really nice multiracial/multiclass mix. Not perfect, but go to Jack London and it's white as freshly fallen snow. Go to places like Temescal or Diamond District and you've got a nice racial and economic mix but the whites are also hiring private police to gently caress with people. And that's on the low-end of the ratfucking that's going on in the Bay vis-a-vie gentrification. Not to be "that guy" but since you aren't in California, can I ask what you are hoping to achieve by posting here? Most of D&D is about broader movement/ideological issues (which are super important) but given this thread's "local" focus I'm not sure what your position brings. I agree with what you are saying, so what? So what?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:12
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Not to be "that guy" but since you aren't in California, can I ask what you are hoping to achieve by posting here? Most of D&D is about broader movement/ideological issues (which are super important) but given this thread's "local" focus I'm not sure what your position brings. I agree with what you are saying, so what? So what? I thought that last post was pretty CA-relevant. Lots of people posting here will have no connection to the state and only a passing interest in the place. We're honestly here to keep you fucks from turning this into In-N-Out chat, yet again. I have an interest in California and have spent a lot of time there. Since to understand California is to understand Reagan is to understand where we are as a country now.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:I thought that last post was pretty CA-relevant. I'm not sure that "As goes Orange County, so goes the Country" makes sense. Otherwise, we'd have squandered a Democratic Supermajority and gone back to a brutal deadlock where nothing good happens. And that'd just be crazy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
It's me, I'm one of those guys driving up housing prices in the bay area. The weird thing is, it's not like these tech companies are exactly thrilled about high housing prices either, as that drives up the cost of their office space and forces them to raise salaries in order to attract workers from other parts of the country. If Google or Apple or whoever could have mongo-sized apartment complexes within walking distance, they'd be ecstatic.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:31
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I'm not sure that "As goes Orange County, so goes the Country" makes sense. Otherwise, we'd have squandered a Democratic Supermajority and gone back to a brutal deadlock where nothing good happens. California is politically, far and away the most interesting state. The oligarchs of every possible industry, the water battles, the hateful political divisions between the inlanders and the coastals, the prisons, the marine/army/AF/Naval bases, the Big One. It is the modern United States moreso than any other state, and if you could only pick out one to try to get a handle on the whole country, it would have to be yours. Come friend, this thread could be so much more than which freeways you all sat around on today.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
I know people at Google who have desirable apartments in the Marina and apartments in South Bay where they crash if they've worked too long and can't be assed to commute. Not a "normal" experience for the Bay Area but it seems fairly normal for them and their class of people. I know plenty of techies on the bottom rungs as well, but the people I'm talking about are middle management. It's a shame, since they are a classic example of rent-control abuse. Rent control shouldn't allow you to rent multiple properties.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's me, I'm one of those guys driving up housing prices in the bay area. The weird thing is, it's not like these tech companies are exactly thrilled about high housing prices either, as that drives up the cost of their office space and forces them to raise salaries in order to attract workers from other parts of the country. If Google or Apple or whoever could have mongo-sized apartment complexes within walking distance, they'd be ecstatic. There are actually conceptual plans for 13,000 units of housing in highrises right next to the new Apple headquarters in Cupertino, 10,000 new units near Google's headquarters in Mountain View, 9,400 new units near Facebook's Menlo Park headquarters, and 3,000 units near the Electronic Arts headquarters in Redwood City. http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/02/silicon_valleys_biggest_tech_campuses_as_selfcontained.html But the NIMBYs living in those towns would never let that stuff get built. NIMBYs are the reason nothing ever gets built on the necessary scale to meet demand, and that's why housing is so loving expensive here.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:Yes, people that would otherwise be sympathetic until they have to suffer inconvenience. Ie people whose sympathies do not run very deep at all. You have problems on your campus which go way beyond intermittent closures. You either support the strikers or you don't. Not that each and every strike is worthy of support, but regardless of whether you're generally pro-union, it does not sound like you support these particular strikers. To me, the frustrating part is that I do support the strikers, or at the very least their grievances. Sure, some of their messaging is a bit odd in my mind, but overall I support what they're going for. I mean, I experienced first hand the benefits of their collective bargaining when I was able to get a health insurance plan that wasn't poo poo when I was a graduate student, for example. But that doesn't mean I have to like every method they try. Admittedly, I was in the sciences, but not engineering or anything; most of my classmates were definitely very liberal, and were really frustrated to pissed off about not being able to get onto campus, and I think simply calling it an "inconvenience" is disingenuous. Halting productivity is one thing, in which case they should focus on halting their productivity, rather than keeping other students and faculty from attending class or teaching. A few of the ideas thrown out by the union were TAs not showing up for section, not grading exams/papers, and other things centered around those. I was fine with them doing that (back when I was TAing and they threatened that, I probably wouldn't have done it myself). I don't really now how else to put it though. I support the union and what they're fighting for, but I think shutting down campus is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Is there really any practical way to address gentrification in the Bay Area? I guess I'm confused, because if there's a tech boom in an area that's expensive to begin with, then of course non-tech skilled people are going to be at a disadvantage. It does, however, make me wonder how the hell police officers and mailmen afford to live there - even in apartments, let alone raise families? Do they all have to commute to the city they police/deliver mail in? Seems like these changes are out of our control. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:I thought that last post was pretty CA-relevant. A friendly reminder that CA used to have a Euro like higher education for all system, until Reagan and company destroyed.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:Is there really any practical way to address gentrification in the Bay Area? I guess I'm confused, because if there's a tech boom in an area that's expensive to begin with, then of course non-tech skilled people are going to be at a disadvantage. Here in San Diego you can get affordable housing downtown but you're having multiple roomies or living in a flophouse. Our county is really big and spread out, though, and we have a semblance of public transportation so it's not too bad. North County and San Diego proper are almost like 2 totally different cities though, transportation-wise.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's me, I'm one of those guys driving up housing prices in the bay area. The weird thing is, it's not like these tech companies are exactly thrilled about high housing prices either, as that drives up the cost of their office space and forces them to raise salaries in order to attract workers from other parts of the country. If Google or Apple or whoever could have mongo-sized apartment complexes within walking distance, they'd be ecstatic. I don't know what this is about, since it's a lot cheaper to live in San Jose than in the city proper and it's closer to the mothership for most tech employees. Google and Apple can't make that area more appealing than The City, no matter what type of housing is available in San Jose.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:Is there really any practical way to address gentrification in the Bay Area? I guess I'm confused, because if there's a tech boom in an area that's expensive to begin with, then of course non-tech skilled people are going to be at a disadvantage. CA is the best place in the country to be a public employee. SFPD start at 80 grand, although that may just be the high cost of living.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
themrguy posted:CA is the best place in the country to be a public employee. SFPD start at 80 grand, although that may just be the high cost of living. As a federal employee here in CA cost of living accounts for something like a 24% raise over the national average in my pay. I think living here is still more expensive than that, though.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
SporkOfTruth posted:I didn't want to get into this, but if it'll get my writing chops going, fine.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Here in San Diego you can get affordable housing downtown but you're having multiple roomies or living in a flophouse. Our county is really big and spread out, though, and we have a semblance of public transportation so it's not too bad. North County and San Diego proper are almost like 2 totally different cities though, transportation-wise. However, it is pretty awesome to take the Coaster down from Oceanside to San Diego. Especially to a Padres game since you can byob on the way down.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:Is there really any practical way to address gentrification in the Bay Area? I guess I'm confused, because if there's a tech boom in an area that's expensive to begin with, then of course non-tech skilled people are going to be at a disadvantage. To me, it is about making people pay their fare share. I'm not wealthy by Bay standards, but I started here at around 90K/yr for my family and we're gonna be approaching this August at around 200K/yr. It's not "Bay Area Rich" but it's a stupid amount of money. Much more than I ever expected to be making in my life. I love my lifestyle, nice apartment, fancy booze, nice restaurants -- it's a good loving gig. But if progressive taxation meant that I "only" went from 90K to 95K instead of 90K to 200K I'd still be happier than a pig in poo poo. If Full Communism were implemented tomorrow I'd be lined up against a wall and shot (rightfully so). And I'd be OK with that. Better still would be a world where everyone has a fair chance at living their dream, be it the more difficult apartment in the sky or the modest house with a vegetable garden and a family. As a "have" but not a real "macher" level "have" what can I do? I'm living pay-check-to-pay-check because my (very well paying) job has me living in a nice area. Living more cheaply would make me the worst kind of gentrifier. I'll march and I'll donate. I tried running but I'm much too ugly and that's OK. What more do you want me to do?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:Is there really any practical way to address gentrification in the Bay Area? I guess I'm confused, because if there's a tech boom in an area that's expensive to begin with, then of course non-tech skilled people are going to be at a disadvantage. San Francisco has been adding quite a bit of housing in the last couple years, along with some developer subsided affordable housing. But the demand is so high, there really is no way to keep pace with the demand. Public workers really are starting to be priced out of SF. Younger workers typically can get roommates, but once you start thinking bout kids, you're moving out of the city. Most do commute (you can see a huge amount of public sector workers getting off the BART from the east bay at Civic Center station). SFPD and firefighters make enough to stay in the city, if they live out in the western neighborhoods, as they are pretty well paid. But I really don't see an answer to addressing high costs of living, outside of towns on the peninsula starting to allow for denser construction. But the NIMBYs there aren't going to let that happen.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
ace8989 posted:Up here in North County, if you miss the bus, you're better off trying to find a ride from someone since most of the waits are 30 minutes. The buses down here are usually around 20 minutes depending on the neighborhood. I live in Imperial Beach and during college took public transportation to East Lake for school and then out to Pacific Beach for work and it was doable. You spent almost 3=4 hours a day doing it but it was doable.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Rah! posted:It's a completely ignorant tourist view of SF. Wasn't thought of as a business center until recently? Yeah, I guess the city's status as a primary business center of the west coast starting in the 1850s was all a dream (and it was the primary business center of the west until the mid 1920s, when LA passed it in population). Wells Fargo, Bank of America, the Pacific stock exchange, Hearst Corporation, Chevron, Visa, Bechtel, etc, etc, etc never were founded/headquartered in SF! poo poo, before tech started booming in SF, there was no business at all! Everyone was a hippie and/or beatnik, and no one worked. And a "small" city of 825,000? Nevermind that the SF Bay Area has over 8 million people, making it the 5th largest metropolitan area in the US. Very good point. The problem I usually have with the approach of a lot of progressives, like the Bay Guardian, is they all think San Francisco is some sort of falling liberal utopia. Except for the early 2000s backlash against Willie Brown, and a brief blip in the 70s, the city government has always been very friendly to the corporate downtown interests. Because those interests have been the dominate feature of the city since the gold rush. And the second problem is when progressives are elected, they end up being alienating idiots like Chris Daly. San Francisco is still very progressive compared to most other major cities in the United States. But it's still a big city with a lot of money, and pretending otherwise never really helps the progressive cause.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
themrguy posted:CA is the best place in the country to be a public employee. SFPD start at 80 grand, although that may just be the high cost of living. Police and Corrections Officers aren't in the same universe as the rest of the state government. I've been a full time unionized state employee for five years and make 29k.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Dead Last posted:Very good point. The problem I usually have with the approach of a lot of progressives, like the Bay Guardian, is they all think San Francisco is some sort of falling liberal utopia. Except for the early 2000s backlash against Willie Brown, and a brief blip in the 70s, the city government has always been very friendly to the corporate downtown interests. Because those interests have been the dominate feature of the city since the gold rush. It's more similar at least to NYC with mainly moderate limousine liberals, with the occasionally progressive firebrand who ends up being a footnote in history. A pile of companies are based in SF too similar to NYC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_based_in_San_Francisco
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Police and Corrections Officers aren't in the same universe as the rest of the state government. I've been a full time unionized state employee for five years and make 29k. They've got the unions that both Dems and Republicans love! It's not to begrudge the unions for advocating for their members, but they definitely work in a different political world than other public sector workers.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
CA is best state since we allow replicants to become our leaders: http://jackyan.com/blog/2014/02/do-mayoral-candidates-dream-of-electric-sheep/ 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:40
|
|