|
Dude, STEM students need a union hardcore. Sure, they usually have more money than Liberal Arts but paying someone 20K/year for a 90 hour work week for pretty terrible job prospects is insane. The problem is that most of them embrace that lifestyle as proper and correct. I'm glad I'm out of academia but drat, that lifestyle is nuts.
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
agarjogger posted:I don't think things are that bad for them at all right now, most of them have a reasonable expectation of a house before thirty. It's when the inevitable surplus of STEM hits that we're going to see some seriously pissed-off MechE grads. This surplus being so completely inevitable because no one will shut the gently caress up about the certainty of these degrees, and will not shut up until its five years too late. Maybe for engineers but the S, T and M portions of STEM are already lagging behind. You can find specialties in each that will pay well but that could be said of any major. A house before thirty? Not anyone who gets a Ph.D.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
I'm actually fine not owning, I prefer renting. It's much easier and fits better with my mobile lifestyle. Though my fiancee and I are entertaining the idea of buying a condo. I'm gonna be 32 soon and I'll take that. However, I'm incredibly lucky and through the superpower of being a white male I've managed to spectacularly fail upwards. It's pretty awesome to be me but looking at my friends and other people I know, my experience is very much the outlier.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
While it is lovely in a lot of ways I really love the reverse '50s that is SF where people actively move to urban centers and commute to the suburbs. Part of the overall "Cult of Sanity" that I get here, since suburbs are loving shitholes and should die.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
While there isn't much actual land, the land itself isn't well developed. The Bay Area is not vertically developed at all. It's time to start building up. It will never be a Manhattan because a lot of the ground isn't suitable for skyscrapers and earthquakes limit the maximum height but there is plenty of room for taller buildings. Everyday it seems like there is another petition to prevent another high rise from getting built. Mandate that X% (civil engineers can figure that part out) are affordable housing units and you've gone a long way towards relieving the pressure that the housing market is feelings. There needs to be more done about gentrification but making the housing market less of a complete gently caress-up is a good start. SF needs to stop pretending it is a quaint little city with nice old houses. It needs to build up like a proper city.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
I don't disagree with you. I'm just willing to throw NIMBYs a bone and start building up in the Mission, Oakland and other areas where people without proper political influence live. Nobody likes Projects but they are a fact of life in urban environments. As long as there is sufficient affordable housing it represents a Faustian choice but one that people have been historically been willing to take. Since this intersects with gentrification, you also have a lot of East Coast transplants (myself included) who value "living up high" so you can build luxury condos/apartments at the sam time (also with affordable housing units). There will be a certain amount of arson in reaction but high end housing can absorb that cost and the city can make that work at the expense of a better public transportation system for the foreseeable future. Ideally, they'd levy extra taxes on the housing developers to make up for the shortfall but HAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA that isn't happening.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Redgrendel2001 posted:I can guarantee you that this is never happening. I agree, there is no way the STEMs will unionize. There is too much of an anti-Communist presence from Koreans, plus Asian work ethic in general is pretty nuts. It leads to people just accepting what is a very bad situation.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Actually, a lot of it goes to things like fracking. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/us/californias-thirst-shapes-debate-over-fracking.html?hpw&rref=science
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
As a recent transplant to Oakland, who are the most D&D candidates to vote for in the primary? I know it is a way out but I want to start vandalizing campaign offices sooner rather than later. It's more of a SoCal thing, but I'm thinking arson is in this season.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Is there anyone who isn't a Green? I'd rather vote PSL than Green (and did, in the last Presidential election).
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
What is the point of segregation if all schools are equally funded? That isn't what America is about
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
The most efficient free market seems to dictate that we spend the most on rich kids and the least on poor kids. If that weren't maximally efficient, clearly the market would correct itself.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Has an economist studied how much of a house's value is based on the perceived quality of the school? If two identical houses are across the street, how much more is the one that sends their kids to a PA school vs. a EPA school? Economists are good, but they are really just ivory tower elitist wanking about what is actually happening on the ground. Industry leaders and middle class homebuyers determine where the market is set, not tweed wearing dorks.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
I am curious about more info on prop 13. I'm for it, not because I'm informed, but because the only times I've encountered prop 13 discussion is when right wing lunatics bring it up (n=3) and talk about how terrible it is. I figure if they are a against it, then it is probably a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
So why do firebreathers hate it?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Do you have any specific quotes on what they said? I'm genuinely curious, I used to listen to a fair bit of right wing radio back in the day and they would always talk about prop 13 being the gold standard of the Everyman fighting against excessive taxation. They would also have the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association on frequently to talk up whatever new anti-tax schemes they were dreaming up too. Slightly paraphrased (not exaggerated, it just isn't a word-for-word quote. She said stuff like this all the time) from one particular ex-coworker: "Prop 13 lets Illegals and people living in Oakland and Temescal pay basically nothing in rent while everybody else has to pay through the nose. If we could just get rid of it [Prop 13] and let the free market work, rents would plummet and normal people could afford to buy houses in the Bay." She was an out-and-proud Republican. We work in sales and she'd use politics like that as an opener for potential clients. It was a bold tactic and one I've opted not to emulate. Other people who tend to agree with her politically have said similar things. One guy used it as an aside while justifying other states sending their homeless to SF. His only problem with it is that they were sending their homeless here as opposed to us sending our homeless there.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
That's entirely possible. It's a small sample size because I try to avoid rightwing lunatics, but since it seemed common based on my (limited) set I thought it was a trend.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
But seriously, where the gently caress do I find information on the primary? I'm new to the area, so the internet is no good since I don't know what to look for and I haven't made any politically-minded friends here yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:While it would be fun, I'm a sucker for voting on principles when I can, which is what makes the Controller race so disappointing (I'd vote Laura Wells (Green) based on politics, but it's basically either Betty Yee or John Perez to be up against Swearengin in November, and I'd rather see the former than the latter) Mind expanding on this?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
You can't argue with Yee's international experience. Isn't that what you'd want a Sec State to have?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Corporate buses and other related services in SF are, hilariously, one of the few examples of libertarianism working. Now, for an American city, the Bay Area has really good public transit but it isn't NYC/Europe levels. It actually reminds me of Beijing, where it is really good at a few specific tasks and remarkably deficient outside of those very highly specialized realms. Despite that, there is a demand for a communal transportation and that demand is backed by some serious cash. That's where the whole inequality shitstorm that is the Bay starts to bubble to the surface. Traffic in the Bay Area is awful and the public transportation is both overcrowded and inadequate*. Then the invisible hand of the free market creates a solution that is largely for those who are (demographically speaking) transplants, white, young, childless, male and wealthy. As noted, tech represents a minority in SF but they are a visible minority that has come to be a symbol for a lot of problems. People bitch about the Google Bus, not the Genentech bus. And the even more abstracted gentrification issue gets a lot of lip-service but precious little action. It is a visible representation for a lot of problems. Rather than address the problems directly, people fight the visible symbols of said problems. It's actually some good framing, since it allows a lot of temporarily embarrassed millionaires to get their quota of self-righteousness while not actually having to sacrifice anything. * Also a sort of Libertarianism-almost working situation, since there are a lot of quasi-related public transportation systems but they aren't really integrated. Clipper card helps gloss over this problem, but centrally planned it ain't! When the next housing bubbles crashes, I'd really love for Bay Area public transportation to get centralized like NYC's did during the Depression. That would help a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
cheese posted:Capitalism gives no fucks about anything other than profit, until those things threaten profit enough to make interest in them profitable. If anyone tells you contrary to this, they are relying on anecdote and should be ignored. No one will fix bay area traffic until it is profitable to do so. Given that it will almost certainly never be profitable, it will never be fixed. Given broad strokes, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this. Except the last bit. While public transit isn't directly profitable, it can be very profitable (indirectly). That's why a lot of hyper-capitalist areas (NYC, London, Paris, etc.) have really incredible (albeit overcrowded during peak hours) public transit systems. I mean, if we are gonna blame capitalism, let's just go for the commute itself. Things like concentration of wealth, white flight (and its close sibling gentrification) and all that poo poo is a function of capitalism. Don't get me wrong. I'd rather full Communism. But I'm rich enough, comfortable enough, white enough and straight enough for me not to want to rock the boat too much. So, I'll happily agitate for Maoist third-worldism while hoping to settle for what was politically acceptable as "European Left" in the '60s and '70s. I'd love to Zhou Enlai it, but he was a lot savvier than I am. So, I'll advocate extremism in service of moderation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Wow, that map is beautiful.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
I dunno. I think the occasional inefficiency is fine. Look at things like hotels, flights and car rentals. The bulk of those are just a giant circle-jerk that corporate partners give each other. That's why your breakfast at mid-range hotels costs $15, because that is the industry standard for "does not need a receipt to expense". It can make some parts of travel expensive for the individual but it also serves to subsidize the entire industry. Market inefficiencies create jobs through bubbles and artificial demand. By eliminating those inefficiencies, we are eliminating a lot of jobs. The older, more inefficient model, can be adjusted via taxation. Sure, there will be some rich fucks, but they know their job is a function of that inefficiency and they are highly taxed so their money goes back into the pool anyway*. To me, tech wipes all that away and replaces it with a very small cadre of super rich folks and a whole lot of not much else. It is a reinvention of early capitalism. Big tech companies recreate a lot of standard inefficiencies (though they have a larger in-house slave pool as opposed to working primarily off of acquisition) but start-ups are the worst. * Note: Since ~'79 we've had a taxation problem. Reagan made it worse. This worsening trend was continued by Bush and Clinton until W made it much, much, much worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
Family Values posted:And yet somehow those in-house slaves are ruining, just ruining I tell you, the real estate market of SF and the Bay Area generally. Tell me, if tech only creates a handful of super rich CEOs and 'not much else' how does that happen? are you illiterate?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Oakland Pride, ya'll. Come party and meet the candidates!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Californians are very strange about area codes. While there was a certain amount of prestige to the 212 code in NYC, nobody (or at least nobody worth talking to) cared. In the Bay area , people freak the hell out over having a non-bay area code, like you are some sort of crazy alien. I could understand that if they were locals reacting to gentrification or something but they are as native to the area as I am (not at all). It is a very strange sort of artificiality.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
My solution to the draught is to let it all burn.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
When you're rhetoric is "Us country makers vs them city takers" and the reality is the opposite of that, you might be a Redneck.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Affirmative consent works really well because the whole "She was asking for it" line of reasoning will no longer hold up in court. If you are seriously afraid that someone might accuse you of raping them, maybe don't have sex with them? And if you can't tell the difference between consensual and non-consensual sex, maybe you shouldn't be having sex at all?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
It feeds into the "colleges are decadent hives" narrative, coupled with more educated/empowered women being more willing to talk about their experiences. It's got legs for both the left and right, so it becomes a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
As someone who strongly prefers his food be pre-chewed by some of our yeasty buddies, shouldn't we just focus more on high-profit viticulture? We've got the sunlight and the soil for it. Keep it classy. I can continue to pay a premium for my tomatoes and, in the off-season, buy them canned like I did everywhere else I've lived. Let's prioritize here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's basically trying to do an end-run around the law by handling hard-to-prosecute "he said she said" cases in a special kangaroo court where silence can be held against you, you are specifically forbidden from having an attorney, and you are judged by an untrained and biased panel. But enough said about normal American jurisprudence.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
What's the consensus on the Propositions?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
If you are a civil libertarian, drug testing doctors (or any other hyper-privileged group) is a fantastic thing. They have the resources (money, lobbies, etc.) to fight those laws and win. Until then, it is what pilots, construction workers and plenty of other professions have to deal with regularly. Plus, and more realistically, the DA ain't gonna go after Doctors unless there is a real solid case.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 01:00
|
|