Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

The city and county of SF has a per capita budget almost double that of other US city-counties. Double.

I would argue people living in SF certainly aren’t getting double the govt services.

If a large chunk of that goes to salary, and a large chunk of those salaries goes to SF's crazy-expensive housing...I think you know where I'm going with this. I'll admit I don't know what the actual numbers are, but if this thesis is true, the solution is right in front of them too - let housing become cheaper by permitting more construction. And possibly ending Prop 13. Mostly a combination of the 2.

You can see this in almost any labor-related expense in the Bay Area. Eating out is 30-40% more expensive than comparable metros, but you're not getting 30-40% more for your money. Ditto childcare, plumbers, electricians and other contractors, personal care, pet care etc etc.

The SF budget is roughly $11B but about half of that is already allocated to services that benefit the region - SFO international airport, water infrastructure, transportation. Fun fact, SF city/county doesn't pay for schooling in the city. That's paid for by the state.

https://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/CSF_Budget_Book_2017...

Well, no, most of the multiple in the budget goes straight to higher labor costs in SF; government services are extremely labor intensive and extremely localized, so have a cost very much driven by the cost of local labor.

Problem is that Seattle, with it’s high cost of living, spends 2/3’s what SF does. Don’t think SF city workers get paid 50% more than in Seattle.

> Don’t think SF city workers get paid 50% more than in Seattle.

While I don’t have time (without getting paid for it) to do a comprehensive like-for-like comparison weighted to account for how much of the work is in each classification, they do very close to that at the bottom end (Seattle’s lowest civil service hourly rate is $10.54, SF’s is $15.) So I wouldn't be surprised if it was also approximately true across the board.

According to google, salaries (and benefits) are half the SF budget. So even if SF paid 50% more, that only explains half the discrepancy.

No, because local labor costs affect more of local government costs than just direct employment.

But another big chunk is that California has realigned a number of functions previously done at the State level (and still done by the state in other states) to counties (this includes certain portions of the State Medicaid program, and prison realignment, among the larger elements), plus San Francisco is a City and County, whereas Seattle is a city that is distinct from it's county, so a number of functions that in Seattle to would show up in the King County or the Washington State budget are covered by SF.

Mind sharing where you read this? (Okay, if you don't recall, I just want to see if it's mostly pension service).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com