This reads like a clickbait article with an agenda.
Also, who cares? SF is one of the most expensive cities in the world - it's probably fair to expect city employees to make a liveable wage in the city they serve.
Also, who cares? SF is one of the most expensive cities in the world - it's probably fair to expect city employees to make a liveable wage in the city they serve.
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/why-muni-cant-find-good-driv... https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/City-and-Muni-operato...
Normally, as a city, you'd probably want your employees to live in the city that they service. If you don't live there, you're not going to care about hypodermic needles on the street as much. "Meh, it's San Francisco. Who cares?"
SF is seeing a steep reduction in cost-of-living, yet these extremely high salaries won't decrease accordingly.
Also, the herds of people moving out and companies shifting remote will mean lower revenue for the city, meaning these high salaries won't be fiscally sustainable.
As a quick example, here we can see the author making an extremely weird argument that the guy running the agency that serves the homeless in the city is somehow doing a bad job because there are more homeless people now than there were in 2016.
> In 2016, the city added a new agency to serve its homeless residents. By 2019, the department had 148 employees, and 53 of them made more than $100,000.
> The director, Jeff Kosinsky, brought home up to $238,182 annually, but each year the city’s homeless population continued to grow.