Vast majority think life in SF Bay Area getting worse, want to leave, poll finds
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
I think of New Jersey which not that long ago used to have an amazingly robust economy - plenty of manufacturing, high tech (most pharmaceutical companies were HQ there). Now NJ is known for its bloated, inefficient government, crazy high taxes (including property taxes) and isn't really much of a desirable destination anymore.
Not saying that will happen to the Bay Area, but it's not impossible either. The more dysfunctional the government becomes and quality of life suffers, the less people will be willing to accept them just for a chance at a high salary and Google on their resume. Especially when other offices open up.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-20/californ...
[2] https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/576071-california-b...
[3] https://www.sfgate.com/education/article/San-Francisco-to-re...
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2021/05/01/californi...
[5] https://www.cbs8.com/article/traffic/gas-prices/californias-...
The math thing sounds like a bad idea but high school's job isn't to make you "marketable". Also you're implying that it's a tradeoff when it isn't. The suggested change would not affect how much math a student would take.
Ethnic studies sounds like a valuable thing to add to baseline education. And if their history curriculum is anywhere near as repetitive as the one I went through, it could easily replace one of those courses without issue.
As far as I can tell, it’s just a thinly disguised effort to socialize brown kids into identity politics. It’s an experiment that risks derailing the economic convergence that’s we’re seeing with Latinos and could cut the legs out from under Asian upward mobility.
I was seething when I got an email from my school saying they’d be teaching my (brown) kids to develop their “identity” around “skin color” but hey what can you do. The liberals get what the liberals want.
Moreover, conservatives support the educational status quo, which is at least a known quantity. America of the few countries in the world where minority immigrants have similar upward mobility to natives of the majority ethnic group. The changes liberals are trying to impose on our education risk socializing minority children into the ethnic identity ghettos you see in nearly every other multi-ethnic society. Liberals are going to get the change they want, and we’ll just have to cross our fingers and hope it doesn’t derail the American assimilation engine.
Yes, practices based in tradition and not evidence have that problem.
> Moreover, conservatives support the educational status quo, which is at least a know quantity.
Yes, a known to be quite bad quantity, especially by cost effectiveness, in the US.
> America of the few countries in the world where minority immigrants have similar upward mobility to natives of the majority ethnic group. America of the few countries in the world where minority immigrants have similar upward mobility to natives of the majority ethnic group.
Minorities (especially blacks and American Indians) are ghettoized by the status quo system, in which they do not have equal upward mobility. [0] You play a nice trick talking about immigrants (a small minority of racial and ethnic minorities) and the pretending that covers the bulk of the minority experience, but it does not.
[0] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17139300/e...
Let’s not pretend that education is a practice based in “evidence.” America has among the most professionalized schools systems in the developed world, and also among the worst. My cousin in Sacramento was complaining the other day about how far behind her kid’s school is in math compared to what she learned in Bangladesh in the 1990s. You think we have EdDs? No, just tradition (i.e. practices with a track record of working).
> Minorities (especially blacks and American Indians) are ghettoized by the status quo system, in which they do not have equal upward mobility.
And ethnic identity politics is part of the status quo system for those groups. At least in the last 30 years, that seems to have hurt more than it’s helped.
> You play a nice trick talking about immigrants (a small minority of racial and ethnic minorities) and the pretending that covers the bulk of the minority experience, but it does not.
Hispanics and Asians, the vast majority of whom have immigrant backgrounds within the last few generations, comprise 25% of the country, while Black and native Americans comprise 15%. By 2060, the Black and native population share will be about the same, while Asians and Hispanics will be nearly 40% of the population. The liberal approach of projecting the Black and indigenous experience onto all “people of color” is innumerate.
Hispanics and Asians are economically converging with whites over time: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353. Possibly derailing that convergence (which is pretty much unprecedented in the world) is something everyone should be scared of.
The TV show White Lotus had a tremendous illustration of the problem. One of the characters, Paula, is a minority who is college friends with a white girl and comes to Hawaii with the girl’s family. Paula falsely convinces herself that her white friends don’t really care about her. She persuades a (reluctant) native Hawaiian worker at the hotel to steal from her friend’s family, giving some speech she learned at school about stolen land, but he gets caught and arrested. Liberal identity education hurts the affluent “brown” girl by driving an artificial racial wedge between her and her friend who genuinely cares about her, and destroys the life of the working class “brown” boy, by corrupting his traditional morality. I’m not sure it was supposed to be a conservative polemic but it succinctly illustrated exactly what I’m afraid of happening to my own kids as they’re taught to develop an “identity” around their “skin color” in elementary school (according to the email I received recently).
That doesn't refute any point you're trying to make here, but I'm pretty confident the show doesn't want you to see the white family as the "good guys" in the story.
For this thread, I'd just leave it at: White Lotus is an absurdist work of fiction. Excepting the BLM guy and maybe Belinda the wellness spa worker, if anything anybody on that show says really resonates with you, you should double-check yourself. The point of the show is that most of the characters are in their own ways odious.
All that is being missed is students having a harder time in high school.
I agree with you on being able to find the same quality of talent outside of the Bay Area. When I hire, I don’t even restrict myself to the same timezone. Some of the best people I have worked with live in Europe.
California is aggressive in going after people who leave the state, even years later, especially if you have a liquidity event shortly thereafter and/or plan to maintain ties to California. Keeping an address, coming back regularly to meet clients, etc. are all precisely the things the FTB uses to argue that people are still California residents.
During the cold war, Ronald Reagan correctly pointed out that one of the clearest indicators the Soviet Union and their allies were in the clutches of a failing ethos, was that they had to build walls to keep their own people in rather than to keep their enemies out.
If you're going to leave California, leave. Don't keep a California address, tell clients you're based in California, come back all the time to do business, etc.
I just feel uneasy leaving most of my professional network behind. Sometimes even the most trivial social interactions end up turning into very lucrative opportunities.
If you have to be deceptive about where you are living because you think it's the only or primary validator of your value to clients (in terms of $ rate), it's not a good thing.
I know multiple freelancers and consultants who left places like the Bay Area and NY and their clients didn't suddenly seek to reduce their rates because they went to lower COL locations.
It's a dangerous thing for your rate to be based on your location and not the value you provide.
Renting a virtual address in NY or SF is not the same thing as telling your clients you're based in those locations or have teams there.
Pretending you're based in a place you're not is not only deceptive, it's a great way to find yourself dealing with painful tax and legal issues you don't want.
I left to live abroad and it was the best decision of my life. Interestingly, leaving made me appreciate certain things about the Bay Area more, just not enough to move back.
The good thing is that if you leave and don't find you're happier wherever you go, you can always go back.
What did you miss? The weather?
But the upside is that coming back to visit is really great. I get to enjoy the things I miss and leave before all the things I hated come to the fore.
I’ve doubled my life style and halved my costs. If you’re even remotely thinking about moving abroad remember: you’ll never have MORE time and LESS responsiblity than _right now_.
Cheers!
I lived in the Taipei area for three years and it was one of the best times of my life, looking to return but the visa situation has been so dicey lately...
He was being facetious. The lot was completely packed. He was annoyed he had to move a panel truck so I could get a truck (always the last row) out.
A lot of these things work with weird time lags, tipping points, and inversions. The dynamics are... complex.
Plenty of people leaving but plenty of people with gold fever willing to take their place.
Headline is dishonest clickbait. 56%—which is not a “vast majority”— are “considering leaving in the next 5 years”,
56% is merely those who have short term plans to leave. With up to 77% not liking things, they are on the edge of deciding to leave. It only takes a nudge! It's what pushed me and I still have family and >30 years of inertia keeping me there - I reached that point and have never looked back.
I was in the Bay Area a few weeks ago and I am SO GLAD I don't live there anymore! What a shit hole it is! It's far worse than 2016.
No, plans to leave are a much stronger claim that what the poll asks (the article suggests that it is the weakest of the questions polls typically ask of this issue, “considering leaving in the next five years”, but the poll [0] actually asked the second weakest form, “likely to leave in the next five years”, and 56% is the sum of “somewhat agree” and “strongly agree”.)
> With up to 77% not liking things, they are on the edge of deciding to leave
None of the reported numbers in the article are of “not liking things”, and the figure that is closest “not liking things” that is reported (“worse than five years ago”) is 71%, not 77%. 77% is what the article says is the percentage of those who agreed (at least somewhat) with the likely to move question that cited housing costs as a major reason (major reasons were not exclusive.)
The people “on the edge” are the 25% who only ”somewhat agree” that they are likely leave, already counted as part of the 56%.
[0] https://jointventure.org/images/stories/pdf/sv-poll-2021-rep...
Growing prosperity and the ability to get practically anything delivered has changed that. This means you can now live in a smaller town or city and get practically all of the material benefits of living somewhere like NYC or SF.
I'm pretty sure it'll be based somewhere that has a population of accepting and curious people. People (and government) that are open to the latest startup idea, people that don't laugh at you but instead think it could be cool, and importantly enough people to hire at said startup to build a team that can actually succeed. Oh and a place without non-competes of course :)
Thats why the old east coast cities lost tech - the startup scene didn't like the stodgy traditional mindset and the employee protections (like banning non-competes) were lacking, so starting a business was more lively in SF.
Could be Florida if they court people a little more with employee protections.
Like, what is that percentage usually?
Ok now compare that to other major cities.
How do they compare?
Ok now you might have something to talk about
Like 'homelessness is so bad here zomg and getting so much worse'
Uhhh compared to where?
Inquiring minds want to know about these paradises of socialism