Ask HN: What is everyone in SF talking about?
I’m not in San Francisco, but I’m curious about the current local zeitgeist.
What are the keywords, companies, or ideas that keep coming up in conversations?
New Waymo car models rolling out
The laser thing in front of city hall
Pride month, parades this weekend
Antisocial guy harassing Scott Weiner on social media at Dolores Park
Lurie administration, after initially making progress on crime and cleaning up the streets seems to be stalling out
Supervisor Jackie Fielder back from long mostly unexplained absence that was maybe due to her illegally leaking confidential information
Given how SF has a big global immigrant population, there's a lot of World Cup spirit in the air. Also because Santa Clara is a host stadium.
Housing demand is back up. Not just single family homes but also condos.
Bars are supposedly closing because the 20-somethings are drinking less. Yet at the same time apparently the youngins have discovered the charm of Vesuvio...? Anchor still has not reopened. Woods (IMO) is now the preferred beer spot for locals.
The recall of the Sunset supe was a big deal. Fight over cars on the Great Highway is ongoing.
Pride is in full swing this weekend. Bay To Breakers was great as always. Weather is decent. The "SF doom spiral" story is being discussed less. I.e. SF seems safer. It's a good time to live in SF.
Hmmm, the median house price is $2.1M.
> It's a good time to live in SF.
It seems pretty K shaped.
Great time to live in SF and Bay Area iff you are an AI researcher, founder, VC, executive at one of the hyper-scalers, or a senior engineer with massive equity package in the few winning companies.
Not entirely sure if it's a great time to live in SF if you work at a bakery, are a Barista at Starbucks or even a mid tier SWE.
Thoughts?
Fifteen years ago, I worked with someone who bought a $300,000 house, in his hometown ~150 miles away, and a $150,000 airplane, to commute to his job near the San Carlos airport, because it was much, much cheaper than living in the SF Bay area.
Sergey Brin leading the fight against it, donating millions to try to kill it.
Is the alternative really that bad Sergey? You would be paying a similar amount, and the money would actually go to some use, as opposed to being blown on a political fight.
Edit: guys, it was a joke! /s
I am not a billionaire. But I don't want to risk losing my job or moving out of state so that the dialysis people can cash a paycheck.
SEIU UHW has a history of bringing economically explosive populist slop to the ballot as a negotiating tactic. Usually it's in the form of something about dialysis clinics but this time they're trying a different angle.
What about that were you specifically "interested" in?
Seems like the $105 millions could have been used for something more useful, like a few doctors salaries or specialized PAs at the clinics. It sounds like you consider "economically explosive populist slop" is anything that helps poor people. Which you know, I expected, but I'm glad you were able to explain yourself. In the future you can just say "let them eat cake".
+ Proposition 8 (2018)
+ Proposition 23 (2020)
+ Proposition 29 (2022)
Probably their best example is "Healthcare Worker Minimum Wage Drive (SB 525)". They created a bunch of populist local initiatives about minimum that would have been a logistical nightmare for hospitals. In exchange for pulling their measures they got SB 525 passed as a truce.
I hate these tactics. California direct democracy is awful yes, but the way this group weaponizes it is downright disgusting.
> It sounds like you consider "economically explosive populist slop" is anything that helps poor people.
But honestly it sounds like you're just flat out not interested. You are the perfect target for their bullshit and I'm sure they couldn't be happier about whatever is in your head
On topic: if voters shift to a scarcity mindset (shifting higher on the Belief in a Zero-Sum Game BZSG scale), California's growth might become as economically dynamic as Bulgaria or Romania.
Yet that big number encourages greedheads to try to tax something that doesn't really exist.
There also some good economic reasons that a “wealth tax” is a bad option compared to other types of taxes.
I pay taxes. These people spend copious amounts to avoid paying.
There is an economic threshold of money spent vs money not taxed. They spend within that threshold, but the money helps only them.
It sounds like you think billionaires should pay close to 0%?
Fair taxation isn't a punishment. Paying taxes is what responsible citizens do. It's an act of patriotism and pride.
You realize nationalism is the source of all evil in the world, right? Is Brin even a citizen?
It is objectively true that rich people don’t pay their fair share. Seeing them fight tooth and nail to maintain the unfair status quo is a bad look.
What? No. You're off by more than 3 magnitudes. He spent about 45 million, his potential tax liability under the new law is $60 billion.
And in addition there is a provision allowing people to appeal if they can show that a valuation is overstated.
That's not true. Private companies have a different valuation method, but public companies like Google are absolutely included.
Under the initiative, “For any interests that confer voting or other direct control rights, the percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer shall be presumed to be not less than the taxpayer’s percentage of the overall voting or other direct control rights.”
...Together, for instance, Larry Page and Sergey Brin own about 11.3 percent of Alphabet (Google) but control 52.3 percent of voting rights. Similarly, Mark Zuckerberg owns about 13.6 percent of Meta but has 61.0 percent voting control.edit: autocorrect
Elon (do we even need to do this one?) the horse thing should be enough.
Ellison’s quest to defeat death, young blood transfusions and weirder shit.
Brin fighting tooth and nail against paying taxes (I guess it’s not deranged for one’s wealth and power to activate to protect itself, it just makes him look like a petulant child)