justchilly

More likely they're seen as vulnerable demographic or unwelcome in certain neighborhoods. The people perpetrating these crimes are not the sort of people tracking the US-China relations.

Everything else aside, the OP didn't say they were married. That brings the rate a lot closer to what OP said than 29%.

You're looking at arrest data, not incident data. Very likely arrests are down because police deprioritized non-felony crimes post prop 47.

Typical office leases are 3-5 years. This is just the tip of the iceberg. So far <20% have been up for renewal since the pandemic started, and even fewer since it became clear that things were not going back to normal within a few months.

> This is a great article around why "corporate welfare" rarely works out.

Any data to back this up? It's generally accepted that subsidies are effective in many cases (see corona virus stimulus packages).

This Foxconn deal was poorly thought out and horribly mismanaged, but it doesn't sound like Foxconn lined their pockets with taxpayer money. The subsidies encouraged them to take a chance, and it didn't work out - spectacularly.

Wearing masks won't make this end any sooner. Reducing transmission rates flattens the curve meaning smaller spikes but likely longer presence of corona virus.

And their trades are typically scheduled in advance and public. Their job and fiduciary duty is to maximize shareholder value, and they make decisions so that happens. If that means allocating $ and rewarding people that will attain that goal, then what should be considered illegal?

How much would you be willing to pay for a comparable headset without a required facebook account.

Clearly FB is planning to extract value from this, and is why they can price this at just $299. They're betting customers will give up some data/privacy for that low price.

Interesting point. Anecdotally I had a brown friend walk out of my house in SF late one night, walk to the end of the block, and then get detained by police for supposedly stalking/threatening a women. Would have been trivial to prove they had the wrong guy if there were cameras readily available.

Actually the largest cities are shrinking, and have been for the last couple year. It will be no doubt be exacerbated by recent events.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/americas-t...

The argument that "if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere" has been shown to work extraordinarily well when it comes to businesses choosing to go elsewhere rather than serve high crime neighborhoods. In fact it's a big part of why people from those neighborhoods lack opportunity.

...which is fine and well within their rights. Businesses don't have to offer people any services if those people don't want to follow their rules. Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class.

This will put a lot of smaller/indie movies out of contention. Particularly from non-minority foreign countries. Meanwhile, recent best picture winners were rather homogeneous: Parasite Won in 2019. Moonlight in 2017.

> Undermining trust in society is an enormous problem. The whole reason the west was successful is because people can go about their day without having to worry about nominal costs of corruption in day to day life.

Not worrying about the nominal cost of corruption is not the whole reason the west was successful. There are countless of arguments from both sides of the aisle that would show that to be untrue (capitalism, democracy, reward for innovation, acceptance of immigrants, pillaging land/resources, exploiting slaves, etc). The US has always had plenty of corruption so arguing that a lack of it is what made the west successful is difficult to justify.

> Eventually, you end up like a third world country where you expect to pay a bribe or know someone to get anything done.

There are laws today that prohibit bribery of police officers and they are enforced. Not sure this slippery slope type of argument holds water in the face of that.

Is there evidence that this is big enough problem that it warrants a major party to take it up as a major part of their platform? Against a backdrop of climate change, disease, the economy, and so on. To share a perspective that many on the right have, this seems like a problem but one that gets far more attention than it deserves because it elicits strong emotions, riles up voters, etc.

Said differently: "Reddit banned nearly 7,000 subreddits, but left alone the ones that contribute 82% of hate content."

That seems like a dismal result, practically an admission that many of the bans were unjustified and/or subs that should have been banned were not.

Example: Hillary Ronin is the supervisor for the mission. An area that was historically lower income minorities, now being displaced, in part due to a lack of housing units. She has fought for years to stop the construction of buildings that would add both affordable units and market rate units.

"Ronen fought to prevent the construction of a 75-unit building on the site of a laundromat. She argued that an environmental review of the building did not consider the impact of a shadow on a nearby schoolyard, even though an environmental review conducted by officials at the San Francisco Planning Department showed that the new construction, including its shadow, would not have an adverse impact on children at the schoolyard.]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Ronen

Starting at 7:41 in this video an interview with the same supervisor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw8MACDZ3RI&t=547s

The tax breaks that she is referring to were roughly $10mm/year. https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-state/twitter...

The city's budget increased by nearly $6bn during the time the tax breaks were active (largely fueled by the growth from tech boom).

I think you're right and we may be saying the same thing. Certainly most people consider cost vs quality of life. In SF this is particularly true for the younger people that are leaving. They just move back in with their parents, stop paying rent, and maybe will come back if/when things reopen.

My point was about the other group that is leaving: more established professionals / homeowners / parents. For that group, saving on housing in the short terms isn't actually a major factor. Many are likely moving to other expensive places. The main thing keeping them in SF was their offices, professional network, or their children. In other words they were in SF despite the declining quality of life. With those constraints gone, they are leavings en mass as well.

The 36% US rate doesn't include Payroll Tax, Social Security, or healthcare (premiums paid by both employer and employee, additional out of pocket by employee). The 48% France rate doesn't include Employer Social Security Contribution - which is significant but includes a pension etc. In essence a person making 211k Euro is getting paid a lot more than someone making $250k USD because of that pension alone (i.e. its more like someone making ~$280k USD, which would be a US combined rate of more like 40%, before payroll tax, etc etc)

401k is not tax free, it's tax deferred. You still pay tax, just when you cash out.

The rate is exceptionally high for earners making a fraction of that. Responses in caps.

- 37% federal requires $510k income (after $12k personal exemption and probably $20k retirement savings). YES BUT ITS 35% ABOVE $207k

- 13.3% state in California requires $1M income. YES BUT IT'S 9.3% ABOVE $57k, and 10.3% ABOVE $295k

- Social security is included in FICA and does not count towards the marginal rate for high earners (you pay no social security tax on income above $137k). THERE IS NO CAP ON THE EMPLOYEE PORTION MEDICARE TAX. PLUS NOT ALL OF THEM ARE IN FICA. THERE ARE BOTH FEDERAL (IN FICA) AND STATE INSURANCE TAXES IN CALIFORNIA FOR EXAMPLE.

- Local taxes? SF HAS A PAYROLL TAX OF 1.5% FOR EXAMPLE.

It's expensive being well off. If you make $250k a year, you take home $159k in SF. A big chunk of that goes to cost of living such that the $20k means one of your two kids can't go to the college they want because it's $50k per year, and you don't qualify for financial aid.

The marginal rate in California for high earners is well over 50%. That 8% you're referring to is just the state income tax portion applied to the entire income.

Marginal rate for high earners includes: 37% federal. 13.3% state, plus FICA, social security, local taxes, etc. not to mention employer payroll tax and insurance premiums that are essentially passed on to employees but baked into tax in Europe).

Taxes are significantly higher in California than Europe for high earners (like the people leaving SF). There seems to be a major misconception about this even among Americans. Take France for example. Uses a simliar marginal rate system but caps out at 48%. https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/france/individual/taxes-on-pers...

Taxes are based on marginal rates. The more you make the more you pay. If you are a high earner making $300k in California your combined rate (federal/state/fica) is 38% and you pay $114k in tax. If you are middle class make $60k your combined rate is 22% and you pay $13.3k.

If you are a business owner and most of your income comes from capital gains, still not possible to pay anywhere near 22%. Rate on capital gains is 33.3% (20% federal + 13.3% state).

I think your anger is misguided. Those web 2.0 arent happy about the exorbitant rent either, nor are they the primary beneficiaries. That would be the native SF'ers/homeowners that were here before the boom (and who are still paying $25 a month in property taxes while collecting $5k in rent due to Prop 13).

SF's budget has more than doubled in the past 10 years. For example, the city budget increased >$400mm from just higher property taxes in 2019 alone. https://sfassessor.org/news/strength-property-tax-helps-sf-r...

Those Felicias are the majority of the tax base, and fund all of the initiatives that rebuild communities. Falling housing prices -> falling property taxes -> less funding for schools. Even the new revenue tax passed last year to fund homeless programs is based employees being in SF, when they leave, no more funding.

Not to mention all the money the Felicias pump into the local economy by ubering to brunch to buy their avocado toast and bottemless mimosas from local businesses.

If you make $250k in SF (sounds high, but about average for the people I know that are leaving SF), state income tax alone is $19,996. If you make that in Texas, state income tax is $0. That $20k/year is for many people a bigger deal than the cost of living. Most people I know leaving were home owners or rent controlled.

Source: moved to Austin in June.

I've seen the same. The misconception is that people are leaving because the housing is too expensive and its not worth it anymore. Almost everybody I know that moved out had no problem affording housing (high earners / home owners / rent controlled). People are leaving because quality of life has fallen dramatically and the only thing keeping people in SF was their offices.

About half of the tech people I know have moved out. Of those about half have left permanently, the other half are on the fence depending on long term WFH ability / if the city is able to get the quality of life issues under control / plus a lot of complaints about taxes.

-In my 6 unit building in Nob Hill (5 of which are owner occupied). 3 units including myself have moved out permanently. 1x to Austin. 1x to Palm Springs. 1x to East Bay. -5 of my 6 best friends in rent controlled units have moved out. Mostly to other cities in California. In 10 years living in SF I've never seen people willingly give up rent controlled units like this. -Other friends that were looking to move to SF that have cancelled those plans. In particular employees at large companies that were impacted by layoffs (Uber).

This is incorrect. On a per-capita basis the middle class is not being stuck with most of the bill. The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of federal income taxes (which are the largest source of federal income). That same amount of income tax is paid by the top 1,400 tax-payers.

Also no need for the line about irrational emotions - lets have some proper discourse please.

The article gives examples and links to other articles with more examples.

Among other I see it mentions JK Rowling and Bret Weinstein. I don't know enough about this to opine on what they've said, but would you categorize them as people who "constantly spout hateful views of women, LGBTQIAA2S+, and minorities"?

Because of their success these companies also get the most scrutiny (see house investigation/hearings last week). One foul step and its a PR disaster, impending regulations, boycotts, etc. Are you sure you'd prefer your convenience to come from smaller companies that garner less attention?

Which 'secret groups' are you referring to?