Hacker News Reader

Comment by dsfyu404ed | Hacker News Reader

It's not just SF. The whole state of CA is woefully mismanaged. They just have enough money to smooth over much of the stupid stuff. When the money runs out (next recession?) they are gonna get hit really really hard (and they deserve it, stupid should hurt).

View on HN

It is hilarious people think "money will run out" and CA is mismanaged. CA has a $30bn rainy day fund. It is incredibly managed. We have protected our shorelines, our mountains, our nature while other states have sold them off to the highest bidder. Our legislators pioneered equal rights and made LGBT mainstream in American politics. We pioneered action against climate change and kick started incentives towards alternative fuel, solar, and wind energy. We have the most generous healthcare coverage in America. We have the most generous welfare in America. We have invested billions in public transportation. We have the most upwardly mobile population. We pioneered recreational marijuana, and decriminalizing drugs. We are leading the revolution against mass incarceration. We have some of the most generous policies that are pro-women, starting from abortion to parental leaves. And we have the #1 economy in the world. That's quite mismanagement.

So much hyperbole in this comment…

Yes, CA is one of the better states in the United States, but it is by no means half of the things you say.

No, it is not the #1 economy in the world (hello, the rest of the US exists, as does China and Japan and Germany)[1].

Neither was CA the first to pioneer recreational marijuana or decriminalize drugs. Other states like WA and CO did it first, not to mention other countries like the Netherlands or Portugal.

Nor was CA the shining beacon of LGTB rights. Do you not remember Prop 8?

Nor did we do a bang-up job of protecting our environment, or do you not remember the drought and wildfires of recent years, exacerbated by our unchecked agriculture which is pumping our aquifers dry for some of the most water-hungry crops (like almonds).

I'll stop here because I have to board a flight and you get the point. Surely you know half the things you said aren't true.

[1]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/05/ca...

Unless the LA Times is wrong, the rainy day fund is ~$8 billion.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essenti...

To put that into perspective, California's annual budget is over $200 billion, so you can run the state for about two weeks on that.

While I agree with you that stupid should hurt, I think one of the reasons the situation is so bad is that a lot of the stupid decisions haven't been hurting the people who make the make them and the people who cause them to be made. This isn't just a problem in CA, just look at the Boeing debacle. Tons of bad decisions, the people who made the decisions made 10s - 100s millions of dollars and laughing all the way to the bank. Same think with California's politicians and elite class ... public workers, on the hand, are probably screwed ...

People have been saying that about California for more than 150 years (when the gold runs out, SF will turn into a ghost town, you’ll see!).

CA is actually quite well-managed. One of the reasons we pay so much in taxes is precisely because CA legislators have a better grasp of financial realities than their counterparts in red states: if you want to spend more, you need to collect more money to pay for it.

And CA voters like to pay for things. Red-state voters do not; they like to pretend that people will do things for free (i.e., teachers) until things break and they accept the reality that nice things cost money.

How are you quantifying (qualifying?) "well-managed". If the metric we care about is along the lines of cost of living, then it's arguably the worst in the county. I could afford to buy a house in pretty much any Red State. What's that a function of? People not wanting to live there? I doubt it. I sincerely doubt it, because every time this topic comes up here on HN we hear stories about people leaving SF/SV for Austin or the South East - and there's plenty of data showing an exodus out of the West Cost corridor. Will housing costs go up in those areas? Maybe - but if/when there's a reshuffling I have a lot more faith in city leaders in those other parts of the country not to use the San Francisco checklist for "how to turn your city upside down".

>And CA voters like to pay for things. Red-state voters do not; they like to pretend that people will do things for free (i.e., teachers) until things break and they accept the reality that nice things cost money.

I think this point is also way off the mark. I should not have to shell out thousands a year for pre-school if I want my kids to be competitive. This is the reality for friends I have in SF. Not so for friends in Houston or Austin.

I don't live in SF, but I turned down a job there entirely because of the cost of living and that, at least from where I'm standing, the city is run by idiots that are completely disconnected from reality. You might think I'm conflating state and city government, and to an extent you're right, I am. But as city leadership is so often a launch pad for state (and then national) government I'm not particularly bullish on California's future.

Cost of living is high is because people want to live here. CA population is actually going up.

Their horribly underfunded pensions disagree with you.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/California-s-public...

Sadly, pain and suffering does not fix stupid.

Indeed, it usually makes it worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com