Interestingly I have found many tech circles in SF would rarely discuss ultra local things like supervisor politics. I don’t even think it’s taboo, I just have found folks tend to not be super informed on any of it. Lurie does seem to capture plenty of political mindshare though.
That area still has some 'gold rush' mentality to it, where people want to get in, make their money and get out. That doesn't foster much of a long-term attitude that pays attention to local politics. Also some of the local politics are totally psychotic, like the guy harassing Scott Wiener.
Muni is not doing well. They've adjusted service to address a huge budget deficit, and the buses are noticeably more crowded and less frequent.
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.
> Housing demand is back up. Not just single family homes but also condos.
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.
The San Francisco Bay area has only been affordable for the rich for decades; it's nothing new.
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.
So ridiculous that folks will spend millions personally to avoid paying their fair share in taxes.
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.
Whenever someone uses the word "fair" about taxes, I assume they mean we should reverse course on the decades-long pattern of reducing the tax burden on companies and the wealthiest individuals here in America.
Fair taxation isn't a punishment. Paying taxes is what responsible citizens do. It's an act of patriotism and pride.
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?
> Dialysis companies say the costly requirement would force them to close some clinics, and have so far poured $105 million into fighting the measure, arguing it amounts to a hardball move by the union to drain industry finances until clinics agree to allow their workers to unionize.
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".
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
People who want to use the current system to innovate and create jobs. The current system of venture capital often produces these situations when people have a huge amount paper "wealth". But this wealth is all pretty hypothetical. It's not like some of the "billionaires" can buy 1 billion things from the McDonald's Dollar Menu. It's all tied up in stock that can't be sold for a variety of reasons. Moreover, it's quite likely that the "billionaire" will end up with far less than $1b when he/she retires, even if everything is wildly successful.
Yet that big number encourages greedheads to try to tax something that doesn't really exist.
The “greedheads” are the ones wanting people to pay their fair share of taxes, and not the people who’ve hoarded billions in wealth, and are using some of that wealth to fight to continue tax avoidance?
IPOs pushing up housing prices
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
Interestingly I have found many tech circles in SF would rarely discuss ultra local things like supervisor politics. I don’t even think it’s taboo, I just have found folks tend to not be super informed on any of it. Lurie does seem to capture plenty of political mindshare though.
That area still has some 'gold rush' mentality to it, where people want to get in, make their money and get out. That doesn't foster much of a long-term attitude that pays attention to local politics. Also some of the local politics are totally psychotic, like the guy harassing Scott Wiener.
As an occasional visitor, the city seems a lot cleaner and safer this year (I went last month) than the last times I visited in 2024 and 2019.
Muni is not doing well. They've adjusted service to address a huge budget deficit, and the buses are noticeably more crowded and less frequent.
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.
> Housing demand is back up. Not just single family homes but also condos.
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?
The San Francisco Bay area has only been affordable for the rich for decades; it's nothing new.
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.
I believe the World Cup is a hot topic right now.
Something something AI
California Billionaire Tax - November 2026 ballot. One off 5%.
Sergey Brin leading the fight against it, donating millions to try to kill it.
So ridiculous that folks will spend millions personally to avoid paying their fair share in taxes.
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.
Whenever someone uses the word “fair” about taxes it always seems to mean that they shouldn’t pay more but others should.
There also some good economic reasons that a “wealth tax” is a bad option compared to other types of taxes.
Fair means even playing field. These dudes are used to a system that they can cheat.
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.
Whenever someone uses the word "fair" about taxes, I assume they mean we should reverse course on the decades-long pattern of reducing the tax burden on companies and the wealthiest individuals here in America.
Fair taxation isn't a punishment. Paying taxes is what responsible citizens do. It's an act of patriotism and pride.
> patriotism and pride
You realize nationalism is the source of all evil in the world, right? Is Brin even a citizen?
Patriotism != Nationalism
If they paid the 35% that I pay, then it would be fair.
It sounds like you think billionaires should pay close to 0%?
Mind sharing these good economic reasons?
fair_share = fair_share + 1
> 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.
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.
also replied below, but his would be 5% not $60bn
It sets dangerous precedent
Edit: guys, it was a joke! /s
Dangerous to whom exactly?
Anyone who's not able to populism their way into a cash blast for their org.
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.
Dialysis people is really interesting phrasing. Care to elaborate what you mean?
https://calmatters.org/health/2020/10/california-healthcare-...
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?
> Dialysis companies say the costly requirement would force them to close some clinics, and have so far poured $105 million into fighting the measure, arguing it amounts to a hardball move by the union to drain industry finances until clinics agree to allow their workers to unionize.
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".
Examples of SEIU ballot box warfare
+ 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
People who want to use the current system to innovate and create jobs. The current system of venture capital often produces these situations when people have a huge amount paper "wealth". But this wealth is all pretty hypothetical. It's not like some of the "billionaires" can buy 1 billion things from the McDonald's Dollar Menu. It's all tied up in stock that can't be sold for a variety of reasons. Moreover, it's quite likely that the "billionaire" will end up with far less than $1b when he/she retires, even if everything is wildly successful.
Yet that big number encourages greedheads to try to tax something that doesn't really exist.
The “greedheads” are the ones wanting people to pay their fair share of taxes, and not the people who’ve hoarded billions in wealth, and are using some of that wealth to fight to continue tax avoidance?
How so?
good
Ah yes, the dangerous precedent of... doing something about obscene and extreme wealth inequality.
It's not just 5%. It's dependent on the controlling shares, so it's close to 25% of Sergey Brin's wealth, so almost 60 billion dollars.
Looked it up and says it applies to Private companies only, so not Google. i.e. to stop those deliberately undervaluing.
And in addition there is a provision allowing people to appeal if they can show that a valuation is overstated.
Robotics Physical AI.
[dead]
[dead]
Aside from sportsball, AI and deranged [tb]illionaire behavior is basically it.
edit: autocorrect
Curious to hear more about the deranged behaviors