Let me try to steel man the parent comment and maybe you can respond:
These people are fleeing the very predictable consequences of progressive governance, they should make an attempt to understand what made their origin so bad they wanted to leave and what made their destination so good that they decided to move there. If they vote for the policies that led them to flee, they might start the cycle over again.
I'd question using terms like "progressive" there. For instance, the reason SF is so expensive is that it's impossible to build more housing. That's not in any way a progressive policy.
I don't want to say its _only_ because of "progressive" policies, but specifically affordability is hurt by lack of construction, and construction is hurt by things like low income housing units, high fee's for new construction, and rent control. Those are all marketed as progressive and they are choking supply.
The entire reason why Senate Bill 827 failed was because progressives said it didn't protect the low income from gentrification.
"Progressive" generally goes along with the mentality there's no problem that is not solvable by government, which is usually the least efficient and cost effective mechanism for most problems.
This undoubtedly causes a ripple effect through the economy as all costs proceed to rise over time if not in check. Never mind how many preferred policies like rent control and micromanaged environmental laws that accumulate like technical debt and paralyze development have wrecked the housing market and soak the tech industry like a huge transfer tax that benefits those who got in the right place at the right time in the 80s/90s and shut everything down.
"Affordable housing" is another misnomered policy that is shooting oneself in the foot. Instead of just having market pricing and allowing the city to grow as demanded you let a few poor people stay because they win a lottery and still drive the bulk of people far out.
The syringe, shit laden road to hell is paved with good intentions still holds true today, and why I call myself a liberal but not a progressive in the political sense. There's a definite distinction, and certainly not unreasonable to hope that voters driven out by those policies take a moment to think of how things got there.
“Progressive” isn’t why people flee. Nobody is fleeing Australia which has higher taxes than SF.
I think people would be more inclined to stay if the money went further, I’m yet to understand why the taxes are so high without free hospitals, university, super clean streets etc.
legitimate Q: where does it all disappear in San Francisco that doesn’t occur in progressive Europe / Aus / NZ?
I don't want to be rude but are you Australian or are you just guessing? All of the top graduates from my Software Engineering class in Aus either went to the US or did a PhD and then went to the US, and people are absolutely fleeing Sydney because the cost of living is too high.
I don’t think people are fleeing given the net emigration from the US, and the high cost of living in Sydney is actually my point exactly -
It’s not Sydney’s “progressiveness” that makes it expensive, you could live in Melbourne or Hobart where the tax is the same and it’s much less expensive, both more progressive. Three identical sets of benefits and taxes, wildly different cost of living.
My point was that it’s not progressiveness that makes places too expensive, it’s other factors.
Let me try to steel man the parent comment and maybe you can respond:
These people are fleeing the very predictable consequences of progressive governance, they should make an attempt to understand what made their origin so bad they wanted to leave and what made their destination so good that they decided to move there. If they vote for the policies that led them to flee, they might start the cycle over again.