Poverty among plenty -- and it's getting worse

|
(342)

Check out the news this week:

The Associate Press reports that there are increasing numbers of homeless and poor people in Silicon Valley. The piece almost sounds like something I would write:

Simply put, while the ultra-rich are getting even richer, record numbers of Silicon Valley residents are slipping into poverty. "In the midst of a national economic recovery led by Silicon Valley's resurgence, as measured by corporate profits and record stock prices, something strange is going on in the Valley itself. Most people are getting poorer," said Cindy Chavez, executive director of San Jose-based Working Partnerships USA, a nonprofit advocating for affordable housing, higher minimum wages and access to health care.

That will come as no surprise to people who lived through the last tech boom in San Francisco and are struggling to live through this one. Great wealth does not trickle down around here; it sucks up housing, drives up costs, and creates homelessness and poverty for the most vulnerable:

The causes for the growing disparity are complex, but largely come down to one thing: a very high cost of living. The median home price is $550,000, and rents average just under $2,000 a month for a two-bedroom apartment in this region that is home to many of the nation's wealthiest companies including Facebook, Apple Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Google. For a family of four, just covering basic needs like rent, food, childcare and transportation comes to almost $90,000 a year, according to the nonprofit Insight Center for Community Economic Development. "The fact is that we have an economy now that's working well only for those at the very top," said Lawrence Mishel at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. "Unless we adopt a new approach to economic policy, we're going to continue going down this path, which means growth that does not really benefit the great majority of people in this country."

Meanwhile, there’s a new study out, using a new approach to economic data, that shows that almost a quarter of all California residents live below the poverty line. The raw data, which is a bit thick, is here. There’s a state Senate report on it here. Sen. Leland Yee (D-SF) held a hearing on the data -- but uncovering the facts, while valuable, isn’t going to get anyone off the streets. And I don't understand why this isn't on the front page of every major newspaper in the state.

Before my trolls tell me that I hate the rich, let me repeat: I don’t hate anybody and I don’t blame rich people for what this country has created. That’s the fault of the policymakers who, since Ronald Reagan too office in 1981, have allowed the United States to embrace increasing social inequality.

Great wealth can make a country, well, wealthy. But if it’s allowed to stick entirely to the top, then if can do more harm than good.

And the reality is that, particularly in the South and the West, tax policy is designed to help the wealthy at the expense of the poor:

The fact is, the more the poor are taxed, the worse off they are, whether they are working or not. We all pay a huge price for this shortsightedness. Medicaid payments, food stamps, disability benefits — all of these federal programs swoop in to try to patch up a frayed safety net.

In other words, it’s not the Invisible Hand of Adam Smith causing the poverty in California. It’s not laziness that causes poor people to live on the streets. And it’s not just happening in San Francisco.

Now, some of the people who like to comment on this blog suggest that poor people just move somewhere else, that it’s too expensive to live in San Francisco and that’s just the way it is.

That's a bit of a harsh approach, and undermines the entire idea of a city as a community, where people of different income levels can live. But it’s also impractical; one of the reasons people come here, besides the weather and the scintillating level of intellectual dialogue (present company excluded) is that there are jobs here. Oh, and most poor people can' t just pack up, hire a moving van, relocate to another city, pay first and last month's rent, and live on savings until they find a new job.

There was a time when the federal government taxed great wealth, and used the money to invest in cities, building (and subsidizing) housing and infrasructure and funding jobs programs. Much of that is now gone; revenue sharing is a ghost of the past, eliminated in the Reagan era.

So now we have almost a parody of American economic news: The New York Times reports that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is setting new records, and on the same page notes that the numbers of homeless people and people living in poverty are also setting records.

This is by far the biggest issue, the most serious crisis, facing the country, and (unlike wealth) it trickles down to every level of government. And it seems as if nobody is paying attention.

Comments

Don't worry, you don't have any assets anyone is interested in.
However, some our neighbors "South Of The Border" (perhaps
Stone's most important film) and elsewhere on the planet have nationalized oil and other natural resources. Oil companies doesn't own any oil, and mining companies don't own the mountains.These belong to the people, and any benefits extracted, derived, or coerced from them also belong to the people.

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 12:31 pm

government without full compensation.

What you are describing is not nationalization but expropriation. Only happens in banana republics, not here.

Posted by Anon on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 12:43 pm

the entire United States was expropriated.

Down with stupidity!!!

Power to the thoughtful!!!

Posted by San Francisco Anti-Stupidity Campaign on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 1:25 pm

There is nothing stopping you from tracking down who you have stolen from and returning your ill gotten gains to them.

And yet you do not.

Posted by Anon on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 1:44 pm

If you give freely from that beady little heart of yours,
no one will be forced to take it back.
If you don't, someday someone will.

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 6:19 pm

My little pile of nuts for the winter is far from where your grasping hands will ever find them.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 9:36 am

Who was talking about you?
Guilty conscience?

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 16, 2013 @ 9:04 am

The United States (now there's an oxymoron) is the biggest banana republic of all time. We have an "El Presadente" who is just a mouthpiece for the military and business, a wealthy class that thinks nothing of exterminating anyone not like them, and a "wanna-be" class that does all their dirty work while making apologies for their crimes against humanity.

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 1:54 pm
Posted by Anon on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 2:11 pm

And furthermore, there's nothing the least bit "left wing" about Obama. He's a tool of Wall Street. More than a dozen Obama economic officials have held senior positions at the very companies they were later charged with regulating. Many got their start at "Government Sachs". Folks like:

Herbert Allison, longtime Merrill Lynch exec and former head of Fannie Mae, tasked with overseeing the bank bailout

Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist and chief of staff for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner

Adam Storch, an ex-VP at Goldman; now managing the enforcement division of the SEC--the financial industry watchdog

And let's not forget former Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs (note: Tim Geithner was a former Goldman Sachs staffer, although he disputes this.)

Or current Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, a former chief operating officer with Citigroup

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

that he could start a left-wing revolution in America?

Did he stand on that platform? Did the voters clearly want that?

Posted by Anon on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 4:02 pm

Want the privacy of your own unit but community as well? Cohousing is a model where residents live in individual apartments or houses, but share some meals, activities, and management duties. Both rental and ownership options available. Cohousing can range from rural ecovillages to urban apartment complexes to retrofit cohousing made up of several adjacent houses in an existing block.

http://www.bayareaca.org/housing

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 11:49 am

into co-op housing (or for that matter, any other touchy-feeley purpose) then I will be delighted to sell the property to you.

What's your best offer?

Posted by Anon on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 11:54 am

Why do you think this is about you?

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 12:32 pm

or anyone buying any building and converting it to a co-op.

So why aren't you doing it?

Posted by Anon on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 12:42 pm

And again, it's not about me. Or you.

The Bay Area Community Land Trust (BACLT) provides training and assistance to tenants that want to convert their community to a resident owned and managed limited equity housing cooperative (LEHC).

The San Francisco Community Land Trust (SFCLT) assists tenants in San Francisco in converting their buildings into LEHC's.

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 1:46 pm

"Those who do, not not drone on about it. Those who do not, over-compensate by talking about how others should do it.

Posted by Anon on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 1:57 pm

Uh, "others" have done it.
Check the links.

And so have I.
Show me yours, I'll show you mine.

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 2:31 pm

You just think that other people should do it.

Great.

Posted by Anon on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 3:03 pm

No, I said: "Show me yours, I'll show you mine."
Poor illiterate Troll.....

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 5:05 pm

You appear to be struggling with that same admission.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 5:42 pm

I helped start the SF Community Land Trust which is a local democratically run limited equity housing cooperative.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 5:53 pm

Ironically the most successful co-operatives are professional partnerships typically used by lawyers, doctors, architects, accounts etc.

Not what you had in mind really, huh?

Posted by anon on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 7:47 am

Quit changing the subject.
You are officially killed.

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 8:07 am
Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 9:35 am

What HAVE you done?

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 6:26 pm

See what I mean?
I answered "Guests" post, but it showed up under
a Marcos post. Stupid website!

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 6:28 pm

tenants that he's going to Ellis the buildings and toss his tenants into the gutter.

Anon is quite the SF mover and shaker.

Oh, and he spends most of his day here to disrupt the non-existent SF progressive movement so that they spend all their time responding to his mostly untruthful and inane posts and are thus prevented from organizing to fight "the man." Based on the numerous responses anon gets here, he's actually been quite effective.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 6:37 pm

The lack of specificity, typos, and lack of humanity in most "Anon" and "Guest" posts leads me to believe that the Guardians servers have been infected with malware.

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 7:44 am

Hmm, sounds like SF Progressives to me!

Posted by anon on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 7:49 am

what remains of the SF left chasing their own tail.

Quite amusing.

Posted by anon on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 7:48 am

Nothing to say? OK, I'll bite:
I was a founding board member for a natural food co-op in the East Bay,
and have been a member of another cooperative for 40 years.

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 8:12 am

I'm guessing not so much. The average law firm - also a co-operative - would be bigger.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 15, 2013 @ 9:34 am

Your obsession with size makes me wonder if there aren't issues of inadequacy being projected?

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 16, 2013 @ 9:06 am

On March 6, 2013 SFCLT, Supervisor Jane Kim, Clearinghouse CDFI, South of Market Community Action Network, SoMa Stabilization Fund, and Filipino American Development Foundation held a press conference to announce the community acquisition and preservation of 534-36 Natoma Street, a five unit low-income apartment building that was at-risk of losing its affordability to the high-cost housing market on the steps of City Hall. Why was this such an important victory for the community? With the real estate market heating up in San Francisco, existing rent-controlled, affordable apartments are at risk of losing their affordability due to various market forces. When a long-term tenant moves out, the rent can be adjusted to market rate. With rents starting at $1800/month for a one-bedroom, market rate that is no longer affordable to households earning less than 80% of San Francisco’s median income. This may be good for an investor, but it’s not good for the community, especially when only 38% of San Francisco residents can afford homeownership and 62% depend on rental housing. Additionally, Ellis Act evictions by investors who want to re-sell the units as Tenants-in-Common (TIC) units displace long-term residents, many of whom are low-income and will not be able to find alternative housing in the community. The Rent Board reports a 68% increase in Ellis Act Evictions in the last fiscal year.

http://www.sfclt.org/

Posted by marcos on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 12:00 pm

Rent Board. Given that most of these are "for case" such as non-payment of rent, there is no "rash" of evictions. It's still a fairly rare event, despite the whining of some on the left.

but hey, if the city wants to make a market-rate bid for any property of mine, I'll consider it. Heck, it's your taxes.

Posted by Anon on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 12:06 pm

Sad, childish, spiteful, resentful, uninformed little Trolls.
I'm really disappointed at the level of discourse
on this site. Not one link to back up their claims that "99%"
blah-blah-blah. This is the Information Capital of The World?
What, there's only like five people capable of making an intelligent argument
in San Francisco?

Or only five that read the Guardian?!

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 2:39 pm

This SFBG article is exactly the kind of journalism missing from mainstream publications. By going behind the headlines and soundbites we get a much deeper picture of some of the severe economic issues facing the region, state, and world.

The very well-respected Urban Institute just published a recent report on similar issues, focusing on wealth accumulation by Gens X and Y (those under 40). Even in its relatively dry report language it lays out a fairly dismal future for younger generations absent major changes to public policy.

"Lost Generations? Wealth Building among Young Americans"
By Eugene Steuerle, Signe-Mary McKernan, Caroline Ratcliffe, and Sisi Zhang

"Despite the Great Recession and the fragile economic recovery, the wealth of Americans has grown significantly when a longer-term view is considered. Average household wealth approximately doubled from 1983 to 2010, and average incomes rose similarly. For many, the American dream of working hard, saving more, and becoming wealthier than one’s parents holds true.

Unless you’re under 40.

Today, those in Gen X and Gen Y have accumulated less wealth than their parents did at that age over a quartercentury ago. Their average wealth in 2010 was 7 percent below that of those in their 20s and 30s in 1983. Even before the Great Recession, younger Americans were on a strikingly different trajectory. Now, stagnant wages, diminishing job opportunities, and lost home values may be merging to paint a vastly different future for Gen X and Gen Y. Despite their relative youth, they may not be able to make up the lost ground. If these generations cannot accumulate wealth, they will be less able to support themselves when they eventually retire."

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412766-Lost-Generations-Wealth-Building...

Posted by Guest on Mar. 18, 2013 @ 4:31 pm
Posted by anon on Mar. 18, 2013 @ 4:46 pm

Tim- Why dont you read Henry George's "Progress and Poverty". The book explains why poverty increases with increasing wealth and traces the whole
problem to the treatment of land as a private commodity to be bought sold and monopolized by the wealthy few. I am amazed that you have not heard of this great American economist who lived in San Francisco in the late 1800's and
formulated his solution to human poverty there. There's a Henry George School
in San Francisco. Call it up and get the condensed version of his book. When it came out in 1885 it received the full endorsement and support of some of the best thinking minds of the time- Bertrand Russell, Leo Tolstoy, John Dewey, Albert Einstein to name a few.
Today Henry George's book is almost completely ingnored by mainstream economists.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 20, 2013 @ 11:20 am

Hey, thanx for this!

Posted by Troll Killer on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 6:10 am

the tax structure for real property wherein property is valued based on the buildings put on it rather than its intrinsic nature.

Far from a "rising tide floating all boats," the system provides that the richer they get... the richer they get.

Land with a high potential use left barren is very lightly taxed while it continues to appreciate in value based on the actions of *other* surrounding landholders. (Ayn Randian leeches stifle progress while promoting their individual accumulation.)

There is one kink in George's plan which wasn't as well appreciated in his day -- that land with natural resources would be taxed until the resources were stripped out of it -- and so it requires some add-ons to make it work, but even just used as a tool for pointing out the ongoing systemic injustice in our economy, Henry George's tax system is quite useful.

Most of the wealth in the U.S. is real estate and it is mostly held by the 1%.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 7:06 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Also from this author

  • Next, the Treasure Island sellout

  • SF approaches 1 million residents

  • Editor's notes

    It's the Information Age -- so why do our public officials hoard data?