I know several Progressives that live in San Francisco and have children. They don't walk through squallor to get to school. It sucks that people do. Why do others with those same ideals vote for politicians that create living conditions like this? https://images.app.goo.gl/tPkMVhPstnocKff36
I don't know. What I do know is that despite your anecdotal evidence, parts of San Francisco have deteriorated terribly under "progressive" leadership. More like regressive leadership. And my point stands, politicians who virtue signal and focus on the fringe will lose the center and their base.
I think there's a HUGE difference between San Francisco and Appalachia. That's kind of a weird comparison. One is poverty in the midst of extravagant wealth; the other is poverty in the midst of a larger sea of poverty
Do you REALLY want to discuss quality of life metrics by state in the US based on party lines? You REALLY want to go there? We can have an objective statistical debate here if you really want.
No one is denying that wealthy Californians have a case of the NIMBYs. We saw that with the district attorney that was pushed out because he was sincere about long term solutions to criminal justice.
That actually makes my point more than I intended. The place with Republican leadership has vastly more poverty. The point I was making was to point out that @AroundTheWorld tried to use anecdotal evidence to make a point. I used anecdotal evidence as well to make the point. He recognized it. So that's good. My point still stands. That when politicians favor policies that are trickle down and beneficial to the wealthy at the expense of the impoverished and struggling middle class, it doesn't help.
yeah, I know you're trying to imply a correlation-causation thing here, but obviously it's more complicated than that. In both places. anyway. didn't mean to butt in
That DA was a total idiot. Good example of my point: Pursuing politics based on ideology rather than based on what your base actually cares about will make you lose your base.
And this is why we as a society will always be running in circles chasing our own tails. We only care about policy results based on 2 year election cycles when deep rooted systemic problems require solutions that take years to take effect and show its fruits.
People's lives need immediate results. If your children go to school for 8 years in an environment of drugs and crime, you don't care about what happens in 20 years.
Actually policies that benefit children will reap its benefits 10-20 years down the line. Hence why investment in things like access to healthcare or early childhood education are difficult to pass because society doesn't reap those rewards immediately.
They really don't especially with what politicians use in terms of statistics for what constitutes a successful term such as gdp growth and crime. 5 year olds aren't commiting crime nor are they contributing economically. Hence why it's a long term investment.
Has it though? San Francisco has become one of the most desirable places in the world to live under liberal leadership. The property values and desirability are still extremely high.
The tech industry created a lot of high-paying jobs there. People naturally flock towards high-paying jobs. Weather and scenery are beautiful. However, crime and taxes are not. The latter two are the ones "liberal" leadership had an actual impact on. Weather, scenery, tech industry's success - not so much.
