BC Lags Behind Other Provinces in Life Satisfaction

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Obviously all those places have issues - but suspect its wildly overblown. Considering the prices of living in those places - seems likely the demand to move there is quite high.

Yeah, the fact that people want to move to Vancouver doesn't mean there aren't very serious issues. There are. There are places in the city where you don't see them so much, but the problems exist nonetheless and are quite bad.

[SebC]

It is a notable truism that people who want to move to Vancouver don't live in Vancouver, and people who want to move out of Vancouver do.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by blankall

The homeless problem in SF, and across the West Coast generally, is indeed getting much worse. And that's despite record numbers of overdose deaths that are an epidemic in that population.

The issue is also more front and center, as homeless people are now setting up semi-permanent camps in many streets. Historically, many cities would literally clean up the streets every morning with street sweepers, moving the problems to other areas. Parks would have enforced no loitering laws and curfews.

I'm not sure what the right answer. Those laws were totally draconian and a violation of all sorts of human rights. However, they also prevented the large scale congregation of people, which can act as a culture to draw more people in.

BC, starting January 31, 2023, will be decriminalizing personal amounts of most hard drugs. it'll be interesting to see what the effect of that is.

I don't support just sweeping people off the streets to get them out of the way, but I also think the strict adherence to the sanctity of human rights in situations where people are suffering from addiction actually borders on cruelty. People are quite visibly suffering and dying on the streets every day. What is the value in protecting a person's right to free choice when addiction has already made them unable to choose freely? Is it really more ethical to stand by and watch people spiral into suffering and death to protect an idea of their rights rather than getting involved to try and save their actual life? It's a health issue that a person is very unlikely to solve without direct intervention. It's one of the places where a paternalistic state is more ethical.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by SebC

It is a notable truism that people who want to move to Vancouver don't live in Vancouver, and people who want to move out of Vancouver do.

People often desire what they do not have.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The SF second-hand story is pretty ridiculous to me. SF very obviously has problems, some of which have gotten worse, some of which have existed since I was a kid.

"Homeless camps!" yeah, literally for as long as I can remember.

"Cost of living!" COMPLETELY manageable (which is being generous: it's actually just irrelevant) for someone making $1M USD

"Drug use!" Really? In SF? No way.

I understand it's a personal issue, and I understand certain areas of SF can be shocking to people from Calgary, for example, and certain aspects of the city are getting worse for everyone. But the constant post-apocalyptic wasteland nightmare tales from yuppie 1%ers and small city tourists is exhausting to read.

I think SF is just kinda jarring because you can walk a half block off of the most vibrant streets right into extreme poverty/drug use. I'm sure there are other places where that is also true, but I've generally found there to be a longer transition between tourist hotspots and ghettos

[Locke]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think SF is just kinda jarring because you can walk a half block off of the most vibrant streets right into extreme poverty/drug use. I'm sure there are other places where that is also true, but I've generally found there to be a longer transition between tourist hotspots and ghettos

Yeah but for Pepsi your opinion is just exhausting! I'm sure he could feel the tiredness in his bones just reading it.

And I'm certain that someone almost cared too.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think SF is just kinda jarring because you can walk a half block off of the most vibrant streets right into extreme poverty/drug use. I'm sure there are other places where that is also true, but I've generally found there to be a longer transition between tourist hotspots and ghettos

I can see it as jarring for people who aren’t used to it, but even this makes it sound like every nice area is bordered by overwhelming poverty and it just isn’t.

The busy areas where most people live and work or visit are fine. The Tenderloin sucks, which is really the only awful place near a hot spot. Mission is on the way up. There are some low income areas that nobody would go to anyway that are also dangerous (which is true of every city). But it’s not unlike anywhere else outside of the fact that there’s just so many more people. Yeah there’s homeless camps and drug use. There are people having mental breakdowns wandering through busy areas. But it’s also been this way forever. The reputation goes beyond reality. It’s been like that with Oakland forever, too.

I think for me, it’s people who get a little snapshot of the Bay Area, whether it’s through the lens of a tourist, a sheltered yuppie, or whatever, and they go on about how that’s what the Bay Area is. As I said, it’s a personal thing, I know nobody here cares, but I care about it.

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah but for Pepsi your opinion is just exhausting! I'm sure he could feel the tiredness in his bones just reading it.

And I'm certain that someone almost cared too.

I actually thought his opinion was worthwhile and wasn’t nearly as dramatic as yours. Maybe you can tell more stories about your pearl-clutching clients who can’t budget a million dollar salary and we’ll see if one is worthwhile. Must mean you have your work cut out for you as their accountant.

[OldDutch]

I stayed in the Tenderloin YMCA in 2003 as a buddy booked it because it was cheap. Never forget the bus ride from airport to there, where we met a very pleasant homeless man.

He asked us where our stop was and we told him. He looked cold at us and said “Fellas keep going, no need to be there”

We laughed and then arrived and realized he wouldn’t get off the bus. Smart dude.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I actually thought his opinion was worthwhile and wasn’t nearly as dramatic as yours. Maybe you can tell more stories about your pearl-clutching clients who can’t budget a million dollar salary and we’ll see if one is worthwhile. Must mean you have your work cut out for you as their accountant.

Oh Son...sweet summer child, see, thats where you missed the point.

Its not that you cant live in San Francisco (or Frisco as the locals love!) on $1M a year. But why would you? What does it offer relative to its costs?

There are so many places where you can make that income stretch so much farther.

[chemgear]

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/ind...dafdb02a76d2a4

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh Son...sweet summer child, see, thats where you missed the point.

Its not that you cant live in San Francisco (or Frisco as the locals love!) on $1M a year. But why would you? What does it offer relative to its costs?

There are so many places where you can make that income stretch so much farther.

If that was supposed to be the point it wasn’t a very good one. Bigger cities = more expensive. This isn’t new or interesting, Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal are all more expensive than Calgary. Why does anyone live any of these places?

Hell, you can also make it stretch further in Hanna than you can in Calgary.

Maybe we can both move to Hanna together and be neighbours. Enjoy our newfound riches together. Birthplace of Nickelback after all. I’m sure it’s brimming with opportunity.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I understand it's a personal issue, and I understand certain areas of SF can be shocking to people from Calgary, for example, and certain aspects of the city are getting worse for everyone. But the constant post-apocalyptic wasteland nightmare tales from yuppie 1%ers and small city tourists is exhausting to read.

I really don't think it's a problem of small city perspective. I've spent most of my adult life living in very large cities and I also find the homelessness and drugs on the West Coast jarring. It really should not just be dismissed and taken for granted.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If that was supposed to be the point it wasn’t a very good one. Bigger cities = more expensive. This isn’t new or interesting, Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal are all more expensive than Calgary. Why does anyone live any of these places?

Hell, you can also make it stretch further in Hanna than you can in Calgary.

Maybe we can both move to Hanna together and be neighbours. Enjoy our newfound riches together. Birthplace of Nickelback after all. I’m sure it’s brimming with opportunity.

With the coal power plants shutting down Hanna likely isn’t the best choice.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I really don't think it's a problem of small city perspective. I've spent most of my adult life living in very large cities and I also find the homelessness and drugs on the West Coast jarring. It really should not just be dismissed and taken for granted.

Its just a hilarious lack of perspective.

Pepsi probably lived in New York once for a couple of months.

[Zulu29]

Just wanted to contribute to the thread. In my personal experience, homelessness and addiction/mental health have been the driving force behind the spike in violent crime ( yes I’m aware the general crime rate has dropped but I believe that will rise again due to the pandemic ending). I understand the intent behind the criminal Justice system is rehabilitation but lacks any focus on prevention which does entail detaining someone whose freedom impacts the general population negatively ie: victims of crime.

Interestingly, statistics show that someone who receives a federal sentence for crime (2 plus years) is less likely to re offend vs those that receive a provincial sentence (2 years or less). We also lack facilities such as the old Riverview mental health centre that was closed down in the 90’s to house people who cannot care for themselves and are a danger to society.

The government needs to address their lack of care for the people who are so unwell that they can’t function in society and also hold those criminals to account who continuously victimize the general population.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I really don't think it's a problem of small city perspective. I've spent most of my adult life living in very large cities and I also find the homelessness and drugs on the West Coast jarring. It really should not just be dismissed and taken for granted.

I’m not talking about the West Coast, I’m talking about SF. I’m not going to talk about Vancouver or Seattle like I know them. Haven’t you lived in China? I don’t know if I would assume that is a comparable big city experience, especially culturally. Would you? (truly asking)

Originally Posted by Locke

Its just a hilarious lack of perspective.

Pepsi probably lived in New York once for a couple of months.

Or the Bay Area. For years. Where family and friends still live. But please tell me about all the perspective you gained while doing taxes for rich yuppies that couldn’t budget their Tesla lease on $1M per. Such a valuable, universal experience. “It was SO INSANE!”

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I don't support just sweeping people off the streets to get them out of the way, but I also think the strict adherence to the sanctity of human rights in situations where people are suffering from addiction actually borders on cruelty. People are quite visibly suffering and dying on the streets every day. What is the value in protecting a person's right to free choice when addiction has already made them unable to choose freely? Is it really more ethical to stand by and watch people spiral into suffering and death to protect an idea of their rights rather than getting involved to try and save their actual life? It's a health issue that a person is very unlikely to solve without direct intervention. It's one of the places where a paternalistic state is more ethical.

It's not just about human rights unfortunately. There is enough research that demonstrates that forcing people into treatment more often than not results in relapses, and the relapses tend to be more fatal because the person has lost their previous levels of tolerance but is still doing the same amount of drugs.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's not just about human rights unfortunately. There is enough research that demonstrates that forcing people into treatment more often than not results in relapses, and the relapses tend to be more fatal because the person has lost their previous levels of tolerance but is still doing the same amount of drugs.

I think part of the reason forced treatment often fails is that substance abuse and addiction are often not the root problem, but a symptom of other issues. People like to group it all together as "mental health", but it is such an over simplification of what is really a myriad of issues. Some people falsely believe that all kinds of depression, PTSD, anxiety, etc... can be treated or managed with pharmaceutical drugs, meditation, breathing exercises, healthy living... but they can't. Sometimes literally the only way people can cope is to numb their senses, and we have made it such a taboo that people often get chased away from society and families. They financially ruin themselves in the process. Sure, there are some people without any other internal issues who get addicted because they just like getting high, and those are the ones that will respond better to treatment, but it doesn't work for everyone.

I really think part of the solution is to make drugs safer and affordable. Put research and development into. Of course there will be people who still won't function well enough to be employable because all they want to do is get high, but it would at least help the ones need it to cope, can moderate themselves, and don't need to turn to crime and ostracization.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’m not talking about the West Coast, I’m talking about SF. I’m not going to talk about Vancouver or Seattle like I know them. Haven’t you lived in China? I don’t know if I would assume that is a comparable big city experience, especially culturally. Would you? (truly asking)

It's definitely a different cultural experience, but that's kind of the point. It's not a result of the size of the city. Hong Kong is pretty similar in size to the Bay Area. Shanghai is much larger. Cities can be much bigger than SF without having the same issues. There are other factors at play.

For me, I think one of the saddest things about places like Vancouver and SF is that you can see so much suffering surrounded by so much abundance. I've seen really brutal stuff in big cities like Mumbai too, but at the same time it's a context where people are coming out of poverty and working towards better living standards. It's heartbreaking to see some of what exists there, but more understandable in a way and there is more hope for the future. In places like Vancouver and SF by contrast, there is an abundance of wealth and resources around and yet you can see so many people spiraling downwards, because of contextual differences, including culture.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

With the coal power plants shutting down Hanna likely isn’t the best choice.

Are you kidding? That will make it even cheaper!