How are you quantifying (qualifying?) "well-managed". If the metric we care about is along the lines of cost of living, then it's arguably the worst in the county. I could afford to buy a house in pretty much any Red State. What's that a function of? People not wanting to live there? I doubt it. I sincerely doubt it, because every time this topic comes up here on HN we hear stories about people leaving SF/SV for Austin or the South East - and there's plenty of data showing an exodus out of the West Cost corridor. Will housing costs go up in those areas? Maybe - but if/when there's a reshuffling I have a lot more faith in city leaders in those other parts of the country not to use the San Francisco checklist for "how to turn your city upside down".

>And CA voters like to pay for things. Red-state voters do not; they like to pretend that people will do things for free (i.e., teachers) until things break and they accept the reality that nice things cost money.

I think this point is also way off the mark. I should not have to shell out thousands a year for pre-school if I want my kids to be competitive. This is the reality for friends I have in SF. Not so for friends in Houston or Austin.

I don't live in SF, but I turned down a job there entirely because of the cost of living and that, at least from where I'm standing, the city is run by idiots that are completely disconnected from reality. You might think I'm conflating state and city government, and to an extent you're right, I am. But as city leadership is so often a launch pad for state (and then national) government I'm not particularly bullish on California's future.

Cost of living is high is because people want to live here. CA population is actually going up.

Their horribly underfunded pensions disagree with you.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/California-s-public...