Can you be specific? What is it about Scandinavian or German or Dutch politics do you think would avoid the situation in SF?
I ask because left-to-right isn't really a one-dimensional scale. California has legalized recreational weed, for instance, and that's not a thing in Germany or Scandinavia (or even the Netherlands, technically). Those countries have much nicer prison conditions, but there's also no way anyone there - from the voters to the police to the government - would tolerate the sort of crime that the justice system in SF tolerates.
In general, I suspect on many axes San Francisco/California politics are to the left of European social democracies, while being to the right on others. It'd be helpful to understand what specific ways it needs to move left to solve these problems, and why you believe that'd help. Of course you might just say "SF should be at or to the left of the Scandanavia on all axes", but I don't think that's a very substantive critique.
(I'll add, with the caveat that I suspect these are apples-to-oranges comparisons: some quick Googling suggests that the district of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg - which spends more than anywhere else in Berlin - puts around 2.5EUR per resident per year towards homeless programs, whereas apparently SF spends more like $600 per person per year. I don't know what the apple-to-apple numbers are and couldn't find them at a glance, but I do have a hunch that spending in SF vastly outstripes that of anywhere in the EU, another way SF would be further to the left.)
It's very simple - there is less inequality in the EU (or Canada). Inequality = crime, pretty much that is all there is to it. Give people a decent share in society, and mostly they will respect it.
Except that isn't true. Every Dutch person has access to healthcare, social security, justice, competent policing, clean food etc. Whereas in the US many many people don't have those basic things, as often they are only available to the rich. This is a more fundamental understanding of inequality.
San Franciscans, including the homeless, already have access to free healthcare[0]. California also has free, universal healthcare[1], and there are more people in California than all of Canada.
Not universal - you have to meet eligibility criteria (i.e. be rather poor) to use it - it is California's Medicade it appears.
My understanding is that the worst difficulties (bankruptcy, avoiding care, crippling premiums, large out of pocket) are in fact experienced by middle income people who don't qualify for Medicaid/Medicare. There is none of that in the Netherlands.
It is true. It is a fact that the Netherlands has one of the highest levels of wealth inequality in the world, including higher than that if the US.
The things you’ve listed aren’t income inequality, they are a social safety net. Having access to healthcare doesn’t put you much closer to a billionaire in terms of wealth. Perhaps a weak social safety net is to blame, but given that SF has some of the most extensive social services of any city in the US, that also seems unlikely.
As Europeans, each of us is born into so much real wealth - the things I've listed are just the beginning - that trinkets like cars and TVs and so forth really aren't significant. Some people drive Ferraris, some take the bus - but in terms of meaningful wealth we are all pretty much the same. We are all free in a way that Americans, though they talk much about freedom, can never really grasp. We are free from fear.
What a joke. I moved from europe (eastern europe but still eu) to the us after my parents died in a hospital because of the incredible quality of “free healthcare” which didn’t want to pay for their treatment and often forgot to feed the in the hospital.
If I had the money I made in the us then I could have maybe put them in a private hospital. You’re only as free as how much money you have in your pocket, nothing else matters.
Germany is on a path to legalize recreational weed afaik.
Solving crime is here in Europe generally the task of the land or state, not of the city. It's much more centralised than in the US.
It's hard to directly compare policies when the systems are so much different. But I gather a great deal of SF criminality is due to people that are not from California and do not reside there legally. Those would not be able to live in any European country like that, they would be forced to leave. That's one example.
I ask because left-to-right isn't really a one-dimensional scale. California has legalized recreational weed, for instance, and that's not a thing in Germany or Scandinavia (or even the Netherlands, technically). Those countries have much nicer prison conditions, but there's also no way anyone there - from the voters to the police to the government - would tolerate the sort of crime that the justice system in SF tolerates.
In general, I suspect on many axes San Francisco/California politics are to the left of European social democracies, while being to the right on others. It'd be helpful to understand what specific ways it needs to move left to solve these problems, and why you believe that'd help. Of course you might just say "SF should be at or to the left of the Scandanavia on all axes", but I don't think that's a very substantive critique.
(I'll add, with the caveat that I suspect these are apples-to-oranges comparisons: some quick Googling suggests that the district of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg - which spends more than anywhere else in Berlin - puts around 2.5EUR per resident per year towards homeless programs, whereas apparently SF spends more like $600 per person per year. I don't know what the apple-to-apple numbers are and couldn't find them at a glance, but I do have a hunch that spending in SF vastly outstripes that of anywhere in the EU, another way SF would be further to the left.)