Socialist socioeconomic policies always work well when there is enough money to pay for it. Who doesn't want free goods and services? How could people's lives, well-being, and happiness be anything but improved when their needs and some wants are provided for them?
This must be kept in mind when looking at a city like San Francisco. It is an enormously wealthy city, with a massive tax base. For a variety of cultural and historical reasons, there's a great deal of value in being located there as a business, so companies are willing to pay quite a premium -- part of which is the cost of local public social policy -- to be there. Imagine Wells Fargo or Dropbox moving their headquarters to Bakersfield... I have no doubt they'd save a lot of money, as would their employees. Yet, they don't, for obvious reasons.
Now, let's look at the sort of businesses that ARE in Bakersfield... Honestly, how capable, financially, do you think most of the (small) businesses are at providing these same sorts of benefits that you have?
They can't. They simply can't without going out of business.
And that's the fundamental problem with socialism. There simply aren't the resources to deliver on the promises for everyone.