The People’s Republic of Zuckerstan(thebaffler.com)
thebaffler.com
The People’s Republic of Zuckerstan
http://www.thebaffler.com/past/peoples_republic_of_zuckerstan
7 comments
Eh, that's not quite right--the observation is more that the cities are bending-over backwards for this "Innovation Economy", that they are doing so to the detriment of existing citizens, that social and arts programs are usually not on the preservation list during this sort of change, and that ultimately there is perhaps something ugly about this mad scramble for money.
So, no, not "cranky hipster".
So, no, not "cranky hipster".
Every week, the Somerville Journal is full of angry letters from "old-time" Somervillians who can't afford to live there anymore - every one of them blames the mayor. But, when you've got a town that is right next to hyper-expensive Cambridge and less than a mile from downtown Boston with an old repairable housing stock.... Reminds me of the old Busboy's song "There goes the neighborhood" from the early 80s - an ironic look at what would happen if white people realized the neighborhoods they gave up in the mad dash for the suburbs in the 50s and 60s were actually pretty nice and really convenient to their jobs.
But really, the problem with the article is it doesn't give any alternative. How would Cambridge pay for all those nice parks and amenities without the Kendall Square company's tax receipts?
But really, the problem with the article is it doesn't give any alternative. How would Cambridge pay for all those nice parks and amenities without the Kendall Square company's tax receipts?
First they came for the dives, and then they took the basement venues away too, just to spite me.
Oh no, people who are willing to pay more than you to live somewhere have caused you to have to live somewhere else. TL;DR: The same thing that has been happening since the dawn of time continues to happen.
The issue that OP is concerned with is that those who are displaced don't necessarily have the means to relocate to an area and remain in the same living situation they were previously in. When you uproot lower-income residents from their existing social structure, which may have served as their safety net, where are they supposed to go? They may relocate physically but the economic and mental/psychological strain from being forcibly moved may have detrimental consequences that we haven't properly taken the time to understand.
'Progress' and residential gentrification are not necessarily evil things, but they become destructive when the people moving in have no interest in maintaining social services for people other than themselves. If the tech sector wishes to maintain the image that it is an industry with a 'heart', it would behoove those of us working in it to inform ourselves as to the consequences of our economic decisions.
'Progress' and residential gentrification are not necessarily evil things, but they become destructive when the people moving in have no interest in maintaining social services for people other than themselves. If the tech sector wishes to maintain the image that it is an industry with a 'heart', it would behoove those of us working in it to inform ourselves as to the consequences of our economic decisions.
As usual, The Baffler is smug and ignorant to the point of dangerously distracting incoherence.
Having visited and lived in Cambridge and Somerville for about 20 years, the problem has nothing to do with entrepreneurs and everything to do with the prices/value of transient housing. There have always been hugemongous factories intermingled with the residences (remember Necco? Junior Mints? Analog Devices?)
With or without recent crass attempts at branding, the area has been a legendary entrepreneurship hot bed, from World War II radar to Ms. PacMan to Guitar Hero and everything in between. It doesn't need explicit branding to achieve this status. Innovation here comes in waves. Biotech was big 10 years ago. Now it's online social stuff with biotech still fairing strong.
There are more specific problems, such as Harvard's capital buying out houses and turning them into faux fraternal organizations and ever more dorms. Or my favorite frustration, the generation of do-nothings in Somerville and Medford who inherited three-deckers from their parents and do little but collect rent from Tufts, Harvard and MIT students.
Confounding the process is that fact that so much of the population is temporary - 2 to 5 years in resident that they can - and hardly desire - political coherency, thus yielding power to the incumbents.
Having visited and lived in Cambridge and Somerville for about 20 years, the problem has nothing to do with entrepreneurs and everything to do with the prices/value of transient housing. There have always been hugemongous factories intermingled with the residences (remember Necco? Junior Mints? Analog Devices?)
With or without recent crass attempts at branding, the area has been a legendary entrepreneurship hot bed, from World War II radar to Ms. PacMan to Guitar Hero and everything in between. It doesn't need explicit branding to achieve this status. Innovation here comes in waves. Biotech was big 10 years ago. Now it's online social stuff with biotech still fairing strong.
There are more specific problems, such as Harvard's capital buying out houses and turning them into faux fraternal organizations and ever more dorms. Or my favorite frustration, the generation of do-nothings in Somerville and Medford who inherited three-deckers from their parents and do little but collect rent from Tufts, Harvard and MIT students.
Confounding the process is that fact that so much of the population is temporary - 2 to 5 years in resident that they can - and hardly desire - political coherency, thus yielding power to the incumbents.
What a bizarre rant. It's like an angry former chamber of commerce booster knocking the only thing going on.
Be real. Cambridge is a dump. The full-time residents are angry old folks and poor people, the city is dirty and the infrastructure is awful. The housing is a mix of ghetto and college town -- lots of houses cut up into a warren of teeny apartments and condos.
Be real. Cambridge is a dump. The full-time residents are angry old folks and poor people, the city is dirty and the infrastructure is awful. The housing is a mix of ghetto and college town -- lots of houses cut up into a warren of teeny apartments and condos.
The idea that entrepreneurship is somehow opposed to "liberalism" is just laughable. Startup communities welcome people no matter what their background (high school dropout, college dropout, who cares?). At least, that is their goal. This is not to say that there isn't some cognitive bias in favor of those with access to elite educations (I'd say much less so than in older institutions such as law, and even in modern institutions like banking and consulting). However, the barriers to entry in technology essentially do not exist in the way they do in banking and law (try getting one of those jobs without a degree). Or even becoming a politician. Just off the top of my head, Paul Buchheit started at Case Western Reserve. Jack Dorsey started at the Missouri Institute of Technology. The President of the company I work at went to USD. Evan Williams went to Nebraska. Biz Stone went to Northeastern, then UMass. Trevor Blackwell started at Carleton. Other YC partners went to schools like Bucknell and Stetson.
Apologies for the rant-like post, but this is becoming a major pet peeve of mine.
Apologies for the rant-like post, but this is becoming a major pet peeve of mine.
"entrepreneurship" inherently favours those who can take risks - which means those who are already financially secure, or from privileged backgrounds where they can be sure of finding a new job quickly. It favours those who can get money from VC, which is very much an old-boys club. And it favours the kind of businesses that make a profit quickly, whatever their other effects.
While entrepreneurship is absolutely easier for those with access to money and privilege, so is everything. Name one job where access to money and privilege doesn't convey some form of advantage. Also, law, banking, consulting, and most white collar jobs are infinitely more favorable towards those with such access, in that they essentially shut out those without it. Entrepreneurship does not. Even blue collar, union jobs favor those with seniority and access to resources. You've defined a characteristic of life, and only applied it as a negative when discussing startups.
Money and privilege make everything easier, but the effects are much larger in entrepreneurship. To my eyes it's easier for someone from a poor background to break into law or banking; the path isn't easy but it's defined - you get the grades, get the scholarships and so on, rather than having to persuade individuals to talk to you, to invest in your product. Likewise standardized hiring procedures like you see in large corporations or government are designed to detect or eliminate discrimination, whereas VC deals still often come down to a handshake over beers.
Of course other approaches have their own problems, I'm not saying every VC should start implementing a 20-page HR policy. But I think we should be conscious of who our methods are favouring.
Of course other approaches have their own problems, I'm not saying every VC should start implementing a 20-page HR policy. But I think we should be conscious of who our methods are favouring.
I'm not so sure, historically maybe, but now? A nights and weekend gig could turn into something huge. YC was designed originally for college students on summer breaks (hardly financially secure and the majority who end up at college are from the vast middle of the financial spectrum).
Sure, there's a bias toward the educated but education is attainable from the library and now the internet. The other biases will still be there, but they are hardly disqualifying in the U.S. There is no rigid class system, for instance.
Sure, there's a bias toward the educated but education is attainable from the library and now the internet. The other biases will still be there, but they are hardly disqualifying in the U.S. There is no rigid class system, for instance.
"living" inherently favours those who can breathe - which means those who are already breathing, or from oxygen rich environments where they can be sure of finding new O2 molecules quickly. It favours those who can get air from tanks, which are very much old apparatuses. And it favours the kind of lungs that exhale quickly, whatever their other effects.
I believe this is known as "reducto ad absurdum".
you're drawing a parallel of unequal magnitude.
Those who are already secure are unlikely to have the hustle and drive to create something innovative. The VC's may be out on the golf course but the people that actually make things are too busy.
>Startup communities welcome people no matter what their background
As long as they'll work long hours for low pay, dress right, binge drink, don't have a family, and somehow maintain an active interest in the open source community despite working 60hrs/week.
As long as they'll work long hours for low pay, dress right, binge drink, don't have a family, and somehow maintain an active interest in the open source community despite working 60hrs/week.
Just because a lot of "startup people" binge drink doesn't mean all of them do. Dress right? Startups have a much freer dress code (read: they don't) than basically all traditional jobs. Most jobs have actual dress codes.
Also, having a family doesn't mean they are excluded based on their background. It means they have decided to value something above starting a company, something they are free to do. You translated "welcome people of all backgrounds" into "allow people to get exactly the same lifestyle and compensation format while also working at a startup." Anyone can start a startup. That doesn't mean everyone should or will.
Also, having a family doesn't mean they are excluded based on their background. It means they have decided to value something above starting a company, something they are free to do. You translated "welcome people of all backgrounds" into "allow people to get exactly the same lifestyle and compensation format while also working at a startup." Anyone can start a startup. That doesn't mean everyone should or will.
I can't follow this essay. I'm not sure how the ex-NSA entrepreneurs ties into transit workers working later because the train schedule was expanded. It reads like a list of unrelated complaints instead of a cohesive argument against...what? Trying to attract businesses?
Funny, I'm what you'd call a paleoconservative, lived in Cambridge for 6 years (Harvard undergrad and MIT work after), but I think this "no one here but us liberals and loonies" rant is more or less right on. ;-)
Stupid title and a long wandering article padded with disconnected complaints disparaging the City's efforts to remain a tech hub. This alleged "hard-core nerd" was even in favor the software tax, pathetic.
Every cool person, and cool place, has moved to Somerville, but rents are way up there, too.
So go to the Gods, and to the Cantab Lounge, while you can. Before some story of a deal that closed over PBRs in plastic cups shows up in TechCrunch.