Stupid Simple Things SF Techies Could Do To Stop Being Hated(dashes.com)
dashes.com
Stupid Simple Things SF Techies Could Do To Stop Being Hated
http://dashes.com/anil/2014/01/stupid-simple-things-sf-techies-could-do-to-stop-being-hated.html
97 comments
I have a theory that some of the anger at techies is driven by the fact that they are, in many cases and in popular imagination, fairly nerdy. People are used to looking down on these people, given America's school system and typical corporate makeup. Perhaps it even has evolutionary roots. And, by and large, nerdy kinda-liberal people are inclined to take it, agree, and supplicate.
Compare and contrast with the treatment of the financial industry in the Bay Area. Even on HN, taking shots at an obviously fraudulent financial system and the people in it will get you jumped all over ("they allocate capital efficiently!", etc, etc. et-tripe-cetera) while articles like this will elicit more balanced and self-aware commentary.
My theory is that this dynamic is more prevalent in the press and non-tech thought leaders, etc. not in the middle and lower classes.
Compare and contrast with the treatment of the financial industry in the Bay Area. Even on HN, taking shots at an obviously fraudulent financial system and the people in it will get you jumped all over ("they allocate capital efficiently!", etc, etc. et-tripe-cetera) while articles like this will elicit more balanced and self-aware commentary.
My theory is that this dynamic is more prevalent in the press and non-tech thought leaders, etc. not in the middle and lower classes.
The anger has nothing to do with "nerdiness". It's economic. Since tech is the one job sector that is not suffering, wouldn't it be nice for some of them to volunteer something to help the community? Seeing as they have some to spare and others have very little?
Why are engineers who make 100-150k expected to give back to society because we percieve them to be so lucky but millionaire and billionaire bank executives see no pressure for this at all? What is the obsession with the idea that people making low six figures are somehow the richest people with the most free time. Hell I don't make a whole lot over 100k and work 60 hours a week. Why am I the audience that is picked on while the bank executive heads out at 4 and never gives anything back? Its a bit insane to me really.
Ya. People seem to think that every Googler, Twit and Facebooker is a millionaire. A friend of mine works at Google. He lives a little more comfortably now than before he started there... but he's certainly not snorting coke off of hookers with $100 bills.
Possibly. But I try to reconcile that idea with the far worse behavior of the financial and elite public sectors, which are far bigger in GDP terms and in total wealth terms, and which elicit nowhere near the same hand-wriging...
So my theory is that, at some level, people in the press and thought-leader elite have internalized that the bankers/politicos "look right" when it comes to obnoxious wealth and behavior.
So my theory is that, at some level, people in the press and thought-leader elite have internalized that the bankers/politicos "look right" when it comes to obnoxious wealth and behavior.
> xenophobic scapegoating of a group of socially awkward outsiders
I don't read Valleywag otherwise, but recently I followed a link to an article in which Sam Biddle ironically asks readers to call SV software engineers "Software Americans".
The goal of the article was to hint that comparing their hatred of "techies" to xenophobia was absurd — the whole if you have privilege you can't be a victim of prejudice etc.
* * *
Because I wasn't giving them ad impressions (NoScript), I took the liberty to skim some of their other articles.
I noticed that they really love to pick on the social awkwardness of the techies. Many implicit or explicit references to autism and Asperger's, suggested as the explanation for what they perceive to be the cultural insensitivity of tech workers.
I don't read Valleywag otherwise, but recently I followed a link to an article in which Sam Biddle ironically asks readers to call SV software engineers "Software Americans".
The goal of the article was to hint that comparing their hatred of "techies" to xenophobia was absurd — the whole if you have privilege you can't be a victim of prejudice etc.
* * *
Because I wasn't giving them ad impressions (NoScript), I took the liberty to skim some of their other articles.
I noticed that they really love to pick on the social awkwardness of the techies. Many implicit or explicit references to autism and Asperger's, suggested as the explanation for what they perceive to be the cultural insensitivity of tech workers.
A supplement: I was checking a Twitter account and, by following the permalinks to some tweets, saw these two tweets that I think are emblematic of this fucking-nerds attitude:
https://twitter.com/KuraFire/status/426393172302774272
https://twitter.com/_danilo/status/426495051875643392
https://twitter.com/KuraFire/status/426393172302774272
https://twitter.com/_danilo/status/426495051875643392
I think newspapers and blogs are also fanning the flames. There were suggestions that this would happen before it did (economist), then the media began reporting rumor, then events started happening (albeit small) these were picked up by the national media and blogs.
This feels more like a game the media is playing with society, rather than a true reflection of how society feels about tech workers. This isn't news.
This feels more like a game the media is playing with society, rather than a true reflection of how society feels about tech workers. This isn't news.
Bay Area Techies are easy to demonize because they willfully handwave away all the problems they cause. Get real: we are the foot soldiers of global capital. Investors from all over the world are looking to leverage the cachet of the Bay Area, and the real consequence is masses of evictions and neighborhoods being gutted to house more of us. Liberal myopia hides these consequences by focusing on individuals transacting with eachother. Treating techies as an economic class reveals the tensions. This is your "hard reality" of the real estate situation.
My advice is to realize and respect that we are using the dead labor of the globe to inflict our socially awkward outsideness upon those who would not have it. There is a real power imbalance between techie and non. We can either implement formal checks on this imbalance (e.g. shuttle buses become public transport), or we can ignorantly bumble along wielding Capital's power and push aside those we rely upon to make our neighborhoods vibrant and livable.
My advice is to realize and respect that we are using the dead labor of the globe to inflict our socially awkward outsideness upon those who would not have it. There is a real power imbalance between techie and non. We can either implement formal checks on this imbalance (e.g. shuttle buses become public transport), or we can ignorantly bumble along wielding Capital's power and push aside those we rely upon to make our neighborhoods vibrant and livable.
Seems like the anger you're directing at tech people would be better directed at VCs, who are actually doing the exploiting and getting huge returns while doing little to know work. The idea that people working 50-60 hours a week owe their community because they're well paid is completely ridiculous. Why not expect the same of other professions? Bankers are well paid and literally went out of their way to ruin the American economy yet our anger is with techies?
The bad behavior of techies isn't erased by the bad behavior of VCs. The bad behavior of VCs isn't erased by the bad behavior of Wall Street. The bad behavior of Wall Street isn't erased by genocidal and warmongering dictators. Let's not be so quick to shirk responsibility up the foodchain, when there are local immediate actions we can take to reduce our own bad behaviors.
(Of course yes, we should nationalize the abusive rentier FIRE industries, and use the incomes to fight inequality, but that's a relatively different topic).
The idea that people can work 50-60 hours a week to the benefit of some non-corporeal entity then sit on their ass the rest of the time is also a bit ridiculous. We should be active citizens in some manner, not labor commodities looping while(1) between office and apartment.
(Of course yes, we should nationalize the abusive rentier FIRE industries, and use the incomes to fight inequality, but that's a relatively different topic).
The idea that people can work 50-60 hours a week to the benefit of some non-corporeal entity then sit on their ass the rest of the time is also a bit ridiculous. We should be active citizens in some manner, not labor commodities looping while(1) between office and apartment.
I agree, but my point is simply that these added expectations for engineers and not others makes no sense at all.
If your thesis is that what people really care about is expensive rent, then the first suggestion ('get tech CEOs to push for affordable housing') has at least the potential to actually fix the real problem.
If San Francisco didn't have such restrictive zoning, you could build more dense developments, and housing costs would come down. If you wanted to be extra nice, you could even have some set-asides for rent controlled units.
If San Francisco didn't have such restrictive zoning, you could build more dense developments, and housing costs would come down. If you wanted to be extra nice, you could even have some set-asides for rent controlled units.
> and housing costs would come down
I'm unaware of even a single case that shows shows evidence that a buildout alone has reduced housing costs. Every case I'm aware of where housing costs have fallen is at least partially due to falling demand, usually because of a recession.
I'm unaware of even a single case that shows shows evidence that a buildout alone has reduced housing costs. Every case I'm aware of where housing costs have fallen is at least partially due to falling demand, usually because of a recession.
Which the people upset about rent also probably also wouldn't like -- what they want is the what the current rent gets you for lower prices (at least, relative to their own income), not denser packing with the resulting crowding and load on shared services for lower (relative) prices.
Really, what they mostly want is greater effective income.
Really, what they mostly want is greater effective income.
Rattling off excuses for why "that will never work" and not even attempting will not solve anything either. Funny how design is all about problem solving until it forces people out of their comfort zone and challenges them to meet people who are not like them.
Sorry, right out of high school, I spent 3 years digging ditches, pouring concrete, and putting up drywall before getting into tech.
For me at least, this has nothing to do with "meeting people who are not like me". I have found the tech community to be very diverse and much more tolerant than my colleagues in the construction industry.
For me at least, this has nothing to do with "meeting people who are not like me". I have found the tech community to be very diverse and much more tolerant than my colleagues in the construction industry.
Is this a claim that your colleagues in construction are the same housing activists your OP is demonizing?
The true solution is to build more housing. However, no sane person who's dealt with San Francisco's red tape would suggest it.
Indeed. Like the original author points out, NYC techies aren't the villain, Wall Street is!
And SF techies aren't the villain, real estate developers are!
And SF techies aren't the villain, real estate developers are!
Housing is expensive in SF because it's in short supply. You know who helps alleviate that short supply? Real estate developers!
Seems to me the villain here is anybody who votes for more rent control and tighter restrictions on new development.
Seems to me the villain here is anybody who votes for more rent control and tighter restrictions on new development.
Anil Dash said that everyone should do more, and the only reason NYC tech workers don't get as much flack as SFbay tech workers is because Wall Street is right next door to look so much worse. Essentially: the upper middle class doesn't understand why the lower middle class is angry at them for catering to every whim of billionaires? "Don't be mad at us, be mad at our boss. No wait, don't be mad at our boss, blame our boss's landlord."
I believe when you said "votes" you meant to say "lobbies" because otherwise you're saying the real villain is democracy?
I believe when you said "votes" you meant to say "lobbies" because otherwise you're saying the real villain is democracy?
> I believe when you said "votes" you meant to say "lobbies" because otherwise you're saying the real villain is democracy?
No, I really did mean it's the voters. In the case of SF (and Berkeley, and NYC), the problem is democracy. Voters are economically ignorant and tend to vote for laws which screw up the housing market, then they gripe about it having been screwed up. I'm not sure how to fix this, but more democracy certainly isn't the solution. The problem is that good government is in the economic sense a public good, so it gets undersupplied. People vote from their gut and do so to broadcast their affiliations - to show that they care - not so much to solve real problems in ways that might plausibly work.
I have occasionally thought about other systems that might work better. The fundamental problem is that we pass laws that sound like they might help solve a problem but we never actually go back to check if they did solve the problem, so over time the legal code becomes an impenetrable thicket of things people have tried that didn't work, but which inadvertently created a new constituency that doesn't want to get rid of them. I'd like to see us treat new laws the way we treat new drugs: Specify in advance what specific problem each law is trying to solve and how we'll know if the solution is helping - what metric will be measured. Then try the law out in some small region, see if it substantially helps, and only expand it further if it turns out it does. First, do no harm.
No, I really did mean it's the voters. In the case of SF (and Berkeley, and NYC), the problem is democracy. Voters are economically ignorant and tend to vote for laws which screw up the housing market, then they gripe about it having been screwed up. I'm not sure how to fix this, but more democracy certainly isn't the solution. The problem is that good government is in the economic sense a public good, so it gets undersupplied. People vote from their gut and do so to broadcast their affiliations - to show that they care - not so much to solve real problems in ways that might plausibly work.
I have occasionally thought about other systems that might work better. The fundamental problem is that we pass laws that sound like they might help solve a problem but we never actually go back to check if they did solve the problem, so over time the legal code becomes an impenetrable thicket of things people have tried that didn't work, but which inadvertently created a new constituency that doesn't want to get rid of them. I'd like to see us treat new laws the way we treat new drugs: Specify in advance what specific problem each law is trying to solve and how we'll know if the solution is helping - what metric will be measured. Then try the law out in some small region, see if it substantially helps, and only expand it further if it turns out it does. First, do no harm.
I'm from SF. People should realize that politics in this town (and Berzerkeley) are infused with an entire cottage industry of lunatics and freaks. Watch SFGOV public access to see what I mean. People sing songs, rant, dress up in weird costumes, it's a little slice of a Fellini movie.
Even if tech folks suddenly got bit by the community bug they're not going to be able to dialog with people who have basically NO interest in real working politics because they are simply using the public sphere to project their hang-ups and obsessions. Crazy people who want attention make up too much of the political scene out here. Basically SF is one giant open-air insane asylum. This is where you end up if no place else in the country (or world) has a niche for you and your particular weird.
Now all these fresh-faced, well-scrubbed tech workers are flooding in and displacing the nuts, who have nowhere else to go. Of course the nuts (and brother/sister/sophont I am one of the nuts) are upset.
Unless the techies can somehow develop the compassion for and tolerance of, say, Mother Teresa, for weird freaky shit they just aren't going to be able to engage with the old school Bay Area culture. And I don't think it's fair to expect them to.
Unfortunately, this means that the "gentrification" will proceed apace until SF has become the new, uh, Portland? Seattle? San Jose? Some other not-so-weird city anyhow.
Even if tech folks suddenly got bit by the community bug they're not going to be able to dialog with people who have basically NO interest in real working politics because they are simply using the public sphere to project their hang-ups and obsessions. Crazy people who want attention make up too much of the political scene out here. Basically SF is one giant open-air insane asylum. This is where you end up if no place else in the country (or world) has a niche for you and your particular weird.
Now all these fresh-faced, well-scrubbed tech workers are flooding in and displacing the nuts, who have nowhere else to go. Of course the nuts (and brother/sister/sophont I am one of the nuts) are upset.
Unless the techies can somehow develop the compassion for and tolerance of, say, Mother Teresa, for weird freaky shit they just aren't going to be able to engage with the old school Bay Area culture. And I don't think it's fair to expect them to.
Unfortunately, this means that the "gentrification" will proceed apace until SF has become the new, uh, Portland? Seattle? San Jose? Some other not-so-weird city anyhow.
The employees who ride the buses could put up simple signs at the stops: "[X] out of the 300 people who ride this shuttle each day have pledged to volunteer once a month at a city shelter or facility...
This is kind've offensive from the outset, and curiously enough, the paragraph doesn't actually suggest those shuttle riders actually volunteering, or how does an employer entice its employees to volunteer for unrelated stuff in their free time.
Not to mention that it doesn't matter how many of the 300 realistically volunteer, it will always be seen as 'not enough'. 10 out of 300? Embarrassing stat to put up. 260 out of 300? What's wrong with the other 40?
Also, I can't speak for SF, but here in Melbourne I had a friend rejected for volunteer work from several charities because she wasn't skilled. Volunteer work they have in spades for monkeywork. What they needed was management and organisational talents, to organise the volunteers and events, make orders etc
This is kind've offensive from the outset, and curiously enough, the paragraph doesn't actually suggest those shuttle riders actually volunteering, or how does an employer entice its employees to volunteer for unrelated stuff in their free time.
Not to mention that it doesn't matter how many of the 300 realistically volunteer, it will always be seen as 'not enough'. 10 out of 300? Embarrassing stat to put up. 260 out of 300? What's wrong with the other 40?
Also, I can't speak for SF, but here in Melbourne I had a friend rejected for volunteer work from several charities because she wasn't skilled. Volunteer work they have in spades for monkeywork. What they needed was management and organisational talents, to organise the volunteers and events, make orders etc
In my time volunteering, I've never found a charity that would accept volunteers for any skilled, technical, interesting, managerial or decision-making tasks. Anything important is only entrusted to paid employees. Volunteers are used for unskilled work that would be minimum wage if paid. I was also surprised at the high number of my fellow volunteers who were actually 'volunteering' only because it was part of their court ordered sentence.
He tried to make it pretty clear that he is talking about Silicon Valley in particular. The rest of this tweet thread is worth reading: https://twitter.com/anildash/status/426365676975304704
Look, I'll be the first person to express my dismay at tech people throwing money around and essentially saying "fuck you I'm rich" to the rest of the city. However, expecting them to do charity work, give free daycare and fight for civic changes that are almost diametrically opposite to their own needs is completely insane. Why does it have to be the people who work at startups? Why not the bankers? Why not the actual CEO's of these money making startups? How on earth did we decide that the people we should target are the workers at a company that is rich, why not the stockholders or executives? I mean go throw rocks at buildings on Sand Hill Road, not at the people who are just working their first job out of college.
startups which provide deluxe on-site benefits could extend
their daycare, meal and on-site walk-in health care to
people who have WIC or EBT cards and can show that they
live in the neighborhood. The bonus here? You can meet
actual people in your neighborhood.
1. I'm not sure that the premise is true and that people "hate" techies. Outside of a few, small media precincts, does any of this actually exist?
2. To the extent that any of this actually is true, it seems like a failure of voters and public policies to a) allow enough housing to built (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francis... or Matt Yglesias's The Rent Is Too Damn High) and b) to build better public transportation, which is related to a). To the extent that tech company buses mean anything, they mean that the current system works so poorly that people are routing around it.
2. To the extent that any of this actually is true, it seems like a failure of voters and public policies to a) allow enough housing to built (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francis... or Matt Yglesias's The Rent Is Too Damn High) and b) to build better public transportation, which is related to a). To the extent that tech company buses mean anything, they mean that the current system works so poorly that people are routing around it.
This seems to be a well known pattern no? The people of SF benefit from the technologies and wealth the companies build and give as tax, which was thought of as 'free' or at whatever market price but there was a hidden, extremely expensive cost that manifested from your number 2. I find it funny, a city known for being progressive, now chaffs at relentless progression to the cadence of a different drummer: tech.
As for the article, I'd say whatever to these specific ideas, but the call to action is correct I believe. Something must be done to alleviate tension.
As for the article, I'd say whatever to these specific ideas, but the call to action is correct I believe. Something must be done to alleviate tension.
The transport thing baffles me. Here in the UK, improved public transport would be funded either by levies on new development (known as Section 106, being replaced by the Community Infrastructure Levy), or by supplemental business rates (that's how London Crossrail is happening). The commuters to the new developments get the transport they need, and it benefits everyone else as well. Why doesn't that happen in SF?
B/c politics in SF are nothing like politics in London.
So, the last round of gentrification is mad about this round of gentrification and thinks these new folks should make these token gestures to gain better acceptance? Sounds like a perfect plan.
I'm a lifetime nerd and a tech startup founder. Some of my best friends work at Google, facebook, Apple, etc., but I'm very sympathetic to the folks who are angry about the situation in SF.
The industry culture in the valley is extremely insulated from the real world, and it shows in everything. At bars and cafes, the conversation is the same old echo chamber; re-affirming the world changing nature of the next Snapchat copy. In a world with so many huge problems, so many smart people exerting so much effort and spending so much of other people's money on trivial things is the rule not the exception, and it's sad (of, if it doesn't make one sad, it makes one angry). You can't escape it. It's actually one of the reasons I bought a motorhome and hit the road...I've only been back to the valley once since I left four years ago. The valley is depressing to me, for all the reasons so many find it full of optimism. I'm not optimistic when some of the brightest minds are expending their efforts on imitation of trivialities.
America is looking like a class war again for the first time in a long time. And, the folks comfortably in the middle don't realize they're siding with the folks up top, either through inaction or through conscious choice to serve those interests (even if they're only middle class by SF standards and have much more in common with poor folk than with the .1% that effectively own everything). This is why there's so much anger. San Francisco has always been expensive and most regular folk there have always been renters. But, it's becoming impossibly expensive for huge swaths of people and the hope of surviving in SF as anything other than a wealthy white (or Asian) male engineer is fading fast.
This article has some good ideas. People in the valley should get out of that echo chamber regularly and do something real in their community. Come up with something else to talk about now and then. But, I don't think it will solve the underlying problem; lower and middle class people are realizing the world isn't what they thought. The odds are simply stacked against poor folks in America (and stacked against escaping being poor), and they're worst in places like San Francisco and NYC. The churn in wealth that is supposed to happen in a market economy isn't happening anymore, if it ever did. It's been locked down hard by a very few, and the rest of us are merely renters and debtors, with no real say in the system. And, the idea I see that "they should just move" is missing the point...this problem isn't a San Francisco problem. It is nationwide, and San Francisco is just the canary. It's happening in every major city in the country.
The industry culture in the valley is extremely insulated from the real world, and it shows in everything. At bars and cafes, the conversation is the same old echo chamber; re-affirming the world changing nature of the next Snapchat copy. In a world with so many huge problems, so many smart people exerting so much effort and spending so much of other people's money on trivial things is the rule not the exception, and it's sad (of, if it doesn't make one sad, it makes one angry). You can't escape it. It's actually one of the reasons I bought a motorhome and hit the road...I've only been back to the valley once since I left four years ago. The valley is depressing to me, for all the reasons so many find it full of optimism. I'm not optimistic when some of the brightest minds are expending their efforts on imitation of trivialities.
America is looking like a class war again for the first time in a long time. And, the folks comfortably in the middle don't realize they're siding with the folks up top, either through inaction or through conscious choice to serve those interests (even if they're only middle class by SF standards and have much more in common with poor folk than with the .1% that effectively own everything). This is why there's so much anger. San Francisco has always been expensive and most regular folk there have always been renters. But, it's becoming impossibly expensive for huge swaths of people and the hope of surviving in SF as anything other than a wealthy white (or Asian) male engineer is fading fast.
This article has some good ideas. People in the valley should get out of that echo chamber regularly and do something real in their community. Come up with something else to talk about now and then. But, I don't think it will solve the underlying problem; lower and middle class people are realizing the world isn't what they thought. The odds are simply stacked against poor folks in America (and stacked against escaping being poor), and they're worst in places like San Francisco and NYC. The churn in wealth that is supposed to happen in a market economy isn't happening anymore, if it ever did. It's been locked down hard by a very few, and the rest of us are merely renters and debtors, with no real say in the system. And, the idea I see that "they should just move" is missing the point...this problem isn't a San Francisco problem. It is nationwide, and San Francisco is just the canary. It's happening in every major city in the country.
The insulation from the real world was underlined for me when coming to this thread immediately after an thread about young CEOs earning lower incomes where people were asking, apparently sincerely, how they could manage to live on salaries of less than $100k...
At bars and cafes, the conversation is the same old echo chamber; re-affirming the world changing nature of the next Snapchat copy.
I hear this stated as fact all the time, but is it really true? I can't speak for cafes, as I'm not a coffee drinker, but I'm in a lot of SF bars, very often, and I very rarely hear talk like this. Certainly not in my friend groups, and rarely (if ever) from adjacent conversations that I overhear.
Sure, this is anecdotal, but pretty sure all the reports I've heard of the opposite are anecdotal as well. Or maybe I tend to frequent bars that don't feature a tech-douche clientele.
Widening the net a bit, my conversations with friends and acquaintances does not include this sort of vapid tripe. The nature of the next Snapchat copy is a topic of derision, not re-affirmation. I wouldn't consider myself to be the most extroverted person in the world, but I do tend to meet and converse with a decent variety of people.
So really, who are these people all over SF who talk like this? I just don't encounter them regularly, or even non-rarely.
I hear this stated as fact all the time, but is it really true? I can't speak for cafes, as I'm not a coffee drinker, but I'm in a lot of SF bars, very often, and I very rarely hear talk like this. Certainly not in my friend groups, and rarely (if ever) from adjacent conversations that I overhear.
Sure, this is anecdotal, but pretty sure all the reports I've heard of the opposite are anecdotal as well. Or maybe I tend to frequent bars that don't feature a tech-douche clientele.
Widening the net a bit, my conversations with friends and acquaintances does not include this sort of vapid tripe. The nature of the next Snapchat copy is a topic of derision, not re-affirmation. I wouldn't consider myself to be the most extroverted person in the world, but I do tend to meet and converse with a decent variety of people.
So really, who are these people all over SF who talk like this? I just don't encounter them regularly, or even non-rarely.
If tech people are in their own echo chamber, then how come this is not a problem with cities like Sunnyvale, San Jose, Santa Clara or Los Gatos which are also heavily populated by tech people?
Maybe it's because those cities actually built tons of housing. Didn't call them "affordable", but when you do have tons of supply on the market, like those mega-complexes in San Jose by Cisco campus, it does have an effect on price.
Maybe it's because those cities actually built tons of housing. Didn't call them "affordable", but when you do have tons of supply on the market, like those mega-complexes in San Jose by Cisco campus, it does have an effect on price.
People in the valley should get out of that echo chamber regularly and do something real in their community.
Isn't that echo chamber their community? This should be phrased as 'outside their community' or 'the wider community'.
Isn't that echo chamber their community? This should be phrased as 'outside their community' or 'the wider community'.
What BS. There's no such thing as affordable housing - there's only housing you can afford. If you want to live in the Valley and can't afford it - then you can't afford it.
Yeah this argument just kills me. I used to live in a $2k apartment across the street from Google SF. My rent got raised to $4300 because they knew Google employees would pay it. Did I go throw rocks at Google buses? No. Did I move to a place I could afford? Yes. The idea that me, as a startup employee making a decent wage can't afford to live there, yet thousands of people who are things like "artists and poets" are upset they can't afford it is absolute madness. The reason housing is expensive is because lots of people desire it, the idea that we should make sure to reserve places for people who can't afford to live there makes no sense at all.
While technically you're correct, it doesn't mean you're right. It's not so easy to uproot a family from their home and start new somewhere else. It's been stated several times in each of these discussions that many of those who can't afford the housing increase are the ones who've spent generations in the area. Pushing out area natives and alienating the poor for not 'living where they can afford' is no way to build a community.
If you decide to rent in one of, if not the highest demand city in the United States, live on a thin margin and start a family, its hard to have sympathy when you're forced to move them to, gasp, San Ramon. It's certainly no way to build a community, but I don't think demonizing people who work 60 hours a week and make 140k is the way to do it either.
I consider this to be little more than a testament to owning rather than renting. If people have spent generations in the area but are renting, then they were always living on borrowed time anyway. If you've lived there for years and own your flat, it makes zero difference what the housing market looks like today.
That's not really true. Property taxes are usually assessed based on the value of the property and that rises with the housing market. People are sometimes priced out of areas even when they own their home.
> when real property is purchased, the county assessor assigns it an assessed value that is equal to its purchase price, or “acquisition value.” Each year thereafter, the property’s assessed value increases by 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. This process continues until the property is sold, at which point the county assessor again assigns it an assessed value equal to its most recent purchase price. [1]
If you have owned your home for awhile, your property taxes are not changing that much. Your assessed value starts with the purchase price and increases, at most, 2% each year. This house[2] listed on Zillow is a great example. It sold in 1973 for $32K. For the passed 40 years they've been paying property taxes based on the $32K plus ~2% increase each year (I'm not sure how far back that 2% max increase goes). In 2013, the assessed value was still down at $72K... meaning $997 in property taxes. That same year the house was sold for $875K. Now the assessed value resets to market value and the new property taxes will be like $11k rather than the previous year's $1K. So even though the housing prices skyrocketed around them, the previous owner of the house wasn't really effected by that increase.
[1] http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-1... [2] http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3245-Anza-St-San-Francisco...
If you have owned your home for awhile, your property taxes are not changing that much. Your assessed value starts with the purchase price and increases, at most, 2% each year. This house[2] listed on Zillow is a great example. It sold in 1973 for $32K. For the passed 40 years they've been paying property taxes based on the $32K plus ~2% increase each year (I'm not sure how far back that 2% max increase goes). In 2013, the assessed value was still down at $72K... meaning $997 in property taxes. That same year the house was sold for $875K. Now the assessed value resets to market value and the new property taxes will be like $11k rather than the previous year's $1K. So even though the housing prices skyrocketed around them, the previous owner of the house wasn't really effected by that increase.
[1] http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-1... [2] http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3245-Anza-St-San-Francisco...
Except somehow, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Portland, and Philadelphia all manage to do it despite none of those cities having rent control.
http://www.nmhc.org/Article.cfm?ItemNumber=53961
http://www.nmhc.org/Article.cfm?ItemNumber=53961
None of those cities are anywhere close to as expensive as SF/NYC. And part of reason Chicago has "affordable" housing is because vast swaths of the south and west side are dangerous, gang-infested, and neglected by city services.
> None of those cities are anywhere close to as expensive as SF/NYC
I suppose you believe that NYC and SF have rent control because housing is so expensive there.
Have you considered the possibility that you have it backwards?
I suppose you believe that NYC and SF have rent control because housing is so expensive there.
Have you considered the possibility that you have it backwards?
Obviously having rent-controlled apartments will increase the price of non-controlled units somewhat.
But I certainly don't think that rent-control is the primary driver of high housing costs in SF/NY.
But I certainly don't think that rent-control is the primary driver of high housing costs in SF/NY.
Your office janitors, cafeteria workers, street cleaners, waste disposal workers, coffeeshop baristas, taxicab drivers, bus drivers, teachers, day care workers, post office workers, food servers, chefs, etc. can't afford to live there. The reason you want to live there is because they made it desirable for you.
And where do you suggest that all the other residents of San Francisco move? The street?
You're making it sound like they are entitled to stay there. Just move to somewhere within your price range.
Things change. Get over it.
Things change. Get over it.
Well... the street is a pretty drastic first move. My first suggestion would be "some place you can afford." I've known several people that left the Valley (actually, California entirely) because they were finding it hard to afford stuff.
I moved to Richmond. An engineer I'm friends with just moved to Pleasanton. Why should this well paid people be forced to move out of SF while we're creating low cost housing for artists? How does this make any sense?
"the idea that we should make sure to reserve places for people who can't afford to live there makes no sense at all."
Tell NYC that.
I'm all for living where you can afford.
But not everybody on Google is a high payed SW engineer. And there's not only top engineers/managers/designers living in a city.
And for $4300 I can live in a very nice place even in other high valued cities.
Tell NYC that.
I'm all for living where you can afford.
But not everybody on Google is a high payed SW engineer. And there's not only top engineers/managers/designers living in a city.
And for $4300 I can live in a very nice place even in other high valued cities.
I think the concern is more with working class people who have always lived in San Francisco and could now get displaced, not with how much it costs for tech workers to live there.
This just in: increased housing demand increases housing prices!
Eh. What per cent are the people who spent their childhood in SF, and what per cent are those who showed up in the last ten or twenty years, displaced /those/ people, and are now outraged it's happening to them?
It seems like that is the landlords fault then, not the techies then.
If landlords didn't want gouge by asking for fair market value for their properties, all of the old guard would still be living in SF.
If landlords didn't want gouge by asking for fair market value for their properties, all of the old guard would still be living in SF.
Reminds me of a quote my dad used to say all the time, that I strangely don't hear from anyone else: Whether you rent, or whether you buy, you pay for the space you occupy!
Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that now it's rich people who ride the bus, and poor people who are forced to drive their own cars?
Not particularly. The saying "time is money" applies here: the argument could be made that the "rich people who ride the bus"'s time is worth more, and putting them on a bus where they can do some work instead of driving is a more efficient use of their time.
Of course you could argue that the poorer people "forced" to drive their own cars could use that time, but they might not be knowledge workers, which means that time wouldn't be productive to their employers anyways.
And this also is entirely dependent on how you perceive value to be created, and the model you choose to use.
Of course you could argue that the poorer people "forced" to drive their own cars could use that time, but they might not be knowledge workers, which means that time wouldn't be productive to their employers anyways.
And this also is entirely dependent on how you perceive value to be created, and the model you choose to use.
People riding the bus have always been able to do things like read, study, write, etc., whether or not they were knowledge workers.
True. But is that productive for their employers? Which was my main point...
I don't know, I work close to the Twitter HQ and the other day I saw some Twitterites (I could tell by their badges) half assedly walking down the sidewalk while on their phones occasionally plucking up a piece of trash with one of those trash picker-uppers...it seemed like it was 100% for show and actually made me hate them a little more.
This is the exact thing that I am talking about in my comment at the top of the thread. These people simply don't care about this stuff, they won't let anything stop them from hating techies.
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room and close the door."
I don't care if every time they pick up trash it is 100% for show. Because that is still more trash than a lot of people pick up.
These are all fantastic ideas, though I find it fascinating they're all about sharing the benefits of enormous wealth with the greater community, so that everyone can be happier and healthier.
One wonders when America as a whole will realize the benefits of doing so and catch up to the rest of the Developed world.
In my experience, Americans would rather "get mine" than share.
One wonders when America as a whole will realize the benefits of doing so and catch up to the rest of the Developed world.
In my experience, Americans would rather "get mine" than share.
Americans are ranked as one of if not the most generous nation by numerous stats [0]. Americans donate more of their money as a percentage of their total income than any other citizens on earth.
Now, there's a lot one could say about why. I imagine it's a mix of the wealth and importance of religion uniquely in that developed country.
There's a lot the US could do with social programs, that's for sure but the individuals are certainly more charitable than certain European countries. Greetings from Copenhagen :)
The ideas presented in the blog are trite and solve nothing.
[0]https://www.cafonline.org/media-office/press-releases/2013/w...
Now, there's a lot one could say about why. I imagine it's a mix of the wealth and importance of religion uniquely in that developed country.
There's a lot the US could do with social programs, that's for sure but the individuals are certainly more charitable than certain European countries. Greetings from Copenhagen :)
The ideas presented in the blog are trite and solve nothing.
[0]https://www.cafonline.org/media-office/press-releases/2013/w...
> Americans are ranked as one of if not the most generous nation by numerous stats [0]. Americans donate more of their money as a percentage of their total income than any other citizens on earth.
I wonder if that's because the society they live in requires them to do so. For example, Australian's know that employed people have plenty of money from welfare to live on, so there really isn't any need to "give" money to them.
Americans know that the "have nots" are in serious trouble, so they give to them.
I wonder if that's because the society they live in requires them to do so. For example, Australian's know that employed people have plenty of money from welfare to live on, so there really isn't any need to "give" money to them.
Americans know that the "have nots" are in serious trouble, so they give to them.
The US gives about 1.85% of GDP, the highest in the world. Second is Israel at 1.34%. The US also volunteers more than all but two other nations, the Netherlands and Sweden. In 2010, the US spent almost 3 times as much on foreign aid as any other developed nation (US at $38b v. Germany at $13.5b). Don't let the facts stand in the way though.
I was talking about sharing the wealth inside your own country, not keeping the poor in America extremely poor and spending money on foreign aid.
1.85% of GDP is US private charitable giving, 38% higher than any other nation. Your assertion that America needs to catch up with the rest of the world is, at best, xenophobic.
You need to factor in the amount of tax that other developed countries pay to look after their own citizens..things like heath care, welfare, higher education, etc., then see how the US compares.
I don't have numbers, but after living and paying tax in Australia, Canada and the US, I'm willing to bet Americans pay less than those from other Developed countries.
I don't have numbers, but after living and paying tax in Australia, Canada and the US, I'm willing to bet Americans pay less than those from other Developed countries.
How do the stats look when you include health care and other social security?
In my experience, Americans would rather choose to spread their wealth (ie. donate) than be forced to.
If these idiots hadn't agitated for laws limiting development in the first place, then housing wouldn't be as unaffordable as it is now in the Bay Area. Instead of attacking tech workers earning high five-figure salaries, which is hardly makes them "rich" by Bay Area standards, why not relax laws restricting development?
Much of this outrage is actually manufactured, and by Gawker no less: http://pando.com/2013/12/26/look-whos-gawking-inside-nick-de...
Much of this outrage is actually manufactured, and by Gawker no less: http://pando.com/2013/12/26/look-whos-gawking-inside-nick-de...
The entire premise of this is flawed. I posted a huge ranty comment on Anil's page, but the TL;DR:
* Tech companies have no expertise providing social services.
* It is a very bad idea to have public services delivered at the whim of private companies.
The answer to this is taxes. You want to criticize Google? Criticize them for using offshore tax shelters.
There also seems to be a longing for Google to swoop in and somehow fix politics, but really, unless money or technology solves the problem, Google is not the answer.
* Tech companies have no expertise providing social services.
* It is a very bad idea to have public services delivered at the whim of private companies.
The answer to this is taxes. You want to criticize Google? Criticize them for using offshore tax shelters.
There also seems to be a longing for Google to swoop in and somehow fix politics, but really, unless money or technology solves the problem, Google is not the answer.
The buses fix the Bay Area's bad public transportation problem. Now unless the Bay Area city and county govts and its residents are open to the idea of having tech companies use imminent domain and straight up pay for everything (like Google's municipal wifi initiative), I don't understand the hate for the buses. You don't hear this in NY.
The "solution" will be an exodus from SF to other communities. SF has eaten itself before, and it will doubtlessly eat itself again.
I think the "backlash" is a symptom, not the cause.
The cause likely has a lot more to do with an unnatural supply constraint imposed previously as well as very little in the way of a public transportation infrastructure that would better enable workers (both tech and other) to live where they would like, at a price they want to pay.
The cause likely has a lot more to do with an unnatural supply constraint imposed previously as well as very little in the way of a public transportation infrastructure that would better enable workers (both tech and other) to live where they would like, at a price they want to pay.
Transport infrastructure is one of the issues I'd think would be a no-brainer for support as far as public or even shared private projects go.
Providing transportation to your workers isn't a core function that you want to be working on yourself as a business; it's a problem you'd prefer to externalize or share. And the better the transportation infrastructure of a city functions, the more likely the city in general will be a desirable place for workers to settle.
Providing transportation to your workers isn't a core function that you want to be working on yourself as a business; it's a problem you'd prefer to externalize or share. And the better the transportation infrastructure of a city functions, the more likely the city in general will be a desirable place for workers to settle.
There are two problems that need to be fixed.
-Housing prices. Supporting affordable housing isn't the solution here; there needs to be more supply. Given all the money invested in tech, surely the bigger companies could invest in some real estate. Or announce that you're ready to do so, when the city finally allows it - now the city's the villain.
-Fix Transportation so you don't need private shuttles. Either force the city to improve transportation or support startups that can do it instead.
-Housing prices. Supporting affordable housing isn't the solution here; there needs to be more supply. Given all the money invested in tech, surely the bigger companies could invest in some real estate. Or announce that you're ready to do so, when the city finally allows it - now the city's the villain.
-Fix Transportation so you don't need private shuttles. Either force the city to improve transportation or support startups that can do it instead.
Simplest thing would be to build apartments and shops for all their emploees on company land.
It says something about the level of intelligence of Silicon Valley people that it has taken this long for someone to point out that there are LOTS of things that local people could do to defuse the situation and improve the situation. In fact, given the number of people who live in SF and work down in the Valley, one wonders why on earth they started running private buses and did not go straight to the city and demand new routes on the city bus system. As for wifi, that could have been installed on the new routes for all riders, not just privileged Googlers.
Great coding ability is not enough to get by in life. You need creativity as well, and some understanding of social, business and political issues. Because life does not end at the edge of the CPU chip.
Great coding ability is not enough to get by in life. You need creativity as well, and some understanding of social, business and political issues. Because life does not end at the edge of the CPU chip.
The author came up with 5 original ideas(not even very good ones) and then accosted tech companies for having not implemented them before he/she thought of them.
Wat.
Wat.
The entire premise is flawed. Who hates techies in SF? A tiny, tiny minority of people.
People dont change wholesale until they are forced too. The backlash hasnt affected the individuals, only the collective. Until people start to feel unsafe or targeted the only people who will organize improvements will be their employers because public opinion of big companies affect the bottom line.
> Until people start to feel unsafe or targeted
The implicit threat, made explicit once again -- it amazes me how blatant some people are in HN comments on this subject!
The implicit threat, made explicit once again -- it amazes me how blatant some people are in HN comments on this subject!
Techies can volunteer until they are blue in the face, and it will only ever be seen as an empty, fake gesture. The real estate situation in SF is a hard reality and volunteering will not diffuse it.
"Look at these techies, they make so much money and sanctimoniously act like they are saints for deigning to volunteer once a week."
We're talking about people who demonize shuttle buses here. Shuttle buses unquestionably reduce congestion and help the environment. This is not about who the techies are, or what they do. It is about the xenophobic scapegoating of a group of socially awkward outsiders by political organizers whose previous shortsighted outrage campaigns have screwed up SF's real estate market for decades to come.