▲ 34 points
back
83 comments
Wow. I thought this was satire.
I guess this kind of happens in Singapore, too. As the billionaires come in, the poorer locals encounter rising housing costs. And unlike the US, Singapore is an island-city-state, so there's nowhere to run.
I can't think of any solutions to this. Anybody have any ideas?
Build more housing?
That. The lack of intensification in some of the most valuable real-estate in the world is absurd. Build up!
Also, while it stinks for people who are already tied into careers, having money flood into your community isn't exactly a bad thing for somebody entrepreneurial. I mean, if the new wealthy folks want to blow that cash locally, there's a lot of money to be made. It's demeaning in a "trickle-down" services sense, but it's cash to be had.
Will this increased building activities cost less than the current housing market rate?
If a new property costs $500k to build, as a builder you would need to at least cover that cost. I can't imagine that this helps the poor unless it's government sponsored.
In many countries we place control of local planning/zoning issues in the hands of local residents - the very people who benefit most from the supply being restricted.
I would love for there to be more houses in the place I want to live but can't. But I don't get a vote because I'm not a resident.
In the UK, and it sounds like San Fran too, there are lots of special-interest-inspired laws making building new housing difficult.
In Singapore, unlike many other countries where people think they're out of space (including the UK), they may well be really running out of space - I believe there are similar problems in Hong Kong.
You mean like the green belt?
Once various plans to rebalance the economy away from London come to fruition (e.g. HS2) things will return to normal.
I think we're working on it, but the island is highly land-scarce, and if I understand correctly, prices are being driven up faster than new housing can adequately correct.
Remote work?
Low income people tend to be doing jobs that cannot be done "over the wire" such as service jobs.
Actually I think the better argument is for the tech-companies to support remote work, so that they stop importing wealthy home-needers. I think it's a really good part of a solution to this problem.
Yep, the blue-collar folk are the worst hit.
If anything, remote work allows you to arbitrage cost of living. Remote work is for higher paid, white collar workers, who can then choose to live in very cheap areas.
This made me chuckle: "haves" versus the "have nots". How about we change that to: "made smart decisions, studied hard, work hard" versus the "made bad decisions, jealous of others"
Haha. Wow. I guess I'm glad someone said this. The way you see the problem is really common and I think too many other people who feel the way you do are cunning enough to keep quiet or massage their thoughts into something more palatable.
To be clear, I think this opinion demonstrates such a completely bullshit, narrow, entitled, and ethnocentric view of the world it blows my mind. It's a helpful reminder of why I don't live up there.
I think Paul is referring to the hyperbolae in the title and its implications. He offered a similarly outrageous alternative title and or implications. You're responding as if that was what the poster actually felt was the cause.
Unrelated to this, I wonder if people are outraged at the people who move to ND to pursue the oil boom over there. There relatively medium skilled and unskilled workers can earn more per year than SV 'tech' workers. Are people also showing the same contempt and or jealousy (or whatever it is) for those workers who decided they would partake in the energy industry boom in North Dakota? Or are tech workers a special kind of evil manifestation of things gone wrong? If so, what exempts the ND blue collar workers from this outrage at people's earning power?
[Added]
In both cases I pretty much see supply and demand at work. If suddenly everyone sought a CS degree (and then saw a devaluation in the degree, kind of like EE degrees in the 80s/90s), then salaries would slump. Same for the energy boom workers.
> I think this opinion demonstrates such a completely bullshit, narrow, entitled, and ethnocentric view of the world it blows my mind.
Well you can safely unblow your mind. He used a stereotype broadly applied to a group, but lazy people do indeed make up some portion of the "have nots". Sibling comments show measured, thought-massaged responses that correct the GP.
Let's not combat bad generalizations with hyperbole.
Indeed you are right. To say the truth I knew what to expect when I clicked the comments link: the “I studied hard therefore I deserve more” meritocratic bullshit we are used to. The worst lies are the ones we create ourselves as a excuse to feel better.
You realize you can do all of those things and still make not very much money, right? You also realize that people in different economic situations aren't privileged to receive all of the institutional knowledge about the job market that you may have? That some people don't even think about becoming doctors or lawyers or programmers because they dont know anyone who became those things? There are a huge number of reasons why some people may not be able to make the same amount of money someone at google can make. Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to live in SF?
Not to mention young recently graduated lawyers and doctors make shit for money, and newly minted lawyers in particular are facing much weaker than expected demand in the market.
"Making smart choices" doesn't always pan out. I don't think one can easily accuse someone who studied hard, disciplined themselves, and made their way through law school of being shortsighted, but here they are facing unemployment or dramatic underemployment.
Ditto traditional fields of engineering. Lots of people who studied hard, planned ahead, worked hard, and then fell into the massive collapse of manufacturing in this country.
It's nice to know that the crazy "improv political theater" from that one guy has some bearing in reality, though.
I had this same discussion with an ex-colleague and he pointed out that if you managed to drive away all the lower paid workers, then who would clean your streets, stock your supermarket shelves, put our your fires and catch those criminals? He made a very good point.
Good luck being rich in a city without street sweepers, waitresses, barmen, firemen, nurses, teachers... In fact the whole point of you buying that swanky apartment will evaporate overnight without service workers.
Nurses? Why are they on that list?
Don't worry, because self-driving cars and drone pizza deliveries. iPad 3D printing, too.
It's possible to make smart decisions, study hard, work hard and still end up in a difficult spot- especially if you have serious illnesses, or have to support family members with special needs, etc. These are usually the people suffering the most.
Because that's fallacious thinking, specifically the just world fallacy. Your view of the world is faulty.
Well, it's not that others made "bad" decisions, they just made a different decision (to not pursue a tech job). Tech jobs aren't the only jobs that hold value; someone has to make the coffee, repair the buildings, do the dry cleaning, run the restaurant, do the accounting, etc.
The choice to pursue a career as a mechanic or plumber or electrician or whatever else isn't a "bad" decision - those jobs are necessary and thus we need people to do them.
SF is a city and has the same needs as any other city, which means it needs people to meet all those needs. You can't have a city with just wealthy tech people because then no one's going to come over to fix the plumbing.
Wealthy tech companies are growing, hiring more talent, and paying them lots of money; this means that housing demands go up (from the people they're importing from other cities/states/countries) which leads to increased prices (specifically because you now have more demand from a group of customers that can afford to pay higher prices than everyone else).
Now, all of a sudden, people who aren't as nicely compensated at their jobs can no longer afford to live in the city they work. The issue is that the city still needs those people - regardless of what wealthy people think.
> SF is a city and has the same needs as any other
> city, which means it needs people to meet all
> those needs. You can't have a city with just
> wealthy tech people because then no one's going
> to come over to fix the plumbing.
Coffee shops aren't closing in the mission, quite the opposite, more are opening all the time, selling expensive coffee to tech people and providing barista jobs to baristas. Now for it to make sense for the barista to work at these coffee shops he or she needs to be able to live within commutable distance of the coffee shop. If there is no one within commutable distance willing to work for what the coffee shop is willing to pay, the coffee shop has to pay more and raise prices. If coffee prices go up so much that people hate living in SF because of it, then rental prices will go down because people will move away.
Because that's not an accurate characterization.
Is this supposed to be a joke?
You may be a paragon of merit, but some of us have merely been fortunate in our gifts and circumstances and long-tail events.
Actually, the people doing the work have more in common with the have-nots. What, you think the average engineer at Google can afford a house in San Francisco? No. The $100-150k engineers will soon be priced out to make room for the product managers and startup executives making $250k while working 11-to-3.
Do PMs seriously make $250k+?
I may have to reconsider the career change.
This and yesterday's thread [1] are fascinating. Here we have lower-classes seeking direct retribution against higher-classes. Contrast to yesterday's article involving upper-classes discussing how to uplift lower-classes via social policy changes and enforcing certain belief doctrines, e.g., do XYZ, not ABC.
Of course it's easier to rail against the the former camp than the latter; we all believe in some degree of property rights, i.e., you bare the fruit of your labor. However, I propose both positions are unjustified and both parties need to bow out of one another's business.
Not trying to push libertarian beliefs (I am not one). But everyone is an asshole, out to serve their own ends, trying to sculpt the world in the way they would have it.
> One is punished for success via taxes, fees, fines, etc. by the "have nots"
Care to explain that more, the tax system certainly does not punish the haves; it in fact rewards them. By the very nature of the marginal utility of money, the current tax rates hurt the have nots far more than the haves. The burden is quite simply not equally shared by all, it is born mostly by the have nots.
Sorry, removed that piece from the original post as I feared it would detract from the main point. The use of "haves" versus "have nots" was intended as an example of divide and conquer. It was not intended as two distinct groups, with obviously distinguishable beliefs. Persons shift beliefs to exploit ends that are most beneficial to them. For other readers, he's referring to:
> This is classic "Us versus Them" (divide and conquer) that systemically makes it worse for most everyone, especially the individual. One is punished for success via taxes, fees, fines, etc. by the "have nots"; while the "haves" punish you for practicing a different set of ideals or lifestyle choices that go against societal norm.
Again, I meant to show an example. Whether the "haves" or "have nots" are in camp "punish by taxes" or camp "control lifestyle" is irrelevant. Persons shift between camps, when it's convenient. Similarly, all sorts of other camps exist towards other ends.
This has nothing to do with dumb vs. smart, lazy vs. workaholic or privileged vs. unprivileged.
It has to do with the fact that decisions in life have consequences. I can't help myself and have to quote a fantastic line from Star Wars: Your Focus Determines Your Reality.
Coincidentally, I had a long conversation with my oldest son, now in High School, last night.
He screwed up in a big way. He was given a book project a month ago. He had to read "To kill a mockingbird" and annotate it profusely. He read the book over several nights but procrastinated when it came to the annotation work. The work was due today.
On Sunday he came to realize he made a big mistake. What did he do? He stayed up 'till 2:00AM every day to get the project done. He decided to do this on his own.
Neither my wife nor I made him do it. He recognized his mistake and made the decision to right it entirely on his own. Up until yesterday afternoon we had no idea why he was working so hard. I have never been a micro-manager, professionally or at home. I assume and expect responsible behavior of others and, of course, try to lead by example. So I asked my kid if he really needed to stay up late doing this work and, when he said "yes" I just got out of the way and supported him by staying up, making tea and generally being there for him. I would get down to the bottom of it once he got done.
He got done last night. We had a talk. He is getting an A in English. This was extra credit work he didn't need for grades and didn't really need to complete. Yet, he told me he had committed to doing the work and explained how sorry he was he procrastinated and to such a degree.
I think my reaction surprised him. He's never screwed up on anything to this extent. He thought I might be angry or disappointed. The summary of a two hour conversation boils down to this:
In life we are guaranteed to make bad or non-ideal decisions from time to time. Not one person is immune to this. What matters in life; what defines a man is how he chooses to deal with these mistakes. Some will cave in and sink into a dark hole of self pity and agony. Some will find every possible creative way to deflect the blame and rationalize what happened as being someone else's doing or fault. And yet others will look you straight in the eye, own the problem and do whatever is necessary to fix it.
I said: "Son, you screwed up. You took responsibility for your actions and worked incredibly hard to make good on a promise you made to yourself and nobody else. You didn't need to do this for a grade. You already had an A. You did it because you are becoming a man with high values, morals, ethics and honor. I am proud."
I almost cried when i said this. It is an incredible feeling as a parent to see your kids make the right decisions.
In a country like the US the whole business of income inequality has two facets.
The first is that of Liberal politicians manipulating the masses because it is far easier to get them worked-up en-masse with stuff like this and then you get their votes...by e millions. That's the nasty reality of the Liberal party: They benefit directly from low education voters' suffering because that is easy to convert to votes. This is the oldest trick in the books and it is not monopolized by US politics. I lived in Argentina for a while and learned quite a bit about their Politics and history. Evita was known for sending trucks into poor neighborhoods to give out blenders, refrigerators and other vote-buying crap. At the same time they kept the poor down because, not surprisingly, without them they'd get no votes. Things are not done the same way here but it really is the same. Pit the masses against the successful, throw them a bone here and there (minimum wage, union pay and pensions, etc.) sit back and collect the votes. It's sick. It's all about pandering and manipulation.
The other aspect of the income inequality situation has to do with a massive change in the work ethic of the American worker and American youth over decades. We have devolved into an entitlement society where people want it all, don't want to work hard for it and everything is someone else's fault.
When I owned an electronics manufacturing business I made it a point to hire students from the local junior college. I would say maybe one out of ten, if not twenty, had a reasonable work ethic. I had a couple who stole components and expensive tools (crimpers, etc.). Others screwed around and played on the Internet if nobody was watching. In general, most were down-right disappointing in their performance and attitude towards the job. A select few were absolutely exemplary. I have no doubt the will become valued members of society.
What will become of the rest? Once they realize their mistakes in life, rather than work hard to correct them they will fall back on the simple idea of blaming it on others. They will undoubtedly become tools of the only political party that will roll down the street handing out virtual blenders and refrigerators. They will scream bloody murder at someone like my son who will get where he is going because he worked hard, made good decisions and, when he made bad ones he busted his ass to own and fix them.
It's about the decisions you make in life and whether or not you are man (or woman) enough to own them.
Your Focus Determines Your Reality.
I have really mixed feelings about this. First of all, the "victims" were probably Google peons, not the insufferable royalty. The vast majority of Googlers are people I like (I worked there) and they aren't responsible for the problem. Like I said in another post here, the engineers doing all the work will soon be priced out to make room for product narcissists and those horrible executives that VCs implant to grant a favor to a friend, making twice as much money as engineers while working 11-to-3. It has already happened in New York, except it's bankers and traders. At least traders are respectable (it's pretty meritocratic) and the bankers actually work. Startup executives tend to be the people who failed in New York and in finance, so they seek them some VC coattails to ride on into someone else's company.
In 2008 when Wall Street tanked the economy, people were saying, "I wish all that talent were somewhere useful like Silicon Valley." This seems laughable now. Silicon Valley? Useful? Anyway, "tech" had the good faith of the nation for a long time, we were the "good rich" as opposed to the people on Wall Street-- and, in the next 5 years, fucking blew it thanks to debacles like FWD.us, Sean Parker's wedding, and all the bad behavior that Valleywag so excellently chronicles.
We were the good guys. We still should be. Most of us, by population, are. The fuckers at the top, who don't even code and 90% of whom are MBA/private-equity types, have ruined not just our industry but our reputation. Now, people associate "techie" with spoiled brats, misogynists, and entitled, crypto-right-wing fuckheads (like the character played by the union organizer when impersonating a Google engineer).
Engineers and technologists and real visionaries (not executive bikeshed painters) need to take technology back. Now. No fucking excuses. We are the good guys-- the bad guys are private equity douches with no business in our world-- but if we don't take back our industry, it and our work will be used for bad (as we see in the Bay Area) and we will be the ones to get the blame.
Love your passion. I see nothing mixed about your feelings. :p
I have mixed feelings, specifically, about the bus blockade. It hurts the wrong people.
I love technology and there are a lot of wonderful people in this world, but I hate what has been done to it, mostly by MBA-culture outsiders who'd be better for the world (and make more money) as passive backers, but their ego gets in the way and they have to act as an executive caste.
"Business" should be about creating value for all (including oneself) and not about wielding and accumulating power.
Why is "Google" the default shothand for "silicon valley"? And not just in this case.
Because they are the most visible and get the most press. It is very much like every article with "Apple" in the title. Apple is too old to be the poster child for the valley, so Google takes the hit. Plus, Google is visible in this scenario due to their buses and outspoken executives.
Larry isn't very outspoken at all. Are you referring to Eric? He's just on the board of directors now (chariman) and isn't involved in the day to day.
If I'm not mistaken Apple, Facebook, and twitter also shuttle employees via buses. I don't get the "outspoken executives" comment, specially in this context.
Possibly because they have by far the most corporate shuttle traffic in the city:
http://sfist.com/2012/09/25/behold_the_secret_corporate_shut...
Sort of like calling a tissue a Kleenex, I suppose. The shuttles for other tech giants pale in volume compared to Google.
Cool question. My theory: I think it's because they have phenomenal market penetration- so many people use Google search, Gmail, Google Maps. The term Google (to me, at least) elicits a microcosm of the Valley at large. Do they have the most employees, or the most political will? I'm thinking of "Washington" as the shorthand for "USA", or "Wall St." as shorthand for "New York"... maybe I'm wrong, but it's an interesting thought experiment to sit and evaluate all these "X is the default shorthand for Y" statements that get thrown around.
The word you're looking for is metonym.
I'm not American or from SF, but interestingly from the the shuttle routes posted by @potatolicious I would say nearly all those companies on that list - Apple, eBay, Facebook, Yahoo - have just as high a market penetration. I'm surprised theyt didn't get targeted too BUT this may well just be for the sake of coordination for now.