4 ms·

Honestly, I don't see any redemption here. Rather than looking inward and questioning his beliefs and place in everything, it just seems like he was desperate t

Honestly, I don't see any redemption here. Rather than looking inward and questioning his beliefs and place in everything, it just seems like he was desperate to do anything to salvage his image—which was all his doing in the first place. (He even says "apparently, this wrong I’ve done to the city.") So not only does this show him to be a hypocrite, it also shows a complete lack of introspection or change. His advice to Keller is "Don’t apologize" and "instead, put your words in context". While I can respect his attempts—it does show that he put effort in—I disagree that "self-interest ... isn’t mutually exclusive with doing good". This is a guy who wanted to make a profit off of homeless people. His solutions include making them work for Uber, which requires a drivers license and a car (I doubt they'll be able to finance), or as a last resort, rent out their domes on airbnb, putting them in potential legal trouble even if they had any takers. Maybe I'm one of those haters, but I think he should keep his "disruption" and NIH-syndrome in tech startups.

ant6n 11y ago
The rationale for having a for-profit organization that helps people is that it is not economically sustainable, it wouldn't depend on continuous outside finding. Re cars, consider that the homeless person mentioned in the article had his rent increases to 4200$ - it seems in San Francisco lower middle class can become homeless. And even lower class people have cars. In San Francisco, you don't have to be on poverty to become homeless, although it will probably make you poor once you are.
- cooper12 11y ago
  Fair points, especially the car part. It just feels exploitative to me though, making money off people who are already desperate for any they can get. Looking more closely at the article, it looks like they wanted to profit off things like referral fees or something like: "pay $300 a month in rent or work 15 hours a week on crowdfunded community service project". This does seem pretty ethical, though I don't know profitable.
- ryandamm 11y ago
  I think it's funny we're saying someone who can't afford $50k/year in rent is 'lower middle class.' If you keep your housing costs below 25% of gross income (a common recommendation), then anyone earning less than $200k annually is lower middle class. To be fair, the article says Darcel Jackson had also lost his job due to a medical condition; so it's not just the rent increase... but a professional welder (his profession before a stroke) should pay high five figures to low six figures. So yeah... a city where welders, teachers [1], and other professionals and tradeworkers can't afford to live is doing something wrong. [1]from Redfin research: https://www.redfin.com/blog/2014/02/california-home-affordability-for-teachers.html https://www.redfin.com/blog/2014/02/california-home-affordab...
thebiglebrewski 11y ago
I don't think the idea of a for-profit company for the public benefit is so outlandish.

ant6n 11y ago

The rationale for having a for-profit organization that helps people is that it is not economically sustainable, it wouldn't depend on continuous outside finding. Re cars, consider that the homeless person mentioned in the article had his rent increases to 4200$ - it seems in San Francisco lower middle class can become homeless. And even lower class people have cars. In San Francisco, you don't have to be on poverty to become homeless, although it will probably make you poor once you are.

cooper12 11y ago
Fair points, especially the car part. It just feels exploitative to me though, making money off people who are already desperate for any they can get. Looking more closely at the article, it looks like they wanted to profit off things like referral fees or something like: "pay $300 a month in rent or work 15 hours a week on crowdfunded community service project". This does seem pretty ethical, though I don't know profitable.
ryandamm 11y ago
I think it's funny we're saying someone who can't afford $50k/year in rent is 'lower middle class.' If you keep your housing costs below 25% of gross income (a common recommendation), then anyone earning less than $200k annually is lower middle class. To be fair, the article says Darcel Jackson had also lost his job due to a medical condition; so it's not just the rent increase... but a professional welder (his profession before a stroke) should pay high five figures to low six figures. So yeah... a city where welders, teachers [1], and other professionals and tradeworkers can't afford to live is doing something wrong. [1]from Redfin research: https://www.redfin.com/blog/2014/02/california-home-affordability-for-teachers.html https://www.redfin.com/blog/2014/02/california-home-affordab...

thebiglebrewski 11y ago

I don't think the idea of a for-profit company for the public benefit is so outlandish.