4 ms·

This is why I generally look down upon the valley and its "leadership." There's a very good chance she's a contractor which means it's an easy excuse for Facebo

This is why I generally look down upon the valley and its "leadership." There's a very good chance she's a contractor which means it's an easy excuse for Facebook to pay her less and not give her benefits. These "leaders" donate money to causes, yet ignore the people right in front of them. They could lobby the cities in and around the bay area to allow for more affordable housing (or to building more housing period, I'm looking at you SF). Instead they're more concerned with the marginal increase on their property value than the well being of those around them. For so much money in that area to have anyone willing to work, and try hard, not live well is quite frankly: fucking disgusting.

MichaelBurge 9y ago
Google is fighting tooth-and-nail to build 10,000 housing units: http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/06/26/mountain-view-google-calls-for-10000-unit-housing-planafter-city-cuts-proposal-to-as-low-as-1500/ http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/06/26/mountain-view-google-c... Facebook isn't Google, but they have the same incentives: Zuckerberg's wealth is not in his house, so he shouldn't care if his property values sink a bit. It'd be far more useful to him to have 10,000 extra employees. Housing is something every potential employee would ask about, so I'm surprised you think the company doesn't care about it.
- rubyn00bie 9y ago
  It's not that I think they don't care, I just think with companies like this caring is proportional to their investment in it. We often see how much SV company X is investing in lobbying, R&D, etc but we see very little how much their investing into their local municipalities to make living better. Perhaps I'm being ignorant, it wouldn't be the first time, but it seems like, to me, that they don't care proportional to their capital. When companies have $30-40 billion plus in cash holdings, it makes issues like these seem rather... baffling. Not to say money solves all problems, but it sure does help. Though getting anyone to invest in the long term is something unlikely to please investors, financial analysts, or executives protecting their jobs.
  - MichaelBurge 9y ago
    The argument the politicians gave was that Google is already the largest employer, and adding an extra 10,000 people means that Google could swing the elections by telling their employees who to vote for. How would you turn an unlimited amount of money into a counterargument for those scared politicians? There should be an Amdahl's law for lobbyists: If you have 12 politicians and it takes 9 months per politician to convince them, increasing the number of of lobbyists loses effectiveness once you have 1 lobbyist in every politician's office 24/7.
    - DrScump 9y ago
      Please identify a couple of the politicians who said this.
prostoalex 9y ago
They have been lobbying for a bit http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/15/facebook-floats-idea-for-more-housing-in-menlo-park/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/15/facebook-floats-idea-f... One might be on the Forbes list and hold weekly meetings with Presidents and religious leaders, but in the eyes of Menlo Park City Council they're just another dude with strong opinions about housing.

MichaelBurge 9y ago

Google is fighting tooth-and-nail to build 10,000 housing units: http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/06/26/mountain-view-google-calls-for-10000-unit-housing-planafter-city-cuts-proposal-to-as-low-as-1500/ http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/06/26/mountain-view-google-c... Facebook isn't Google, but they have the same incentives: Zuckerberg's wealth is not in his house, so he shouldn't care if his property values sink a bit. It'd be far more useful to him to have 10,000 extra employees. Housing is something every potential employee would ask about, so I'm surprised you think the company doesn't care about it.

rubyn00bie 9y ago
It's not that I think they don't care, I just think with companies like this caring is proportional to their investment in it. We often see how much SV company X is investing in lobbying, R&D, etc but we see very little how much their investing into their local municipalities to make living better. Perhaps I'm being ignorant, it wouldn't be the first time, but it seems like, to me, that they don't care proportional to their capital. When companies have $30-40 billion plus in cash holdings, it makes issues like these seem rather... baffling. Not to say money solves all problems, but it sure does help. Though getting anyone to invest in the long term is something unlikely to please investors, financial analysts, or executives protecting their jobs.
- MichaelBurge 9y ago
  The argument the politicians gave was that Google is already the largest employer, and adding an extra 10,000 people means that Google could swing the elections by telling their employees who to vote for. How would you turn an unlimited amount of money into a counterargument for those scared politicians? There should be an Amdahl's law for lobbyists: If you have 12 politicians and it takes 9 months per politician to convince them, increasing the number of of lobbyists loses effectiveness once you have 1 lobbyist in every politician's office 24/7.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    Please identify a couple of the politicians who said this.

prostoalex 9y ago

They have been lobbying for a bit http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/15/facebook-floats-idea-for-more-housing-in-menlo-park/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/15/facebook-floats-idea-f... One might be on the Forbes list and hold weekly meetings with Presidents and religious leaders, but in the eyes of Menlo Park City Council they're just another dude with strong opinions about housing.