6 ms·

TIL software engineers think it's okay to participate in the economic and social destruction of neighborhoods in which people have lived for decades.

deadmetheny 9y ago
If you've been on HN for any extended period of time, this should not come as a surprise to you.
- biocomputation 9y ago
  Sadly, it's not!
closeparen 9y ago
Young adults necessarily occupy space in a way that hasn’t yet been legitimized by the passage of much time. Populations that need to work for a living must go where there is work. Many of the consequences of this set of facts are dire and inhumane, and responsible public policy manages their impacts as best it can. A world with no new households is one that has stopped reproducing. A world where people are confined to their economically depressed birth cities is another kind of dystopian hellhole. Half of this wouldn’t even matter if we let housing become a positive-sum game.
- biocomputation 9y ago
  You could always refuse to participate in the social and economic destruction of communities by simply not working at places that have a disproportionate impact on the surrounding community. Yes, it's that easy! << A world where people are forced to leave their community of origin because rich tech workers can outbid them for housing is another kind of dystopian hellhole. Fixed that for you.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    The size of your employer has nothing to do with your contribution to housing demand. A million employees of two-person startups have the same effect as a million Googlers, assuming similar budgets.
    - biocomputation 9y ago
      Interesting argument strategy. You pose something that will never happen in Seattle (a million employees of two-person startups) with something that actually has happened (Amazon). If you're a transplant who works for Amazon, then it's because of a choice. You came from somewhere where you lived in a community with people you knew and who knew you. You don't need to be in Seattle. People who are from Seattle need to live in Seattle. A lot of us don't want to leave our families or watch while our communities (or surrounding) communities are destroyed by waves of outsiders who know nothing about the area and who are only here for career/money. Is that so hard to understand? How much should we have to accommodate? How many people? Should we sit idly by while people drive us out of our own neighborhoods? Sorry, that's not going to happen.
      - closeparen 9y ago
        >You came from somewhere where you lived in a community with people you knew and who knew you Sure. College, which ends. After that, returning to your hometown is only possible if you're privileged enough to be born somewhere with a decent local economy, and even then, chances are you'll be moving from family-oriented suburbs to an "up-and-coming" urban neighborhood with other young adults... same set of issues. Or you got priced out of the Bay Area, or your hometown's economy finally shrank to below the level where it can sustain you, etc. > A lot of us don't want to leave our families or watch while our communities (or surrounding) communities are destroyed by waves of outsiders who know nothing about the area and who are only here for career/money. There is nothing an American city can do to privilege its natives relative to other Americans. Privileges and Immunities Clause. What you can do is rent control + plan and zone for growth so that it's an increase in population, instead of a displacement.
JPKab 9y ago
TIL that people own the neighborhoods they live in by virtue of being there first, without any form of payment, deed, title, or record of ownership. I should point out that the arguments against gentrification are identical to the arguments white ethnic urban neighborhoods made against blacks moving into their neighborhoods in the mid 20th century. "They are ruining the character of our city! We were here first!" Losers.
- biocomputation 9y ago
  Gentrification disproportionately affects communities of color. This is quite exactly what's happening in Seattle. << TIL that people own the neighborhoods they live in by virtue of being there first, without any form of payment, deed, title, or record of ownership. I hear this argument a lot and it's really like saying "only people who own property should be allowed to vote". You're saying that only property owners belong in the community. That's just sad and wrong - not to mention racist in the context of this discussion - and it truly exemplifies the attitude that myself and many other natives are pushing back against. This attitude, which I see in so many tech workers, is why Amazon has gotten such a cold reception from many people in Seattle.
  - JPKab 9y ago
    No, I'm saying that nobody is entitled to anything. I love how you bring up the race card. Please explain to me the system of who gets to suddenly stop a city from changing, and when? Your attitude is based on emotion and illogic. So if I'm talking about South Boston, where it is white Irish Americans being booted out by a much more racially diverse professional class, am I bigoted against whites? Again, you have an emotional argument and nothing else. Take that same argument, apply it at a national level, and you are in anti immigration territory. If Trump ran for mayor of Seattle and said he'd build a wall to keep newcomers out, it would help your agenda.
    - biocomputation 9y ago
      People who have been in an area for a long time have every right to fight back against overwhelming changes that have incredibly serious long-term implications for their quality of life. It's a sign of your argument's inherent weakness that you equate people's heartfelt sentiments about feeling overwhelmed by cost-of-living increases, and the resulting destruction of their communities, with Donald Trump's agenda.

deadmetheny 9y ago

If you've been on HN for any extended period of time, this should not come as a surprise to you.

biocomputation 9y ago
Sadly, it's not!

closeparen 9y ago

Young adults necessarily occupy space in a way that hasn’t yet been legitimized by the passage of much time. Populations that need to work for a living must go where there is work. Many of the consequences of this set of facts are dire and inhumane, and responsible public policy manages their impacts as best it can. A world with no new households is one that has stopped reproducing. A world where people are confined to their economically depressed birth cities is another kind of dystopian hellhole. Half of this wouldn’t even matter if we let housing become a positive-sum game.

biocomputation 9y ago
You could always refuse to participate in the social and economic destruction of communities by simply not working at places that have a disproportionate impact on the surrounding community. Yes, it's that easy! << A world where people are forced to leave their community of origin because rich tech workers can outbid them for housing is another kind of dystopian hellhole. Fixed that for you.
- closeparen 9y ago
  The size of your employer has nothing to do with your contribution to housing demand. A million employees of two-person startups have the same effect as a million Googlers, assuming similar budgets.
  - biocomputation 9y ago
    Interesting argument strategy. You pose something that will never happen in Seattle (a million employees of two-person startups) with something that actually has happened (Amazon). If you're a transplant who works for Amazon, then it's because of a choice. You came from somewhere where you lived in a community with people you knew and who knew you. You don't need to be in Seattle. People who are from Seattle need to live in Seattle. A lot of us don't want to leave our families or watch while our communities (or surrounding) communities are destroyed by waves of outsiders who know nothing about the area and who are only here for career/money. Is that so hard to understand? How much should we have to accommodate? How many people? Should we sit idly by while people drive us out of our own neighborhoods? Sorry, that's not going to happen.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      >You came from somewhere where you lived in a community with people you knew and who knew you Sure. College, which ends. After that, returning to your hometown is only possible if you're privileged enough to be born somewhere with a decent local economy, and even then, chances are you'll be moving from family-oriented suburbs to an "up-and-coming" urban neighborhood with other young adults... same set of issues. Or you got priced out of the Bay Area, or your hometown's economy finally shrank to below the level where it can sustain you, etc. > A lot of us don't want to leave our families or watch while our communities (or surrounding) communities are destroyed by waves of outsiders who know nothing about the area and who are only here for career/money. There is nothing an American city can do to privilege its natives relative to other Americans. Privileges and Immunities Clause. What you can do is rent control + plan and zone for growth so that it's an increase in population, instead of a displacement.

JPKab 9y ago

TIL that people own the neighborhoods they live in by virtue of being there first, without any form of payment, deed, title, or record of ownership. I should point out that the arguments against gentrification are identical to the arguments white ethnic urban neighborhoods made against blacks moving into their neighborhoods in the mid 20th century. "They are ruining the character of our city! We were here first!" Losers.

biocomputation 9y ago
Gentrification disproportionately affects communities of color. This is quite exactly what's happening in Seattle. << TIL that people own the neighborhoods they live in by virtue of being there first, without any form of payment, deed, title, or record of ownership. I hear this argument a lot and it's really like saying "only people who own property should be allowed to vote". You're saying that only property owners belong in the community. That's just sad and wrong - not to mention racist in the context of this discussion - and it truly exemplifies the attitude that myself and many other natives are pushing back against. This attitude, which I see in so many tech workers, is why Amazon has gotten such a cold reception from many people in Seattle.
- JPKab 9y ago
  No, I'm saying that nobody is entitled to anything. I love how you bring up the race card. Please explain to me the system of who gets to suddenly stop a city from changing, and when? Your attitude is based on emotion and illogic. So if I'm talking about South Boston, where it is white Irish Americans being booted out by a much more racially diverse professional class, am I bigoted against whites? Again, you have an emotional argument and nothing else. Take that same argument, apply it at a national level, and you are in anti immigration territory. If Trump ran for mayor of Seattle and said he'd build a wall to keep newcomers out, it would help your agenda.
  - biocomputation 9y ago
    People who have been in an area for a long time have every right to fight back against overwhelming changes that have incredibly serious long-term implications for their quality of life. It's a sign of your argument's inherent weakness that you equate people's heartfelt sentiments about feeling overwhelmed by cost-of-living increases, and the resulting destruction of their communities, with Donald Trump's agenda.