3 ms·

One of the primary properties of the tech boom (and, lets face it, almost all industrialized capitalism) is that it doesn't account for nor take responsibility

One of the primary properties of the tech boom (and, lets face it, almost all industrialized capitalism) is that it doesn't account for nor take responsibility for side effects of their overwhelming wealth. Some are even convinced that its a net positive and nothing should be done - despite the fact that the winners are investors and the upper class employees, and the losers are those adjacent who have to move 2 hours away. Maybe shame will get some people to budge, but I think the decision makers such as Jack/etc are so far away from being able to empathize with the people that are harmed that there's no real chance. Also slightly amusing: Jack doesn't think that this is the "best" way to solve homelessness. Whats the best way, since clearly he knows about it, and why isn't he doing it?

monksy 8y ago
You could also criticize the fact that businesses have done 2 things in the sake of profit: 1. Outsource their labor and production, that could be done stateside 2. They're refusing to use local materials (A business has to spend money to make money.. the money isn't following back in the local economy) They're doing to leverage poorer economies to get goods and services cheaper. (That should at least account for the portio of the homeless that want to work but can't find it)
dunpeal 8y ago
> One of the primary properties of the tech boom (and, lets face it, almost all industrialized capitalism) is that it doesn't account for nor take responsibility for side effects of their overwhelming wealth. How is the tech boom different from any previous period of explosive growth, in that regard? Examine similar periods in the past, and you will find far more harmful consequences, that were given far less attention or caring by their progenitors. Major developments in the past had far more disruptive and harmful consequences to affected communities, that were basically ignored and treated as "price of progress" by the people of the time. How much negative impact does the current boom even have on local communities? It's very misleading to blame it for homelessness in San Francisco. The homeless of SF by and large aren't people who can't afford rent anymore so now they live on the street.
Kalium 8y ago
> Also slightly amusing: Jack doesn't think that this is the "best" way to solve homelessness. Whats the best way, since clearly he knows about it, and why isn't he doing it? I mean, it's pretty obvious that the best way to address homelessness involves having homes so that the most vulnerable of our friends and neighbors can stop being homeless by being in homes. This idea has given rise to an approach called Housing First. Which, by an odd twist of fate, has actually been shown to work! This being San Francisco, this is utterly impossible. Nothing makes San Francisco politics break out in furious community meetings and protests and CEQA complaints like the prospect of building things. There's nothing Jack can do about that, even with all his money. As near as I can tell, San Francisco doesn't actually want to solve this problem. Instead, it wants to feel good about how kind and compassionate its policies are without actually accepting change into the city's fabric.
- rchaud 8y ago
  > Jack doesn't think that this is the "best" way to solve homelessness. Whats the best way, since clearly he knows about it, and why isn't he doing it? This is by far the most irritating thing about reading CEO's "success story" profiles. It's always about going to market with the MVP, because if you wait long enough to make it perfect, the opportunity is lost to a competitor. But when it comes to tax policy, the plan has to be perfect and not annoy anyone and anything less should be rejected outright.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    For my part, I think it's worth considering that how perfect a plan has to be to implement should be a function of how readily it can be adjusted to match changing requirements. An MVP SaaS product is pretty tunable. It's possible that local tax policies, particularly as mandated by and only changeable by plebiscite, might be slightly more difficult to adjust (win an election, get one chance every two years) to changing requirements or to handle undesirable effects.
    - rchaud 8y ago
      You're right, it's far from a perfect analogy. And the electoral cycle means that the tax might not be in place long enough for it to make a measurable impact. My comment was more about the way in which taxes are discussed in American political discourse; there is this implication of a rigid permanence, as though such policies can never be reversed. They absolutely can; as you pointed out, incumbents can lose to candidates who promise to repeal the tax.
YZF 8y ago
Just because some guy has $1B in his bank account doesn't create the "loser" on the other end. It's not a zero sum game. You can just remove this person and their money from the economy and you'd be back where you were. The homeless person would possibly be homeless even if that guy only had $2M in his bank account. If this money is invested somewhere then that can create some distortions (e.g. inflate stocks if a lot of rich people buy stocks). At any rate, just because some people are "rich" doesn't mean their money comes from the "poor" people. Everyone could also be poor. That's not to say rich people shouldn't use their money to affect positive change but if they did that it's really just a bonus positive force. If they weren't rich where would the money to improve the community come from? Also if rich person gives every homeless person $2M to buy a house what do you think would happen to house prices? (not that homelessness is just about money, it's more complicated than that)

monksy 8y ago

You could also criticize the fact that businesses have done 2 things in the sake of profit: 1. Outsource their labor and production, that could be done stateside 2. They're refusing to use local materials (A business has to spend money to make money.. the money isn't following back in the local economy) They're doing to leverage poorer economies to get goods and services cheaper. (That should at least account for the portio of the homeless that want to work but can't find it)

dunpeal 8y ago

> One of the primary properties of the tech boom (and, lets face it, almost all industrialized capitalism) is that it doesn't account for nor take responsibility for side effects of their overwhelming wealth. How is the tech boom different from any previous period of explosive growth, in that regard? Examine similar periods in the past, and you will find far more harmful consequences, that were given far less attention or caring by their progenitors. Major developments in the past had far more disruptive and harmful consequences to affected communities, that were basically ignored and treated as "price of progress" by the people of the time. How much negative impact does the current boom even have on local communities? It's very misleading to blame it for homelessness in San Francisco. The homeless of SF by and large aren't people who can't afford rent anymore so now they live on the street.

Kalium 8y ago

> Also slightly amusing: Jack doesn't think that this is the "best" way to solve homelessness. Whats the best way, since clearly he knows about it, and why isn't he doing it? I mean, it's pretty obvious that the best way to address homelessness involves having homes so that the most vulnerable of our friends and neighbors can stop being homeless by being in homes. This idea has given rise to an approach called Housing First. Which, by an odd twist of fate, has actually been shown to work! This being San Francisco, this is utterly impossible. Nothing makes San Francisco politics break out in furious community meetings and protests and CEQA complaints like the prospect of building things. There's nothing Jack can do about that, even with all his money. As near as I can tell, San Francisco doesn't actually want to solve this problem. Instead, it wants to feel good about how kind and compassionate its policies are without actually accepting change into the city's fabric.

rchaud 8y ago
> Jack doesn't think that this is the "best" way to solve homelessness. Whats the best way, since clearly he knows about it, and why isn't he doing it? This is by far the most irritating thing about reading CEO's "success story" profiles. It's always about going to market with the MVP, because if you wait long enough to make it perfect, the opportunity is lost to a competitor. But when it comes to tax policy, the plan has to be perfect and not annoy anyone and anything less should be rejected outright.
- Kalium 8y ago
  For my part, I think it's worth considering that how perfect a plan has to be to implement should be a function of how readily it can be adjusted to match changing requirements. An MVP SaaS product is pretty tunable. It's possible that local tax policies, particularly as mandated by and only changeable by plebiscite, might be slightly more difficult to adjust (win an election, get one chance every two years) to changing requirements or to handle undesirable effects.
  - rchaud 8y ago
    You're right, it's far from a perfect analogy. And the electoral cycle means that the tax might not be in place long enough for it to make a measurable impact. My comment was more about the way in which taxes are discussed in American political discourse; there is this implication of a rigid permanence, as though such policies can never be reversed. They absolutely can; as you pointed out, incumbents can lose to candidates who promise to repeal the tax.

YZF 8y ago

Just because some guy has $1B in his bank account doesn't create the "loser" on the other end. It's not a zero sum game. You can just remove this person and their money from the economy and you'd be back where you were. The homeless person would possibly be homeless even if that guy only had $2M in his bank account. If this money is invested somewhere then that can create some distortions (e.g. inflate stocks if a lot of rich people buy stocks). At any rate, just because some people are "rich" doesn't mean their money comes from the "poor" people. Everyone could also be poor. That's not to say rich people shouldn't use their money to affect positive change but if they did that it's really just a bonus positive force. If they weren't rich where would the money to improve the community come from? Also if rich person gives every homeless person $2M to buy a house what do you think would happen to house prices? (not that homelessness is just about money, it's more complicated than that)