7 ms·

>But when you go home after work, also be prepared to see the dystopia that your industry has created as a by-product. Has this actually been concluded? That i

>But when you go home after work, also be prepared to see the dystopia that your industry has created as a by-product. Has this actually been concluded? That it is the "tech industry's fault?" Because I feel like I could fence off any claims as such by asking, "well, why didn't the government do anything about it?" Based on my experience in multiple major metropolitan areas, the "tech industry" here in SF seems to be the most engaged in "doing something about it" than anywhere else. Is it because the problem is bigger? Maybe they're just better at marketing than the companies in other cities? Fair questions. Maybe. I remember reading in the local papers when I lived in Mountain View that Google was going to assign some # of a new housing project they wanted to be low income housing - at my understanding, to be a total loss to them. They were going to build bridges, footpaths, and parks to "offset" the burden of the increased number of residents in Mountain View. I have seen similar from other companies. In Houston, BP nuked the gulf of mexico and then fought everyone over how "responsible" they are for it. Chevron donated some fossils to the Museum of Natural Science. I dunno, I just feel like people are being unduly critical of the tech industry in SF, as if some homeless people poop on the streets because rich engineers ride buses paid for by google. Why isn't there better public transit, so the buses aren't necessary? Why block the proliferation of scooters and bicycles, so people are far more motivated to take Lyft or Uber? Why aren't there more public, 24/7 restrooms? And why isn't the Oil industry taking more flack for turning Houston into a 75x75 mile square of choking freeways? Because poop is grosser? Grosser than runaway climate change? Poop happens in Houston, too. I just feel like SF is a big giant target, the go-to punching bag, because Big Tech, and yet meanwhile Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Finance, Big Ag gets away with dramatically worse in cost and human suffering.

keiferski 8y ago
For everyone who isn’t a software engineer, SF was a dramatically better place to live ~40 years ago.
- davidw 8y ago
  Seems like a massive failure to take what so many places are so envious of and not be able to make something positive with it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- komali2 8y ago
  The implied solution is that companies should not start businesses in cities, and if they do, not become very successful businesses. They should self throttle. What other solution could be surmised from your claim?
crdoconnor 8y ago
I'd lay the blame at the feet of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Foundation. Tech brought wealth into the city. Prop 13 is the law that made that wealth toxic to the people that lived in it by enacting a titanic perpetual wealth transfer from community to homeowners (and creating a class of freeloading NIMBYs).
abalone 8y ago
See the Prop C campaign (e.g. Marc Benioff) for more insight in this issue. SF tech didn’t invent homelessness but it has clearly exacerbated it, simply by generating a lot of demand for housing. In a nutshell, the tech industry generally tries to point the finger at lack of supply and blame NIMBYS for obstructing housing construction. But this can be seen as a defensive strategy: it’s pretty clear that a sudden, massive surge of high income earners into a constrained area in the top of a peninsula with weak tenant protections will push a lot of poorer people out of their housing. It’s not only the fault of the city not to build housing fast enough. We’ve even seen “strange” effects in other boomtowns (Seattle) where building doesn’t solve the problem.[1] It’s not that strange if you truly understand economics 101. It contains the concept of price inelasticity, which one might see under boomtown conditions (insatiable demand for a necessity, essentially). But to even engage in a real economics discussion kind of misses the point. Mostly the tech industry wants to deflect blame for the problem. [1] https://knock-la.com/seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-side-housing-advocates-5b4ca5ed6d02 https://knock-la.com/seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-si...
- pm90 8y ago
  > simply by generating a lot of demand for housing. Oh for fucks sake. You realize this is what happens when a city becomes successful right? If you want to blame someone, its the NIMBYs: scuttling housing projects that would have eased the bubble and helped house a lot more people for reasonable prices, while benefiting from the economic successes of the companies and people moving in.
  - donkeyd 8y ago
    > scuttling housing projects that would have eased the bubble and helped house a lot more people for reasonable prices Exactly this. In and around Amsterdam, housing prices are booming. The number of homeless people on the street has hardly increased, because we spend massive amounts of public funds to keep the homeless off the street and also to help them get a home. The biggest issue is graduates, that have to share houses or move out of the city. Also, it's nearly impossible to buy when you're alone.
Kalium 8y ago
> Has this actually been concluded? That it is the "tech industry's fault?" A lot of people believe it. The idea that this dystopia is the tech industry's sole fault has common currency, especially in young-and-progressive circles. Among other things, it means not really having to come to terms with decades of policy failure. It also means not having to examine how local government seems to keep failing, such as with public transit or public restrooms. Tech is an excellent newcomer and outsider. This makes it collectively an ideal scapegoat. Which is not to say the tech industry is innocent! But it is to say the way blame is apportioned could be better aligned with reality.
smelterdemon 8y ago
You're right that the tech industry is by no means uniquely guilty for creating negative externalities or for the negative effects of capitalism in general. And while the other industries you mention have taken plenty of criticism over the past century or so (and continue to get it- it should be easy to find the equivalent negative take on Houston you're asking for, it just won't show up on the front of HN) there is a simple explanation the tech industry seems to be the biggest target: As the fastest growing segment of the US economy over the past decade, it's both the easiest to glorify and in turn the biggest target for condemnation. There are maybe a few of other factors (some touched on in the article) that amplify the criticism if they aren't causal. The rate of change brought about by tech feels faster than others before it. Houston grew into a square of choking freeways with the oil industry; while SV has old roots the explosion happened in a couple of decades. The other factor is the concentration of the industry makes it a more tangible issue to the people effected. You can understand Big Oil is destroying the world but it's harder to picture than a Google bus in front of you in traffic.

keiferski 8y ago

For everyone who isn’t a software engineer, SF was a dramatically better place to live ~40 years ago.

davidw 8y ago
Seems like a massive failure to take what so many places are so envious of and not be able to make something positive with it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
komali2 8y ago
The implied solution is that companies should not start businesses in cities, and if they do, not become very successful businesses. They should self throttle. What other solution could be surmised from your claim?

crdoconnor 8y ago

I'd lay the blame at the feet of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Foundation. Tech brought wealth into the city. Prop 13 is the law that made that wealth toxic to the people that lived in it by enacting a titanic perpetual wealth transfer from community to homeowners (and creating a class of freeloading NIMBYs).

abalone 8y ago

See the Prop C campaign (e.g. Marc Benioff) for more insight in this issue. SF tech didn’t invent homelessness but it has clearly exacerbated it, simply by generating a lot of demand for housing. In a nutshell, the tech industry generally tries to point the finger at lack of supply and blame NIMBYS for obstructing housing construction. But this can be seen as a defensive strategy: it’s pretty clear that a sudden, massive surge of high income earners into a constrained area in the top of a peninsula with weak tenant protections will push a lot of poorer people out of their housing. It’s not only the fault of the city not to build housing fast enough. We’ve even seen “strange” effects in other boomtowns (Seattle) where building doesn’t solve the problem.[1] It’s not that strange if you truly understand economics 101. It contains the concept of price inelasticity, which one might see under boomtown conditions (insatiable demand for a necessity, essentially). But to even engage in a real economics discussion kind of misses the point. Mostly the tech industry wants to deflect blame for the problem. [1] https://knock-la.com/seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-side-housing-advocates-5b4ca5ed6d02 https://knock-la.com/seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-si...

pm90 8y ago
> simply by generating a lot of demand for housing. Oh for fucks sake. You realize this is what happens when a city becomes successful right? If you want to blame someone, its the NIMBYs: scuttling housing projects that would have eased the bubble and helped house a lot more people for reasonable prices, while benefiting from the economic successes of the companies and people moving in.
- donkeyd 8y ago
  > scuttling housing projects that would have eased the bubble and helped house a lot more people for reasonable prices Exactly this. In and around Amsterdam, housing prices are booming. The number of homeless people on the street has hardly increased, because we spend massive amounts of public funds to keep the homeless off the street and also to help them get a home. The biggest issue is graduates, that have to share houses or move out of the city. Also, it's nearly impossible to buy when you're alone.

Kalium 8y ago

> Has this actually been concluded? That it is the "tech industry's fault?" A lot of people believe it. The idea that this dystopia is the tech industry's sole fault has common currency, especially in young-and-progressive circles. Among other things, it means not really having to come to terms with decades of policy failure. It also means not having to examine how local government seems to keep failing, such as with public transit or public restrooms. Tech is an excellent newcomer and outsider. This makes it collectively an ideal scapegoat. Which is not to say the tech industry is innocent! But it is to say the way blame is apportioned could be better aligned with reality.

smelterdemon 8y ago

You're right that the tech industry is by no means uniquely guilty for creating negative externalities or for the negative effects of capitalism in general. And while the other industries you mention have taken plenty of criticism over the past century or so (and continue to get it- it should be easy to find the equivalent negative take on Houston you're asking for, it just won't show up on the front of HN) there is a simple explanation the tech industry seems to be the biggest target: As the fastest growing segment of the US economy over the past decade, it's both the easiest to glorify and in turn the biggest target for condemnation. There are maybe a few of other factors (some touched on in the article) that amplify the criticism if they aren't causal. The rate of change brought about by tech feels faster than others before it. Houston grew into a square of choking freeways with the oil industry; while SV has old roots the explosion happened in a couple of decades. The other factor is the concentration of the industry makes it a more tangible issue to the people effected. You can understand Big Oil is destroying the world but it's harder to picture than a Google bus in front of you in traffic.