4 ms·

> When they arrive in a flood, as they have during economic booms since the 19th-century gold rush, including the dotcom surge of the late 1990s and the current

by deogeo 8y ago

> When they arrive in a flood, as they have during economic booms since the 19th-century gold rush, including the dotcom surge of the late 1990s and the current tech tsunami, they scour out what was there before. By 2012 the incursion of tech workers had gone from steady stream to deluge, and more and more people and institutions – bookstores, churches, social services, bars, small businesses – began to be evicted. Flood, scour out, incursion, deluge... it's very rare for a liberal publication such as The Guardian to describe immigration in such negative terms!

johnsolo1701 8y ago
I think you’re a little confused - they are not talking about immigration. Immigration is defined as the international movement of people.
- deogeo 8y ago
  Ah, you're right - I should have said just 'migration'. This completely changes the picture.
  - beavisthegenius 8y ago
    It does.
nine_k 8y ago
Why, The Guardian is pretty left-leaning. So an influx of rich people is seen by it as bad. That influx does incur real problems! But they are greatly exacerbated by the way they are (not) being solved.
wwweston 8y ago
The idea that several forms of social influx (immigration vs gentrification) have some things in common despite being received differently along a political continuum is probably worth some examination. But I'd start by looking at whether "flood" or "deluge" are justified not in terms of positive/negative connotation, but whether they accurately represent the scale of what's going on. IIRC, post-civil-war in-migration to the US hasn't ever resulted in more than 15% of the total population being immigrants. The CIA World Factbook says the US had 3.9 migrants per 1000 citizens in 2017. Wikipedia says there's a recent rate of about 1 million immigrants per year, about half of which are changing status for people already here. I'm less sure where to get observations about the portion/influx of tech in the Bay Area or SF itself. But if I were guessing, I'd bet tech pushes up to 20-25% of employmees and activity, and that the influx over the last decade (or in the 90s) is a considerably steeper curve. One might also consider some qualitative factors. An influx of people of average or perhaps even lower than average means primarily represents an impact on (a) competition in the labor force and (b) demand. Those two things ought to cancel each other out in terms of general economic impacts (or perhaps even work in tandem to drive growth), except where there are supply bottlenecks... say, real estate/housing, especially in a geographically constrained area. So, one might expect the impacts to be outsized in a place like San Francisco vs the United States at large (which has plenty of places with modest population destiny). An influx of people of average to higher-than-average means (say, workers in a field commanding a larger salary than many past residents) would massively magnify this problem. So... perhaps there are good reasons to treat the volatility and dynamics of tech-focused in-migration to SF/Bay as distinct from the volatility and dynamics of immigration to the US.
- deogeo 8y ago
  > Wikipedia says there's a recent rate of about 1 million immigrants per year, about half of which are changing status for people already here. Would that mean they weren't counted as immigrants when they first arrived, because they had the wrong 'status'? Or are they counted twice, first when they arrive, and again when they change status? Edit: It occurred to me, immigration to the US is probably concentrated in the south, so the "15% of total US population being immigrant" is not the most relevant statistic to compare to.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  I wonder why people have the conversation this way at all. Don’t we have freedom of movement within the United States? Don’t we believe the union is a good thing? If a city can’t grow to accommodate new and successful industries — despite lavish tax revenue — it seems like policy failure, plain and simple.
TheOperator 8y ago
>The Guardian The tech industry isn't sending their best... they're RACISTS... we need to Make America Great Again and clamp down on the SCOURGE of economic migrants gentrifying our neighbourhoods >Also the Guardian Are Trumps H1-B visa reforms a dog whistle for his base? https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/20/h-1b-visas-trump-opposes-immigration-executive-order https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfre... --- Gee whiz! According to The Guardian this recent Guardian article is nothing more than a dog whistle accusing Silicon Valley of becoming too full of racist Asians! It's almost like the Guardian isn't consistent in their support/opposition to migration, are only consistent in their disdain for majority groups & the rich, and cynically accuse their partisan enemies of racism for holding the same views as theirselves

by deogeo 8y ago

johnsolo1701 8y ago

I think you’re a little confused - they are not talking about immigration. Immigration is defined as the international movement of people.

deogeo 8y ago
Ah, you're right - I should have said just 'migration'. This completely changes the picture.
- beavisthegenius 8y ago
  It does.

nine_k 8y ago

Why, The Guardian is pretty left-leaning. So an influx of rich people is seen by it as bad. That influx does incur real problems! But they are greatly exacerbated by the way they are (not) being solved.

wwweston 8y ago

The idea that several forms of social influx (immigration vs gentrification) have some things in common despite being received differently along a political continuum is probably worth some examination. But I'd start by looking at whether "flood" or "deluge" are justified not in terms of positive/negative connotation, but whether they accurately represent the scale of what's going on. IIRC, post-civil-war in-migration to the US hasn't ever resulted in more than 15% of the total population being immigrants. The CIA World Factbook says the US had 3.9 migrants per 1000 citizens in 2017. Wikipedia says there's a recent rate of about 1 million immigrants per year, about half of which are changing status for people already here. I'm less sure where to get observations about the portion/influx of tech in the Bay Area or SF itself. But if I were guessing, I'd bet tech pushes up to 20-25% of employmees and activity, and that the influx over the last decade (or in the 90s) is a considerably steeper curve. One might also consider some qualitative factors. An influx of people of average or perhaps even lower than average means primarily represents an impact on (a) competition in the labor force and (b) demand. Those two things ought to cancel each other out in terms of general economic impacts (or perhaps even work in tandem to drive growth), except where there are supply bottlenecks... say, real estate/housing, especially in a geographically constrained area. So, one might expect the impacts to be outsized in a place like San Francisco vs the United States at large (which has plenty of places with modest population destiny). An influx of people of average to higher-than-average means (say, workers in a field commanding a larger salary than many past residents) would massively magnify this problem. So... perhaps there are good reasons to treat the volatility and dynamics of tech-focused in-migration to SF/Bay as distinct from the volatility and dynamics of immigration to the US.

deogeo 8y ago
> Wikipedia says there's a recent rate of about 1 million immigrants per year, about half of which are changing status for people already here. Would that mean they weren't counted as immigrants when they first arrived, because they had the wrong 'status'? Or are they counted twice, first when they arrive, and again when they change status? Edit: It occurred to me, immigration to the US is probably concentrated in the south, so the "15% of total US population being immigrant" is not the most relevant statistic to compare to.
solidsnack9000 8y ago
I wonder why people have the conversation this way at all. Don’t we have freedom of movement within the United States? Don’t we believe the union is a good thing? If a city can’t grow to accommodate new and successful industries — despite lavish tax revenue — it seems like policy failure, plain and simple.

TheOperator 8y ago

>The Guardian The tech industry isn't sending their best... they're RACISTS... we need to Make America Great Again and clamp down on the SCOURGE of economic migrants gentrifying our neighbourhoods >Also the Guardian Are Trumps H1-B visa reforms a dog whistle for his base? https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/20/h-1b-visas-trump-opposes-immigration-executive-order https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfre... --- Gee whiz! According to The Guardian this recent Guardian article is nothing more than a dog whistle accusing Silicon Valley of becoming too full of racist Asians! It's almost like the Guardian isn't consistent in their support/opposition to migration, are only consistent in their disdain for majority groups & the rich, and cynically accuse their partisan enemies of racism for holding the same views as theirselves