5 ms·

This was actually one of the most disappointing parts of Silicon Valley for me and one of the reasons I left. The number of tech progressives I met that possess

This was actually one of the most disappointing parts of Silicon Valley for me and one of the reasons I left. The number of tech progressives I met that possessed a murderous hate of homeless people was unreal. I still can’t believe that such a wealthy area has such a fundamental problem meeting basic human needs. Not everyone can be a tech worker, but very few of the “Silicon Valley” types can imagine someone living outside of tech, and if someone wasn’t in tech they were considered subhuman.

apsec112 6y ago
I think the average tech worker is very pro-housing, pro-solving homelessness, but (correctly, IMO) thinks that the existing homeless programs are wasteful and don't solve the problem with the money they already have, and (understandably) doesn't want to be constantly harassed and assaulted while they walk to the corner store. Or have their kid stab themselves with a used heroin needle while they're taking a walk outside. Or have gibberish screamed at them by someone with drug-induced psychosis while spending fifteen minutes waiting for the bus, etc. These are very unpleasant experiences and it's normal for people to not want them.
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  I bought homeless people lunches and didn’t consider it being harassed. I didn’t know anyone who had their kid stab themselves on any needle of any sort. The only people that screamed at me were blue collar workers that hated tech workers. The worst experience in SF was the human excrement in the streets and watching it happen, but as I said, it’s amazing such a wealthy area can’t even provide such a basic service as public toilets. Edit: The tech workers that I knew very much so cared about not allowing high density housing to keep their house prices inflated.
  - jchallis 6y ago
    Wife works in pediatric infectious diseases in SF. “Community needle stick” is common enough to get its own acronym. They’re the folks that have to make sure junior doesn’t now have Hep A. Super normal.
    - randmeerkat 6y ago
      Wow...
  - pb7 6y ago
    What is the point of paying (a fuck load of) taxes if the people who are hired using those taxes don’t do their jobs? Why don’t you blame them? You understand there’s nearly a billion dollars a year that goes to homelessness, right? It’s become a business at this point and the people running it have no interest in solving it because that means the gravy train ends. Ordinary working people can’t and shouldn’t be responsible for every single social problem out there — that’s why we hire people whose jobs it is to do that. Otherwise, hand back the damn tax money and we’ll start figuring it out like you want us to.
  - proc0 6y ago
    > it’s amazing such a wealthy area can’t even provide such a basic service as public toilets. That's not really problem. The people needing toilets aren't particularly worried about using one. The root of the problem is sending a message that it won't be enforced, so people literally have no reason not to do it. Amazingly enough, I think last year or the year before, SF announced they wouldn't enforce "quality of life" crimes, which include outside urination and defecation. Naturally this will be noticed by those doing it, and eventually it allows people outside to gather in large groups because they don't have to worry about how to relieve themselves. Finding a toilet isn't impossible, but it does require holding yourself until you do find one. For people with no home, this is extra work, but we should all agree is extra work they should be forced to do, instead of treating them like animals with no agency of their own, and pretending somehow the problem doesn't include their decisions and the authorities' incentives.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Finding a toilet can be difficult if you are homeless…
- mbg721 6y ago
  At arm's length, you're also describing the average middle-class midwestern conservative, except we rely on religious organizations, there's winter here, and the harassment isn't allowed to get that bad.
neilparikh 6y ago
> I still can’t believe that such a wealthy area has such a fundamental problem meeting basic human needs. It doesn't have trouble meeting basic needs despite of the wealth, but because of it. Henry George observed this fact (that as cities get wealthier, poverty also increases) way back in the late 1800s, and in SF, funnily enough. This is what his book Progress and Poverty [0] covers, and the title is a reference to this phenomenon. The TL;DR is that as locations get better and progress, much of this wealth gets captured by landowners, because they have an ownership over a monopoly; the supply of land is fixed. This leads to higher land prices and rents, which makes it harder for those on the margins, leading to more poverty. [1] This problem is worse in SF (and CA as a whole), because Prop 13 restricts how much property tax can be collected, which is the primary way the community as a whole can reclaim the wealth extracted by landowners. Blaming tech workers for the problems of Silicon Valley seems a little misplaced, given that most longterm homeowners in the Bay Area not tech workers, and they (longterm homeowners) are the ones who benefit the most from Prop 13, and ever increasing housing costs. The problem in the Bay Area are the landed gentry. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty [1]: A good snippet from the Wikipedia article: > George saw how technological and social advances (including education and public services) increased the value of land (natural resources, urban locations, etc.) and, thus, the amount of wealth that can be demanded by the owners of land from those who need the use of land. In other words: the better the public services, the higher the rent is (as more people value that land). The tendency of speculators to increase the price of land faster than wealth can be produced to pay has the result of lowering the amount of wealth left over for labor to claim in wages, and finally leads to the collapse of enterprises at the margin, with a ripple effect that becomes a serious business depression entailing widespread unemployment, foreclosures, etc.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Yeah, it boils down to feudalism... for everyone.
- astrange 6y ago
  > Henry George observed this fact (that as cities get wealthier, poverty also increases) way back in the late 1800s, and in SF, funnily enough. This is what his book Progress and Poverty [0] covers, and the title is a reference to this phenomenon. Also, the game Monopoly was invented to demonstrate his philosophy, and it’s why it’s not fun with the default rules. It’s supposed to make you feel bad.
jariel 6y ago
Victoria, Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, LA - all have similar problems with homelessness and it has a lot to do with climate. I think if someone has a 'constant and grinding' exposure to homelessness, like they work near 5th and Market, it can actually have an aggravating affect emotionally. Expensive housing however, is probably not a root cause of homelessness, because there is absolutely cheap housing all over California and the West coast. We can argue about 'cost' but I don't think anyone would say that homeless people have some kind of 'right' to live in SF. If we could feasibly provide more effective housing and services but it happened to be in Modesto or Sacramento than that would be perfectly reasonable.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  So the common factor I come down to is that everyone needs a haircut. How far do you expect a hairstylist to commute to cut your hair? Another programmer isn’t going to cut your hair, if they do I suspect it won’t be a very good cut. The cost of housing isn’t about other areas being affordable for lower salary careers to move to, the cost of housing is about having a robust economic center that everyone can afford to participate in.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    This is true. The reason why SF is considered a tech center is because everyone else couldn't afford to move there.
    - jariel 6y ago
      Actually, this isn't true. First - SF was not 'tech' until the mid 2000's. Some people - yes. But no HQs. The Silicon Vally was where it was at. Also - up until the 1990's at least, the Valley was just a burb, mostly affordable, not outrageous except in some little spots. In the 2000's it started to get weird and 2010+ is when it got 'bad bad' and SF became a true hub. In the 1990's regular folk could buy homes, Engineers could buy normal homes on normal terms. Large swaths of SF ware garbage.

apsec112 6y ago

I think the average tech worker is very pro-housing, pro-solving homelessness, but (correctly, IMO) thinks that the existing homeless programs are wasteful and don't solve the problem with the money they already have, and (understandably) doesn't want to be constantly harassed and assaulted while they walk to the corner store. Or have their kid stab themselves with a used heroin needle while they're taking a walk outside. Or have gibberish screamed at them by someone with drug-induced psychosis while spending fifteen minutes waiting for the bus, etc. These are very unpleasant experiences and it's normal for people to not want them.

randmeerkat 6y ago
I bought homeless people lunches and didn’t consider it being harassed. I didn’t know anyone who had their kid stab themselves on any needle of any sort. The only people that screamed at me were blue collar workers that hated tech workers. The worst experience in SF was the human excrement in the streets and watching it happen, but as I said, it’s amazing such a wealthy area can’t even provide such a basic service as public toilets. Edit: The tech workers that I knew very much so cared about not allowing high density housing to keep their house prices inflated.
- jchallis 6y ago
  Wife works in pediatric infectious diseases in SF. “Community needle stick” is common enough to get its own acronym. They’re the folks that have to make sure junior doesn’t now have Hep A. Super normal.
  - randmeerkat 6y ago
    Wow...
- pb7 6y ago
  What is the point of paying (a fuck load of) taxes if the people who are hired using those taxes don’t do their jobs? Why don’t you blame them? You understand there’s nearly a billion dollars a year that goes to homelessness, right? It’s become a business at this point and the people running it have no interest in solving it because that means the gravy train ends. Ordinary working people can’t and shouldn’t be responsible for every single social problem out there — that’s why we hire people whose jobs it is to do that. Otherwise, hand back the damn tax money and we’ll start figuring it out like you want us to.
- proc0 6y ago
  > it’s amazing such a wealthy area can’t even provide such a basic service as public toilets. That's not really problem. The people needing toilets aren't particularly worried about using one. The root of the problem is sending a message that it won't be enforced, so people literally have no reason not to do it. Amazingly enough, I think last year or the year before, SF announced they wouldn't enforce "quality of life" crimes, which include outside urination and defecation. Naturally this will be noticed by those doing it, and eventually it allows people outside to gather in large groups because they don't have to worry about how to relieve themselves. Finding a toilet isn't impossible, but it does require holding yourself until you do find one. For people with no home, this is extra work, but we should all agree is extra work they should be forced to do, instead of treating them like animals with no agency of their own, and pretending somehow the problem doesn't include their decisions and the authorities' incentives.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Finding a toilet can be difficult if you are homeless…
mbg721 6y ago
At arm's length, you're also describing the average middle-class midwestern conservative, except we rely on religious organizations, there's winter here, and the harassment isn't allowed to get that bad.

neilparikh 6y ago

> I still can’t believe that such a wealthy area has such a fundamental problem meeting basic human needs. It doesn't have trouble meeting basic needs despite of the wealth, but because of it. Henry George observed this fact (that as cities get wealthier, poverty also increases) way back in the late 1800s, and in SF, funnily enough. This is what his book Progress and Poverty [0] covers, and the title is a reference to this phenomenon. The TL;DR is that as locations get better and progress, much of this wealth gets captured by landowners, because they have an ownership over a monopoly; the supply of land is fixed. This leads to higher land prices and rents, which makes it harder for those on the margins, leading to more poverty. [1] This problem is worse in SF (and CA as a whole), because Prop 13 restricts how much property tax can be collected, which is the primary way the community as a whole can reclaim the wealth extracted by landowners. Blaming tech workers for the problems of Silicon Valley seems a little misplaced, given that most longterm homeowners in the Bay Area not tech workers, and they (longterm homeowners) are the ones who benefit the most from Prop 13, and ever increasing housing costs. The problem in the Bay Area are the landed gentry. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty [1]: A good snippet from the Wikipedia article: > George saw how technological and social advances (including education and public services) increased the value of land (natural resources, urban locations, etc.) and, thus, the amount of wealth that can be demanded by the owners of land from those who need the use of land. In other words: the better the public services, the higher the rent is (as more people value that land). The tendency of speculators to increase the price of land faster than wealth can be produced to pay has the result of lowering the amount of wealth left over for labor to claim in wages, and finally leads to the collapse of enterprises at the margin, with a ripple effect that becomes a serious business depression entailing widespread unemployment, foreclosures, etc.

imtringued 6y ago
Yeah, it boils down to feudalism... for everyone.
astrange 6y ago
> Henry George observed this fact (that as cities get wealthier, poverty also increases) way back in the late 1800s, and in SF, funnily enough. This is what his book Progress and Poverty [0] covers, and the title is a reference to this phenomenon. Also, the game Monopoly was invented to demonstrate his philosophy, and it’s why it’s not fun with the default rules. It’s supposed to make you feel bad.

jariel 6y ago

Victoria, Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, LA - all have similar problems with homelessness and it has a lot to do with climate. I think if someone has a 'constant and grinding' exposure to homelessness, like they work near 5th and Market, it can actually have an aggravating affect emotionally. Expensive housing however, is probably not a root cause of homelessness, because there is absolutely cheap housing all over California and the West coast. We can argue about 'cost' but I don't think anyone would say that homeless people have some kind of 'right' to live in SF. If we could feasibly provide more effective housing and services but it happened to be in Modesto or Sacramento than that would be perfectly reasonable.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
randmeerkat 6y ago
So the common factor I come down to is that everyone needs a haircut. How far do you expect a hairstylist to commute to cut your hair? Another programmer isn’t going to cut your hair, if they do I suspect it won’t be a very good cut. The cost of housing isn’t about other areas being affordable for lower salary careers to move to, the cost of housing is about having a robust economic center that everyone can afford to participate in.
- imtringued 6y ago
  This is true. The reason why SF is considered a tech center is because everyone else couldn't afford to move there.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Actually, this isn't true. First - SF was not 'tech' until the mid 2000's. Some people - yes. But no HQs. The Silicon Vally was where it was at. Also - up until the 1990's at least, the Valley was just a burb, mostly affordable, not outrageous except in some little spots. In the 2000's it started to get weird and 2010+ is when it got 'bad bad' and SF became a true hub. In the 1990's regular folk could buy homes, Engineers could buy normal homes on normal terms. Large swaths of SF ware garbage.