5 ms·
And it created homeless people in San Francisco.
by dventimi 2y ago
And it created homeless people in San Francisco.
- slothtrop 2y agoNIMBYism is largely responsible
- nox101 2y agoMore likely things like fentanyl are to blame for homelessness. It’s extremely addictive and cheap to make
- dventimi 2y agoThere was homelessness in SF in 2000, before fentanyl was available on the street.
- refurb 2y agoConsidering Tesla doesn’t have offices in SF you’re going to have to explain that one. Can you do it without absolving others, like the city, of their responsibility to make sure housing gets built?
- dventimi 2y agoSure. Plenty of its employees live in SF.
- refurb 2y agoWait, so your logic is - we create more jobs and pay workers high wages creates housing demand, and that’s bad? So new jobs and high pay are bad? That sounds incredibly anti-worker.
- dventimi 2y ago> So new jobs and high pay are bad? They're bad for the people who don't have them, like teachers, restaurant workers, and custodial staff...people who are also "workers".
- refurb 2y agoDon't have what? Teacher, restaurant workers and custodial staff have jobs. But regardless, your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less? Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" because deprecates existing things? If so, how far does this go? Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience such good results? This seems like an "anti-progress" mindset.
- dventimi 2y ago> Don't have what? new jobs and high pay > your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less My argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad for the people who don't have them. Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? > Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who don't share in the benefits of that progress. Are you going to argue otherwise? > Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience such good results? No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you?