4 ms·

You cannot even begin to understand the degree of disdain these folks have for techies without reading Rebecca Solnit's diatribe on Silicon Valley's employee sh

by spitx 13y ago

You cannot even begin to understand the degree of disdain these folks have for techies without reading Rebecca Solnit's diatribe on Silicon Valley's employee shuttles ruining the city. Source: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n03/rebecca-solnit/diary http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n03/rebecca-solnit/diary

encoderer 13y ago
Thanks so much for sharing. Great article from a fantastic writer. She, apparently, hates me, and I disagree with a lot of what she's said here, but still, great article.
- spitx 13y ago
  We cannot continue to condone this kind of antagonism. This cannot be good.
  - encoderer 13y ago
    Everybody is entitled to their opinion, spit. I appreciate that hers was well written and cogent.
grinich 13y ago
I actually had a friend (not in tech) send this to me a few weeks ago. Here was my reply... I don't really agree with a lot of this. It seems written by someone who is frustrated that they're not part of the "tech boom" and is angsty about gentrification of the city. There's not much actual critical commentary here; just a lot of complaining that people with lower-paying jobs are being out-marketed by those paid well at tech companies, specifically focusing on their age or that they look like students. The reality is that owning property is not a right, and market forces can push you one way or the other. Just like New York and Brooklyn, or London and Camden/Islington, those people who can't afford "crazy" rents will move elsewhere (likely Oakland). There's no trickery or deception of these "young people" making six-figure salaries instead of driving cabs or making lattes. They simply chose to learn a skill in high demand. Just because they're "uncool, a little out of place" or "Asian male nerds in their twenties" doesn't mean they can't move to the neighborhood. And their salary is a direct reflection of the value they are adding at these tech companies (or often less, actually). It's certainly not charity. There's a feeling of jealousy and borderline bohemian supremacy in the author's tone that doesn't sit well with me. Sure, the Google and Apple busses are nice. Both of those companies pay literally billions of dollars in taxes every year. Perhaps that money could be spent creating a better public transit system. Any New Yorker or European will tell you that the BART is laughably inadequate for the Bay Area. Imagine if traveling from Williamsburg to Manhattan took over 45 minutes. Before Steve Jobs passed away, he presented plans for their new campus to the Cupertino city council. Part of the city's feedback was to ask for free WiFi. Jobs said that he always thought the role of companies was to pay taxes, and the city to take care of public needs. I feel the same way. She writes, "[The Google Bus] means that the minions of the non-petroleum company most bent on world domination can live in San Francisco but work in Silicon Valley without going through a hair-raising commute by car." A sentence dripping in hyperbole. Those busses keep thousands of additional cars off the highways, and helps San Francisco avoid being a giant parking lot. They save hours of otherwise wasted time by some of the brightest minds in the world. How can you argue against carpooling? More than anything, it's actually the city of SF that's limiting growth. It takes over 3 years to get permits to demolish and build new structures in older areas of the city. A huge wave of new permits went though recently, and I know of at least 4 new buildings on Market Street, and 7 or 8 apartment buildings in the Mission. But it's still not enough. To match demand, the Dogpatch should really be filled with high-rise apartment buildings. Or at least fix the Bart and build in Oakland (lots of folks are moving there anyway). This stance highlighting market inequality doesn't propose a solution, and therefore just seems narcissistic banter to me. Maybe this is just my capitalistic tendencies, but I bet the author wrote that post on a Macbook, did her research with Google, and shared it with her readers via Facebook and Twitter. And most people reading it will be doing it on an iPhone or Android.

by spitx 13y ago

encoderer 13y ago

Thanks so much for sharing. Great article from a fantastic writer. She, apparently, hates me, and I disagree with a lot of what she's said here, but still, great article.

spitx 13y ago
We cannot continue to condone this kind of antagonism. This cannot be good.
- encoderer 13y ago
  Everybody is entitled to their opinion, spit. I appreciate that hers was well written and cogent.

grinich 13y ago

I actually had a friend (not in tech) send this to me a few weeks ago. Here was my reply... I don't really agree with a lot of this. It seems written by someone who is frustrated that they're not part of the "tech boom" and is angsty about gentrification of the city. There's not much actual critical commentary here; just a lot of complaining that people with lower-paying jobs are being out-marketed by those paid well at tech companies, specifically focusing on their age or that they look like students. The reality is that owning property is not a right, and market forces can push you one way or the other. Just like New York and Brooklyn, or London and Camden/Islington, those people who can't afford "crazy" rents will move elsewhere (likely Oakland). There's no trickery or deception of these "young people" making six-figure salaries instead of driving cabs or making lattes. They simply chose to learn a skill in high demand. Just because they're "uncool, a little out of place" or "Asian male nerds in their twenties" doesn't mean they can't move to the neighborhood. And their salary is a direct reflection of the value they are adding at these tech companies (or often less, actually). It's certainly not charity. There's a feeling of jealousy and borderline bohemian supremacy in the author's tone that doesn't sit well with me. Sure, the Google and Apple busses are nice. Both of those companies pay literally billions of dollars in taxes every year. Perhaps that money could be spent creating a better public transit system. Any New Yorker or European will tell you that the BART is laughably inadequate for the Bay Area. Imagine if traveling from Williamsburg to Manhattan took over 45 minutes. Before Steve Jobs passed away, he presented plans for their new campus to the Cupertino city council. Part of the city's feedback was to ask for free WiFi. Jobs said that he always thought the role of companies was to pay taxes, and the city to take care of public needs. I feel the same way. She writes, "[The Google Bus] means that the minions of the non-petroleum company most bent on world domination can live in San Francisco but work in Silicon Valley without going through a hair-raising commute by car." A sentence dripping in hyperbole. Those busses keep thousands of additional cars off the highways, and helps San Francisco avoid being a giant parking lot. They save hours of otherwise wasted time by some of the brightest minds in the world. How can you argue against carpooling? More than anything, it's actually the city of SF that's limiting growth. It takes over 3 years to get permits to demolish and build new structures in older areas of the city. A huge wave of new permits went though recently, and I know of at least 4 new buildings on Market Street, and 7 or 8 apartment buildings in the Mission. But it's still not enough. To match demand, the Dogpatch should really be filled with high-rise apartment buildings. Or at least fix the Bart and build in Oakland (lots of folks are moving there anyway). This stance highlighting market inequality doesn't propose a solution, and therefore just seems narcissistic banter to me. Maybe this is just my capitalistic tendencies, but I bet the author wrote that post on a Macbook, did her research with Google, and shared it with her readers via Facebook and Twitter. And most people reading it will be doing it on an iPhone or Android.