5 ms·

> I suppose one takeaway is that it shows that the Google doesn't do more to encourage its employees to patronize public transportation. Google and its employe

> I suppose one takeaway is that it shows that the Google doesn't do more to encourage its employees to patronize public transportation. Google and its employees have no obligation to patronize public transportation, nor do you. > The Bay Area has a notoriously shoddy and inefficient public transportation system relative to a metropolis of its size and wealth. That would be nice, but the shitty public transportation system built, operated, managed, and owned by the government is not the fault or responsibility of Google and friends. Google is not the reason it's a piece of shit either. > Maybe giving back to the communities through ways such as that, they could engage with the Bay, not just create bubbles within it. Google is the top philanthropist in the Bay Area giving $27.6 million to charities here in 2010. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2011/07/22/google-is-top-bay-area-philanthropist.html http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2011/07/22/goog...

volume 13y ago
What solution, if any, do you propose?
- dreamdu5t 13y ago
  I'm not. I'm proposing that Google is not the cause of other people's personal income and transportation problems.
  - sp332 13y ago
    It's not just an income problem. As the article points out, prices for food have been going up because the tech engineers can afford the higher prices. This makes food more difficult for everyone else to get.
    - dreamdu5t 13y ago
      Yes, the article claims such without presenting any evidence or substantiating the claim in any way. Where is the study linking rise in tech worker wages to increases in burrito prices? Oh right... there is none. Burritos in the mission are no more expensive than burritos in Santa Rosa, CA. They're $7-9 anywhere in Northern California.
      - Apocryphon 13y ago
        'The unkindest cut of all? Food writer John Birdsall returned from a Portland, Ore., food festival and reported that the Bay Area’s vaunted “populist craft foods” scene might be as “extinct as the $1,500 flat.”' linked article here: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/foodie/2013/09/why_portlands_food_scene_is_be.php http://blogs.sfweekly.com/foodie/2013/09/why_portlands_food_...
Apocryphon 13y ago
> Google and its employees have no obligation to patronize public transportation, nor do you. Of course not. This is a free country. Of the developed world, we probably put the among least obligations on corporations. But I'm not talking about legal obligations. I'm talking about a social responsibility. Just because you don't have to, doesn't mean you shouldn't. > That would be nice, but the shitty public transportation system built, operated, managed, and owned by the government is not the fault or responsibility of Google and friends. Google is not the reason it's a piece of shit either. Of course not, It's largely the fault of an ingrained culture of NIMBYism that drives city and county governments to reject greater expansion of public transportation, coupled with budget cuts, a car culture, and so on. But my speculation is that with their wealth, companies like Google, Facebook, and others, can possibly place influence on those gov'ts to shift their attitudes, at least gradually. > Google is the top philanthropist in the Bay Area giving $27.6 million to charities here in 2010. For which they certainly should be lauded for. And which is a good start. But I'm sure there are more ways that corporations can give back to communities other than employing their populations and giving money for charity.
evanlivingston 13y ago
Talk of obligation and responsibility requires further philosophical grounding than mere outright claims.

volume 13y ago

What solution, if any, do you propose?

dreamdu5t 13y ago
I'm not. I'm proposing that Google is not the cause of other people's personal income and transportation problems.
- sp332 13y ago
  It's not just an income problem. As the article points out, prices for food have been going up because the tech engineers can afford the higher prices. This makes food more difficult for everyone else to get.
  - dreamdu5t 13y ago
    Yes, the article claims such without presenting any evidence or substantiating the claim in any way. Where is the study linking rise in tech worker wages to increases in burrito prices? Oh right... there is none. Burritos in the mission are no more expensive than burritos in Santa Rosa, CA. They're $7-9 anywhere in Northern California.
    - Apocryphon 13y ago
      'The unkindest cut of all? Food writer John Birdsall returned from a Portland, Ore., food festival and reported that the Bay Area’s vaunted “populist craft foods” scene might be as “extinct as the $1,500 flat.”' linked article here: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/foodie/2013/09/why_portlands_food_scene_is_be.php http://blogs.sfweekly.com/foodie/2013/09/why_portlands_food_...

Apocryphon 13y ago

> Google and its employees have no obligation to patronize public transportation, nor do you. Of course not. This is a free country. Of the developed world, we probably put the among least obligations on corporations. But I'm not talking about legal obligations. I'm talking about a social responsibility. Just because you don't have to, doesn't mean you shouldn't. > That would be nice, but the shitty public transportation system built, operated, managed, and owned by the government is not the fault or responsibility of Google and friends. Google is not the reason it's a piece of shit either. Of course not, It's largely the fault of an ingrained culture of NIMBYism that drives city and county governments to reject greater expansion of public transportation, coupled with budget cuts, a car culture, and so on. But my speculation is that with their wealth, companies like Google, Facebook, and others, can possibly place influence on those gov'ts to shift their attitudes, at least gradually. > Google is the top philanthropist in the Bay Area giving $27.6 million to charities here in 2010. For which they certainly should be lauded for. And which is a good start. But I'm sure there are more ways that corporations can give back to communities other than employing their populations and giving money for charity.

evanlivingston 13y ago

Talk of obligation and responsibility requires further philosophical grounding than mere outright claims.