7 ms·

And this perfectly highlights the problem with having the two tiered economy we have now. Just because you are rich doesn't mean you get to get rid of people yo

And this perfectly highlights the problem with having the two tiered economy we have now. Just because you are rich doesn't mean you get to get rid of people you don't like from public spaces. If you don't like how they smell or act, give them a place to live and bathe, and educate them. Give them the ability to work toward an income. This guy makes me sick. He is exactly what is wrong with this current situation. He thinks he is better than other people. He thinks he is entitled to more.

ahomescu1 13y ago
> He thinks he is better than other people. He has a job, an education, isn't addicted to drugs, isn't violent and is generally a well-adjusted and contributing (more or less) member of society. All of that takes a lot of work, and merits some appreciation. How is that not "being better" than drug addicts, drug dealers, muggers or single moms on welfare, or even people who just watch reality TV all day? Many normal people put in a lot of work into being self-sufficient and productive, instead of relying on free money from others.
- gaius 13y ago
  Maybe he is contributing. Maybe he's just burning though millions of his investors dollars and will have nothing to show for it when the music stops. Those investors ultimately being pension funds, university endowments, charity trusts...
- rosser 13y ago
  That homeless person, or welfare mom, or drug addict is a human being. Why don't you try looking at them that way for a change?
- HNJohnC 13y ago
  Man this kind of attitude pisses me off to no end. This privileged way of thinking that anyone who is less well off must have a flaw in their character or their morality. If you took the time to talk to "those people" you would likely find that more often than not they are victims of circumstance out of their control, plain and simple. Just as much as the supposed "wizards" of new tech startups are in reality about 90% lucky and 10% self determined.
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    > If you took the time to talk to "those people" you would likely find that more often than not they are victims of circumstance out of their control, plain and simple. I have talked to "those people" (I'm from a far less privileged background than you think) and, while I do admit there are some good people who drew the short stick, I have also seen a lot of assholes. Not everyone who is poor is that way because they're "unfortunate", many of them actually have bad habits and work ethic.
    - lhc- 13y ago
      I know tons of people who are more well off who are assholes and/or have a poor work ethic. But since they get lucky in life and got dealt a good hand (say, upper class parents and private school, for example), then they count as contributing members of society in your eyes, while those who grew up poor are useless. To me, that says a lot more about the effect of society on people's situation than on their own personal merit or lack thereof.
      - ahomescu1 13y ago
        That completely misses the point. Are those well-off assholes you talk about actually contributing something to society (like art, science, leadership, labor, money, anything at all)? If so, then good for them, they are contributing members of society; if not, they're parasites. Context (for example, poverty) isn't relevant, what matters are an individual's achievements and contributions (plenty of poor people have achieved great things in life, as well as plenty of rich people).
- earbitscom 13y ago
  That you would put single mothers on welfare in a group with drug dealers and muggers, and claim that what this guy does is a lot of work, merits appreciation, and makes him better, is disgusting. I'm going to stop there because I don't want to regret what I'd say if I didn't.
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    > That you would put single mothers on welfare in a group with drug dealers and muggers Single mothers are, in many cases, that way because of making bad life choices. When you're poor and in a bad relationship (or in some cases not even in a relationship), kids aren't such a good idea (or at least that's how it seems to me). No one forces them to have kids (unless they've been raped, in which case I'm more sympathetic to them; how often is that the case?)
    - mrbrowning 13y ago
      > Single mothers are, in many cases, that way because of making bad life choices. I'd be very interested to see a citation for this. You seem to be very knowledgeable on the topic, could you provide one?
      - ahomescu1 13y ago
        A citation for what, exactly? That they shouldn't have kids when poor, or that they aren't physically forced to have kids? The former seems like common sense, but I could try and find a citation for the latter (that very few pregnancies are caused by rapes). Could you give some good examples of why a woman would have kids then wind up on welfare? IMHO the only 2 reasonable examples are raped women and widows.
        rhizome 13y ago
        Why do people make a lot of money when they don't want to pay taxes?
        mrbrowning 13y ago
- gopher1 13y ago
  I wonder how you would have turned out as the child of a single parent mentally ill drug addict? I'm assuming that the 5 year old you would have pulled yourself up by your bootstraps (instead of being beaten with them), and you would have succeeded in registering and paying for yourself to get an education, right?
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    I'm from a family where people think it's OK to smoke while pregnant, my parents divorced when I was 7, and I grew up in a formerly communist country (which is still doing pretty badly 20 years later). I got pretty far on hard work and brains, and I stand for what I wrote earlier. EDIT: My point is that there are people from crappy families who still manage to get very far in life. There is such a thing as individual responsibility.
    - gopher1 13y ago
      My point is not that there are no lazy people who don't take responsibility for themselves. Nor does it sound like your situation is even close to my example of a mentally ill drug addicted single parent who beats his child. I do recognize that there are lazy assholes out there. My point is that in between those two extremes exists the majority of homeless people who are mentally ill and who got to that place because of circumstances beyond their control. If you believe that the majority of homeless people fall into the lazy asshole category, then I'm sorry but you're delusional. We as a society should expend energy and resources fixing this problem at its root, and not just brushing it away into a new neighbourhood each time it becomes gentrified.
      - ahomescu1 13y ago
        > We as a society should expend energy and resources fixing this problem at its root This raises an interesting question: what is the root (I'm genuinely asking)? It seems like a hard question along the lines of "what makes people mentally ill?". While I'm against permanent welfare, I wouldn't mind if my taxes went to curing these people and making sure they become functioning, productive members of society. I don't really know how or if we can do that.
deadfall 13y ago
I have seen tech companies move into a grungy area, which they get a discount on taxes and then go on thinking they are going to help the area, but instead push the problem elsewhere. I am sure some intelligent people in SF are actually trying to figure out a way to helping these people that have gotten into ruts or bad situations. Mainly my point is that if you don't like the city as is with all the craziness then find another city. These people more than likely have been here longer than most of the young techie people.
bananacurve 13y ago
I take it you have never been to SF. I have no problem helping any child, no matter the circumstances, and there are a lot of homeless with mental illness, but there is also a large cadre of professional vagabonds. Guiliani should run for mayor of SF.
- dangrover 13y ago
  This times a thousand. There ought to be some basic ground rules that are enforced in public spaces, even if it takes horrible Guiliani-style police state tactics. Whether you're homeless or a well-off tech dweeb, you shouldn't be allowed to poop on the street, run around screaming at people, obstruct traffic, openly deal drugs or stolen goods. If you're doing any of these things, you should be instantly and forcefully removed, regardless of your circumstances. You can be pro-civility without being anti-homeless.
  - bonemachine 13y ago
    Whether you're homeless or a well-off tech dweeb, you shouldn't be allowed to poop on the street, run around screaming at people, obstruct traffic, openly deal drugs or stolen goods. None of which requires police-state tactics to bring into check. But the fact that so many people from well-to-do half of the city seem ready to clamour for such tactics says, well, lots of things.
  - vellum 13y ago
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under the bridge, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
    - dangrover 13y ago
      The sleeping outside (and the actual homelessness) is a separate and unfortunate problem that needs to be solved. Fixing the broken shelter system would be a start. Many of the people exhibiting the behavior I described may, in fact, have homes! Aside from that, if we're supposed to condone people in our public places making them unsafe and unsanitary, what's the point of having them/paying for them at all?
gulfie 13y ago
The notion of two tiered economy is overly simplified. It allows people to believe that they might be on or close to the upper side of the divide. Wealth and money (richness) distributions seem to follow power laws. He moved to SF in 2011 and maybe has a few million dollars from a founding few startups. That sure seems like a lot to people below him. That is peanuts to the people above him who run the city. The simplistic two tier breakdown is a hindrance to understanding unless it is understood as the divisive control structure it is.

ahomescu1 13y ago

> He thinks he is better than other people. He has a job, an education, isn't addicted to drugs, isn't violent and is generally a well-adjusted and contributing (more or less) member of society. All of that takes a lot of work, and merits some appreciation. How is that not "being better" than drug addicts, drug dealers, muggers or single moms on welfare, or even people who just watch reality TV all day? Many normal people put in a lot of work into being self-sufficient and productive, instead of relying on free money from others.

gaius 13y ago
Maybe he is contributing. Maybe he's just burning though millions of his investors dollars and will have nothing to show for it when the music stops. Those investors ultimately being pension funds, university endowments, charity trusts...
rosser 13y ago
That homeless person, or welfare mom, or drug addict is a human being. Why don't you try looking at them that way for a change?
HNJohnC 13y ago
Man this kind of attitude pisses me off to no end. This privileged way of thinking that anyone who is less well off must have a flaw in their character or their morality. If you took the time to talk to "those people" you would likely find that more often than not they are victims of circumstance out of their control, plain and simple. Just as much as the supposed "wizards" of new tech startups are in reality about 90% lucky and 10% self determined.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  > If you took the time to talk to "those people" you would likely find that more often than not they are victims of circumstance out of their control, plain and simple. I have talked to "those people" (I'm from a far less privileged background than you think) and, while I do admit there are some good people who drew the short stick, I have also seen a lot of assholes. Not everyone who is poor is that way because they're "unfortunate", many of them actually have bad habits and work ethic.
  - lhc- 13y ago
    I know tons of people who are more well off who are assholes and/or have a poor work ethic. But since they get lucky in life and got dealt a good hand (say, upper class parents and private school, for example), then they count as contributing members of society in your eyes, while those who grew up poor are useless. To me, that says a lot more about the effect of society on people's situation than on their own personal merit or lack thereof.
    - ahomescu1 13y ago
      That completely misses the point. Are those well-off assholes you talk about actually contributing something to society (like art, science, leadership, labor, money, anything at all)? If so, then good for them, they are contributing members of society; if not, they're parasites. Context (for example, poverty) isn't relevant, what matters are an individual's achievements and contributions (plenty of poor people have achieved great things in life, as well as plenty of rich people).
earbitscom 13y ago
That you would put single mothers on welfare in a group with drug dealers and muggers, and claim that what this guy does is a lot of work, merits appreciation, and makes him better, is disgusting. I'm going to stop there because I don't want to regret what I'd say if I didn't.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  > That you would put single mothers on welfare in a group with drug dealers and muggers Single mothers are, in many cases, that way because of making bad life choices. When you're poor and in a bad relationship (or in some cases not even in a relationship), kids aren't such a good idea (or at least that's how it seems to me). No one forces them to have kids (unless they've been raped, in which case I'm more sympathetic to them; how often is that the case?)
  - mrbrowning 13y ago
    > Single mothers are, in many cases, that way because of making bad life choices. I'd be very interested to see a citation for this. You seem to be very knowledgeable on the topic, could you provide one?
    - ahomescu1 13y ago
      A citation for what, exactly? That they shouldn't have kids when poor, or that they aren't physically forced to have kids? The former seems like common sense, but I could try and find a citation for the latter (that very few pregnancies are caused by rapes). Could you give some good examples of why a woman would have kids then wind up on welfare? IMHO the only 2 reasonable examples are raped women and widows.
      - rhizome 13y ago
        Why do people make a lot of money when they don't want to pay taxes?
      - mrbrowning 13y ago
gopher1 13y ago
I wonder how you would have turned out as the child of a single parent mentally ill drug addict? I'm assuming that the 5 year old you would have pulled yourself up by your bootstraps (instead of being beaten with them), and you would have succeeded in registering and paying for yourself to get an education, right?
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  I'm from a family where people think it's OK to smoke while pregnant, my parents divorced when I was 7, and I grew up in a formerly communist country (which is still doing pretty badly 20 years later). I got pretty far on hard work and brains, and I stand for what I wrote earlier. EDIT: My point is that there are people from crappy families who still manage to get very far in life. There is such a thing as individual responsibility.
  - gopher1 13y ago
    My point is not that there are no lazy people who don't take responsibility for themselves. Nor does it sound like your situation is even close to my example of a mentally ill drug addicted single parent who beats his child. I do recognize that there are lazy assholes out there. My point is that in between those two extremes exists the majority of homeless people who are mentally ill and who got to that place because of circumstances beyond their control. If you believe that the majority of homeless people fall into the lazy asshole category, then I'm sorry but you're delusional. We as a society should expend energy and resources fixing this problem at its root, and not just brushing it away into a new neighbourhood each time it becomes gentrified.
    - ahomescu1 13y ago
      > We as a society should expend energy and resources fixing this problem at its root This raises an interesting question: what is the root (I'm genuinely asking)? It seems like a hard question along the lines of "what makes people mentally ill?". While I'm against permanent welfare, I wouldn't mind if my taxes went to curing these people and making sure they become functioning, productive members of society. I don't really know how or if we can do that.

deadfall 13y ago

I have seen tech companies move into a grungy area, which they get a discount on taxes and then go on thinking they are going to help the area, but instead push the problem elsewhere. I am sure some intelligent people in SF are actually trying to figure out a way to helping these people that have gotten into ruts or bad situations. Mainly my point is that if you don't like the city as is with all the craziness then find another city. These people more than likely have been here longer than most of the young techie people.

bananacurve 13y ago

I take it you have never been to SF. I have no problem helping any child, no matter the circumstances, and there are a lot of homeless with mental illness, but there is also a large cadre of professional vagabonds. Guiliani should run for mayor of SF.

dangrover 13y ago
This times a thousand. There ought to be some basic ground rules that are enforced in public spaces, even if it takes horrible Guiliani-style police state tactics. Whether you're homeless or a well-off tech dweeb, you shouldn't be allowed to poop on the street, run around screaming at people, obstruct traffic, openly deal drugs or stolen goods. If you're doing any of these things, you should be instantly and forcefully removed, regardless of your circumstances. You can be pro-civility without being anti-homeless.
- bonemachine 13y ago
  Whether you're homeless or a well-off tech dweeb, you shouldn't be allowed to poop on the street, run around screaming at people, obstruct traffic, openly deal drugs or stolen goods. None of which requires police-state tactics to bring into check. But the fact that so many people from well-to-do half of the city seem ready to clamour for such tactics says, well, lots of things.
- vellum 13y ago
  "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under the bridge, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
  - dangrover 13y ago
    The sleeping outside (and the actual homelessness) is a separate and unfortunate problem that needs to be solved. Fixing the broken shelter system would be a start. Many of the people exhibiting the behavior I described may, in fact, have homes! Aside from that, if we're supposed to condone people in our public places making them unsafe and unsanitary, what's the point of having them/paying for them at all?

gulfie 13y ago

The notion of two tiered economy is overly simplified. It allows people to believe that they might be on or close to the upper side of the divide. Wealth and money (richness) distributions seem to follow power laws. He moved to SF in 2011 and maybe has a few million dollars from a founding few startups. That sure seems like a lot to people below him. That is peanuts to the people above him who run the city. The simplistic two tier breakdown is a hindrance to understanding unless it is understood as the divisive control structure it is.