7 ms·

It's crazy to me that buses have become the flashpoint of controversy about silicon valley companies, enough to drive protestors in the street. i guess it's rea

by lmg643 13y ago

It's crazy to me that buses have become the flashpoint of controversy about silicon valley companies, enough to drive protestors in the street. i guess it's really true when they say all politics are local. i don't live with these buses around every day, but at least they are on a bus and not creating traffic jams with cars. pretty thoughtful that they are taking buses in that respect - downright neighborly. in terms of tech industry issues that affect the national and/or local community, i guess people have a hard time caring about more abstract issues like tax evasion or immigration. taxes pay for various public services, whether national or local. one can argue about the details of which governments would get what funds, but the offshore cash balances are largely "dead" money waiting for a tax holiday, and not going to be meaningfully reinvested. if we drop the white collar aspect of immigration reform, the "comprehensive" changes the tech industry is advocating will increase the quantity of semi and unskilled labor, further contributing to pressure on the lower half of the income scale. but by all means - let's get rid of those buses.

XorNot 13y ago
The revolution in Egypt has flashed up over a number of issues (i.e. the building of a mall). This is what public discontent looks like when you have entrenched social problems and don't try and fix them. It will get worse if you don't take meaningful action that helps the lower and middle class.
- ebiester 13y ago
  I think that was Turkey. (Gezi)
- wpietri 13y ago
  Yeah. I'm sure if corporate executives were to come down to a streetcorner and frankly explain their activities and views, people would be happy to protest them instead of the buses. But they stay ensconced in their corporate office parks, which the hoi polloi can't even reach via public transit. And where even if they did, corporate security would keep the executives from any uncomfortable frankness.
thrill 13y ago
Buses are simply a visible point for an agenda.
protomyth 13y ago
The buses are physical symbols of privilege to these protestors and they are accessible. It's not hard to figure out why they have become the focus.
- malandrew 13y ago
  But why not the cars? There is no greater symbol of frivolity and privilege than owning and driving a car in the city. Let's be honest the only meaningful public spaces we have in cities are roads and sidewalks, probably 80% of public space. Roads and parking lots together are probably 25+ percent of many cities except New York. Those spaces are as big as they are because of cars. If we didn't have cars, the overwhelming majority of roads would not have to ever have more than one lane in each direction.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    "But why not the cars? There is no greater symbol of frivolity and privilege than owning and driving a car in the city." Does Google supply their people with cars? Do cars use the city bus stops? Most people do not share your "no greater symbol of frivolity and privilege than owning and driving a car in the city" view. Cars are still part of the US's culture. A private bus that uses city stops is seen as a much bigger symbol of privilege than any car. It is a single focus point and can be spun into the "let them eat cake" vibe a protest like this is looking for.
    - malandrew 13y ago
      The fact that cars are part of the US culture and identity does not make them any more frivolous and indicative of privilege in any metropolitan area where the public infrastructure is good enough to make the ownership and use of a car a luxury not a requirement. If you own a car in Raleigh, NC or Austin, TX for example, it's part and parcel of living in urban sprawl. The trade off is lower housing costs for greater transportation costs. If you live in NYC and San Francisco, a car is optional unless you make a living in a job that requires frequent daily travel. For everyone else living in a dense urban area it's a luxury that comes at the cost of everyone else since cars compete directly with buses for the use of the commons (roads). I used to live in São Paulo, Brazil, and besides maybe Beijing, PRC (where I also once lived), there is nothing more damaging to the public good than all the people with the money to own and operate private vehicles in a sufficiently populated area that can't really afford having everyone own a car. São Paulo has about 5 million cars in a city of about 20 million. The cars directly compete with buses on the roads and every car hurts the average bus user. Every person who gets sick of buses and buys a cars is screwing over all the people they once shared the bus with making it a little bit worse so that the threshold for getting a car is crossed for a few more people, perpetuating a vicious cycle. There are days when it rains in São Paulo, where the traffic is so bad that it takes 3-4 hours to cross the city in a car. In a bus? I can't even imagine that hellish experience. On the 7th of September for example, 3 million cars will leave the city over the course of like 48 hours, clogging up every major road for hours. I used to go to a place called Maresias on the coast, which is 2.5 hours by car and 4 hours by bus normally without traffic. With traffic it can get as bad as 4-10 hours by car and 6-12 hours by bus. There simply is no mode of transportation more selfish than the car and it is only second in level of privilege to transportation by helicopter.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wpietri 13y ago
I agree that the buses aren't the biggest problem, but they're the most visible symptom of it. For what it's worth, a recent study said that about half the people on those buses wouldn't be living in the city at all if they had to drive. Traffic jams aren't our biggest problem; it's housing. So I think some ire against the buses is perfectly reasonable; they're importing substantial housing price inflation. I also think the buses are pretty visible reminders of class differences. It's sort of like somebody taking a company limo to work: the fanciness of the vehicle and being driven are bound to generate some envy. Also, my understanding is that since there's wifi available, time on the buses can count as work time. And there's the direct delivery to nice neighborhoods; other people who work down the peninsula have to schlep over to Caltrain on their own. Those are all pretty sweet deals for people who already have pretty sweet deals.

by lmg643 13y ago

XorNot 13y ago

The revolution in Egypt has flashed up over a number of issues (i.e. the building of a mall). This is what public discontent looks like when you have entrenched social problems and don't try and fix them. It will get worse if you don't take meaningful action that helps the lower and middle class.

ebiester 13y ago
I think that was Turkey. (Gezi)
wpietri 13y ago
Yeah. I'm sure if corporate executives were to come down to a streetcorner and frankly explain their activities and views, people would be happy to protest them instead of the buses. But they stay ensconced in their corporate office parks, which the hoi polloi can't even reach via public transit. And where even if they did, corporate security would keep the executives from any uncomfortable frankness.

thrill 13y ago

Buses are simply a visible point for an agenda.

protomyth 13y ago

The buses are physical symbols of privilege to these protestors and they are accessible. It's not hard to figure out why they have become the focus.

malandrew 13y ago
But why not the cars? There is no greater symbol of frivolity and privilege than owning and driving a car in the city. Let's be honest the only meaningful public spaces we have in cities are roads and sidewalks, probably 80% of public space. Roads and parking lots together are probably 25+ percent of many cities except New York. Those spaces are as big as they are because of cars. If we didn't have cars, the overwhelming majority of roads would not have to ever have more than one lane in each direction.
- protomyth 13y ago
  "But why not the cars? There is no greater symbol of frivolity and privilege than owning and driving a car in the city." Does Google supply their people with cars? Do cars use the city bus stops? Most people do not share your "no greater symbol of frivolity and privilege than owning and driving a car in the city" view. Cars are still part of the US's culture. A private bus that uses city stops is seen as a much bigger symbol of privilege than any car. It is a single focus point and can be spun into the "let them eat cake" vibe a protest like this is looking for.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    The fact that cars are part of the US culture and identity does not make them any more frivolous and indicative of privilege in any metropolitan area where the public infrastructure is good enough to make the ownership and use of a car a luxury not a requirement. If you own a car in Raleigh, NC or Austin, TX for example, it's part and parcel of living in urban sprawl. The trade off is lower housing costs for greater transportation costs. If you live in NYC and San Francisco, a car is optional unless you make a living in a job that requires frequent daily travel. For everyone else living in a dense urban area it's a luxury that comes at the cost of everyone else since cars compete directly with buses for the use of the commons (roads). I used to live in São Paulo, Brazil, and besides maybe Beijing, PRC (where I also once lived), there is nothing more damaging to the public good than all the people with the money to own and operate private vehicles in a sufficiently populated area that can't really afford having everyone own a car. São Paulo has about 5 million cars in a city of about 20 million. The cars directly compete with buses on the roads and every car hurts the average bus user. Every person who gets sick of buses and buys a cars is screwing over all the people they once shared the bus with making it a little bit worse so that the threshold for getting a car is crossed for a few more people, perpetuating a vicious cycle. There are days when it rains in São Paulo, where the traffic is so bad that it takes 3-4 hours to cross the city in a car. In a bus? I can't even imagine that hellish experience. On the 7th of September for example, 3 million cars will leave the city over the course of like 48 hours, clogging up every major road for hours. I used to go to a place called Maresias on the coast, which is 2.5 hours by car and 4 hours by bus normally without traffic. With traffic it can get as bad as 4-10 hours by car and 6-12 hours by bus. There simply is no mode of transportation more selfish than the car and it is only second in level of privilege to transportation by helicopter.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

wpietri 13y ago

I agree that the buses aren't the biggest problem, but they're the most visible symptom of it. For what it's worth, a recent study said that about half the people on those buses wouldn't be living in the city at all if they had to drive. Traffic jams aren't our biggest problem; it's housing. So I think some ire against the buses is perfectly reasonable; they're importing substantial housing price inflation. I also think the buses are pretty visible reminders of class differences. It's sort of like somebody taking a company limo to work: the fanciness of the vehicle and being driven are bound to generate some envy. Also, my understanding is that since there's wifi available, time on the buses can count as work time. And there's the direct delivery to nice neighborhoods; other people who work down the peninsula have to schlep over to Caltrain on their own. Those are all pretty sweet deals for people who already have pretty sweet deals.