4 ms·

> "Are they too delicate to take public transportation? I take public transportation all the time. I've lived here 50 years. I've taken public transit for maybe

by tikhonj 13y ago

> "Are they too delicate to take public transportation? I take public transportation all the time. I've lived here 50 years. I've taken public transit for maybe 45 of those 50 years. I've turned out just fine." This is just as applicable to people with cars. Like, you know, almost everyone, including the poor. What in the world is wrong with not taking public transportation? It somehow makes you arrogant, conceited and evil? Seems like a futile attack on people at tech companies, all for the wrong reasons. It's always disappointing when politics becomes about demonizing the other side. But not unexpected. It goes on: > Robles said the protests that he and his group are involved with aren't about the buses but about unaffordable rents and the wave of evictions of seniors and the disabled. Well, that doesn't match his earlier quote! Evictions and unaffordable rents are one thing. Attacking people just because they're better-off and—the horror!—going to work without talking to their neighbors ("They don't want to talk, just to get on their bus and head to work.") is quite another. This attitude blows through the understandable and into the viciously anti-individualistic. Seriously: evictions are one thing. But everybody deserves to be able to live and work in peace, without having to bow to the "community"! You should be under no obligation, social or otherwise, to enjoy the same things as your neighbors or even talk to them. And yet this is one of the main complaints I hear about techies. It's an absurd position and, doubtless, a double standard: it's not like many of the people they're trying to protect—ones who actually deserve some protection, at that—are all that much more social themselves.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
smacktoward 13y ago
> This is just as applicable to people with cars. Something you buy with your own money doesn't shout "privilege" as loudly as something you're given for free. If Google was handing out cars to their employees, the comparison would be more apt. > Like, you know, almost everyone, including the poor. Lots of people who live in cities don't have cars, including many of the not-poor. Many (most?) of these people use public transit. Having access to a robust public transit system is generally seen as one of the benefits of living in a dense urban area. > What in the world is wrong with not taking public transportation? It somehow makes you arrogant, conceited and evil? No, it makes you look like you're isolated in a cushion of comfort specifically designed to protect you from having to deal with your neighbors. That's not evil, but it's also not the best way to make friends and otherwise seem engaged and non-aloof.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  > No, it makes you look like you're isolated in a cushion of comfort specifically designed to protect you from having to deal with your neighbors. That's not evil, but it's also not the best way to make friends and otherwise seem engaged and non-aloof. Ridesharing on a bus with other people is now considered to be aloof? I must have missed the memo.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    Ridesharing on a bus that is only available to the blessed employees of a rich tech company using publicly funded stops can be presented as very aloof. Stats and logic are poor defenses against symbols, demonization, and rhetoric in politics.
    - owenjones 13y ago
      Google and Apple are paying for the stops now.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        Since the Google hate on HN is strong now days (since they have lots of money), shouldn't we be happy they are providing a bus service? These employees might drive to work (worse for the environment) if this bus service was not provided since public transportation might not service where they live.
        protomyth 13y ago
        Providing the bus service is a sensible and logical idea. It has many benefits. It on the other hand provides a tangible, accessible symbol to demonization and attack with rhetoric. Don't like it? Then you might think a bit when a news network or a comedy show starts hammering a group. [edit] I should add I don't agree with the protestor's plan of action or targets, I'm just trying to explain why and how effective their targeting is. Its a long tradition and very easy for the public to buy into.
scarmig 13y ago
I'm sympathetic to both "sides," although it's unclear to me that there are really sides. No one is actually happy about the rising costs in San Francisco (aside from current owners of real estate), and I've not met anyone who likes that there's effectively a purge going on of lower-income people in the city. Similarly, I think very few people want to ban tech commuters from living in San Francisco and eject the start-ups that already exist here. It's a perfectly broken system, because it's working exactly as it's supposed to: more economically productive people get more access to scarce resources. No one is individually at fault, but there's an emergent order that is grotesque. The issue is what should someone upset at this do? The people being priced out obviously can't be reskilled to make their labor worth the amount a Googler gets, and the city is, as far as I can tell, incapable of addressing the problem--someone is doubtlessly going to chime in something about rezoning, but it's simply wishful thinking to think that constructing a couple thousand extra housing units per year would do anything besides maybe slightly slow the increase of housing costs, which are already too high for most people. Lashing out at the buses is a strategy I'm not particularly impressed with. At best it might incentivize tech companies to figure out how to solve the problem themselves, but that's difficult to see happening, both because it's simultaneously a very hard problem to solve and a problem that will resolve itself--in a way neither I nor the protesters will like much--in less than a decade (at least in San Francisco--Oakland and Berkeley probably have a bit more than a decade). I've intellectually played around with some fairly radical strategies and solutions--for instance, a high land value tax that's used to fund a basic income for residents--but none of them seem like a slam dunk answer, and all of them can be described, at best, as "maybe not impossible." But I'm incredibly eager for any ideas.
- wpietri 13y ago
  One thing that could happen tomorrow: Google and other tech companies could put a lot of muscle behind getting city and regional government to solve some of the planning issues. Especially the planning issues in the cities where they actually have their offices. Part of the reason people are commuting from SF is that vacancy rates in the valley are even worse than here. If Google wants to hire more people, the first step should be making housing available near Google. That may also require going beyond mere bulk construction to make the place more appealing to their workers. The same goes for the other companies that are flush with cash and hiring rapidly. From my perspective, the buses are an ugly hack to temporarily ameliorate a deeper problem. A hack that shifted the impact of the problem to SF.
kamaal 13y ago
>>What in the world is wrong with not taking public transportation? When you buy a car, you own the car. You don't own the roads. Roads are shared property. You are welcome to use the car the way you like, but you may not do the same with roads.

by tikhonj 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

smacktoward 13y ago

> This is just as applicable to people with cars. Something you buy with your own money doesn't shout "privilege" as loudly as something you're given for free. If Google was handing out cars to their employees, the comparison would be more apt. > Like, you know, almost everyone, including the poor. Lots of people who live in cities don't have cars, including many of the not-poor. Many (most?) of these people use public transit. Having access to a robust public transit system is generally seen as one of the benefits of living in a dense urban area. > What in the world is wrong with not taking public transportation? It somehow makes you arrogant, conceited and evil? No, it makes you look like you're isolated in a cushion of comfort specifically designed to protect you from having to deal with your neighbors. That's not evil, but it's also not the best way to make friends and otherwise seem engaged and non-aloof.

res0nat0r 13y ago
> No, it makes you look like you're isolated in a cushion of comfort specifically designed to protect you from having to deal with your neighbors. That's not evil, but it's also not the best way to make friends and otherwise seem engaged and non-aloof. Ridesharing on a bus with other people is now considered to be aloof? I must have missed the memo.
- protomyth 13y ago
  Ridesharing on a bus that is only available to the blessed employees of a rich tech company using publicly funded stops can be presented as very aloof. Stats and logic are poor defenses against symbols, demonization, and rhetoric in politics.
  - owenjones 13y ago
    Google and Apple are paying for the stops now.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      Since the Google hate on HN is strong now days (since they have lots of money), shouldn't we be happy they are providing a bus service? These employees might drive to work (worse for the environment) if this bus service was not provided since public transportation might not service where they live.
      - protomyth 13y ago
        Providing the bus service is a sensible and logical idea. It has many benefits. It on the other hand provides a tangible, accessible symbol to demonization and attack with rhetoric. Don't like it? Then you might think a bit when a news network or a comedy show starts hammering a group. [edit] I should add I don't agree with the protestor's plan of action or targets, I'm just trying to explain why and how effective their targeting is. Its a long tradition and very easy for the public to buy into.

scarmig 13y ago

I'm sympathetic to both "sides," although it's unclear to me that there are really sides. No one is actually happy about the rising costs in San Francisco (aside from current owners of real estate), and I've not met anyone who likes that there's effectively a purge going on of lower-income people in the city. Similarly, I think very few people want to ban tech commuters from living in San Francisco and eject the start-ups that already exist here. It's a perfectly broken system, because it's working exactly as it's supposed to: more economically productive people get more access to scarce resources. No one is individually at fault, but there's an emergent order that is grotesque. The issue is what should someone upset at this do? The people being priced out obviously can't be reskilled to make their labor worth the amount a Googler gets, and the city is, as far as I can tell, incapable of addressing the problem--someone is doubtlessly going to chime in something about rezoning, but it's simply wishful thinking to think that constructing a couple thousand extra housing units per year would do anything besides maybe slightly slow the increase of housing costs, which are already too high for most people. Lashing out at the buses is a strategy I'm not particularly impressed with. At best it might incentivize tech companies to figure out how to solve the problem themselves, but that's difficult to see happening, both because it's simultaneously a very hard problem to solve and a problem that will resolve itself--in a way neither I nor the protesters will like much--in less than a decade (at least in San Francisco--Oakland and Berkeley probably have a bit more than a decade). I've intellectually played around with some fairly radical strategies and solutions--for instance, a high land value tax that's used to fund a basic income for residents--but none of them seem like a slam dunk answer, and all of them can be described, at best, as "maybe not impossible." But I'm incredibly eager for any ideas.

wpietri 13y ago
One thing that could happen tomorrow: Google and other tech companies could put a lot of muscle behind getting city and regional government to solve some of the planning issues. Especially the planning issues in the cities where they actually have their offices. Part of the reason people are commuting from SF is that vacancy rates in the valley are even worse than here. If Google wants to hire more people, the first step should be making housing available near Google. That may also require going beyond mere bulk construction to make the place more appealing to their workers. The same goes for the other companies that are flush with cash and hiring rapidly. From my perspective, the buses are an ugly hack to temporarily ameliorate a deeper problem. A hack that shifted the impact of the problem to SF.

kamaal 13y ago

>>What in the world is wrong with not taking public transportation? When you buy a car, you own the car. You don't own the roads. Roads are shared property. You are welcome to use the car the way you like, but you may not do the same with roads.