12 ms·

Please stop moving your entire team to my city to satisfy your investors. You are destroying its social fabric and distorting its rental market just to relocate

Please stop moving your entire team to my city to satisfy your investors. You are destroying its social fabric and distorting its rental market just to relocate people who would happily live and work somewhere else.

briandear 12y ago
Exactly. If the investors aren't happy, then why the f'ing heck did they invest? The Reddit execs are cowards and idiots.
lsb 12y ago
Whose city is it, exactly? And who isn't invited?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- beatpanda 12y ago
  Nobody is "not invited". The problem is that the venture capital industry actually forces people and companies to move to San Francisco as a condition of investment. And all I want is for people who do not actually want to live in San Francisco, but are there because either their job or their investors made them move, to be allowed to live wherever it is they actually want to. The software industry could be leading the way toward location independent businesses and bringing economic life to places that have been screwed out of their economic vitality by globalization. Instead, it is forcing businesses, many of which would gladly locate themselves elsewhere, to pack all of their employees into a 7x7 grid that does not contain enough housing both for them and the people who already lived there. I work for an organization that provides services and advocacy for homeless people in San Francisco and I see the effects of this stupidity up close every day. It.needs to stop. We don't need to kick anybody out of the city, we simply need to just let people live where they want.
icelancer 12y ago
Ah so you're the mayor since it's "your city?" Or perhaps the dictator of SF?
- mikeash 12y ago
  "My city" is perfectly idiomatic English for "the city in which I live."
  - ravitation 12y ago
    This is just untrue. I can say city X is "my city" because I was born there. I can say city Y is "my city" because I grew up there. I can say city Z is "my city" because my family has roots there. "My city" in no way implies only that you currently live in a city; it implies a connection to, and in this case entitlement to and right to live in, a city. This right does not belong just to the people living there now. So, the implication that he must "own" a city to call it "my city" and restrict who can come and go is also idiomatically correct.
  - icelancer 12y ago
    It's not the specific terminology that I take issue with. It's the fact that the poster asserts some rights over the territory.
pbreit 12y ago
Reddit has never done anything to please investors and I doubt this is a start. Why is it so hard to believe that the company simply feels it is better to have the team physically together? This is not a controversial notion.

briandear 12y ago

Exactly. If the investors aren't happy, then why the f'ing heck did they invest? The Reddit execs are cowards and idiots.

lsb 12y ago

Whose city is it, exactly? And who isn't invited?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
beatpanda 12y ago
Nobody is "not invited". The problem is that the venture capital industry actually forces people and companies to move to San Francisco as a condition of investment. And all I want is for people who do not actually want to live in San Francisco, but are there because either their job or their investors made them move, to be allowed to live wherever it is they actually want to. The software industry could be leading the way toward location independent businesses and bringing economic life to places that have been screwed out of their economic vitality by globalization. Instead, it is forcing businesses, many of which would gladly locate themselves elsewhere, to pack all of their employees into a 7x7 grid that does not contain enough housing both for them and the people who already lived there. I work for an organization that provides services and advocacy for homeless people in San Francisco and I see the effects of this stupidity up close every day. It.needs to stop. We don't need to kick anybody out of the city, we simply need to just let people live where they want.

icelancer 12y ago

Ah so you're the mayor since it's "your city?" Or perhaps the dictator of SF?

mikeash 12y ago
"My city" is perfectly idiomatic English for "the city in which I live."
- ravitation 12y ago
  This is just untrue. I can say city X is "my city" because I was born there. I can say city Y is "my city" because I grew up there. I can say city Z is "my city" because my family has roots there. "My city" in no way implies only that you currently live in a city; it implies a connection to, and in this case entitlement to and right to live in, a city. This right does not belong just to the people living there now. So, the implication that he must "own" a city to call it "my city" and restrict who can come and go is also idiomatically correct.
- icelancer 12y ago
  It's not the specific terminology that I take issue with. It's the fact that the poster asserts some rights over the territory.

pbreit 12y ago

Reddit has never done anything to please investors and I doubt this is a start. Why is it so hard to believe that the company simply feels it is better to have the team physically together? This is not a controversial notion.