10 ms·

Hotel 22: The Dark Side of Silicon Valley

149 points by ghosh 12y ago

ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
I've been on many late night Hotel 22s as a passenger-its depressing to see that in the midst of so much wealth, people have to resort to riding on a bus all night. The homeless in Santa Clara County are much more invisible to the average tech worker who lives there, much more so than SF.
npinguy 12y ago
Real problem. Terrible article. > “What these techies don’t realise though is that we’re no different to them - they’re just one misstep, one paycheck away from being us.” I don't presume to know Jimmy's life, and everyone goes through hard times. However, unless it's your first job out of poverty, if you are one paycheck away form being homeless, you are doing something considerably wrong with your life. More atrocious quotes: > “You see camps of people sleeping rough just two miles from Sergey Brin’s (Google co-founder) house,” he says. “And the irony is, not even his engineers get paid enough to live here." Yes, the employees of large companies do not tend to live in the same neighborhood as the CEO of those companies. And? > “We are trying to get tech billionaires involved in what we’re doing. They donate millions to good causes, but almost nothing to the local community they are helping destroy." We really can't accept these kinds of statements without pushback. Just how are tech billionaires "destroying" communities? Is it their fault they have come up with ideas that are worth millions and billions of dollars so they can afford to pay a lot of money to the best and the brightest to work for them, who then want to live in these neighborhoods? Blame the landlords who giddily raise the rent and drive people out of their homes. Blame the Government for not spending the billions of additional tax revenue they get from these companies on better social programs. Blame the republicans for equating "social programs" with "socialism" and therefore "communism" and therefore "evil". Blaming the "techies" is moronic. > "At their weekly meeting, the team leader makes an announcement to the some-100 guests gathered - Google is hiring. The company is holding a jobs fair in a few weeks’ time and they are looking for chefs, cooks and cleaners. Some groan, but most are keenly listening and a group stay behind after to sign up. In desperate times you cannot be too proud to “make a deal with the devil”, one guest says." Oh, cry me a river.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  > However, unless it's your first job out of poverty, if you are one paycheck away form being homeless, you are doing something considerably wrong with your life.< It is exceedingly easy to be one paycheck away from being homeless in America, even for some holding two or three jobs. This doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong with their life.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    As a HS drop out, yes. As a tech guy gainfully employed in the valley? You are doing something wrong if one missed paycheck could kill you.
    - silencio 12y ago
      One missed paycheck can turn into multiple missed paychecks, which can fuck over even the people with a rainy day fund. I'm a tech gal in SF, but there was a period of ~6 months or so where I had back to back to back upper respiratory infections from hell and I was so fatigued and ill that I wasn't taking up any new contracts. Lucky for me I'm my own boss, and lucky for me I'm a cheapskate with a big rainy day fund. Not that many employers would put up with someone not working for 6 months at a time. "Doing something wrong" doesn't just mean "incompetent developer" or "person spending beyond their means". It could be something as simple as me being out of commission this entire past week because sinusitis (seriously, fuck these infections) plus nausea/period cramps. It could be something as awful as being terminally ill. That's just myself too... my husband and I just started trying for kids, so that's an additional layer of responsibility we're preparing ourselves for. Then I don't know what might happen to either of our parents, just in case. The list goes on. One paycheck can absolutely make a difference, and not just of the "you must be stupid" variety.
    - ryan-c 12y ago
      I agree with you, but many people are doing something wrong. I've known plenty of people in tech who do not seem to be able to live below their means. I've had coworkers/managers/friends look at me like I had an extra head when I balk at the cost of things that don't even seem to register for them, especially when I mention I save 40-50% of my net income (and my pay isn't particularly impressive by silicon valley standards).
bcantrill 12y ago
It's an interesting angle on an important story -- and it therefore pains me that much more that the reporter has made a dunderheaded mistake: It was once known for its orchids... "Growing up here it was all ranches and orchids, I was a cowgirl..." Silicon Valley was known for its orchards, not its orchids. Hopefully they get it corrected; it's an otherwise well-written story on an important issue.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
This may be a stupid question, but: If Silicon Valley is such a horrible place to live, compared to some place else, why don't they move away? Answers may include family ties or high moving costs, or the uncertainty of finding a better living somewhere else. But I really don't know for sure.
- nols 12y ago
  They can't afford to sleep under a roof and you wonder why they can't move?
  - akallio9000 12y ago
    If they're all that poor, they don't have many possessions. How about they get off Hotel 22 at the far end and be homeless there? Or further, if that's suffering from liberal dystopia too.
    - thephyber 12y ago
      I don't understand your comment as it appears a bad attempt at sarcasm but falls very short of that aim. "He gets on the bus at midnight and rides the same 35-mile journey between San Jose and Palo Alto, California, until sunrise." If you are homeless (assuming without a job, as is not the case with all homeless interviewed in this article), is there a big difference to you between Palo Alto, CA and San Jose, CA? Each is equally unaffordable to pay rent and probably equally easy to panhandle (if that's what you choose to do).
- TarpitCarnivore 12y ago
  Considering the weather for the Valley and Bay Area I'd say it's a pretty good area to be homeless. Being homeless in the Northeast or Pac West in the winter is going to be extremely hard on you.
- researcher88 12y ago
  I think this is a valid question for so many lower-middleclass and slightly above that live in SF, LA and NYC. I would never want to live there unless my job specifically made it worthwhile. Being the working poor in a major city and having to endure traffic, people everywhere and high costs of living, without being able to enjoy the perks of the big city, seems perplexing.
lorddoig 12y ago
Why are tents such a bad thing? If it comes down to a choice between waxing lyrical about hopelessness or buying some tents in bulk then it really seems like a no brainer. It's a band-aid for sure but it's better than this, no? Also I see the minimum wage as harmful in this situation - you can tell yourself and the world that an hours worth of human time is always worth at least x USD, but it will never make it true. Policymakers do not set minimum wages with someone struggling to get off the streets in mind, but rather with someone in an altogether much less dire situation, and in doing so they raise the barrier too high. Hiring a homeless person for $5/hr would in many cases bring great utility to both parties: outlawing such transactions seems absurd.
- bluedino 12y ago
  >> Why are tents such a bad thing? Fire hazards, mold and mildew, there's no real security, they are probably left behind creating a garbage problem...
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    Right. It's substandard, but the government isn't building or subsidizing alternatives, so just banning tents doesn't really help.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  Your comment about tents is a bit much. There is a better point to be made about innovating on lower cost housing situations (building and design codes usually drive up cost). Can we make safe buildings with shared recreational and common areas to cut down on square footage and lower rent? Can we save on space and costs in the long run by improving noise insulation? Why couldn't there be a WalMart (or whatever your preferred alternatives are) on the bottom floors of a high rise apartment? Though I fully agree about minimum wage laws. It's a big risk to hire someone off the street if you can't even start her at a lower introductory wage that ramps up aggressively with proven performance. Governments that mandate high wages must logically assume responsibility for figuring out a way to make sure everyone can do something worth $12/hour (or whatever the wage is). Alternately, an aggressive guaranteed income or earned income tax credit can help with this sort of scenario. But it needs to be paired with a drop in the minimum wage to work.
jqm 12y ago
How much would it really cost to feed and house a person for a year? In real terms I can't imagine it's that much. But I suppose it's been tried before probably with little success. (Destroyed projects and bloated government contracts come to mind.) It seems that something should absolutely be done but I sure don't know what. An elderly lady told me once that we are supposed to help the less fortunate, and she tried her best, but it would make it a lot easier for her if some of the less fortunate would help themselves a little. This comment has really stuck with me and kind of illustrates what I see as the problem. However certainly misfortune can happen to anyone, and we should be civilized enough at this point to not allow this kind of suffering to occur in our society. It's a problem that does need a real solution.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  Food stamps are about 4 usd/person and some people have completed the challenge to live only on food stamps, so it would presumably be easier to do so in bulk. Then you need a place to sleep, but that doesn't mean an appartment or room, it could as easily be a disused shipping container with bunk beds. Lets assume that we put 4 rows of bunkbeds into each 40 row shipping container (that leaves space for a small closet next to the beds, assuming the beds are 4 feet wide, with space at the other end to get in/out of the bed). I have no idea what a used shipping container cost or what a bunk bed costs. There is a huge variety in land cost, so lets just take the cheapest possible option: not currently used government land. We can assume that we can get this for free, since this will either be a government project or payed for entirely by the government. Heating costs can likely wise be minimized by putting the camp near some place that is neither going to become very warm or very cold. We are going to need toilets and baths, probably something like a toilet for every 5 to 6 people and a shower for every 10 to 20. I have no idea what a toilet costs, but a shipping container with a drain in the bottom and 30 shower heads would be largely dominated by the cost of the shipping container and the cost of the water. You will need somebody to cook the food and some place to cook it, but it could easily be eaten in tents - these would be cheaper than the shipping containers. The tents could also be used as a place to hang out when food is not served and could provide a variety of improvement activities, such as reading/storytelling. You will want to have a library attached which could be made of, that is right, shipping containers and you may want to have a small school or else a school bus (there is going to be kids there). The cost of a shipping container (according to a handy, 11 steps wikihow guide http://www.wikihow.com/Buy-a-Used-Shipping-Container http://www.wikihow.com/Buy-a-Used-Shipping-Container) runs from 1000 to 8000 usd, lets call it 4000, a quick google search suggest a bunk bed runs a little over 200 usd, which would give us a capital cost of sleeping areas of 1200 for the beds, say 1000 for the closets and 4000 for the container for 12 people, i.e about 520 usd/person. Lets assume the bathrooms, toilets and tents cost the same, so that is about 1000 usd. We assumed the food was 4 usd/person/day, but that does not include deoderants, tampoons, showgel, toothbrushes, etc. so lets make this 12 usd/day. Adding everything up with have capital costs of a bit more than 1000 usd/person in the best case and 360 usd running cost/person/month. That is strictly warehousing them, though for most I doubt it makes sense to retrain them.
anon4000 12y ago
I don't think it is fair to contrast every problems in the Bay Area against the backdrop of the tech industry. I do concede that population growth and housing is a direct result of the tech boom. However, to say every socio-economic problem existed in this area is a result of the tech industry is dubious. Homelessness is a problem with or without the tech backdrop.
- lpsz 12y ago
  I just wish the media didn't make this an "us" vs. "them" situation. This approach is so destructive: it improves the situation for nobody but only fuels class hate. I remember reading a very long, well-researched, and balanced post from TechCrunch [1] about the housing shortage in SF. Media: more posts like that, please. Help identify underlying issues, flawed policies, or missed opportunities, instead of simply blaming the engineers. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
  - mc32 12y ago
    It's really ridiculous to say the tech industry is creating more of a problem than it does in helping the population. Before the tech explosion, let's say 1989, San Jose, and in particular, San Francisco, were dumps. The sort of looked like Fresno does today. Downtown San Jose was not a place most people from San Jose would ever venture to. Market St in San Francisco was scary. Maybe people think Fresno, as it is today, is what we'd like the SF bay area to look like. I prefer that it not look like that. Yes, gentrification does have some impact on people on the periphery, and we can't discount that, but on average, the population as a whole is better off. Back in the early '90s, SF's real estate was in a depression. RE agents were moving out, due to the RE market depression. What we have now needs addressing, but it's more of a governmental intervention which is necessary. Intervention to address the housing stock shortage. We need an organization like ABAG to have some executive power. Someone who can say, these will be green areas, these areas we can build up, and we need to bring mass transit here. We need regional governmental integration. Piece-meal works too slowly to adapt to the changes brought on by economic development. It's because the SF bay area is such an economic engine that we have so many people come here and find jobs they cannot find in their home states or counties. If we were in stagnation like Fresno/Bakersfield, we'd have people fleeing trying to find the economic magnet.
gasull 12y ago
> Where once a robust middle-class thrived, there exists only the super-rich and the extreme poor. How is someone like me who lives in a tiny studio "super-rich"? Most of us in Silicon Valley live in shared apartments or tiny studios. If we were super-rich we would live at least in McMansions like you see everywhere else. Yet another smear-SV article.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  Yeah, that's a false dichotomy. That being said... > How is someone like me who lives in a tiny studio "super-rich"? In many parts of the country, fitting your lifestyle in one room sounds like being poor. Even Abraham Lincoln's childhood log cabin had a big yard. Just because you're making six figures doesn't mean you're making enough to comfortably support a family while still being home in time for dinner.
- thephyber 12y ago
  If you read the article: "And the irony is, not even [Sergey Brin's] engineers get paid enough to live here." If "SV" was perfect, it wouldn't need critical articles. It isn't so I welcome them to remind us what we should address.
  - gasull 12y ago
    These articles make it sound like homelessness is the fault of Google and Facebook. Homelessness has existed in Silicon Valley for decades and it has gotten worse because the laws prevent sufficient housing to be built. The wrong thing about this kind of articles is how they try to link tech and social problems like they were cause and effect. It's similar to other smears like "immigrants are taking our jobs", etc.
- rwmj 12y ago
  Work remotely. Or if your company won't let you, leave and work for a company that does.
  - kethinov 12y ago
thelock85 12y ago
The pseudo-libertarian drivel is becoming too easy to predict for every education/poverty/human welfare article posted to HN. Scroll to the bottom to see non-defensive, compassionate comments...
- jessaustin 12y ago
  That technique doesn't seem to work for this thread...
- alecco 12y ago
  What did you expect in a forum where a lot of people think they are a hero of an Ayn Rand novel?
  - 4ydx 12y ago
    Ahhh thanks for the laugh :)
- wavefunction 12y ago
  Just part of our industry from what I have seen over the years. It always seems to me that I am working with mostly technically competent people who know very little about anything beyond technology or their own personal experience in life. Maybe this is true of most people (limited ability to empathize) but I think the intelligence and ego that many engineers exhibit to drive their performance impedes the ability to absorb information sometimes.
lucio 12y ago
Stupid Question: It is this a business opportunity? How about a few parked buses? I know this goes nowhere (like the hypothetical buses), but if somebody starts renting parked-bus seats for $5 a night: is this a better situation than the actual one? It is something "good" to be done?
- efuquen 12y ago
  Not to discount intentions, but I cringed when I read "Is this a business opportunity?" I feel it's a bit uncouth to say something like that in regards to taking money from homeless people. Maybe an opportunity for a non-profit or social services to do something, but a for-profit business? I hope not.
  - lucio 12y ago
    The bus line is now "taking money". When you're for-profit, the homeless it is a paying customer and keeps his dignity. The hidden cost of non-profit or social services is dignity.
  - xur17 12y ago
    If the service wouldn't otherwise exist, is it really so bad that a business makes money off of it? The homeless still have a choice to use it or not, and a non-profit can come along and 'compete' if they are able to provide the service for a lower cost. That said, I do agree that it 'feels' a little weird to try and make money off of the homeless.
marcusgarvey 12y ago
>“What these techies don’t realise though is that we’re no different to them - they’re just one misstep, one paycheck away from being us.” This is what happens when you have a runaway cost of living.
varelse 12y ago
Lost me at "Where once a robust middle-class thrived, there exists only the super-rich and the extreme poor." Yes, that's exactly what it's like here. Either you live in a 10,000 SF+ megamansion or you're on the street. Hyperbole much?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - varelse 12y ago
    "SF Developers are by most definitions filthy rich." So you're implying that it's unfair for a highly skilled SF developer making 2-3x the median wage across all professions (having dedicated years to decades of their life to attain that level of skill) to make that money in the first place? Besides the $100-150K such a developer makes is less than half what the bottom of the 1% makes in 2014: $390K, source: http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes/. You're talking something closer to the top 3-5% here, source: http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-your-income-percentile-ranking.html#.VHkMO4XfE6J http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-yo... And even then, most of the people I know who make that kind of money worked their butts off and sacrificed a lot to get to that income level. To be fair, I know some idle trustafarians too, but they are a tiny minority of the group it seems like you're demonizing for their hard work. My unsolicited advice to people who can't afford to live in SF is DON'T LIVE IN SF! For what it's worth, I don't and for exactly that reason. That and my definition of filthy rich is a lot stricter: the top 0.1% and their $1M+ a year income.
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      You don't think making more than 97% of the population qualifies as "rich"?
      - varelse 12y ago
        No, I don't. I think these are the ones that work the hardest* and because of that they'll be the last to sink into the muck created by the top 0.01% and up as they freely fund elections, buy politicians, and write their own laws. Oh, and they'll also be the scapegoats who take one for team 0.01% when the income gap #$%^ finally hits the inequality fan. *And if working hard didn't usually lead to them making more, there'd be no incentive for them to do so, no?
enntymes 12y ago
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DeQ_wfUBjws http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DeQ_wfUBjws
enntymes 12y ago
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DeQ_wfUBjws http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DeQ_wfUBjws
Stratoscope 12y ago
In the article, Chris Richardson of the homeless organization Downtown Streets complains: > We are trying to get tech billionaires involved in what we’re doing. They donate millions to good causes, but almost nothing to the local community they are helping destroy. Here's a tip for anyone with a good idea or a worthy cause: If you want to enlist the support of a group of people, making them out to be the villain is unlikely to help you.
habosa 12y ago
I recently moved to San Francisco for a software engineering position. So I am clearly "part of the problem" more than I am "part of the solution". I lived in Philadelphia previously and the homelessness in San Francisco has been absolutely shocking to me. I don't live in a great area (near 6th street) so I really see some of the least fortunate people in the city. If I had real problem-solving money (think Bill Gates) I'd go for homelessness first. I think that as a nation we have a fundamental duty to make sure that everyone gets basic comforts like shelter, heat, food, and water. I hate that I am paid a high salary to flip bits on a computer while there are people a block from my house sleeping on the sidewalk in the rain. That said, I don't really understand why this all has to be portrayed as a phenomenon caused by the influx of tech workers into SF and the Bay Area. Tens of thousands of people move in and get jobs paying $80-200k. They all pay very high taxes. Why can't the local government take that revenue and help those who need it? Why can't the expanded tax base be part of the solution for the problem? It seems crazy to me that it's a "problem" that so many people are moving to one area for high paying jobs. That sounds like high economic production and many cities would love to have that "problem". As an individual I am horrified by my inability to help the homeless while people like me are portrayed as villains in the media. I wish there was something I can do. I donate to youth services and homelessness-centered charities but I know that's not going to fix things (it never has). I don't see anything that can be done but the local government stepping up and making serious changes that will stabilize the housing market and help those who are already on the streets get into a better situation. I'm not an expert on the topic so I don't have specific suggestions here. That was a bit of a rant and I don't have much advice to offer. I just think we are looking at this all in the wrong way. There is now a lot of money in the area and huge economic growth. Let's use this to improve the lives of everyone, not just people like me who learned JavaScript at the right time.
- patio11 12y ago
  It makes much more sense if you read this story as a salvo in a class war not between homeless and billionaires but between two different groups in the Valley middle class. In this reading, the homeless are a convenient prop to demonstrate why an engineer who wants to rent an apartment is doing something morally evil, to whit, taking an apartment that One Of Us could rent.
ucacian 12y ago
I have been planning to move to SV in December. But every time I read an article like this, it makes me not want to live there. Should I get a job in somewhere else like Boulder, CO? I'm a senior CS major living in Iowa.
- joeguilmette 12y ago
  Homelessness is only a problem in San Francisco itself, which is quite a ways away from SV.
  - xiaoma 12y ago
    Not true. The largest homeless camp in the entire continental US is in San Jose. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-jungle-largest-homeless-camp-in-us-2013-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-jungle-largest-homeless-c...
    - joeguilmette 12y ago
      Well, could've fooled me. Born and raised in the US, can only remember ever seeing homeless people in SF, Berkeley/Oaklandish...
joeguilmette 12y ago
San Francisco's homeless problem has little to do with the tech industry. 1) Are we shocked that a temperate city that offers a wealth of social programs for the homeless sees an influx of homeless from elsewhere in the nation? 2) In the 1970s California closed many mental institutions and made it harder for people to be admitted involuntarily. Guess where mentally ill Californians end up? 3) The San Franciscan government has spent decades fighting development to keep the city's beautiful, famous and in many cases historic housing intact. And now we are shocked when housing prices skyrocket after we deny development of new high density housing. SF's housing and homeless debate is infuriating. Affordable housing in a desirable neighborhood in one of the most expensive cities on earth is not a basic human right.
- 1stranger 12y ago
  The article was about Santa Clara County, not SF.
  - MrDom 12y ago
    You're ruining this man's beautiful rant with logic and reason. :P
igetspam 12y ago
This isn't new. The 22 bus line has always been the cheap motel for the homeless and/or crazies of San Jose. When I was riding this bus line regularly, in high school (a decade and a half ago), we used to hop on late night just for the lulz. Most of the companies that are popular to blame for things like this weren't even around when it started. This article is crap.

149 points by ghosh 12y ago

I've been on many late night Hotel 22s as a passenger-its depressing to see that in the midst of so much wealth, people have to resort to riding on a bus all night. The homeless in Santa Clara County are much more invisible to the average tech worker who lives there, much more so than SF.

npinguy 12y ago

Real problem. Terrible article. > “What these techies don’t realise though is that we’re no different to them - they’re just one misstep, one paycheck away from being us.” I don't presume to know Jimmy's life, and everyone goes through hard times. However, unless it's your first job out of poverty, if you are one paycheck away form being homeless, you are doing something considerably wrong with your life. More atrocious quotes: > “You see camps of people sleeping rough just two miles from Sergey Brin’s (Google co-founder) house,” he says. “And the irony is, not even his engineers get paid enough to live here." Yes, the employees of large companies do not tend to live in the same neighborhood as the CEO of those companies. And? > “We are trying to get tech billionaires involved in what we’re doing. They donate millions to good causes, but almost nothing to the local community they are helping destroy." We really can't accept these kinds of statements without pushback. Just how are tech billionaires "destroying" communities? Is it their fault they have come up with ideas that are worth millions and billions of dollars so they can afford to pay a lot of money to the best and the brightest to work for them, who then want to live in these neighborhoods? Blame the landlords who giddily raise the rent and drive people out of their homes. Blame the Government for not spending the billions of additional tax revenue they get from these companies on better social programs. Blame the republicans for equating "social programs" with "socialism" and therefore "communism" and therefore "evil". Blaming the "techies" is moronic. > "At their weekly meeting, the team leader makes an announcement to the some-100 guests gathered - Google is hiring. The company is holding a jobs fair in a few weeks’ time and they are looking for chefs, cooks and cleaners. Some groan, but most are keenly listening and a group stay behind after to sign up. In desperate times you cannot be too proud to “make a deal with the devil”, one guest says." Oh, cry me a river.

Iftheshoefits 12y ago
> However, unless it's your first job out of poverty, if you are one paycheck away form being homeless, you are doing something considerably wrong with your life.< It is exceedingly easy to be one paycheck away from being homeless in America, even for some holding two or three jobs. This doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong with their life.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  As a HS drop out, yes. As a tech guy gainfully employed in the valley? You are doing something wrong if one missed paycheck could kill you.
  - silencio 12y ago
    One missed paycheck can turn into multiple missed paychecks, which can fuck over even the people with a rainy day fund. I'm a tech gal in SF, but there was a period of ~6 months or so where I had back to back to back upper respiratory infections from hell and I was so fatigued and ill that I wasn't taking up any new contracts. Lucky for me I'm my own boss, and lucky for me I'm a cheapskate with a big rainy day fund. Not that many employers would put up with someone not working for 6 months at a time. "Doing something wrong" doesn't just mean "incompetent developer" or "person spending beyond their means". It could be something as simple as me being out of commission this entire past week because sinusitis (seriously, fuck these infections) plus nausea/period cramps. It could be something as awful as being terminally ill. That's just myself too... my husband and I just started trying for kids, so that's an additional layer of responsibility we're preparing ourselves for. Then I don't know what might happen to either of our parents, just in case. The list goes on. One paycheck can absolutely make a difference, and not just of the "you must be stupid" variety.
  - ryan-c 12y ago
    I agree with you, but many people are doing something wrong. I've known plenty of people in tech who do not seem to be able to live below their means. I've had coworkers/managers/friends look at me like I had an extra head when I balk at the cost of things that don't even seem to register for them, especially when I mention I save 40-50% of my net income (and my pay isn't particularly impressive by silicon valley standards).

bcantrill 12y ago

It's an interesting angle on an important story -- and it therefore pains me that much more that the reporter has made a dunderheaded mistake: It was once known for its orchids... "Growing up here it was all ranches and orchids, I was a cowgirl..." Silicon Valley was known for its orchards, not its orchids. Hopefully they get it corrected; it's an otherwise well-written story on an important issue.

bayesianhorse 12y ago

This may be a stupid question, but: If Silicon Valley is such a horrible place to live, compared to some place else, why don't they move away? Answers may include family ties or high moving costs, or the uncertainty of finding a better living somewhere else. But I really don't know for sure.

nols 12y ago
They can't afford to sleep under a roof and you wonder why they can't move?
- akallio9000 12y ago
  If they're all that poor, they don't have many possessions. How about they get off Hotel 22 at the far end and be homeless there? Or further, if that's suffering from liberal dystopia too.
  - thephyber 12y ago
    I don't understand your comment as it appears a bad attempt at sarcasm but falls very short of that aim. "He gets on the bus at midnight and rides the same 35-mile journey between San Jose and Palo Alto, California, until sunrise." If you are homeless (assuming without a job, as is not the case with all homeless interviewed in this article), is there a big difference to you between Palo Alto, CA and San Jose, CA? Each is equally unaffordable to pay rent and probably equally easy to panhandle (if that's what you choose to do).
TarpitCarnivore 12y ago
Considering the weather for the Valley and Bay Area I'd say it's a pretty good area to be homeless. Being homeless in the Northeast or Pac West in the winter is going to be extremely hard on you.
researcher88 12y ago
I think this is a valid question for so many lower-middleclass and slightly above that live in SF, LA and NYC. I would never want to live there unless my job specifically made it worthwhile. Being the working poor in a major city and having to endure traffic, people everywhere and high costs of living, without being able to enjoy the perks of the big city, seems perplexing.

lorddoig 12y ago

Why are tents such a bad thing? If it comes down to a choice between waxing lyrical about hopelessness or buying some tents in bulk then it really seems like a no brainer. It's a band-aid for sure but it's better than this, no? Also I see the minimum wage as harmful in this situation - you can tell yourself and the world that an hours worth of human time is always worth at least x USD, but it will never make it true. Policymakers do not set minimum wages with someone struggling to get off the streets in mind, but rather with someone in an altogether much less dire situation, and in doing so they raise the barrier too high. Hiring a homeless person for $5/hr would in many cases bring great utility to both parties: outlawing such transactions seems absurd.

bluedino 12y ago
>> Why are tents such a bad thing? Fire hazards, mold and mildew, there's no real security, they are probably left behind creating a garbage problem...
- humanrebar 12y ago
  Right. It's substandard, but the government isn't building or subsidizing alternatives, so just banning tents doesn't really help.
humanrebar 12y ago
Your comment about tents is a bit much. There is a better point to be made about innovating on lower cost housing situations (building and design codes usually drive up cost). Can we make safe buildings with shared recreational and common areas to cut down on square footage and lower rent? Can we save on space and costs in the long run by improving noise insulation? Why couldn't there be a WalMart (or whatever your preferred alternatives are) on the bottom floors of a high rise apartment? Though I fully agree about minimum wage laws. It's a big risk to hire someone off the street if you can't even start her at a lower introductory wage that ramps up aggressively with proven performance. Governments that mandate high wages must logically assume responsibility for figuring out a way to make sure everyone can do something worth $12/hour (or whatever the wage is). Alternately, an aggressive guaranteed income or earned income tax credit can help with this sort of scenario. But it needs to be paired with a drop in the minimum wage to work.

jqm 12y ago

How much would it really cost to feed and house a person for a year? In real terms I can't imagine it's that much. But I suppose it's been tried before probably with little success. (Destroyed projects and bloated government contracts come to mind.) It seems that something should absolutely be done but I sure don't know what. An elderly lady told me once that we are supposed to help the less fortunate, and she tried her best, but it would make it a lot easier for her if some of the less fortunate would help themselves a little. This comment has really stuck with me and kind of illustrates what I see as the problem. However certainly misfortune can happen to anyone, and we should be civilized enough at this point to not allow this kind of suffering to occur in our society. It's a problem that does need a real solution.

tomjen3 12y ago
Food stamps are about 4 usd/person and some people have completed the challenge to live only on food stamps, so it would presumably be easier to do so in bulk. Then you need a place to sleep, but that doesn't mean an appartment or room, it could as easily be a disused shipping container with bunk beds. Lets assume that we put 4 rows of bunkbeds into each 40 row shipping container (that leaves space for a small closet next to the beds, assuming the beds are 4 feet wide, with space at the other end to get in/out of the bed). I have no idea what a used shipping container cost or what a bunk bed costs. There is a huge variety in land cost, so lets just take the cheapest possible option: not currently used government land. We can assume that we can get this for free, since this will either be a government project or payed for entirely by the government. Heating costs can likely wise be minimized by putting the camp near some place that is neither going to become very warm or very cold. We are going to need toilets and baths, probably something like a toilet for every 5 to 6 people and a shower for every 10 to 20. I have no idea what a toilet costs, but a shipping container with a drain in the bottom and 30 shower heads would be largely dominated by the cost of the shipping container and the cost of the water. You will need somebody to cook the food and some place to cook it, but it could easily be eaten in tents - these would be cheaper than the shipping containers. The tents could also be used as a place to hang out when food is not served and could provide a variety of improvement activities, such as reading/storytelling. You will want to have a library attached which could be made of, that is right, shipping containers and you may want to have a small school or else a school bus (there is going to be kids there). The cost of a shipping container (according to a handy, 11 steps wikihow guide http://www.wikihow.com/Buy-a-Used-Shipping-Container http://www.wikihow.com/Buy-a-Used-Shipping-Container) runs from 1000 to 8000 usd, lets call it 4000, a quick google search suggest a bunk bed runs a little over 200 usd, which would give us a capital cost of sleeping areas of 1200 for the beds, say 1000 for the closets and 4000 for the container for 12 people, i.e about 520 usd/person. Lets assume the bathrooms, toilets and tents cost the same, so that is about 1000 usd. We assumed the food was 4 usd/person/day, but that does not include deoderants, tampoons, showgel, toothbrushes, etc. so lets make this 12 usd/day. Adding everything up with have capital costs of a bit more than 1000 usd/person in the best case and 360 usd running cost/person/month. That is strictly warehousing them, though for most I doubt it makes sense to retrain them.

anon4000 12y ago

I don't think it is fair to contrast every problems in the Bay Area against the backdrop of the tech industry. I do concede that population growth and housing is a direct result of the tech boom. However, to say every socio-economic problem existed in this area is a result of the tech industry is dubious. Homelessness is a problem with or without the tech backdrop.

lpsz 12y ago
I just wish the media didn't make this an "us" vs. "them" situation. This approach is so destructive: it improves the situation for nobody but only fuels class hate. I remember reading a very long, well-researched, and balanced post from TechCrunch [1] about the housing shortage in SF. Media: more posts like that, please. Help identify underlying issues, flawed policies, or missed opportunities, instead of simply blaming the engineers. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
- mc32 12y ago
  It's really ridiculous to say the tech industry is creating more of a problem than it does in helping the population. Before the tech explosion, let's say 1989, San Jose, and in particular, San Francisco, were dumps. The sort of looked like Fresno does today. Downtown San Jose was not a place most people from San Jose would ever venture to. Market St in San Francisco was scary. Maybe people think Fresno, as it is today, is what we'd like the SF bay area to look like. I prefer that it not look like that. Yes, gentrification does have some impact on people on the periphery, and we can't discount that, but on average, the population as a whole is better off. Back in the early '90s, SF's real estate was in a depression. RE agents were moving out, due to the RE market depression. What we have now needs addressing, but it's more of a governmental intervention which is necessary. Intervention to address the housing stock shortage. We need an organization like ABAG to have some executive power. Someone who can say, these will be green areas, these areas we can build up, and we need to bring mass transit here. We need regional governmental integration. Piece-meal works too slowly to adapt to the changes brought on by economic development. It's because the SF bay area is such an economic engine that we have so many people come here and find jobs they cannot find in their home states or counties. If we were in stagnation like Fresno/Bakersfield, we'd have people fleeing trying to find the economic magnet.

gasull 12y ago

> Where once a robust middle-class thrived, there exists only the super-rich and the extreme poor. How is someone like me who lives in a tiny studio "super-rich"? Most of us in Silicon Valley live in shared apartments or tiny studios. If we were super-rich we would live at least in McMansions like you see everywhere else. Yet another smear-SV article.

humanrebar 12y ago
Yeah, that's a false dichotomy. That being said... > How is someone like me who lives in a tiny studio "super-rich"? In many parts of the country, fitting your lifestyle in one room sounds like being poor. Even Abraham Lincoln's childhood log cabin had a big yard. Just because you're making six figures doesn't mean you're making enough to comfortably support a family while still being home in time for dinner.
thephyber 12y ago
If you read the article: "And the irony is, not even [Sergey Brin's] engineers get paid enough to live here." If "SV" was perfect, it wouldn't need critical articles. It isn't so I welcome them to remind us what we should address.
- gasull 12y ago
  These articles make it sound like homelessness is the fault of Google and Facebook. Homelessness has existed in Silicon Valley for decades and it has gotten worse because the laws prevent sufficient housing to be built. The wrong thing about this kind of articles is how they try to link tech and social problems like they were cause and effect. It's similar to other smears like "immigrants are taking our jobs", etc.
rwmj 12y ago
Work remotely. Or if your company won't let you, leave and work for a company that does.
- kethinov 12y ago

thelock85 12y ago

The pseudo-libertarian drivel is becoming too easy to predict for every education/poverty/human welfare article posted to HN. Scroll to the bottom to see non-defensive, compassionate comments...

jessaustin 12y ago
That technique doesn't seem to work for this thread...
alecco 12y ago
What did you expect in a forum where a lot of people think they are a hero of an Ayn Rand novel?
- 4ydx 12y ago
  Ahhh thanks for the laugh :)
wavefunction 12y ago
Just part of our industry from what I have seen over the years. It always seems to me that I am working with mostly technically competent people who know very little about anything beyond technology or their own personal experience in life. Maybe this is true of most people (limited ability to empathize) but I think the intelligence and ego that many engineers exhibit to drive their performance impedes the ability to absorb information sometimes.

lucio 12y ago

Stupid Question: It is this a business opportunity? How about a few parked buses? I know this goes nowhere (like the hypothetical buses), but if somebody starts renting parked-bus seats for $5 a night: is this a better situation than the actual one? It is something "good" to be done?

efuquen 12y ago
Not to discount intentions, but I cringed when I read "Is this a business opportunity?" I feel it's a bit uncouth to say something like that in regards to taking money from homeless people. Maybe an opportunity for a non-profit or social services to do something, but a for-profit business? I hope not.
- lucio 12y ago
  The bus line is now "taking money". When you're for-profit, the homeless it is a paying customer and keeps his dignity. The hidden cost of non-profit or social services is dignity.
- xur17 12y ago
  If the service wouldn't otherwise exist, is it really so bad that a business makes money off of it? The homeless still have a choice to use it or not, and a non-profit can come along and 'compete' if they are able to provide the service for a lower cost. That said, I do agree that it 'feels' a little weird to try and make money off of the homeless.

marcusgarvey 12y ago

>“What these techies don’t realise though is that we’re no different to them - they’re just one misstep, one paycheck away from being us.” This is what happens when you have a runaway cost of living.

varelse 12y ago

Lost me at "Where once a robust middle-class thrived, there exists only the super-rich and the extreme poor." Yes, that's exactly what it's like here. Either you live in a 10,000 SF+ megamansion or you're on the street. Hyperbole much?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- varelse 12y ago
  "SF Developers are by most definitions filthy rich." So you're implying that it's unfair for a highly skilled SF developer making 2-3x the median wage across all professions (having dedicated years to decades of their life to attain that level of skill) to make that money in the first place? Besides the $100-150K such a developer makes is less than half what the bottom of the 1% makes in 2014: $390K, source: http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes/. You're talking something closer to the top 3-5% here, source: http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-your-income-percentile-ranking.html#.VHkMO4XfE6J http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-yo... And even then, most of the people I know who make that kind of money worked their butts off and sacrificed a lot to get to that income level. To be fair, I know some idle trustafarians too, but they are a tiny minority of the group it seems like you're demonizing for their hard work. My unsolicited advice to people who can't afford to live in SF is DON'T LIVE IN SF! For what it's worth, I don't and for exactly that reason. That and my definition of filthy rich is a lot stricter: the top 0.1% and their $1M+ a year income.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    You don't think making more than 97% of the population qualifies as "rich"?
    - varelse 12y ago
      No, I don't. I think these are the ones that work the hardest* and because of that they'll be the last to sink into the muck created by the top 0.01% and up as they freely fund elections, buy politicians, and write their own laws. Oh, and they'll also be the scapegoats who take one for team 0.01% when the income gap #$%^ finally hits the inequality fan. *And if working hard didn't usually lead to them making more, there'd be no incentive for them to do so, no?

enntymes 12y ago

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DeQ_wfUBjws http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DeQ_wfUBjws

enntymes 12y ago

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DeQ_wfUBjws http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DeQ_wfUBjws

Stratoscope 12y ago

In the article, Chris Richardson of the homeless organization Downtown Streets complains: > We are trying to get tech billionaires involved in what we’re doing. They donate millions to good causes, but almost nothing to the local community they are helping destroy. Here's a tip for anyone with a good idea or a worthy cause: If you want to enlist the support of a group of people, making them out to be the villain is unlikely to help you.

habosa 12y ago

I recently moved to San Francisco for a software engineering position. So I am clearly "part of the problem" more than I am "part of the solution". I lived in Philadelphia previously and the homelessness in San Francisco has been absolutely shocking to me. I don't live in a great area (near 6th street) so I really see some of the least fortunate people in the city. If I had real problem-solving money (think Bill Gates) I'd go for homelessness first. I think that as a nation we have a fundamental duty to make sure that everyone gets basic comforts like shelter, heat, food, and water. I hate that I am paid a high salary to flip bits on a computer while there are people a block from my house sleeping on the sidewalk in the rain. That said, I don't really understand why this all has to be portrayed as a phenomenon caused by the influx of tech workers into SF and the Bay Area. Tens of thousands of people move in and get jobs paying $80-200k. They all pay very high taxes. Why can't the local government take that revenue and help those who need it? Why can't the expanded tax base be part of the solution for the problem? It seems crazy to me that it's a "problem" that so many people are moving to one area for high paying jobs. That sounds like high economic production and many cities would love to have that "problem". As an individual I am horrified by my inability to help the homeless while people like me are portrayed as villains in the media. I wish there was something I can do. I donate to youth services and homelessness-centered charities but I know that's not going to fix things (it never has). I don't see anything that can be done but the local government stepping up and making serious changes that will stabilize the housing market and help those who are already on the streets get into a better situation. I'm not an expert on the topic so I don't have specific suggestions here. That was a bit of a rant and I don't have much advice to offer. I just think we are looking at this all in the wrong way. There is now a lot of money in the area and huge economic growth. Let's use this to improve the lives of everyone, not just people like me who learned JavaScript at the right time.

patio11 12y ago
It makes much more sense if you read this story as a salvo in a class war not between homeless and billionaires but between two different groups in the Valley middle class. In this reading, the homeless are a convenient prop to demonstrate why an engineer who wants to rent an apartment is doing something morally evil, to whit, taking an apartment that One Of Us could rent.

ucacian 12y ago

I have been planning to move to SV in December. But every time I read an article like this, it makes me not want to live there. Should I get a job in somewhere else like Boulder, CO? I'm a senior CS major living in Iowa.

joeguilmette 12y ago
Homelessness is only a problem in San Francisco itself, which is quite a ways away from SV.
- xiaoma 12y ago
  Not true. The largest homeless camp in the entire continental US is in San Jose. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-jungle-largest-homeless-camp-in-us-2013-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-jungle-largest-homeless-c...
  - joeguilmette 12y ago
    Well, could've fooled me. Born and raised in the US, can only remember ever seeing homeless people in SF, Berkeley/Oaklandish...

joeguilmette 12y ago

San Francisco's homeless problem has little to do with the tech industry. 1) Are we shocked that a temperate city that offers a wealth of social programs for the homeless sees an influx of homeless from elsewhere in the nation? 2) In the 1970s California closed many mental institutions and made it harder for people to be admitted involuntarily. Guess where mentally ill Californians end up? 3) The San Franciscan government has spent decades fighting development to keep the city's beautiful, famous and in many cases historic housing intact. And now we are shocked when housing prices skyrocket after we deny development of new high density housing. SF's housing and homeless debate is infuriating. Affordable housing in a desirable neighborhood in one of the most expensive cities on earth is not a basic human right.

1stranger 12y ago
The article was about Santa Clara County, not SF.
- MrDom 12y ago
  You're ruining this man's beautiful rant with logic and reason. :P

igetspam 12y ago

This isn't new. The 22 bus line has always been the cheap motel for the homeless and/or crazies of San Jose. When I was riding this bus line regularly, in high school (a decade and a half ago), we used to hop on late night just for the lulz. Most of the companies that are popular to blame for things like this weren't even around when it started. This article is crap.