Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In San Francisco and Rooting for a Tech Slowdown

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 101 posts

Re: In San Francisco and Rooting for a Tech Slowdown

#51

Post by rosser »

xur17 wrote: post #37
DannyBee wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW: A lot of those rock throwers were probably not in bad shape. That is because the real people being hurt were probably working their first or second job at the time that was happening, and didn't have time to throw rocks at buses because they'd get fired for not showing up to work.

Serious question: Who is getting hurt by Google driving people to work on buses. It seems like this reduces congestion, and helps the environment, which is good for everyone. What am I missing here?

In that respect — traffic congestion — I think the buses are a good thing. But there's definitely a down-side.

Gentrification, for example, though usually regarded as a net, long-term win, is short-term very painful for many people. Families that have lived somewhere for years, and communities that have grown up over generations, are being shredded as property-owners rent-seek.

Now, yes, it's their property to do with as they will (subject to their remaining in compliance with the law), but I will continue to point out that there are some very interesting discussions to be had in the areas where the sets "things that are legal" and "things that are moral" don't intersect.

I was on a date with a woman — a high school teacher — Sunday night who lives in a rent controlled building in the Mission. (Aside: I'm not looking to start a debate over rent control, so please don't go there.) She told me that her landlord has been delaying depositing her rent checks until after their due date, in order to "establish" a pattern of habitual late-payment, which, presumably, he hopes to use in some later eviction action.

Does that kind of behavior — apparently increasingly common — qualify as hurting people? Because, if her landlord were able to kick (or buy) her out, he would be raising the rent on her apartment by over $4000/month, based on the price her new neighbors are paying for an identical unit (again, please don't turn this into a debate over rent control), and pretty much the only people who can afford that are making Silly Valley tech salaries — and probably doing so with roommates, at that.

A teacher, who teaches the children of San Franciscans, certainly can't afford ~$6000/month, not at SFUSD pay, so let's favor a couple of kids who work in Mountain View or Palo Alto, and have no expenses except rent and leisure activities? How does that make sense, again?

Re: In San Francisco and Rooting for a Tech Slowdown

#52

Post by Florin_Andrei »

xur17 wrote: post #37
DannyBee wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW: A lot of those rock throwers were probably not in bad shape. That is because the real people being hurt were probably working their first or second job at the time that was happening, and didn't have time to throw rocks at buses because they'd get fired for not showing up to work.

Serious question: Who is getting hurt by Google driving people to work on buses. It seems like this reduces congestion, and helps the environment, which is good for everyone. What am I missing here?

I'm guessing it's just hostility towards high-tech people in general.

My old Honda Civic eventually died one day. I had to take it to the scrapyard, fixing it would have cost thousands of dollars. The old guy at the scrapyard gave me a good look and said something like "so, you guys went public today, eh?" I could tell he was not in good shape (financially or otherwise), and he had some level of resentment towards what he perceived as entitled tech workers addicted to "easy money".

I didn't even try to explain that I'm by no means rich, I had to scrap the car because it was solidly dead, and yes, I was going to get a new car, but it was going to be a Civic, just like the old one. Not a Lamborghini. But there was a divide there, a whole set of wrong assumptions, that didn't seem I could bridge in a few minutes of conversation.

There are a whole lot of people in this area who are scraping by on tiny wages, and a lot of them don't think very highly of the high tech industry.

Re: In San Francisco and Rooting for a Tech Slowdown

#53

Post by sseveran »

doseofreality wrote: post #47
api wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Housing prices are like wages: very "sticky." Nobody wants to ever sell a house at a loss or drop their rent, so housing will sit idle on the market rather than take a write-down. The only way housing could conceivably fall (without intense depression-level pain) is if the entire rest of the economy inflated such that housing was reasonable. Everyone would be making six figures, a gallon of gas would be $…

Yes, right. Housing can never fall. I've heard that one before.

Demand has greatly outstripped supply in the bay area. Even with a moderate reduction in demand prices may still rise.

http://blog.altosresearch.com/how-sustainable-are-the-exorbi...

Re: In San Francisco and Rooting for a Tech Slowdown

#54

Post by the_watcher »

rootedbox wrote: post #48
spinlock wrote: post #17

One of the interesting side-effects of Sen. Fienstien's quest to keep high-rises out of San Francisco is that _all_ real estate is more expensive. There are many people here with similarly narrow ideas about how to protect what is "theirs." A great example would be the people who throw rocks at Google busses. Everyone on that buss can afford a car and would drive to work alone (maybe carpool) if they didn't have the…

The city can't support the 30k cars that would be needed for the people taking tech busses (no room to park that many cars).. so if we stopped the tech busses some of those people would move closer to work without busses; others would take Caltrain. Both of those things would reduce congestion, and pollution more than tech busses. We don't know the exact number that this would reduce because the tech bus legislation…

That's a major assumption to make. Plenty of people who work in the South Bay or East Bay without access to a tech bus already drive.

Re: In San Francisco and Rooting for a Tech Slowdown

#55

Post by chrischen »

rootedbox wrote: post #48
spinlock wrote: post #17

One of the interesting side-effects of Sen. Fienstien's quest to keep high-rises out of San Francisco is that _all_ real estate is more expensive. There are many people here with similarly narrow ideas about how to protect what is "theirs." A great example would be the people who throw rocks at Google busses. Everyone on that buss can afford a car and would drive to work alone (maybe carpool) if they didn't have the…

The city can't support the 30k cars that would be needed for the people taking tech busses (no room to park that many cars).. so if we stopped the tech busses some of those people would move closer to work without busses; others would take Caltrain. Both of those things would reduce congestion, and pollution more than tech busses. We don't know the exact number that this would reduce because the tech bus legislation…

What you just said is that it would increase congestion to the point where they would move closer to work. They wouldn't move closer to work if they could still drive their cars to work. They can't drive to cars to work because there are no busses and there is massive congestion.

Re: In San Francisco and Rooting for a Tech Slowdown

#56

Post by fluxquanta »

jonknee wrote: post #42
xur17 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: Who is getting hurt by Google driving people to work on buses. It seems like this reduces congestion, and helps the environment, which is good for everyone. What am I missing here?

The issue was they're using public bus stops. It's not hard to picture why it's demeaning to be standing at the public infrastructure and see a fancy shuttle come and pick up "Google People" while you're left waiting to ride with the proletariat. Especially demeaning when the shuttle is in the way of the real bus. Imagine if the NYC subway had a special car for Wall Street workers that was much more comfortable.

How is this any different from someone driving a 2017 Lexus versus a 1990 Toyota? Both may be a reflection of the income one receives. Both take up the same public infrastructure of the road and parking spaces.

Re: In San Francisco and Rooting for a Tech Slowdown

#57

Post by rosser »

fluxquanta wrote: post #56
jonknee wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue was they're using public bus stops. It's not hard to picture why it's demeaning to be standing at the public infrastructure and see a fancy shuttle come and pick up "Google People" while you're left waiting to ride with the proletariat. Especially demeaning when the shuttle is in the way of the real bus. Imagine if the NYC subway had a special car for Wall Street workers that was much more comfortable.

How is this any different from someone driving a 2017 Lexus versus a 1990 Toyota? Both may be a reflection of the income one receives. Both take up the same public infrastructure of the road and parking spaces.

I'm sorry, but no. Private busses using public bus stops — and blocking public bus traffic — is not an income issue.

Re: In San Francisco and Rooting for a Tech Slowdown

#58

Post by the_watcher »

Very few people who are being remotely rational disagree that techs relationship with San Francisco couldn't be improved. That said, relying on rental prices to justify an argument that tech is the root cause of the issues and ignoring that the only adequate solution - building more housing - is primarily opposed by exactly the same people is the height of hypocrisy.

Re: In San Francisco and Rooting for a Tech Slowdown

#59

Post by DannyBee »

e40 wrote: post #50
DannyBee wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thriving? I think reasonable people disagree. The vast majority of people i've talked to think SF was a craphole 25 years ago. I think a lot of people have the golden age fallacy going on :)

The vast majority of people i've talked to think SF was a craphole 25 years ago. Let's see, I've been in the area for 40 years and your comment couldn't be more wrong or uninformed.

Given it's an opinion, based on a lot of data, i don't see how you can think it can be uninformed.

You are welcome to disagree with it of course.

But, again, based on what i have, i suspect you may be in the minority.

Time will tell, of course!

Re: In San Francisco and Rooting for a Tech Slowdown

#60

Post by DannyBee »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #35
DannyBee wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thriving? I think reasonable people disagree. The vast majority of people i've talked to think SF was a craphole 25 years ago. I think a lot of people have the golden age fallacy going on :)

I see you know absolutely nothing about the history of San Francisco.

So you don't think reasonable people can disagree about the quality of san francisco 25 years ago?

Interesting. It's good to know it's an objective fact with only one possible answer.

Post reply on HN