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

Zucktown, USA

thebaffler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 152 posts

Re: Zucktown, USA

#51

Post by humanrebar »

TrickyRick wrote: post #45
humanrebar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you get fired you also get evicted. If you get fired, you basically lose your healthcare, which in many cases is much worse. Though quite a number of Americans seem fine with that arrangement for some reason.

If I'm a healthy individual then the risk that I need my healthcare insurance are low (But it has a big impact on my economy if I do need it). However the risk that I need some form of housing is 100% and the impact of not having it is huge which to me makes it a bigger risk. However YMMV depending on your situation.

That sounds like a case for health insurance. Just, you know, insurance. Not an account with a healthcare company with a subscription model (close to what the U.S. has now).

Re: Zucktown, USA

#52

Post by MR4D »

apsec112 wrote: post #2

This article's main topic is just "tech companies are building big offices", dressed up in some purple prose. And they're also to blame for high rents. But if they build apartments to help ease the housing shortage, that's a "company town" and we can't have that either. And Amazon is a "commandeering leech" which "suck[s] up our resources and refus[es] to participate in daily upkeep", but when Google offers Mountain…

Your last paragraph applies to so much in the media that it simply cannot be understated.

Thank you for sharing this. I wish other people could look at all articles through this lens to see the biases that authors have.

Re: Zucktown, USA

#53

Post by [deleted] »

humanrebar wrote: post #33
avar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is a badly written opinion piece that meanders through various topics, but your critique of it is beating a strawman. It's not making the "you can't win" argument that tech companies should be critiqued whether or not they build housing. Rather, it's that they're supposedly constructing "company towns" in the sense that the housing stock they build won't be for sale, and presumably only rented to employee…

> If you get fired you also get evicted. If you get fired, you basically lose your healthcare, which in many cases is much worse. Though quite a number of Americans seem fine with that arrangement for some reason.

[deleted]

Re: Zucktown, USA

#54

Post by ForHackernews »

da3mon5 wrote: post #41
michaelt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They blame techies for the hike of real-estate price, [...] they also oppose any construction of high density accommodation My theory is there are three parties in this discussion. Renter Roy can't afford a house, and thinks tech companies' money is bidding up prices. Homeowner Harold has lived and worked in this neighbourhood for 40 years and doesn't want its character to change and his house's value to fall. Techie…

> Any pair of Roy, Harold and Tammy can get on OK - but it's just not possible for all three of them to get what they want. But this is a dilemma (or in this case a trilemma) only for individuals, "don't change the nature of this neighbourhood" shouldn't be something policymakers care about.

> "don't change the nature of this neighbourhood" shouldn't be something policymakers care about.

Who do you think votes for those policymakers? (And donates to their campaigns)

Re: Zucktown, USA

#55

Post by ForHackernews »

humanrebar wrote: post #42
chis wrote: post #13

The linked anti-union article is more interesting than the original article IMO. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/silicon-valleys... I would tend to agree with the tech-ie opinion that unions are becoming obselete in the US. Unions existed to protect workers who were unskilled and interchangeable; the endgame of tech is to automate all those jobs. But obviously I’m not a labor scholar and this is just an…

> ...unions are becoming obselete in the US... They don't make sense for knowledge workers. Knowledge workers are rarely interchangeable, so standardizing contracts, job titles, pay schedules, working conditions, etc., makes little sense. There is also the chance for protectionism (closed shops) that runs counter to the freelance culture in tech. Some sort of worker-administered group could make a lot of sense. But m…

A guild is just a union by another name. The Screenwriters Guild, the Screen Actors Guild, and the various professional sports unions (e.g. NFLPA) are all good examples of unions representing highly-paid, non-interchangable workers.

Re: Zucktown, USA

#56

Post by [deleted] »

apsec112 wrote: post #2

This article's main topic is just "tech companies are building big offices", dressed up in some purple prose. And they're also to blame for high rents. But if they build apartments to help ease the housing shortage, that's a "company town" and we can't have that either. And Amazon is a "commandeering leech" which "suck[s] up our resources and refus[es] to participate in daily upkeep", but when Google offers Mountain…

[deleted]

Re: Zucktown, USA

#57

Post by pault »

humanrebar wrote: post #42
chis wrote: post #13

The linked anti-union article is more interesting than the original article IMO. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/silicon-valleys... I would tend to agree with the tech-ie opinion that unions are becoming obselete in the US. Unions existed to protect workers who were unskilled and interchangeable; the endgame of tech is to automate all those jobs. But obviously I’m not a labor scholar and this is just an…

> ...unions are becoming obselete in the US... They don't make sense for knowledge workers. Knowledge workers are rarely interchangeable, so standardizing contracts, job titles, pay schedules, working conditions, etc., makes little sense. There is also the chance for protectionism (closed shops) that runs counter to the freelance culture in tech. Some sort of worker-administered group could make a lot of sense. But m…

I never thought I was underpaid until a year ago when I asked for double my previous salary (now in low six figures) at a new position and nobody blinked. I had been leaving a LOT of money on the table and didn't know it!

Re: Zucktown, USA

#58

Post by sjg007 »

humanrebar wrote: post #35
michaelt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They blame techies for the hike of real-estate price, [...] they also oppose any construction of high density accommodation My theory is there are three parties in this discussion. Renter Roy can't afford a house, and thinks tech companies' money is bidding up prices. Homeowner Harold has lived and worked in this neighbourhood for 40 years and doesn't want its character to change and his house's value to fall. Techie…

Seems like only Bay Area homeowners lose out if big tech companies decide to stop colocating all their workers in a handful of zip codes. And they won't get much of a say in that case.

The execs like the Bay Area..

Re: Zucktown, USA

#59

Post by pault »

humanrebar wrote: post #38
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #30

It's exactly these biggest companies that should take moral responsibility and relocate / redistribute their work to various cities on the one hand, and if they want to go through with the idea of company towns, campuses etc, they need to move way out of the SF area - there's huge wads of unused space in the US, they could found their own city if need be. Probably not something very attractive to their employees, but…

> Probably not something very attractive to their employees... I keep hearing this meme and I'm skeptical. Far more people live outside the Bay Area than inside it. Are they all poor saps who are waiting to move to Silicon Valley but haven't yet figured out how?

I see this attitude from new yorkers a lot. There are only two types of people: those that live in NY and those that failed to live in NY. Because they aspire to live in a coastal metropolis obviously everyone else does too.

Re: Zucktown, USA

#60

Post by pdpi »

mobiletelephone wrote: post #16
zdkl wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very strongly disagree with the "unskilled" part. I am not a labor scholar either, but unions serve to federate common interests of workers who may not individually have leverage against their employer or relevant regulation body. Because your employer in tech can afford to give you a lifestyle easily in the highest couple percentiles doesn't mean you aren't replaceable and that you won't need representation as a c…

Wages are high if the supply of labour is low and the employer has money for wages. If supply is low and the employer does not have money, then the job won't exist. This is why tech workers wouldn't benefit from a union very much.

You're assuming that wages are the only thing worth arguing over. Work environment, tools, work/life balance are all things that you might want, and where you might need leverage to get them.
Post reply on HN