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

Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley

#91

Post by zR0x »

rlp wrote: post #33
sp332 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is in the part you quoted - when you get them off your property, they don't stop existing. Where do you want them to go to ?

The property owner should not be responsible for answering that question.

Property owners are human members of society

They’re not above participating in solving human problems

You want to live in a bubble, go off grid

None of us get up and contribute to society to spare anyone else dealing with it’s problems

Just because that’s the way laws are written doesn’t mean biology gives a shit

Re: Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley

#92

Post by underseacables »

oliv__ wrote: post #23

"Clearing the camp likely will be difficult both logistically — it’s more challenging to remove structures and vehicles that don’t run than tents — and ethically — there are few places for the displaced residents to go." This might be an unpopular opinion, but since when did kicking "a sprawling camp of dozens of people, a maze of broken-down vehicles and a massive amount of trash" off of your private property become…

Well it’s California, and a hot button issue that many blame corporations for. Once the woke crowd gets involved it could mean chaos at Apple; damages, employee walkouts, press etc. You’re absolutely right but Apple won’t act unless they are confident they can control the narrative.

Surprised they haven’t offered to teach them how to code, or some other virtue signaling

Re: Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley

#93

Post by [deleted] »

zR0x wrote: post #91
rlp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The property owner should not be responsible for answering that question.

Property owners are human members of society They’re not above participating in solving human problems You want to live in a bubble, go off grid None of us get up and contribute to society to spare anyone else dealing with it’s problems Just because that’s the way laws are written doesn’t mean biology gives a shit

[deleted]

Re: Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley

#94

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

na85 wrote: post #80
fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fine opinion, but the only nexus to the news story we are commenting on is the exhortation for Bezos to go buy a bunch of houses (which would only push prices even higher and make somebody else homeless).

There was no such exhortation. I used the word "could", not the word "should", for a reason. That reason was to illustrate that he can afford a tax and should be levied one.

For what it’s worth, Bezos is associated with Amazon, not Apple.

Re: Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley

#95

Post by guerrilla »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #90
guerrilla wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are, without society enfircing property rights then anyone could do the same. They also owe (as everyone does) society for even being in a state where they can exist and operate. They depend on society exstentially. It's not like they paid for infrastructure, business ecosyatem, the conditions for consumers to consume, etc. Without societ they'd be nothing at all.

Society gets high quality products that enhance productivity, and enormous tax revenue that more than makes up for any public services that could conceivably contribute to their productivity, so of course they're not indebted to society. >>Without societ they'd be nothing at all. Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as th…

You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher.

> Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving.

Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That's a difference you're missing.

Re: Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley

#96

Post by brailsafe »

brailsafe wrote: post #57
oliv__ wrote: post #23

"Clearing the camp likely will be difficult both logistically — it’s more challenging to remove structures and vehicles that don’t run than tents — and ethically — there are few places for the displaced residents to go." This might be an unpopular opinion, but since when did kicking "a sprawling camp of dozens of people, a maze of broken-down vehicles and a massive amount of trash" off of your private property become…

Well, it became unethical after everyone who had huge budgets bought up all the property, displacing everyone who couldn't. In a sense, it's a question of the ethics of owning property being inherently displacing. If there is only private property that nobody wants others on, and public property that isn't housing and nobody wants others on, then you're kind of both screwed and you're subject to the consequences of t…

I'd rephrase this in what I think is a more succinct way. It's unethical because you're profiting off of displacement, in a system that allows you to do so, then being mad when the displaced don't care about the system that doesn't care about them, and so they take it back by setting up on your doorstep. Whatcha gunna do rich boi!?

Re: Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley

#97

Post by CryptoPunk »

guerrilla wrote: post #95
CryptoPunk wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society gets high quality products that enhance productivity, and enormous tax revenue that more than makes up for any public services that could conceivably contribute to their productivity, so of course they're not indebted to society. >>Without societ they'd be nothing at all. Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as th…

You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. > Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving. Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That's a difference you're missing.

>>You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher.

Yes we buy it because the money we pay is worth less to us than the product that they provide us in the exchange. That is what trade results in: both parties benefiting.

Put another way, they are not indebted on account of benefiting from this trade, given they are contributing something of even greater value in exchange for that benefit, and have no more obligation toward society, on account of engaging in large volumes of mutually beneficial trade, than any one else.

>> On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher.

That funding is for public research that is freely given away. You can't release scientific knowledge into the public domain and then claim those who benefit from it are indebted. That would be a false pretense of "public domain".

Moreover, the tax revenue generated by Apple, its US-based suppliers and its employees, allows for significant amounts of funding for public research that benefits society at large.

>>Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society.

That applies to every constituent of society. We cannot say that every single individual owes to society more than it is owed on that account, or else it would mean some non-existent element of society should receive payment on the collective debt of the constituents of society.

Re: Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley

#98

Post by true_religion »

sp332 wrote: post #87
true_religion wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. I think the government should take action. It should build housing for the homeless and move them out of Apples parking lot. What other solution is there?

Apple is working on it... kinda? https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-commits-two-poi... I'm not saying that initiative is bad in itself, but Apple has historically fought tax assessments according to https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/silicon-valley-companies-lik... and that money could have improved things over time instead of forcing a crisis now. They also expanded their offices and built a new headquarters…

The second article kind of makes it clear that there are two governments at work here, and they are at odds.

San Fran approves office space, but no housing. Thus people live in San Jose (ironically where apple was founded originally).

That said… I don’t really see how this relates to homelessness in San Fran as according to the article Apple workers don’t live their anyways.

It’s a bit of a reach to say Apple is to blame for building an office building in the commercial district of the hottest tech city on the west coast after getting government approval.

The SF government ought to either approve more housing, or reduce economic pressure by refusing office spaces. That it does neither is a systemic failure.

Re: Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley

#99

Post by [deleted] »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #97
guerrilla wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. > Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving. Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That's a difference you're missing.

>>You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. Yes we buy it because the money we pay is worth less to us than the product that they provide us in the exchange. That is what trade results in: both parties benefiting. Put another way, they are not indebted on account of benefiting from this trade, given they are contributing something…

[deleted]

Re: Homeless encampment grows on Apple property in Silicon Valley

#100

Post by me_me_me »

Teever wrote: post #47
rlp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The property owner should not be responsible for answering that question.

The property owner in question has evaded paying billions of dollars in taxes, taxes that could have gone to fix the systemic issues in America that perpetuate homelessness. Think different indeed.

But Apple does it legally so its ok. And I am sure the hopeless can pull themselves by their bootstraps. If they cant eat bread, why don't they eat cake?? If you are homeless just buy a house! Its that simple. /s

Jezz, I am reading through the comments here and i am not sure if i am on HN or subreddit for edy teens with the shallowest and one-dimentional view of the world.

Post reply on HN