"...tech growth in cities like Seattle has been the same to San Francisco relative to its size, but the rise in the cost of living is less than a third of that experienced in San Francisco. This is largely attributed to the city building more housing to meet demand."
This seems to be the root of the problem. So much of the blame gets put on tech companies or the rich getting richer, but no one blames the elected officials for not doing the right thing and allowing new housing to be built.
And yet this thread will be filled with tech employees shitting on those less fortunate than themselves.
And what tech ceo is showing up at city council meetings up and down the peninsula demanding more housing, or in any fucking way using the platform their job gives them to help even their own employees, let alone other people in their communities?
Ladies and gentlemen, DanBlake:
If you are a 90 year old grandmother who was counting on your landlord not
evicting the whole building, you should have known that was a risky bet to
begin with. [1]
Yup. Fuck grannie -- why didn't she anticipate rental prices doubling in 5 years?
TheAceOfHearts:
Why don't these people just move to more affordable places? [2]
Piss on off out of your community, family, job, network, etc etc etc.
DannyBee:
Because people believe that once they've lived somewhere long enough, they
have a right to live there forever. [3]
Yup, it's a mystery why people living in sf don't like tech employees. It's literally stunning fyigm isn't more popular with the community!
> And what tech ceo is showing up at city council meetings up and down the peninsula demanding more housing, or in any fucking way using the platform their job gives them to help even their own employees, let alone other people in their communities?
Care to guess how that went? Tech CEOs are doing the jobs you proclaim them to not be.
> Yup. Fuck grannie -- why didn't she anticipate rental prices doubling in 5 years?
She didn't need to. She just needed to know that since she didn't own the property, she was at risk. That's the risk you take when you rent - you don't get the safety of owning.
This has been true for centuries. Don't treat it like a novelty.
> Piss on off out of your community, family, job, network, etc etc etc.
I don't know about you, but I've done this. Multiple times. It hasn't killed me. It's not always fun, but that's life.
Since you're here, I'll ask you - what do you think the correct and acceptable way for someone to move to and live in SF is?
One letter from google -- um, golf clap? Contrast that with what a company does when they actually want something. eg Twitter and their tax break [1]. They threaten to leave sf, testimony at the council, meetings with councilpeople, lobbying, etc.
But no no -- one letter means google is actively working for more housing.
The same amount of effort as when lobbying for something they actually want. As I said above. See eg twitter for tax breaks, or the $16m google spent lobbying the US alone in 2013 [1]. Or the ceo going to council meetings and being actively involved. Or any of a dozen things you could think of yourself that would demonstrate google actually investing some effort into housing. Or transport.
But no -- your links show they sent a letter. You even found a second article mentioning what appears to be the same letter from David Radcliffe. You've searched the local mountain view papers and there's three whole mentions of google "working" for more housing dating all the way back to 2008... but they sent a letter. (Note they couldn't even be bothered to send someone representing the company to show up to testify at the meeting regarding their letter.)
Just to be clear, your position is that Google should invest many millions into things that aren't business concerns at all for them. At a time when they get massive amounts of blowback for any attempt to be involved in local politics.
Just to be clear, you're now moving the goalposts -- I demonstrated your claim that google is involved is patent bullshit. Your claim about blowback is similar.
And yes, companies -- and the larger they are, the more so -- should be involved in the communities in which they and their employees are located. This is true for many, perhaps most, firms that aren't tech firms. And they often are! Go to eg council meetings or zoning board meetings or other local government meetings in eg nyc. For many people in the communities in which these large tech firms are located, they've had bad effects. Google has a responsibility to these communities that they are currently ducking. The tech community as a whole has a responsibility to the bay area the community is almost entirely skipping out on. Being proactive about housing and transport would be helpful to both the employees and other residents of the communities.
I'd say the tech community is obliged to return that care which is shown for them. At a time when "Die techie scum" is a rallying cry, be thankful apathy is all you get.
This seems to be the root of the problem. So much of the blame gets put on tech companies or the rich getting richer, but no one blames the elected officials for not doing the right thing and allowing new housing to be built.