
Amazon to Build a Permanent Mary's Place Family Shelter Within Its Headquarters - perfmode
https://www.amazon.com/p/feature/z4sbqvckkdgq4w9?pf_rd_p=79452266-7a91-43dc-8636-64371e9eb082&pf_rd_r=X2S7QHBXMCC2PV463WFJ
======
gizmodo59
I'm just amazed at the level of negativity in this thread and so many grey
comments. To look at something objectively and appreciate for what it is, is
very important.

~~~
kome
That's my (european) perspective on this: Philanthropy is like going back to
feudalism again: we don't need goodwill; we need social rights.

Those kinds of services shouldn't depend on the generosity of the rich and
powerful: those services should be provided because they are social rights.
Just like healthcare and education.

Of course I am happy that some homeless in Seattle will have a nice roof over
their head thanks to Amazon's generosity, but I would be even happier if
Amazon would start paying its fair share taxes across Europe, instead of
eluding taxation thanks to financial tricks.

That's not negativity: that's the elephant in the room. We should be aware
between a nice action and a systemic problem, or between good advertisement
and reality.

~~~
Ajedi32
My take on this is exactly the opposite. I much prefer companies and
individuals voluntarily using their resources to help those in need vs the
government forcibly extracting those resources in order to do the same.

~~~
accountyaccount
Then you're always at the will of corporate whims rather than general human
decency.

~~~
jaredklewis
Because modern governments are the epitome of human decency?

I'm as cynical as about corporations as the next guy , but what makes you so
rosy eyed about the government? Is it because governments invade foreign
countries and subjugate their people? That they incarcerate millions of their
own people for abusing the wrong kind of drug? That they surveil all of our
communications?

For sure private philanthropy is not perfect, but neither are government
programs.

~~~
accountyaccount
Government behavior isn't immediately tied to profit (bear with me).

Profit's tied to government (in the US especially), but there's at least a
single degree of separation (maybe less so recently). Our democracy still has
the theoretical power to change it.

When it's corporate it's entirely inflexible, directly tied to profit (and the
economy), and there's little to no requirement for transparency. It's all the
downsides of government, with an included layer of obscurity... and also some
more downsides.

I think our current administration makes this pretty clear. If left to
corporate interests major assets like Planned Parenthood, National Parks, and
The National Endowment for the Arts would likely not exist at all (that's just
the tip of the iceberg).

Corporate funded initiatives can be completely ejected on a whim when profits
are down. With the federal government you can't just remove these things
without some level of checks & balances...

------
webaholic
For once I hear some positive non-tech related news about Amazon. Bravo!

------
plandis
This is the perfect thread to realize just how biased HN is against Amazon.
They are literally providing shelter to homeless people and so many posts are
complaining about it...

Perhaps we just see a nice thing for what it is?

~~~
kerbalspacepro
but muh muh muh my effective altruism philosophy should be applied to entire
corporate entities, right? /s

------
mcheshier
I like this, but Amazon still has a lot of work to do to address the pillaging
of the commons they've been doing the last few years. They've been displacing
people and capitalizing on public infrastructure for far too long without
giving anything back.

~~~
ng12
This is such an ignorant response. Do you realize how much of the country is
dying because there's no industry, no jobs, no economy to speak of? I'm not
saying give Amazon carte blanche but man, appreciate that your city's economy
is growing instead of dying.

------
GBond
Some of the negative comments here exemplify why the mainstream is starting to
hate on the "tech elitist" types in the same way FinanceBros were viewed
negatively in the '90s and '00s.

------
JonRB
When I read this I assumed amazon _datacentre_ \- and thought it was probably
a pretty good use for all of that heat they generate...

~~~
MikeTheGreat
I know, right? Like - years ago, back when The Matrix first came out, we all
laughed at the implausibility of it. And now here it is!

~~~
LeoPanthera
You have it backwards. The theory is that they're using servers to heat the
people.

~~~
dwyerm
It isn't just a theory, it's a practice: 'This "district energy" system works
by capturing heat generated at a non-Amazon data center in the neighboring
Westin Building and recycling that heat through underground water pipes
instead of venting it into the atmosphere. This unique approach is nearly four
times more efficient than traditional heating methods and will also enable the
Westin Building data center to cut back on the energy it uses to cool its
building.' \-
[https://www.amazon.com/p/feature/8sbggvr8fsks7kg](https://www.amazon.com/p/feature/8sbggvr8fsks7kg)

------
Justsignedup
Remember that time the Vatican created a 6-machine free washing machine inside
their giant cathedral? Yeah I like this better.

------
will4274
I see on Mary's places "About us" page: _" Empowering homeless women,
children, and families to reclaim their lives by providing shelter,
nourishment , resources, healing and hope in a safe community"_

While their work appears extremely positive and (of course) every charity is
not required to solve every problem, I can't help but wondering about the many
many single homeless men or homeless men disconnected from the families. The
best data source on homelessness, the Annual Homeless Assessment Report to
Congress indicates that the majority of the homeless are single males. Up to
about 10% of the homeless are veterans (a group that is vastly male) and many
of them have mental illnesses like PTSD. Are these people accepted at Mary's
place? Is there a "Ryan's place" shelter? Does / would Amazon sponsor it?

~~~
savanaly
One thing to consider (and I swear I'm not (a) claiming this is necessarily in
reality the case or (b) implying that if it were we shouldn't have a "Ryan's
Place") is that there is homelessness due to different causes, some of them
more amenable to help than others. If someone's homeless because they were
dependent on a partner who was abusive and so they left that environment and
are basically a functioning member of society who nonetheless isn't on their
feet, it's a whole nother story (though arguably not more tragic) than someone
who's a drug addict and therefore isn't on their feet.

For one of these two, a roof over their head and hot meals a couple times a
day for a period of months is going to be extremely beneficial including in
the long run, since they'll reliably be able to support themself thanks to the
homeless shelter's infrastructure. For the other hypothetical case, it's still
the right and humane thing to do for them, but the "bang for your buck" is
lower to put it in crass terms.

If it just works out that women outnumber men in the former group, and the
gender discrimination does a huge amount of work in selecting for the most
efficient candidates to keep in the shelter, I'm in favor of the
discrimination.

~~~
nsnick
Why do you assume that homeless women are homeless because of abuse and not
drug addiction, while homeless men are homeless because of drugs or PTSD?
These assumptions seem incredibly sexist, especially in light of the fact that
the current opioid crisis is affecting women disproportionately.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/08/31/opiods-...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/08/31/opiods-
and-anti-anxiety-medication-are-killing-white-american-
women/?utm_term=.f084d98f03c6)

~~~
msinclair
That's not really how I interpreted their message. It's more likely that a
woman is homeless due to an abusive relationship than it is a man being
homeless due to an abusive relationship. That isn't saying women are less
likely to be homeless due to drugs. Independent statements.

~~~
thaumasiotes
They certainly aren't independent statements.

Share of homelessness due to an abusive relationship + share of homelessness
due to drugs + share of homelessness for all other reasons = 1.

If one of those variables goes higher, one or both of the others must go
lower. On the assumption that one of those reasons gets more common "all else
equal"... both of the others will go lower.

~~~
mjevans
You are correct in the zero sum outcome for the //ENTIRE// homeless
population; however you are not correct in the sense of a hypothetical subject
being homeless.

A singular case subject/family could be homeless for MULTIPLE reasons or None
(other than other of course) outlined above.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> You are correct in the zero sum outcome for the //ENTIRE// homeless
> population; however you are not correct in the sense of a hypothetical
> subject being homeless.

This is wrong. What's correct as a description of the entire female homeless
population is equally correct as a probability assignment for one element of
it.

Your second sentence is unrelated to your first, and also applies equally well
to the entire population as to an individual sample from it. It is arguing
that the sum I describe is in fact more than 1. That is defensible, but it
won't make the statements independent; they aren't.

------
ddoolin
> This first-of-its-kind partnership will include 65 rooms, which will shelter
> more than 200 homeless women, children, and families each night.

Why are they not supporting non-family men? They literally include everyone
but this one group, why?

* Missed the main comment thread about this.

~~~
ryanx435
because society does not care about men who do not contribute.

------
lwansbrough
The unfortunately reality is that men are mostly disposable in our culture.

~~~
dang
1\. Please keep ideological talking points off HN. They're off-topic and
destructive of the things this site is for.

2\. We ban accounts that use HN primarily for political or ideological battle.
This doesn't depend on ideological flavor; all forms are unwelcome.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14339797](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14339797)
and marked it off-topic.

------
throwaway18917
How sweet. When are they going to stop fucking over their employees? Oh right,
never until they unionize.

~~~
dang
This comment and several others you've posted violate the HN guidelines. We
ban accounts that do that, so please (re)-read the following and post civilly
and substantively from now on.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

~~~
throwaway18917
HN is nothing but startup bros, armchair economists, and card-carrying Ayn
Rand fan club members.

~~~
ryanx435
don't forget AI-utopians, where all of the problems of the future will be
solved by robots and basic income

~~~
dang
More skepticism than believerism about that kind of thing, I think, though the
community is divided on most such matters.

------
ttoomm28
A shelter for anyone who isn't a man. How thoughtful of Amazon.

------
tyingq
Laudable. The math on the space is a little odd though.

 _" 47,000 sq. ft. of space within Amazon’s newest headquarters building as a
permanent location for a Mary's Place Family Shelter. This first-of-its-kind
partnership will include 65 rooms, which will shelter more than 200 homeless
women, children, and families"_

235 square feet per person? That's a lot of room. Maybe only some of the space
is being used to start with? Or a fair portion is for some sort of separate
administrative staff?

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _235 square feet per person? That 's a lot of room._

What? No it isn't.

~~~
kasparsklavins
For a comparison, at my university dorms its roughly 65 square feet per
person.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
Do you mean that your room is roughly 10'x13', shared with one roommate? If
so, you're not comparing apples to apples. Amazon's number is derived from the
entire building (including common hallways, stairs, bathrooms, and other
spaces). Also, while a dorm room allocating 65 sqft per person might fit a
loft bed, desk, and a student's possessions, that's not convenient for a
family shelter.

