
Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep - v21
http://programmingisterrible.com/post/50421878989/come-here-and-work-on-hard-problems-except-the-ones
======
downandout
This speaks to a larger problem: The world simply doesn't need many of the
people born into it. Parents in the US have children for recreational purposes
- child birth rates do not fluctuate with the demand for labor. These kids
grow up, and many of them wind up sleeping on the streets of their chosen city
or more commonly just barely living paycheck-to-paycheck, because there is no
societal need for them. This bears itself out in statistics: 25% of households
have a net worth of zero or less (negative net worth). 22% of children in the
US live in homes below the poverty line.

In our world, the needs of many can be met by the work of a few. Only those
few will prosper, while the rest languish. The harsh reality is that
prospective parents that don't have anything to pass onto their children need
to take a hard look at whether they should be having children, given that
going forward there may very well be no way for those children to earn a
living.

~~~
downandout
FYI whomever is downvoting this - you can downvote it all you want. It doesn't
make it any less true. I'll take the hit on my karma points on the off chance
it makes someone think, even for a second, about not perpetrating the selfish
act of cruelty that is bringing a child into an impoverished existence.

~~~
nisa
See you on the other side of this discussion if you loose your wealth and your
job for whatever reasons. You'll enjoy beeing jugded by your own words.

Empathy and social justice are crucial for any society that wants to be
respected. You are proposing barbary. Social Darwinism.

~~~
downandout
I am dealing with reality.

~~~
nisa
We all have to deal with reality.

The question is how we want to shape our societies and reality. Is it
acceptable to have few lucky ones with huge incomes that are far beyond the
necassary amount for living a fullfilled live and have the rest die on the
streets?

Or would it be more beneficial for the society at large if all have the
possibility to live free from existential dangers such as homelessness,
disease and hunger.

Robots, computers and automatisation are great tools. At the moment the profit
that these tools generate is not shared among all people. It's time to
socialise the profits that are gained through automatisation in order to be
able to live in peaceful societies.

If you discard huge parts of the population as worthless you'll have to invest
even more in your security. You will have slums, riots, terrorism and violence
and walled gardens.

That is not the reality I want to live in.

~~~
throwit1979
_If you discard huge parts of the population as worthless you'll have to
invest even more in your security. You will have slums, riots, terrorism and
violence and walled gardens._

OP is offering a possible partial solution to exactly the problem you present
here. With fewer children born into poverty, some degree of abatement is
likely. I'm not sure why you dismiss the notion out of hand, refuse to engage
the actual idea, and then immediately mischaracterize the original position to
be some absurd straw-man in which the OP is adjudicating the "worthless[ness]"
of various people.

It's almost as if people on the internet don't know how to properly argue the
actual ideas presented, and instead prefer to just make shit up.

~~~
nisa
I've explained myself in more detail here:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5707453>

------
tokenadult
Places with good weather have huge visible homeless populations. (I have
traveled all over the United States, and have been to all fifty states. AFTER
EDIT: I have been in, and have lived in, gritty "skid row" neighborhoods of
large United States cities, and have lived in Los Angeles.) Places with lousy
weather, like the place where I grew up and now live, certainly have people
who are "homeless" in the sense of not having a secure legal right to occupy a
particular place at their own discretion, but most people with that lack of
legal right to choose their living circumstances are indoors during cold
winter nights. There is much provision of emergency shelter in the United
States, by both governmental organizations and private charities. There are
also both federal and state programs for providing free or heavily subsidized
leaseholds for housing to poor families, and private charities that build
single-family homes for poor families. People are more visibly out on the
street in the United States mostly on a regional or seasonal basis.

Since quite a few of the comments here mention Europe, my question (as someone
who has never been to any part of Europe) is where do people live in Europe if
they have no personal funds to buy or rent housing? Do they live in housing
operated by some unit of government, or where?

All of the above said, yes, I am not sure that United States social policy is
a model for anywhere, and perhaps hackers working on social policy here would
be helpful. There are already enough empty housing units in the United States
to house everyone who needs a house. The tough policy issues are in allocating
people to houses (or houses to people) and looking out for other aspects of
everyone's welfare.

~~~
onemorepassword
There is no Europe. I can only speak for my country, the Netherlands, and
there is no such thing as people not having the personal funds to buy or rent
housing. That's why we have minimum wages, social security, rent subsidies and
regulated rent.

The homeless here are people mostly people with mental health issues that
reject or don't respond to treatment.

It's by far not a perfect utopian system, but to have people being homeless
just because they can't afford it would be considered an unacceptable failure
of a civilized society. Decent housing, like healthcare, is considered a human
right, not something people have to be able to "afford".

~~~
vitobcn
I originally come from Spain, where the weather is nicer than in the
Netherlands, and there certainly are homeless people living and sleeping in
the streets, or in cold occasions during winter, they can also be seen under
the roof provided by an atm / bank branch.

However, having been in SFO multiple times, the number of poor/homeless people
with no resources is much more evident there. My take is that generally the
unemployment, healtchare, etc. benefits offered in most European countries do
play a significant role in reducing the number of cases.

~~~
sliverstorm
From what I understand, SFO has a bit of an epidemic because of their
policies. The city is extremely supporting of the homeless compared to other
cities in the USA, so the nation's homeless tend to migrate to SFO.

Also, weather in California is pretty nice year-round. I know I'd prefer
California to Arizona or Michigan if I was homeless.

------
jrochkind1
The guy's Scottish, he thinks it's about San Fran specifically, it's really
about AMERICA. Maybe San Fran puts it even more in your face. But compared to
most any other country even half as rich as America, the lack of social safety
net in the U.S. is kind of shocking. People in Europe don't really realize the
extent of it.

~~~
troebr
I'm French living in Jersey. I have been to San Francisco, even though it's
blatant when you walk here, everywhere in the US I have that feeling that the
poor are really forgotten. And they live in third-world country conditions. In
France, the average rich is not as rich, and it's probably a lot harder to
become successful and wealthy than here; but the poor are not left behind as
much. It feels more like a society where you take a significant chunk from the
rich to make sure the poor can get by. Sure there are abuses, high taxes and
whatnot, but the old and the poor can afford to go to the dentist, and retire
when the time comes.

The way I see it, European countries have a kind of nation-wide health
insurance, vs individual insurance here. We have a nation-wide student loan,
versus individual student loans. That helps controlling the costs and profits,
and helps making sure that everybody who needs care or education can get it.

But whether it is related or not, America is more daring, more exciting, and
there are more opportunities when you have the right cards to do something.
But if you had a bad hand to start with, then you're royally screwed.

Put simply, it's better to be born poor in Europe than in the US, and better
to be born rich in the US than in Europe.

~~~
jf22
"third-world country conditions"

No.

Even a porta potty cleaned infrequently is more sanitary than the conditions
in the third world. There won't be a cholera outbreak. Food is available and
nobody is going to starve to death.

Heck, a simple clean water fountain in some third world countries can improve
the lives of an entire village. Even in the most horrible cities in america
there are dozens of sources of free water.

~~~
ricardobeat

        The term Third World arose during the Cold War to define countries 
        that remained non-aligned with either NATO, or the Communist Bloc.
    

That's more than half of the world, while what you're describing applies
mostly to sub-saharan Africa.

~~~
greghinch
> while what you're describing applies mostly to sub-saharan Africa

And many parts of China, India, Western Asia, Southeast Asia, Central America,
and parts of South America...

------
dominostars
San Francisco homelessness is not a question about rich vs. poor. It's a
question about what to do with people who are mentally handicapped and/or drug
abusers. This is partially a money problem, but it's largely a social problem.
A lot of other countries deal with this better because they have stronger
family support structures. Programming can help, but this isn't a programming
problem. And there's no money in it, so anybody who's trying to solve this
problem can't afford to live in San Francisco.

Stepping over homeless people on my way to a cushy tech job has given me loads
of cognitive dissonance. I have a really hard time with this, and I think
about it every single day on my way to work. Frankly, I'm not sure what to do
about it, and I'd love to have an open discussion instead of an anti-american
one. Everyone here who's arguing about their superior European social programs
are really preaching to the quire, because most Americans on Hacker News would
kill to have these social programs.

~~~
shpiel
I work in the Downtown Crossing section of Boston, which has the one of the
highest visible homeless populations in the Boston area. I was also
consistently troubled by the number of homeless people I encountered to and
from work.

It really helped to volunteer at a nearby homeless shelter (Pine Street Inn).
I was comforted to see some of worst cases (including people I encountered
daily) have access to meals, a clinic, a shelter, and treated with courtesy.

I was also struck by how many people seemed normal - not someone who was
mentally ill or spent time on the street.

In general America fulfills a lot of need with private charity - which can
occasionally be really impressive. When I worked at a large financial
institution there were lots of opportunities for matched giving and
volunteering opportunities. I wish tech companies would do this more.

~~~
pacaro
Matched giving seems to be one of those benefits that is more common at the
larger employers (e.g. Microsoft employees broke the 1 billion dollar mark
last year) and doesn't appear on the smaller tech companies benefits sheets

------
onemorepassword
With the exception of a very small sub group of people with serious mental
issues, _it's not a hard problem_.

Most of it has been solved already. It's just a matter of having the will to
do it. That will is absent.

Most developers in SF laugh at the amount of money their European counterparts
get paid after taxes. The don't consider not having to step over homeless
people a "benefit". That attitude is your problem right there.

~~~
redcircle
> The don't consider not having to step over homeless people a "benefit".

My daughter really tries to stop us from visiting San Francisco, because there
is nothing that she can do to help the homeless. So even though I like the
city, I don't get to make much use of it (plus, on an not-unrelated note, the
city is child unfriendly).

Making matters even more surreal, the Willows Market in Menlo Park now sells
caviar at the checkout counter, nestled amongst the chocolate and other things
targeted for impulse buys.

------
MarkPNeyer
i worked at uber and twilio in the city. I was so bothered by the homeless
people I saw everyday that it seriously impeded my work performance. i'd walk
by them and feel terrible for not being able to help, for having an easy time
making money, and feel afraid that my bipolar disorder would get worse and i'd
end up like them. it was hard to function properly at work when I'd start my
day feeling guilty, powerless and afraid.

~~~
ardit33
How old are you? I used to have the same existential feelings as well when I
moved in SF, but over time you just get used to it and don't care anymore. It
is part of the maturation process and realize that the world is not a fair
place, and no not everybody is equal and will live equally.

One thing you realize is that a lot of the people on the streets have major
mental conditions (usually schizophrenia, and major drug addictions or chronic
alcoholism), and there is almost no way to just rehab them, and put them in a
place that they can take care of themselves. Some of them are beyond the point
of return and some need so much care, then only loving family can provide.
Externally, you can't do much.

Other countries have both better mental care provided from the state, and
especially a social net. Usually family will take care of their ill.

Be happy with what you got, do a good job, and make sure to be close to your
family and have close friends. You will realize that is part of life, and once
and a while you will have a need for support from closed ones, but as long as
you an handle yourself well most of the time and try to live a good life you
wont have to worry.

~~~
zacharycohn
"It is part of the maturation process and realize that the world is not a fair
place, and no not everybody is equal and will live equally."

I think the point of the article is that that's fucked up, and not how the
world should be. And what I suspect the author realized is that it isn't the
way he or she wants to be.

~~~
greghinch
> I think the point of the article is that that's fucked up, and not how the
> world should be.

That's the maturation process though: understanding that the world has been
that way _for all time_. Look at nature, around you, some animals within any
given group always do better than others. It's fine to be bothered by it, and
want to do something to change it, but it's naive to think that a) you are the
first person to notice and b) you can fix it completely.

~~~
gpvos
> the world has been that way for all time.

(I'm not an expert on this, but as far as I know) many traditional/"primitive"
societies have much less problems with homelessness and mental disorders
because of stronger family support. (Of course, they have other problems that
we don't have.)

~~~
scotty79
Also because weak were getting killed.

------
regis
One thing that I think is missing from these discussions about the homeless in
SF is: many of these people do not want to be rent-paying members of society
and even if there was housing for them, some might still prefer their current
lifestyle. Many people still view that lifestyle choice as unacceptable
because it challenges the typical goals of someone working hard for a 'better'
life. I don't think the question should be 'how do we get these people to
participate in society?' but 'why don't they want to participate and how can
we accommodate these alternative life choices?' Otherwise any progress made
would benefit those who want to see the streets cleaned up and not necessarily
those living out there.

~~~
beat
I don't think anyone actually PREFERS to be homeless, except for a few
exotics. Most of the homeless in America are that way due to either a:
unfortunate economic circumstances, or b: mental illness that precludes normal
social functioning.

~~~
regis
I think many people choose being homeless over giving into the pressures of
our society like having to sustain a job in order to pay rent and go out for
dinner etc... and all that stuff that 'normal' people desire. I've met
homeless people that split their time between SF and some hills near Santa
Cruz and only come into the city to sell some hash or hang out ith friends for
a couple of days... but yes there are also many people on the streets who
don't want to be there too.

~~~
misc_closet
Are you aware that we live in a period of peak unemployment?

There are literally millions of people who want jobs. The jobs were all made
obsolete by Silicon Valley. The safety net was shredded by Silicon Valley-
style neoliberal ethics based on Ayn Rand.

~~~
regis
Yeah I am aware of that, but that doesn't mean that there aren't also people
who don't want to work. I would love to not work and just enjoy life while I
can, but I can't because I have bought into this idea that having extra money
for shelter, food and other junk makes life more enjoyable... some people
haven't bought into this that are struggling to enjoy their lives outside of
the crazy whirlwind of packaged desires.

~~~
pessimizer
You're projecting your desires for a bit of freedom from the rat-race onto the
homeless.

~~~
regis
Perhaps a bit, but these comments are also based on real conversations with
homeless people in SF.

~~~
pessimizer
You can project onto people you're having conversations with.

------
beatpanda
I make a point of maintaining a clean separation between my work and my social
life for exactly the reasons this author describes. The biggest problem San
Francisco has right now is a bunch of people who came here for money, with no
interest in being part of its social fabric. Many of whom loudly complain
about how much San Francisco sucks, and how it should change to meet their
needs.

You either need to start actually being a part of this city, or move your ass
down the peninsula. Or better yet, move your company somewhere else. I hear
they've got lower taxes and cheaper engineers pretty much everywhere else.

~~~
nsxwolf
Every city is the way it is because of the people that come into it. Now
different people are coming in and things are changing.

San Francisco is a place that people historically migrate to when looking for
gold. The aspects of the culture that creates, the ones you like, anyway, are
unpredictable and subject to change.

~~~
beatpanda
You could also say that "San Francisco is a place that people historically
migrate to to subjugate native populations and force them to adopt a new
culture and religion". Does that make it ethically defensible? Or did we not
learn anything from the last few hundred years?

I should also point out that the reason companies started coming to San
Francisco in the first place was _because of_ the culture that is currently
being displaced, largely by people who don't care about the culture at all.

~~~
nsxwolf
I think you're smearing missionaries a bit - they haven't ALL engaged in
forcible conversion of natives. Quite often it is a voluntary decision.

But anyway, my point is that culture changes, and you can't stop it. Think of
it as a culture free market. You can try to put up protectionist barriers to
stop it, but you won't succeed. Not even the Amish are totally successful at
it.

I grew up in Redmond, WA in the 70s and I don't recognize the place anymore
when I visit. It makes me a bit sad, but that's life. Someday miles-high
glaciers will form and scrub the Rocky Mountains away, too.

~~~
stingrae
>I think you're smearing missionaries a bit - they haven't ALL engaged in
forcible conversion of natives. Quite often it is a voluntary decision.

I would disagree on this point, Sure not all were "forced." There are
invisible points that cause native nations to collapse. The missionaries
didn't have to force them to come, there presence alone had enough effect on
the region to force them to move to the missions. Especially in the Bay Area:
[http://www.amazon.com/Time-Little-Choice-Disintegration-
Anth...](http://www.amazon.com/Time-Little-Choice-Disintegration-
Anthropological/dp/0879191317/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368553024&sr=8-1&keywords=a+time+of+little+choice)

~~~
jbattle
Getting way off topic - the same underlying forces still play out today
worldwide, largely through american/japanese/indian(?) movies and music.

------
gummify
Not too far north along the west coast, the homelessness situation is mirrored
in Vancouver, Canada. I have friends who have volunteered with non-for-profit
agencies that support homeless people in identifying their needs and
allocating resources to them if possible, such as social housing. My friends
have told me that the people she has interviewed from the streets nearly 75%
are mentally or physically handicapped or have fell into drug abuse and would
never be able to function as a normal tax paying citizen again. There are
cases where she has met people who where once normal people with normal jobs
but because of a couple bad choices or traumatic situations, have gone into
debt or turned to drugs and alcohol. One man was once a lawyer who lost his
family over night and couldn't handle the stress and turned to gambling,
drugs, and alcohol and probably suffered from PTSD and then sooner or later
ended up on the streets.

In Canada, homeless/unemployed receive around $300/month from the government
and if you have a psychical or mental disability, I believe you receive a
little more financial assistance. Some homeless people just stay on the
assistance instead of trying to get employment.

However, there is hope but we cannot rely on the government to sort it out.
There is a privately funded organization called UGM that has a men's shelter
and rehab program in the core of the homelessness district (equivalent to
Tenderloin here) and are working on opening a women's and children's
rehabilitation program. I volunteered there once and was taken aback on how
well put together the program is. It's costly though, to build the building
and support the program costs millions. They take in about 40 homeless people
and puts them through a 6 month program. There are strict rules and guidelines
in the program but in return they receive bedding, food, clean clothes and
clean environment to live in, classes to help you finish your high school
diploma, computer lessons, emotional and spiritual support, and career
counselling, etc. It's still a newer program but they've seen a pretty high
success rate, with many graduates becoming outreach works in the community.

~~~
cheeseprocedure
> However, there is hope but we cannot rely on the government to sort it out.

Indeed:

"A change in public policy saw the mass discharge of Riverview Hospital's
patients as an effort to integrate them into the community while the province
considered the land for development. However, this caused a large influx of
mentally ill into the DTES as poor follow-up support failed to reach a
majority of these individuals."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Eastside#Mental_Illnes...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Eastside#Mental_Illness)

~~~
gummify
The government may have good intentions but are too short-term in thinking.
Homelessness, particularly mentally disabled homeless persons are costing the
government a lot more in the long run than putting in rehabilitation
infrastructure for homeless people. I strongly believe that in markets like
US/Canada, privately funded projects is the way to go in order to make any
real change. It's also disturbing when the city takes the piss at homeless
people by fining them [http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/16/vancouver-
homeless-f...](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/16/vancouver-homeless-
fines-bylaw-city_n_2490008.html)

------
austenallred
I think one aspect of this is that San Francisco is somewhat of a safe-haven
for the homeless and transient. While they do provide some context for the
economic disparity between the poor and the rich, most of my
homeless/transient buddies prefer living homeless/transient lifestyles in San
Francisco to living homeless/transient lifestyles anywhere else.

~~~
jrochkind1
Yeah, OP acknolwedged that, right?

> Thing is, those in poorer situations flock here, because they can get
> healthcare, support, and help, but other times it just feels like a passive
> aggressive fuck-you-got-mine. if you don’t tip, it isn’t so much a snub,
> it’s saying “i don’t think you deserve healthcare”. Alternatively for those
> with healthcare provided, it locks them into their job.

------
glesica
I think that when people say "hard problems" they mean "problems that almost
certainly have solutions if you are willing to put in the effort". Poverty on
the other hand is a much, much harder problem than that. In fact, no one quite
knows how to solve it in a general way (there are things that seem to work in
certain contexts but not in others, many special case half-solutions). And on
top of that, there probably isn't a clear path between solving the poverty
problem and wealth the way there is between solving the {photo sharing, social
media, web search, ...} problem and wealth.

~~~
beat
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee>

The solution is simple. You simply give every adult citizen enough money every
year to insure that they can afford food, shelter, and other basic needs. Give
it to everyone, rich or poor, same amount. BAM! No more poverty, except in
self-inflicted cases (drug addiction, for example), or things like severe and
very expensive illness (which are covered by other means). This can be paid
for in large part by the abolition of welfare systems, unemployment, Social
Security, etc.

The stock criticism is that people wouldn't work, because they wouldn't have
to. Frankly, I don't want such poorly motivated people working anyway, because
they're not productive. And anyone who wants more than barely-poverty will get
a job or start a business.

Another nice feature is that this supports people who want to do something
productive but not financially valuable - charity work, ministry, art.

~~~
run4yourlives
While I like the idea of a Basic Income, and have actually come to support it
heartily, (if you don't, take a look at some of the economists who have, and
why they do) you are being naive to think that "self-inflicted cases" are
somehow anything other than a vast majority.

Almost all homeless have mental illness and/or substance abuse issues. That's
why they are unable to act on one of the endless options that exist at the
moment that can get them even the most basic of accommodations and employment.
The people your solution truly helps are the non-homeless poor. To be honest
this is a much easier issue to address given some willpower. Then again, as a
Canadian, I find basic medical care to be a no brainier as well, which seems
to be something the US struggles with quite a bit.

You can't simply suggest that addiction/mental illness is "self inflicted",
give them $10K and say "You're on your own, bud." That isn't solving anything.
Solving homeless is the same as solving mental illness and/or addiction, and
those are massively hard problems to address.

~~~
roguecoder
41% of the population will experience a diagnosable mental illness, and 26%
have one in any given year. Clearly there is more to the issue than just
blaming mental illness or there would be far more homeless people than there
are right now.

Discovering what support structures work and making those more easily
accessible seems like a great place for a disruptive start up, except that
health care is so incredibly messed up no one wants to touch it with a ten
foot poll.

~~~
vacri
You need to be careful when talking about the demographics of mental illness.
Much mental illness leaves you still able to function and contribute socially
to a fair degree.

------
woodchuck64
> Stepping over the homeless, weaving between the street corner schizophrenics

Imagine having a chronic disease simultaneously with an absolutely intolerable
fear of doctors, hospitals, institutions and the social safety net. That's a
hard problem.

~~~
ajross
I can't tell exactly the point you're trying to make. Obviously there are
specific cases ("schizophrenics" here, I guess) who are going to be very hard
to treat in any safety net, and the US has no monopoly on them.

But the point was broader, that relative to the rest of the industrial world
the US has far more people at the "bottom" , falling out of the net. Walking
around cities in Europe, you generally don't find people sleeping on park
benches or camping under highway interchanges, etc... In most US cities,
that's fairly routine. And many of us consider that a bad thing.

Note that none of that excuses the poorly informed and counterproductive
moralizing in the linked article. The author is a jerk. But the problem is
real.

~~~
bearmf
There are plenty of people sleeping on park benches in Europe, especially in
large cities like London and Paris.

~~~
ajross
Now, I'm sure this is a difficult thing to measure, and there's lots of room
for legitimate argument. Nonetheless Wikipedia tells me that 248 Londoners
"sleep rough each night", where 3-5000 of San Francisco's homeless population
"refuse shelter". That's a full order of magnitude difference even ignoring
the fact that London's population is several times that of SF.

And again, it gets to the safety net argument. It's not that the english are
accepting shelter where the americans are not, it's that the english don't
need to "accept" the homeless shelters in the first place _because they are
sleeping at home_.

~~~
josephhardin
248? In Helsinki I think I saw more than that passed out on a single tram
ride. Helsinki had far more homeless than any big US city I've ever been to(at
the very least they were far more visible). I also had more negative
experiences with aggressive homeless there than I have had here. I forget the
tram line, but it was the one that goes from University of Helsinki to Tooloo.

~~~
ajross
I've never been to Helsinki. But perhaps the lesson there is that Finland too
has much to learn from the UK safety net, and not that the US doesn't have a
problem.

------
jarrett
This article leaves out an important point: Most, if not all, programmers I
know _do_ care about these issues, but we can't solve them. We would if we
could, but it's not what our profession is good at.

The title of the article, "come here and work on hard problems – except the
ones on our doorstep," speaks to this. We programmers have the tools to solve
many interesting and important problems, but certainly not all. Deeply rooted
social problems such as homelessness cannot be solved with a mobile app or
data analysis.

So programmers see homeless people on the way to work, and we feel bad, but
what can we do? Maybe the author wants us to feel guilty about the gap between
rich and poor. But bear in mind most of us are _not_ the rich of America.
We're in the middle. Yes, it's much, much more comfortable in the middle than
at the bottom, and I think most of us are grateful to be where we are. But
most of us aren't aristocrats; we work for a living. And we're also not the
ones who want to further widen the income gap. Rather, we tend to vote for
progressive candidates and policies.

Is there more we could do? I'm not sure what it would be. Charitable donations
help a little, but won't solve the problem. Volunteering helps a little, but
again, it's marginal. It's the people who actually work in advocacy, politics,
and homeless services that are really in a position to help solve these
problems. Programmers just aren't the ones to do it.

Coincidentally, I actually _do_ have some experience in the homeless services
world. And from what I have seen, the solution is basically money.

Much of the homeless population cannot be permanently cured. There is no
homelessness reboot, where you go in for rehab, mental health treatment, etc.,
and you come out ready to face the world as a gainfully employed, self-
sufficient person. Even with treatment, relapses are the norm, rather than the
exception.

Consequently, the realistic and humane solution is to put up the money for a
basic safety net. Considering the number of homeless in our country and the
rather modest price of providing basic food and shelter, it would not really
be a noticeable drain on our society. And just to head off criticism: We're
not talking about putting lazy people in the Hilton and feeding them caviar.
Even spartan, barracks-style homeless shelters, such as the ones where I've
worked, are a whole lot better than leaving people on the street. So-called
lazy people (i.e. those who _can_ work but don't want to) will not take
advantage of this, because it's not an attractive option. No matter how lazy
you are, you will choose to work over living in a homeless shelter if you can.

~~~
tobinfricke
I think being a programmer does help the situation in one respect: by having a
large salary, you also pay commensurately more in taxes, which could be used
to pay for social services.

One reason the quality of life is so high in Germany is that it is, as far as
I can tell, a nation of engineers. With an economy based on high value
products for export, Germany can afford one of the shortest work-weeks in the
world _and_ some of the best social services.

~~~
jarrett
That's very true. And it's kind of comforting, because you know that by
earning well, you're creating positive externalities. This is why I'm happy to
pay my taxes. (I don't necessarily support everything they're spent on, but
everyone has to compromise on that, no matter what they support.)

------
dclowd9901
I've tried to figure out a way to say what you've said in this post since I've
gotten here, and every time, it's sounded like an indictment on the poor.

Brilliant post, and it's criminal that an area so full of brilliant people can
be so detached from the most _actual_ problems facing the world, when they're
right on the proverbial doorstep.

------
jayferd
Yeah, housing. It's the big issue of the day here, and you can see how much it
affects our culture.

Basically we created a mortgage system that only works as long as property
values continue to rise, which created a lot of political will behind
"improvement" measures like eliminating public housing, like we did in the
early 80s.

(see <http://www.wraphome.org/downloads/without_housing.pdf> [pdf] for a
fascinating study on the origins of modern homelessness)

I'm doing some experiments with cooperative housing and income-sharing right
now, which slightly mitigates my contribution to gentrification, but something
else is needed, and I'm not sure what.

~~~
rottyguy
I actually think we created a mortgage system that will keep most people
working (income earning) for the majority of their lives (30yrs). Now that our
life span is increasing, will the norm be 40yrs?

~~~
jtbigwoo
You can get a 40 year mortgage at many banks now. I doubt 40 year mortgages
will ever catch on. The banks generally charge a higher interest rate for the
longer term so the payments aren't much cheaper than a 30 year loan.

------
ambiate
As a person with severe social anxiety, I felt truly anonymous in my visit to
San Francisco last summer. I was not worried or threatened like my wife. I
knew all things come and go in SF. The inherent risks of SF seemed easier to
evaluate due to the larger population. To me, it was bliss. The divide between
rich and poor was no different than anywhere I have visited in the USA. A
visit to Mississippi can open eyes to the evil dividing lines of human
behaviors.

------
georgefox
Welcome to a very individualistic and, by consequence, antisocial society. As
an American that's never stepped foot in California, this sounds surprisingly
familiar, albeit with the unique addition of free food and free beer at work.

~~~
mabhatter
Why do people commute 45+ minutes each way to work... To live in a Suburb
where the dont interaxt with any neighbors. a place with no public transport,
no major retailers, and no place for "malcontents" to flock within 10 miles
that's not private property. Even my small city has no "public space" or
public transportation after business hours. We have lots of small parks
designed to deter "being homeless" there.

Everything about American Rural and Suburb culture drives out those who Rent,
and don't want to own full-size autos with all the "rat-race" keeping up with
payments and insurance and taxes... Right up until people retire and realize
they can't keep up.

~~~
eric_the_read
In my case: good schools for my kids. I looked at several options nearer to
the downtown area, and in every case, the schools were rated at the middle or
near the bottom of the rankings. The schools where I ended up are near the
top.

~~~
georgefox
That's a good point and seemingly common reasoning (at least around here), but
it does raise some chicken–egg questions.

------
dowstreet
The 2007-2008 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury Report on current efforts to
address homelessness - some interesting info.

[http://sfcourts.org/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=198...](http://sfcourts.org/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1985)

------
briholt
The same is true for Los Angeles. I've been in an office building while people
were discussing six-figure sums like they were nothing, when outside in the
alley below there were literally homeless people in a knife fight over a candy
bar.

~~~
VMG
Do you think they fought because they would starve to death otherwise or
because they had mental issues?

~~~
briholt
Mental issues for sure. There are a few places for the homeless to get food in
that area, so it'd be unlikely for a non-mentally-ill person to starve.

------
santu11
Are we creating the right kind of "WEALTH"? This should be a question people
(who are doing startups) should ask themselves.

IMHO, that is why socialist Governments providing education, healthcare, roads
and security sound popular to some people. All these are part of wealth that
are provided to citizens at low prices.

But in a capitalistic economy, it is left to individuals (entrepreneurs) to
provide this services at competitive prices.

One way of looking to solve the problems of the poor and deprived people would
be to provide them services of education, healthcare, housing etc. at ultra-
competitive prices.

I know it is easier said than done. But it is something worth doing.

~~~
georgefox
I get your point, but it may be a bit of a stretch to label governments
providing things like roads socialist.

~~~
santu11
Yeah I agree, it is a bit of a stretch. A degree of centralized control in
areas like town planning and security is needed.

I guess in most countries governments contract out road construction to
private companies anyways.

But my primary point was we as entrepreneurs and visionaries need to work on
the hard problems.

------
jaibot
This seems like a good time to remind everyone that there's a known method for
reducing human misery you can do right now.

<http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities>

Give some money. This won't help the person on your doorstep, but it is
probably the best way to convert money into well being. And you can look
yourself in the mirror and say that even though the world is quite fucked up,
you are doing _something_ about it.

~~~
kpennell
thanks for posting this.

------
gvr
I'm originally Swedish and moved from France to Silicon Valley in 2001; I
found it so depressing to see all the homeless people in SF that I ended up
getting a place in Palo Alto rather than SF. As I gradually became
desensitized I made my way further and further up north, until I finally ended
up in SF 5 years later.

I am very happy in San Francisco and have no plans on moving back for a lot of
different reasons: lots of smart people working on interesting projects, great
weather, beautiful city, and so forth. Having said that, one of the few things
that I don't love about living here is a more civilized i.e. socialistic
system.

The current situation, where we live in one of the greatest richest cities in
the US, with terrible infrastructure (compared to most European and Asian
metropolitan areas) and homeless everywhere is completely appalling and
depressing, and I do think most people would be happier if we had great
streets, parks, transportation and a clean city even if that meant a little
bit less cash in their pockets - even if they don't realize it. I think most
people that don't value these things have probably not spent a lot of time in
cities that have them.

------
peterhunt
Anyone who's been around the US knows that San Francisco has one of the most
visible homeless populations in the country.

It's interesting to note that SF also has perhaps the strongest "social safety
net" programs in the country.

I don't understand how the author then makes the jump to "we need more social
safety net programs."

Maybe we should just run them effectively.

Also the characterization of the social lives of SV employees is just plain
wrong, but that's a tangential point.

~~~
tobinfricke
I think this just shows that homelessness must be addressed on a nationwide
scale.

------
just2n
> The cost of living is always increasing, and the flashy money from silicon
> valley is accelerating the gentrification of SF. rent-control is a last
> ditch effort to prevent those who grew up here from being displaced, but in
> return prevents them from being able to move within the city.

In particular, the bit about being prevented from moving within the city.

There are many problems with SF itself. One of which is the homeless
population. But that doesn't feel so urgent. After all, what can we do for
drug addicts and mentally handicapped people, outside of putting them in
institutions? They're better taken care of here than they would be in most
places, and those who live on the streets are at least in a moderate climate.
It sucks, but it could be a whole lot worse. And every time I see people give
them money, I feel compelled to explain to them that the money won't actually
help them, but a sandwich might.

This is a visible problem, especially to tourists, which may be why it's so
widely talked about. But there are other extreme problems with the city.
Consider rent control, which is only barely mentioned in this article. It's
actively destroying the city. Most economists agree about the effects of rent
control, too, and studies have shown the negative effects to be strikingly
similar to many of the problems SF is currently facing (which will only
continue to get worse). <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html>.

How about we solve this problem before SF is just a business center with 0
housing. Then with all that extra housing, we find a place to take better care
of our homeless? It's really hard to put them up when you just don't have the
appropriate accommodations for it.

------
Mz
It is no different online. People online know I am homeless. Most of them step
over me and move on, though all I have asked for is help figuring out how to
make money online instead of going back to a normal job that was helping to
kill me. I imagine this comment will get buried or ignored or negative
attention, an ironic repeat of the problem people are decrying.

------
eli_gottlieb
You know what? Thanks for writing that. The States needs to hear it.

------
hawkharris
I think it's often harder to acknowledge local problems such as homelessness
because they require a sustained commitment. You literally seem them as you
walk home or drive to work.

Contrast that with the instant gratification of making a one-time contribution
to solve a distant problem, and it's easy to see why many prefer the latter
approach.

------
orangethirty
What are tech companies doing to improve the area? And when I say improve, I
mean helping those who need it most.

~~~
stuaxo
Too busy making "beautiful" interfaces, "disrupting" business, "changing the
world" etc etc ad infinitum.

~~~
orangethirty
No one helps out? That's a shame. You can't build products for people who
can't buy them.

------
iguana
Come here and work on hard problems, like rounding corners and getting people
to click on stuff.

------
jpeg_hero
its no land of "Milk and Honey" is it?

just wait until you get the disillusionment from going down to "Hollywood"

~~~
madaxe
And don't wear sandals, unless you like needles in your toes.

------
kpennell
Ah!!! Someone finally nailed it

------
yuz0h
You want to see income disparity at work, travel to Mumbai and live there for
a day. I've lived in Mumbai vicariously through VICE, and that was an eye
opener on the income inequality issue.

~~~
mtext
...vice.

------
shruubi
"After all, technology is social before it is technical."

That is quite possibly one of the stupidest comments I have ever read...

------
seyfarth
%s/san francisco/milwaukee/g

------
madaxe
"Last night, someone told me “In California, there isn’t a conflict between
being a Capitalist, and a Liberal”, with a wry grin on his face."

Of course there isn't. Liberalism in its purest form (as espoused by Hayek,
say) is, in effect, free market capitalism with a light but universally
applicable (no "special cases", as those lead to totalitarianism) set of
regulations to prevent bad actors (e.g. hey, let's put heroin in baby formula
so it's really more-ish).

There's this odd commingling of the concepts of socialism and liberalism in
the general populace's minds, for some reason. The two could not be more
antithetical.

As to the rest of it - the US is neither capitalist nor liberal. It's
corporatist, with a distinct socialist bent, but not where people usually
point the finger. "Obamacare" is not socialist, it's liberal, as a core
concept of liberalism is that the state should fund things that people cannot
or will not fund for themselves, like roads and healthcare. Protectionist
policies to keep the banks, agribusinesses and other without-legislation-to-
protect them unprofitable enterprises ARE socialist, as they centralise
control of industrial and economic output into government, and allow
businesses that would not survive in a true free market to prosper.

Rant over.

~~~
hsitz
"There's this odd commingling of the concepts of socialism and liberalism in
the general populace's minds, for some reason. The two could not be more
antithetical."

The reasons for this are historical. What you call the "socialist" elements
result from the idea that part of being truly "free" (i.e, liberty) requires
that people be treated equally, thus liberals in this sense have a focus on
social justice. (See this on "positive liberty":
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty> .) You can get good summary of
differences between meanings of "liberal" in other Wikipedia articles:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Classical_and_modern>

Because of the way the word's meaning has developed historically, you really
need to be aware of the context where it's being used. But there are
nevertheless strands connecting all the meanings, namely focus on "freedom"
and "equality".

~~~
madaxe
Indeed - perfectly familiar, have read my share of Tocqueville, Hayek, Hobbes
and all the rest, but the fundamental point that divides socialism and
liberalism is that of freedom of people, vs. freedom of _the_ people - i.e.
individualism vs. socialism.

Liberalism has always been about social justice, and the idea that each and
every human should be free to run or ruin their own lives (Positive vs.
Negative freedom), with a slant towards the positive through regulation and
the rule of law.

~~~
sageikosa
It is individualism vs collectivism.

Socialism is a set of collectivist policies desired or in force while a
capitalist society is being consumed (i.e., distribution of goods and services
by society's collective dictates).

Capitalism "solves the problem" of production by producing what returns profit
(in a market of demands and supplies). Once profit is stamped out, production
is unguided except by "society" commanding it (i.e., a command "economy").
Even if this guidance were democratic, it would still be subject to the
tyranny of the majority (the bulk of the collective).

~~~
madaxe
Aye, meant collectivism, not sure how I managed that, sorry!

Agree that the tyranny of the majority still applies in the case of democracy
- see the UK EU in-out referendum impending mess.

~~~
sageikosa
Yeah, wasn't so much a rebuke, more of a clarification. Know thine enemy's
nature, not just its current appearance :-)

Alas, individualism will never be a mass movement!

------
michaelochurch
George Carlin said it the best:

 _The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle
class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to
scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs._

------
mynameishere
Oh, man. Been in America--in the freakin' _Castro district_ \--for 19 days and
already making generalizations?

------
jarjoura
There is a disparity between rich and poor in this country, sure, but come on.
Most of the homeless in SF actually _want_ to be on the streets.

So many of them are young and it used to make me sad but I have just learned
to accept it. I always make a point to package up leftovers and hand them out.
I'll even reach into my wallet and hand out a few dollars too.

If there were more I could do though, I would be more than happy to donate
some of my time, as I'm sure many in this city would too.

Also, is more public housing the answer? Not sure about that one. They all
look like government buildings with horrible fluorescent off-green lighting
filled with junkies and drug addicts far from being cured.

~~~
downandout
_Most of the homeless in SF actually want to be on the streets._

That is perhaps the most ignorant sentence I have ever read on HN. Most
homeless people don't have a choice. If they do have a choice, the fact that
they choose to live on the streets likely speaks to the horrific situation
they would face at their home. I can assure you that no one wants to be
homeless.

~~~
ams6110
I don't know about "most" but somewhere between "most" and "no one" there ARE
some people who choose to be "on the streets."

~~~
downandout
Please find one and post about it here. I would love to meet this mythical
person and take a video of them rejecting the offer of a place to live.

~~~
reinhardt
> the offer of a place to live.

By "offer", do you mean for free? Well, duh. What the GP most likely meant is
that some people prefer to be homeless rather than _having to get and hold
down a job_ to afford a place to live.

~~~
roguecoder
I've watched several friends spend two or three years doing nothing but hunt
for a job, and they were lucky enough to have friends with couches to crash
on, enough money for interview clothes and a computer to access job ads on.
You act like that's a trivial step: it's not.

Besides the challenge of actually finding a job, a minimum wage job won't
cover rent in SF and certainly not with money left over for things like food,
transportation or phone service. Have you seen the installation art piece
about the minimum wage? It's a box with a crank on it that spits out a penny
every 4.97 seconds: <http://disinfo.com/2012/12/the-mininum-wage-machine/>
That's what working is like to most people, except often more dangerous and
demeaning.

------
bluedino
Not everyone can create, whether it's a website or designing the next iPhone.
Very few people can. Those people that do are rewarded very well.

Besides, if we were all trying to cure hunger or house the homeless who would
be creating all the fancy computers we use every day?

And why blame 'programmers', there are plenty of doctors, lawyers, and
financial workers in SF that have to 'step over' the homeless every day on
their way to work as well.

~~~
ajross
Curing hunger and housing the homeless doesn't, the last time I checked,
require creativity or programming talent. Growing food and constructing
buildings are what we geeks like to call "mature technology", and thus not
something we concern ourselves with except at the margins where changes in
efficiency have economic impact.

~~~
WalterSear
Growing food and constructing buildings won't solve the problem either. We
have plenty of both already.

Motivating the self-absorbed, indolent masses to legislate away homelessness
is the problem.

