
Occupy Google: Income Inequality Backlash Hits Silicon Valley - petethomas
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/class-tension-in-san-francisco-hits-new-highs-170448791.html?l=1
======
visakanv
Wow. I thought this was satire.

I guess this kind of happens in Singapore, too. As the billionaires come in,
the poorer locals encounter rising housing costs. And unlike the US, Singapore
is an island-city-state, so there's nowhere to run.

I can't think of any solutions to this. Anybody have any ideas?

~~~
bishnu
Build more housing?

~~~
Pxtl
That. The lack of intensification in some of the most valuable real-estate in
the world is absurd. Build _up_!

Also, while it stinks for people who are already tied into careers, having
money flood into your community isn't exactly a bad thing for somebody
entrepreneurial. I mean, if the new wealthy folks want to blow that cash
locally, there's a lot of money to be made. It's demeaning in a "trickle-down"
services sense, but it's cash to be had.

~~~
umsm
Will this increased building activities cost less than the current housing
market rate?

If a new property costs $500k to build, as a builder you would need to at
least cover that cost. I can't imagine that this helps the poor unless it's
government sponsored.

~~~
saosebastiao
The housing market rate will be lower with new housing than without it.

------
paul_f
This made me chuckle: "haves" versus the "have nots". How about we change that
to: "made smart decisions, studied hard, work hard" versus the "made bad
decisions, jealous of others"

~~~
famousactress
Haha. Wow. I guess I'm glad someone said this. The way you see the problem is
really common and I think too many other people who feel the way you do are
cunning enough to keep quiet or massage their thoughts into something more
palatable.

To be clear, I think this opinion demonstrates such a completely bullshit,
narrow, entitled, and ethnocentric view of the world it blows my mind. It's a
helpful reminder of why I don't live up there.

~~~
libria
> I think this opinion demonstrates such a completely bullshit, narrow,
> entitled, and ethnocentric view of the world it blows my mind.

Well you can safely unblow your mind. He used a stereotype broadly applied to
a group, but lazy people do indeed make up some portion of the "have nots".
Sibling comments show measured, thought-massaged responses that correct the
GP.

Let's not combat bad generalizations with hyperbole.

~~~
visakanv
I've always been deeply curious about laziness. What makes a lazy person lazy?
Is it predisposition? Is it environment? What are your thoughts?

~~~
potatolicious
This really is the million-dollar question isn't it? It unfolds in all kinds
of interesting directions and has big implications - why are some countries
more productive than others? Why are some cultures more technologically
advanced?

There's a good book on this: Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human
Societies. Well worth a read.

There are no easy answers here, though being mindful of history is important
in arguing this topic - predisposition and environment have historically been
used by social darwinists to assert superiority over other cultures and races
(see: "tropical climates breed laziness" and "blacks are predisposed to lesser
intelligence but greater physical ability"). They're not verboten, but it pays
to tread carefully if you want to argue in that direction.

~~~
famousactress
Guns, Germs, and Steel is a super compelling read. It addresses productivity
in the large (not in the small), but not laziness I think. I'm not sure how
relevant it is to exploring individuals in a population as it is to looking at
productivity of larger populations throughout history.

Spoiler: GG&S ends up arguing that the answer to why some countries are more
productive than others is historical geographical circumstance, particularly
because of access to large grains and domesticate-able animals which propelled
some early cultures into agriculture and the rest is history.

~~~
potatolicious
Indeed, GG&S is very much focused on the macroscopic outcomes, but I do
believe they two topics are interrelated, at least traditionally where they're
discussed.

The question of why Africa was largely technologically undeveloped was of some
importance to Europeans during the slave trade. The predispositional argument
was made to justify the practice of slavery, and post-slavery to justify
continued discrimination.

Similarly, if you go to East Asia today (see: Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong) you
will still see today continued mistreatment of Southeast Asian migrant workers
under the guise of predispositional and environment inferiority ("tropical
climates breed simple minds" and such nonsense), justified by macro-scale
outcomes ("look at all the tropical countries, all of them are a mess, clearly
non-tropical climates breed harder workers").

These attitudes are depressingly common. The macro-scale differences in
countries is often used as justification for odd micro-scale beliefs.

------
LearnAndBurn
This and yesterday's thread [1] are fascinating. Here we have lower-classes
seeking direct retribution against higher-classes. Contrast to yesterday's
article involving upper-classes discussing how to uplift lower-classes via
social policy changes and enforcing certain belief doctrines, e.g., do XYZ,
not ABC.

Of course it's easier to rail against the the former camp than the latter; we
all believe in some degree of property rights, i.e., you bare the fruit of
your labor. However, I propose both positions are unjustified and both parties
need to bow out of one another's business.

Not trying to push libertarian beliefs (I am not one). But everyone is an
asshole, out to serve their own ends, trying to sculpt the world in the way
they would have it.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6885226](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6885226)

~~~
gnaritas
> One is punished for success via taxes, fees, fines, etc. by the "have nots"

Care to explain that more, the tax system certainly does not punish the haves;
it in fact rewards them. By the very nature of the marginal utility of money,
the current tax rates hurt the have nots far more than the haves. The _burden_
is quite simply not equally shared by all, it is born mostly by the have nots.

~~~
LearnAndBurn
Sorry, removed that piece from the original post as I feared it would detract
from the main point. The use of "haves" versus "have nots" was intended as an
example of divide and conquer. It was not intended as two distinct groups,
with obviously distinguishable beliefs. Persons shift beliefs to exploit ends
that are most beneficial to them. For other readers, he's referring to:

> This is classic "Us versus Them" (divide and conquer) that systemically
> makes it worse for most everyone, especially the individual. One is punished
> for success via taxes, fees, fines, etc. by the "have nots"; while the
> "haves" punish you for practicing a different set of ideals or lifestyle
> choices that go against societal norm.

Again, I meant to show an example. Whether the "haves" or "have nots" are in
camp "punish by taxes" or camp "control lifestyle" is irrelevant. Persons
shift between camps, when it's convenient. Similarly, all sorts of other camps
exist towards other ends.

~~~
gnaritas
Ok, my point is simply that notion that there exists a valid camp where haves
are punished by taxes is simply false, the haves like to claim that, but it's
simply not true. The haves are not punished by the system, they're rewarded by
it.

~~~
LearnAndBurn
Again, I didn't intend to setup this argument. However, all one needs to show
is that a "Have" is materially worse off thanks to taxes. This gets easier or
harder depending on definitions.

Clearly, Have versus HaveNot is not binary; there is a range there. Who is a
Have and who is a HaveNot? If a Have is a $20k/yearly worker and a HaveNot is
without a job entirely, we could easily argue that taxes are punishing the
Haves.

~~~
gnaritas
I don't think anyone would reasonably call 20k a year a have. In fact we've
already seen a pretty good definition of the split in the 99% movement. Haves
are the upper class, not the middle class and below.

------
robomartin
This has nothing to do with dumb vs. smart, lazy vs. workaholic or privileged
vs. unprivileged.

It has to do with the fact that decisions in life have consequences. I can't
help myself and have to quote a fantastic line from Star Wars: Your Focus
Determines Your Reality.

Coincidentally, I had a long conversation with my oldest son, now in High
School, last night.

He screwed up in a big way. He was given a book project a month ago. He had to
read "To kill a mockingbird" and annotate it profusely. He read the book over
several nights but procrastinated when it came to the annotation work. The
work was due today.

On Sunday he came to realize he made a big mistake. What did he do? He stayed
up 'till 2:00AM every day to get the project done. He decided to do this on
his own.

Neither my wife nor I made him do it. He recognized his mistake and made the
decision to right it entirely on his own. Up until yesterday afternoon we had
no idea why he was working so hard. I have never been a micro-manager,
professionally or at home. I assume and expect responsible behavior of others
and, of course, try to lead by example. So I asked my kid if he really needed
to stay up late doing this work and, when he said "yes" I just got out of the
way and supported him by staying up, making tea and generally being there for
him. I would get down to the bottom of it once he got done.

He got done last night. We had a talk. He is getting an A in English. This was
extra credit work he didn't need for grades and didn't really need to
complete. Yet, he told me he had committed to doing the work and explained how
sorry he was he procrastinated and to such a degree.

I think my reaction surprised him. He's never screwed up on anything to this
extent. He thought I might be angry or disappointed. The summary of a two hour
conversation boils down to this:

In life we are guaranteed to make bad or non-ideal decisions from time to
time. Not one person is immune to this. What matters in life; what defines a
man is how he chooses to deal with these mistakes. Some will cave in and sink
into a dark hole of self pity and agony. Some will find every possible
creative way to deflect the blame and rationalize what happened as being
someone else's doing or fault. And yet others will look you straight in the
eye, own the problem and do whatever is necessary to fix it.

I said: "Son, you screwed up. You took responsibility for your actions and
worked incredibly hard to make good on a promise you made to yourself and
nobody else. You didn't need to do this for a grade. You already had an A. You
did it because you are becoming a man with high values, morals, ethics and
honor. I am proud."

I almost cried when i said this. It is an incredible feeling as a parent to
see your kids make the right decisions.

In a country like the US the whole business of income inequality has two
facets.

The first is that of Liberal politicians manipulating the masses because it is
far easier to get them worked-up en-masse with stuff like this and then you
get their votes...by e millions. That's the nasty reality of the Liberal
party: They benefit directly from low education voters' suffering because that
is easy to convert to votes. This is the oldest trick in the books and it is
not monopolized by US politics. I lived in Argentina for a while and learned
quite a bit about their Politics and history. Evita was known for sending
trucks into poor neighborhoods to give out blenders, refrigerators and other
vote-buying crap. At the same time they kept the poor down because, not
surprisingly, without them they'd get no votes. Things are not done the same
way here but it really is the same. Pit the masses against the successful,
throw them a bone here and there (minimum wage, union pay and pensions, etc.)
sit back and collect the votes. It's sick. It's all about pandering and
manipulation.

The other aspect of the income inequality situation has to do with a massive
change in the work ethic of the American worker and American youth over
decades. We have devolved into an entitlement society where people want it
all, don't want to work hard for it and everything is someone else's fault.

When I owned an electronics manufacturing business I made it a point to hire
students from the local junior college. I would say maybe one out of ten, if
not twenty, had a reasonable work ethic. I had a couple who stole components
and expensive tools (crimpers, etc.). Others screwed around and played on the
Internet if nobody was watching. In general, most were down-right
disappointing in their performance and attitude towards the job. A select few
were absolutely exemplary. I have no doubt the will become valued members of
society.

What will become of the rest? Once they realize their mistakes in life, rather
than work hard to correct them they will fall back on the simple idea of
blaming it on others. They will undoubtedly become tools of the only political
party that will roll down the street handing out virtual blenders and
refrigerators. They will scream bloody murder at someone like my son who will
get where he is going because he worked hard, made good decisions and, when he
made bad ones he busted his ass to own and fix them.

It's about the decisions you make in life and whether or not you are man (or
woman) enough to own them.

Your Focus Determines Your Reality.

------
michaelochurch
I have really mixed feelings about this. First of all, the "victims" were
probably Google peons, not the insufferable royalty. The vast majority of
Googlers are people I like (I worked there) and they aren't responsible for
the problem. Like I said in another post here, the engineers doing all the
work will soon be priced out to make room for product narcissists and those
horrible executives that VCs implant to grant a favor to a friend, making
twice as much money as engineers while working 11-to-3. It has already
happened in New York, except it's bankers and traders. At least traders are
respectable (it's pretty meritocratic) and the bankers actually work. Startup
executives tend to be the people who failed in New York and in finance, so
they seek them some VC coattails to ride on into someone else's company.

In 2008 when Wall Street tanked the economy, people were saying, "I wish all
that talent were somewhere useful like Silicon Valley." This seems laughable
now. Silicon Valley? Useful? Anyway, "tech" had the good faith of the nation
for a long time, we were the "good rich" as opposed to the people on Wall
Street-- and, in the next 5 years, _fucking blew it_ thanks to debacles like
FWD.us, Sean Parker's wedding, and all the bad behavior that Valleywag so
excellently chronicles.

We were the good guys. We still should be. Most of us, by population, are. The
fuckers at the top, who don't even code and 90% of whom are MBA/private-equity
types, have ruined not just our industry but our reputation. Now, people
associate "techie" with spoiled brats, misogynists, and entitled, crypto-
right-wing fuckheads (like the character played by the union organizer when
impersonating a Google engineer).

Engineers and technologists and _real_ visionaries (not executive bikeshed
painters) need to take technology back. Now. No fucking excuses. We _are_ the
good guys-- the bad guys are private equity douches with no business in our
world-- but if we don't take back our industry, it and our work will be used
for bad (as we see in the Bay Area) and we will be the ones to get the blame.

~~~
visakanv
Love your passion. I see nothing mixed about your feelings. :p

~~~
michaelochurch
I have mixed feelings, specifically, about the bus blockade. It hurts the
wrong people.

I love technology and there are a lot of wonderful people in this world, but I
hate what has been done to it, mostly by MBA-culture outsiders who'd be better
for the world (and make more money) as passive backers, but their ego gets in
the way and they have to act as an executive caste.

"Business" should be about creating value for all (including oneself) and not
about wielding and accumulating power.

~~~
visakanv
Oh, right. I see where you're coming from. I think the "executive caste"
problem you describe is almost universal. It's a tragedy. =\

~~~
michaelochurch
Any aggregation (market, election) has the Cheap Votes Problem. People who
don't really care will, if they can, sell their votes (often through
passivity) and this makes people who purchase and can control the cheapest of
the cheap votes very powerful. That's _why_ vote-buying is illegal; because,
otherwise, it will happen all over the place.

VC is a Cheap Votes Problem over what a certain set of highly intelligent
people, when given capital from a certain pool, will work on. Passive
investors don't care (as long as they get decent returns) and trust the VCs,
who use the investors' cheap votes to pursue their career goals and those of
their friends.

------
somewhat
Why is "Google" the default shothand for "silicon valley"? And not just in
this case.

~~~
protomyth
Because they are the most visible and get the most press. It is very much like
every article with "Apple" in the title. Apple is too old to be the poster
child for the valley, so Google takes the hit. Plus, Google is visible in this
scenario due to their buses and outspoken executives.

~~~
deelowe
Larry isn't very outspoken at all. Are you referring to Eric? He's just on the
board of directors now (chariman) and isn't involved in the day to day.

~~~
protomyth
"He's just on the board of directors now (chairman)"

Chairman of Google's Board of Directors makes for a fine headline and suggests
his opinions might have an effect on Google's policies.

