
Stupid Simple Things SF Techies Could Do To Stop Being Hated - rmchugh
http://dashes.com/anil/2014/01/stupid-simple-things-sf-techies-could-do-to-stop-being-hated.html
======
woah
None of this will work. The hatred of tech has nothing to do with techies
themselves. It is a channeling of people's anger about high rent towards an
easy-to-demonize group of outsiders. The political organizers fanning the
flames are largely the same people who caused the situation by demonizing
(real estate) developers and making it hard to build.

Techies can volunteer until they are blue in the face, and it will only ever
be seen as an empty, fake gesture. The real estate situation in SF is a hard
reality and volunteering will not diffuse it.

"Look at these techies, they make so much money and sanctimoniously act like
they are saints for deigning to volunteer once a week."

We're talking about people who demonize shuttle buses here. Shuttle buses
unquestionably reduce congestion and help the environment. This is not about
who the techies are, or what they do. It is about the xenophobic scapegoating
of a group of socially awkward outsiders by political organizers whose
previous shortsighted outrage campaigns have screwed up SF's real estate
market for decades to come.

~~~
johnjlocke
Rattling off excuses for why "that will never work" and not even attempting
will not solve anything either. Funny how design is all about problem solving
until it forces people out of their comfort zone and challenges them to meet
people who are not like them.

~~~
woah
Sorry, right out of high school, I spent 3 years digging ditches, pouring
concrete, and putting up drywall before getting into tech.

For me at least, this has nothing to do with "meeting people who are not like
me". I have found the tech community to be very diverse and much more tolerant
than my colleagues in the construction industry.

~~~
thwest
Is this a claim that your colleagues in construction are the same housing
activists your OP is demonizing?

------
calroc
I'm from SF. People should realize that politics in this town (and
Berzerkeley) are infused with an entire cottage industry of lunatics and
freaks. Watch SFGOV public access to see what I mean. People sing songs, rant,
dress up in weird costumes, it's a little slice of a Fellini movie.

Even if tech folks suddenly got bit by the community bug they're not going to
be able to dialog with people who have basically NO interest in real working
politics because they are simply using the public sphere to project their
hang-ups and obsessions. Crazy people who want attention make up too much of
the political scene out here. Basically SF is one giant open-air insane
asylum. This is where you end up if no place else in the country (or world)
has a niche for you and your particular weird.

Now all these fresh-faced, well-scrubbed tech workers are flooding in and
displacing the nuts, who have nowhere else to go. Of course the nuts (and
brother/sister/sophont I am one of the nuts) are upset.

Unless the techies can somehow develop the compassion for and tolerance of,
say, Mother Teresa, for weird freaky shit they just aren't going to be able to
engage with the old school Bay Area culture. And I don't think it's fair to
expect them to.

Unfortunately, this means that the "gentrification" will proceed apace until
SF has become the new, uh, Portland? Seattle? San Jose? Some other not-so-
weird city anyhow.

------
vacri
_The employees who ride the buses could put up simple signs at the stops: "[X]
out of the 300 people who ride this shuttle each day have pledged to volunteer
once a month at a city shelter or facility..._

This is kind've offensive from the outset, and curiously enough, the paragraph
doesn't actually suggest those shuttle riders _actually_ volunteering, or how
does an employer entice its employees to volunteer for unrelated stuff in
their free time.

Not to mention that it doesn't matter how many of the 300 realistically
volunteer, it will always be seen as 'not enough'. 10 out of 300? Embarrassing
stat to put up. 260 out of 300? What's wrong with the other 40?

Also, I can't speak for SF, but here in Melbourne I had a friend rejected for
volunteer work from several charities because she wasn't skilled. Volunteer
work they have in spades for monkeywork. What they needed was management and
organisational talents, to organise the volunteers and events, make orders etc

~~~
billyjobob
In my time volunteering, I've never found a charity that would accept
volunteers for any skilled, technical, interesting, managerial or decision-
making tasks. Anything important is only entrusted to paid employees.
Volunteers are used for unskilled work that would be minimum wage if paid. I
was also surprised at the high number of my fellow volunteers who were
actually 'volunteering' only because it was part of their court ordered
sentence.

------
ryguytilidie
Look, I'll be the first person to express my dismay at tech people throwing
money around and essentially saying "fuck you I'm rich" to the rest of the
city. However, expecting them to do charity work, give free daycare and fight
for civic changes that are almost diametrically opposite to their own needs is
completely insane. Why does it have to be the people who work at startups? Why
not the bankers? Why not the actual CEO's of these money making startups? How
on earth did we decide that the people we should target are the workers at a
company that is rich, why not the stockholders or executives? I mean go throw
rocks at buildings on Sand Hill Road, not at the people who are just working
their first job out of college.

------
temphn

      startups which provide deluxe on-site benefits could extend 
      their daycare, meal and on-site walk-in health care to 
      people who have WIC or EBT cards and can show that they 
      live in the neighborhood. The bonus here? You can meet 
      actual people in your neighborhood.
    

I really, really, really want Anil Dash to try this with his own startup on
Market Street in the middle of the Tenderloin. Send us the video. Show us how
it's done, Anil! Practice what you preach.

------
jseliger
1\. I'm not sure that the premise is true and that people "hate" techies.
Outside of a few, small media precincts, does any of this actually exist?

2\. To the extent that any of this actually is true, it seems like a failure
of voters and public policies to a) allow enough housing to built
([http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-
francis...](http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-
exodus/7205/) or Matt Yglesias's _The Rent Is Too Damn High_ ) and b) to build
better public transportation, which is related to a). To the extent that tech
company buses mean anything, they mean that the current system works so poorly
that people are routing around it.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
The transport thing baffles me. Here in the UK, improved public transport
would be funded either by levies on new development (known as Section 106,
being replaced by the Community Infrastructure Levy), or by supplemental
business rates (that's how London Crossrail is happening). The commuters to
the new developments get the transport they need, and it benefits everyone
else as well. Why doesn't that happen in SF?

~~~
rco8786
B/c politics in SF are nothing like politics in London.

------
JohnTHaller
So, the last round of gentrification is mad about this round of gentrification
and thinks these new folks should make these token gestures to gain better
acceptance? Sounds like a perfect plan.

------
SwellJoe
I'm a lifetime nerd and a tech startup founder. Some of my best friends work
at Google, facebook, Apple, etc., but I'm very sympathetic to the folks who
are angry about the situation in SF.

The industry culture in the valley is extremely insulated from the real world,
and it shows in everything. At bars and cafes, the conversation is the same
old echo chamber; re-affirming the world changing nature of the next Snapchat
copy. In a world with so many huge problems, so many smart people exerting so
much effort and spending so much of other people's money on trivial things is
the rule not the exception, and it's sad (of, if it doesn't make one sad, it
makes one angry). You can't escape it. It's actually one of the reasons I
bought a motorhome and hit the road...I've only been back to the valley once
since I left four years ago. The valley is depressing to me, for all the
reasons so many find it full of optimism. I'm not optimistic when some of the
brightest minds are expending their efforts on imitation of trivialities.

America is looking like a class war again for the first time in a long time.
And, the folks comfortably in the middle don't realize they're siding with the
folks up top, either through inaction or through conscious choice to serve
those interests (even if they're only middle class by SF standards and have
much more in common with poor folk than with the .1% that effectively own
everything). This is why there's so much anger. San Francisco has always been
expensive and most regular folk there have always been renters. But, it's
becoming impossibly expensive for huge swaths of people and the hope of
surviving in SF as anything other than a wealthy white (or Asian) male
engineer is fading fast.

This article has some good ideas. People in the valley _should_ get out of
that echo chamber regularly and do something real in their community. Come up
with something else to talk about now and then. But, I don't think it will
solve the underlying problem; lower and middle class people are realizing the
world isn't what they thought. The odds are simply stacked against poor folks
in America (and stacked against escaping being poor), and they're worst in
places like San Francisco and NYC. The churn in wealth that is supposed to
happen in a market economy _isn 't_ happening anymore, if it ever did. It's
been locked down hard by a very few, and the rest of us are merely renters and
debtors, with no real say in the system. And, the idea I see that "they should
just move" is missing the point...this problem isn't a San Francisco problem.
It is nationwide, and San Francisco is just the canary. It's happening in
every major city in the country.

~~~
kelnos
_At bars and cafes, the conversation is the same old echo chamber; re-
affirming the world changing nature of the next Snapchat copy._

I hear this stated as fact all the time, but is it really true? I can't speak
for cafes, as I'm not a coffee drinker, but I'm in a lot of SF bars, very
often, and I very rarely hear talk like this. Certainly not in my friend
groups, and rarely (if ever) from adjacent conversations that I overhear.

Sure, this is anecdotal, but pretty sure all the reports I've heard of the
opposite are anecdotal as well. Or maybe I tend to frequent bars that don't
feature a tech-douche clientele.

Widening the net a bit, my conversations with friends and acquaintances does
_not_ include this sort of vapid tripe. The nature of the next Snapchat copy
is a topic of derision, not re-affirmation. I wouldn't consider myself to be
the most extroverted person in the world, but I do tend to meet and converse
with a decent variety of people.

So really, _who_ are these people all over SF who talk like this? I just don't
encounter them regularly, or even non-rarely.

~~~
kcanini
He has no idea what he's talking about. He said in the very same post that
he's only been to SV once in the last four years.

~~~
SwellJoe
I lived in the valley for three years. If it has changed dramatically in the
four years since, I'll be surprised.

------
thrill
What BS. There's no such thing as affordable housing - there's only housing
you can afford. If you want to live in the Valley and can't afford it - then
you can't afford it.

~~~
ryguytilidie
Yeah this argument just kills me. I used to live in a $2k apartment across the
street from Google SF. My rent got raised to $4300 because they knew Google
employees would pay it. Did I go throw rocks at Google buses? No. Did I move
to a place I could afford? Yes. The idea that me, as a startup employee making
a decent wage can't afford to live there, yet thousands of people who are
things like "artists and poets" are upset they can't afford it is absolute
madness. The reason housing is expensive is because lots of people desire it,
the idea that we should make sure to reserve places for people who can't
afford to live there makes no sense at all.

~~~
therobot24
While technically you're correct, it doesn't mean you're right. It's not so
easy to uproot a family from their home and start new somewhere else. It's
been stated several times in each of these discussions that many of those who
can't afford the housing increase are the ones who've spent generations in the
area. Pushing out area natives and alienating the poor for not 'living where
they can afford' is no way to build a community.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
I consider this to be little more than a testament to owning rather than
renting. If people have spent generations in the area but are renting, then
they were always living on borrowed time anyway. If you've lived there for
years and own your flat, it makes zero difference what the housing market
looks like today.

~~~
aeorgnoieang
That's not really true. Property taxes are usually assessed based on the value
of the property and that rises with the housing market. People are sometimes
priced out of areas even when they own their home.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
> _when real property is purchased, the county assessor assigns it an assessed
> value that is equal to its purchase price, or “acquisition value.” Each year
> thereafter, the property’s assessed value increases by 2 percent or the rate
> of inflation, whichever is lower. This process continues until the property
> is sold, at which point the county assessor again assigns it an assessed
> value equal to its most recent purchase price._ [1]

If you have owned your home for awhile, your property taxes are not changing
that much. Your assessed value starts with the purchase price and increases,
at most, 2% each year. This house[2] listed on Zillow is a great example. It
sold in 1973 for $32K. For the passed 40 years they've been paying property
taxes based on the $32K plus ~2% increase each year (I'm not sure how far back
that 2% max increase goes). In 2013, the assessed value was still down at
$72K... meaning $997 in property taxes. That same year the house was sold for
$875K. Now the assessed value resets to market value and the new property
taxes will be like $11k rather than the previous year's $1K. So even though
the housing prices skyrocketed around them, the previous owner of the house
wasn't really effected by that increase.

[1] [http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-
primer-1...](http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-
primer-112912.aspx) [2] [http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3245-Anza-St-San-
Francisco...](http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3245-Anza-St-San-Francisco-
CA-94121/15095502_zpid/)

------
WalterBright
Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that now it's rich people who ride the bus,
and poor people who are forced to drive their own cars?

~~~
dkuntz2
Not particularly. The saying "time is money" applies here: the argument could
be made that the "rich people who ride the bus"'s time is worth more, and
putting them on a bus where they can do some work instead of driving is a more
efficient use of their time.

Of course you could argue that the poorer people "forced" to drive their own
cars could use that time, but they might not be knowledge workers, which means
that time wouldn't be productive to their employers anyways.

And this also is entirely dependent on how you perceive value to be created,
and the model you choose to use.

~~~
WalterBright
People riding the bus have always been able to do things like read, study,
write, etc., whether or not they were knowledge workers.

~~~
dkuntz2
True. But is that productive for their employers? Which was my main point...

------
schraual
I don't know, I work close to the Twitter HQ and the other day I saw some
Twitterites (I could tell by their badges) half assedly walking down the
sidewalk while on their phones occasionally plucking up a piece of trash with
one of those trash picker-uppers...it seemed like it was 100% for show and
actually made me hate them a little more.

~~~
herbig
"made me hate them a little more"

It seems like your whole perception of the situation is skewed by your
preexisting disdain for these folks.

~~~
rgbrenner
Maybe that's the point. The people protesting have the same preexisting
disdain.. so why would they be anymore convinced than schraual?

------
grecy
These are all fantastic ideas, though I find it fascinating they're all about
sharing the benefits of enormous wealth with the greater community, so that
everyone can be happier and healthier.

One wonders when America as a whole will realize the benefits of doing so and
catch up to the rest of the Developed world.

In my experience, Americans would rather "get mine" than share.

~~~
octaveguin
Americans are ranked as one of if not the most generous nation by numerous
stats [0]. Americans donate more of their money as a percentage of their total
income than any other citizens on earth.

Now, there's a lot one could say about why. I imagine it's a mix of the wealth
and importance of religion uniquely in that developed country.

There's a lot the US could do with social programs, that's for sure but the
individuals are certainly more charitable than certain European countries.
Greetings from Copenhagen :)

The ideas presented in the blog are trite and solve nothing.

[0][https://www.cafonline.org/media-office/press-
releases/2013/w...](https://www.cafonline.org/media-office/press-
releases/2013/world-giving-index-2013.aspx)

~~~
grecy
> _Americans are ranked as one of if not the most generous nation by numerous
> stats [0]. Americans donate more of their money as a percentage of their
> total income than any other citizens on earth._

I wonder if that's because the society they live in requires them to do so.
For example, Australian's know that employed people have plenty of money from
welfare to live on, so there really isn't any need to "give" money to them.

Americans know that the "have nots" are in serious trouble, so they give to
them.

------
crw-rw-rw
If these idiots hadn't agitated for laws limiting development in the first
place, then housing wouldn't be as unaffordable as it is now in the Bay Area.
Instead of attacking tech workers earning high five-figure salaries, which is
hardly makes them "rich" by Bay Area standards, why not relax laws restricting
development?

Much of this outrage is actually manufactured, and by Gawker no less:
[http://pando.com/2013/12/26/look-whos-gawking-inside-nick-
de...](http://pando.com/2013/12/26/look-whos-gawking-inside-nick-dentons-
phony-hypocritical-class-war-against-tech-workers/)

------
neilk
The entire premise of this is flawed. I posted a huge ranty comment on Anil's
page, but the TL;DR:

* Tech companies have no expertise providing social services.

* It is a very bad idea to have public services delivered at the whim of private companies.

The answer to this is _taxes_. You want to criticize Google? Criticize them
for using offshore tax shelters.

There also seems to be a longing for Google to swoop in and somehow fix
politics, but really, unless money or technology solves the problem, Google is
not the answer.

~~~
jinushaun
The buses fix the Bay Area's bad public transportation problem. Now unless the
Bay Area city and county govts and its residents are open to the idea of
having tech companies use imminent domain and straight up pay for everything
(like Google's municipal wifi initiative), I don't understand the hate for the
buses. You don't hear this in NY.

------
joemaller1
The "solution" will be an exodus from SF to other communities. SF has eaten
itself before, and it will doubtlessly eat itself again.

------
arnoldwh
I think the "backlash" is a symptom, not the cause.

The cause likely has a lot more to do with an unnatural supply constraint
imposed previously as well as very little in the way of a public
transportation infrastructure that would better enable workers (both tech and
other) to live where they would like, at a price they want to pay.

~~~
wwweston
Transport infrastructure is one of the issues I'd think would be a no-brainer
for support as far as public or even shared private projects go.

Providing transportation to your workers isn't a core function that you want
to be working on yourself as a business; it's a problem you'd _prefer_ to
externalize or share. And the better the transportation infrastructure of a
city functions, the more likely the city in general will be a desirable place
for workers to settle.

------
danielharan
There are two problems that need to be fixed.

-Housing prices. Supporting affordable housing isn't the solution here; there needs to be more supply. Given all the money invested in tech, surely the bigger companies could invest in some real estate. Or announce that you're ready to do so, when the city finally allows it - now the city's the villain.

-Fix Transportation so you don't need private shuttles. Either force the city to improve transportation or support startups that can do it instead.

------
scotty79
Simplest thing would be to build apartments and shops for all their emploees
on company land.

------
memracom
It says something about the level of intelligence of Silicon Valley people
that it has taken this long for someone to point out that there are LOTS of
things that local people could do to defuse the situation and improve the
situation. In fact, given the number of people who live in SF and work down in
the Valley, one wonders why on earth they started running private buses and
did not go straight to the city and demand new routes on the city bus system.
As for wifi, that could have been installed on the new routes for all riders,
not just privileged Googlers.

Great coding ability is not enough to get by in life. You need creativity as
well, and some understanding of social, business and political issues. Because
life does not end at the edge of the CPU chip.

------
rco8786
The author came up with 5 original ideas(not even very good ones) and then
accosted tech companies for having not implemented them before he/she thought
of them.

Wat.

------
oh_sigh
The entire premise is flawed. Who hates techies in SF? A tiny, tiny minority
of people.

------
bksenior
People dont change wholesale until they are forced too. The backlash hasnt
affected the individuals, only the collective. Until people start to feel
unsafe or targeted the only people who will organize improvements will be
their employers because public opinion of big companies affect the bottom
line.

~~~
aaronem
> Until people start to feel unsafe or targeted

The implicit threat, made explicit once again -- it amazes me how blatant some
people are in HN comments on this subject!

