The impression I get is that SF is a place to work, not a place to live. You go there, become deeply involved in tech, learn from your surroundings and level up your skills, and then move on. There are no women to distract you, immigrant-hostile natives to chase you back to campus, and campuses that provide a perfect environment for you to focus on tech.
It's certainly not an environment that everyone would like - neither is USMC bootcamp, a PhD program or an MMA gym. Why should that be illegal?
To quote Marge Simpson (regarding watching MMA): "Call me a killjoy, but I think that because this is not to my taste, no one else should be able to enjoy it."
I really like the MMA analogy, because it makes it so easy to illustrate why this environment is a problem. Ronda Rousey earned my respect not for her fighting, but for her very explicit awareness that MMA will damage her, and there is a limited amount of fighting she can do before quitting. So she picks fights to maximize her income as she destroys herself. Fighters know they are trading long-term health for money. It is part of the game.
Working in tech in SF, and the other scenarios mentioend, are the same thing - you are putting yourself into an unhealthy environment, in exchange for specific benefits, usually cash, but sometimes for more non-tangible benefits to your life, or simply because you believe in it.
If that is the choice people make, that is fine. People should have the freedom to make those kinds of choices as they direct their lives. But what worries me is that some young people are jumping into these situations without realizing it.
As with everything in life, a conscious choice to follow a path is a good thing, and will be respected. But falling into something without realizing the downsides can be dangerous.
>To quote Marge Simpson (regarding MMA): "Call me a killjoy, but I think that because this is not to my taste, no one else should be able to enjoy it."
Actions in hyper-competitive SV have a ripple effect on the rest of tech economy globally. If the only way to compete in tech is to use performance enhancing drugs, well that's exactly the sort of situation where I'd want the government to step in with regulation. I don't want to have to use drugs in order to stay competitive. It's a health issue, similar to professional sports and drug use. Performance enhancing drugs are banned for the health of the athletes, not for the "spirit of the game."
Athletics is a zero sum game - the athletes are harmed and the rest of the world is not helped. If we ban PEDs, the football will still reach the endzone.
Tech is a positive sum game. If PEDs help get us the next Uber, AirBnB or OkCupid, it's well worth the price of some less dedicated people being outcompeted. It's insane to hold the world back simply so certain less dedicated developers can maintain their current high status.
No, it's insane to sit back and let the market force people to disfigure and destroy themselves for the profits of wealthy capitalists: to destroy humanity in order to sacrifice it at the altar of capitalism
Exactly. Saying that "oh this was always the way in tech, and always will be" is turning a blind eye to the costs involved. It's gonna turn Silicon Valley into another Wall Street, never mind that the work conditions and pace that drive Wall Street shouldn't be acceptable either.
I don't think you really mean "SF". What you are describing sounds like the tech industry, and even then a small slice of it. There are many women, and immigrant-hostile natives, and even immigrant-friendly natives for that matter, in the SF Bay Area.
It's a wonderful place to live actually, and to raise kids, as long as you can afford the cost of a good standard of living here.
And despite what the article connotes, most people in tech are not using illegal drugs frequently or ever.
> And despite what the article connotes, most people in tech are not using illegal drugs frequently or ever.
I don't think the article suggests most tech workers are doing this, but I think you'd be surprised at the amount that are. Bear in mind that in an office environment, it's hard to tell who is a user and who isn't. I'm a heroin addict, but I don't have 'Junkie' tattooed on my forehead, instead I work at a startup, commit code to GitHub, and go to conferences just like everyone else. I would also agree that it's a problem, and for one other reason that I think the article missed.
If you're unemployed or working a low-end job, and want to quit an addiction, nobody cares if you disappear for a month to detox at a friends house out of town, or something like that. With a tech job, perhaps in a startup or other stressful environment, the responsibilities and pressures that come with it mean you can't just stop. You need the drugs to stay functional and keep working, there are people and businesses relying on your output. For example, if I were just to stop taking heroin now, then withdrawl means I couldn't work for quite some time, maybe a month or two, and there's no way I can just drop all my projects like that. So if you stop taking drugs you'll lose your job, or worse - word might get around that you ended up in rehab, and no more working in the industry...
So it's a little more complicated than they make out.
It's certainly not an environment that everyone would like - neither is USMC bootcamp, a PhD program or an MMA gym. Why should that be illegal?
To quote Marge Simpson (regarding watching MMA): "Call me a killjoy, but I think that because this is not to my taste, no one else should be able to enjoy it."