No, but private buses are indicative of how people in the tech economy are effectively shielded from dealing with the same issues of other people- the private buses are a symbol of the bubble they live in, and the callous behavior of that Googler is a symbolic example of someone stuck in that bubble. I suppose one takeaway is that it shows that the Google doesn't do more to encourage its employees to patronize public transportation.
And a more speculative idea- maybe large tech corporations should use their influence and power to encourage the cities that host them to reform. The Bay Area has a notoriously shoddy and inefficient public transportation system relative to a metropolis of its size and wealth. Maybe giving back to the communities through ways such as that, they could engage with the Bay, not just create bubbles within it.
It's difficult to comprehend how a bus has turned into a symbol of oppression, although I guess there is a history of that being the case in this country. In this particular instance, though, I'm sure people would be equally unhappy with the resulting traffic and gridlock if all of the bus riders started driving their cars instead. The difference is that there wouldn't be a big object which says "Bauers" on the side of it which people could use as the poster child for income inequality.
The sad truth is that Google, Facebook, et al. wouldn't easily be able to navigate the byzantine system of transit organizations that comprise the Bay Area. For Google, that would mean dealing with Muni, SamTrans and VTA and maybe Caltrain and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. That's a pretty difficult tangle of bureaucracy to deal with. It's easier to just provide your own private transit company.
One thing they could do which would go a long way to allaying the vitriol would be to allow non-employees to make use of the bus. That would further decrease traffic and would make it seem like the service was more equitable.
The problem of course is that we live in a litigious society and there may be problems with insurance or other factors.
> I suppose one takeaway is that it shows that the Google doesn't do more to encourage its employees to patronize public transportation.
Google and its employees have no obligation to patronize public transportation, nor do you.
> The Bay Area has a notoriously shoddy and inefficient public transportation system relative to a metropolis of its size and wealth.
That would be nice, but the shitty public transportation system built, operated, managed, and owned by the government is not the fault or responsibility of Google and friends. Google is not the reason it's a piece of shit either.
> Maybe giving back to the communities through ways such as that, they could engage with the Bay, not just create bubbles within it.
Google is the top philanthropist in the Bay Area giving $27.6 million to charities here in 2010.
> Google and its employees have no obligation to patronize public transportation, nor do you.
Of course not. This is a free country. Of the developed world, we probably put the among least obligations on corporations. But I'm not talking about legal obligations. I'm talking about a social responsibility. Just because you don't have to, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
> That would be nice, but the shitty public transportation system built, operated, managed, and owned by the government is not the fault or responsibility of Google and friends. Google is not the reason it's a piece of shit either.
Of course not, It's largely the fault of an ingrained culture of NIMBYism that drives city and county governments to reject greater expansion of public transportation, coupled with budget cuts, a car culture, and so on. But my speculation is that with their wealth, companies like Google, Facebook, and others, can possibly place influence on those gov'ts to shift their attitudes, at least gradually.
> Google is the top philanthropist in the Bay Area giving $27.6 million to charities here in 2010.
For which they certainly should be lauded for. And which is a good start. But I'm sure there are more ways that corporations can give back to communities other than employing their populations and giving money for charity.
It's not just an income problem. As the article points out, prices for food have been going up because the tech engineers can afford the higher prices. This makes food more difficult for everyone else to get.
Yes, the article claims such without presenting any evidence or substantiating the claim in any way. Where is the study linking rise in tech worker wages to increases in burrito prices? Oh right... there is none. Burritos in the mission are no more expensive than burritos in Santa Rosa, CA. They're $7-9 anywhere in Northern California.
'The unkindest cut of all? Food writer John Birdsall returned from a Portland, Ore., food festival and reported that the Bay Area’s vaunted “populist craft foods” scene might be as “extinct as the $1,500 flat.”'
And a more speculative idea- maybe large tech corporations should use their influence and power to encourage the cities that host them to reform. The Bay Area has a notoriously shoddy and inefficient public transportation system relative to a metropolis of its size and wealth. Maybe giving back to the communities through ways such as that, they could engage with the Bay, not just create bubbles within it.