There are many jobs and not all of them pay the same, but not all of them are "career path" jobs either. Some simply require long hours, hard work, and putting up with horrible work conditions (and, sometimes, horrible people). Sadly, I think it is taken as given that some people will spend their entire lives working crappy jobs for low pay, while others get to enjoy high-paying careers. Underneath is a sentiment that some people "have it" -- whether "it" is talent, intelligence, or something else -- and others don't. But I think that's wrong...
If everyone left college to become a computer programmer, nobody would be left to cook the burgers, so obviously this is not a solution. But not everyone has to immediately leave college and dive straight in to the career they will someday retire from. I think a simple solution to much of what is wrong with the US economy (and the direction it's heading in) is to begin to expect newly minted graduates, or even high school seniors on a "gap year", to work the crappy jobs.
Because you know what? They may be crappy, but there are things you can learn doing those kinds of jobs that they don't teach in school, and that you will probably never learn if you jump straight from school to the cubicle. Yes, I realize I'm posting this on Hacker News, "Home of the Early-20-Something Entrepreneur"™. No, I didn't build a photo/ride/house sharing app in my 20s. I trudged through ankle-deep drifts of corn starch and waist-deep drifts of snow at 3 AM. But now that I'm nearing my mid-30s, I feel like if and when I do decide to start a company, I'll be able to approach the task with a maturity and appreciation for hard, and smart, work that I didn't have when I was 21.
So why post this diatribe here? Because without knowing a thing about the gentleman in the video, I can almost guarantee he never worked a day of retail, food-service, or manufacturing in his life...
As you said, you don't know a thing about the man in the video. It could very well be that he spent the past 5 years working a shitty manual job, worked hard to get a CS degree and get a job at Google, and now he's pissed that people are preventing him from going to work.
I certainly know SF tech workers who have a past not too different from this.
The last paragraph of your post is incredibly condescending and doesn't add much to the conversation. In general, making assumptions about other people's intentions/backgrounds is rarely useful to a debate.
Let's all try to raise the bar here.
We all have bad days, sure. Yes, this could just be someone having a bad day. Maybe he broke up with his girlfriend/boyfriend yesterday. Maybe he, himself, is having trouble with rent and is merely projecting. Any of these scenarios and a million more could be true.
What manufacturing taught me is that, even when all you can feel is pain and exhaustion, if there is still work to do the only solution is to do it, not complain. What retail taught me is that even on your shittiest day, when your girlfriend has left you for your best friend, that person looking for just the right pair of headphones still expects, deserves even, your grace and kindness.
You know what? I really hope I'm wrong and someone tracks this fellow down and finds out that he has a story of a long hard slog through menial jobs to make it to where he is today. If that turns out to be the case, I'll have learned something. As it is, thinking back on all the people that I worked with in manufacturing and in retail, I can't think of one that would both behave in the way this gentleman did and say the things that he said.
I've only been in the Bay area for a bit under 3 years, but I've learned that despite the appearances, no two tech workers are the same.
Sure, there are plenty of white 20-somethings Stanford grads whose parents paid for everything. But I have friends who went to community college and worked hard to get a job here, or who moved from far away for a better life here. One of my good friends is black, comes from a troubled family and was the first to go to college- programming was his refuge as a teenager when things at home didn't go so well and the pantries were empty. He's now a tech worker just like the guy in the video. I myself am a tech worker and have nothing to complain about- and I try to be conscious of my privilege, I volunteer teaching Oakland kids computer science & math over the weekends, etc. (and I live in Oakland, because even the SF prices were a bit too high for me :)
At the end of the day, tech workers or not, we're all humans and we all want to live in nice, safe conditions without fear of getting evicted or not being able to afford the groceries. Getting mad at each other will not solve anything.
I think most people who've had to hold a pretty "sticky" job would not have this sort of attitude towards people complaining about these sorts or issues. Especially considering that you'd realize that people in lower income brackets would have an even harder time just moving somewhere else. The state of the economy doesn't help much with that either.
Considering this person's reaction, and the fact that working in a minimum wage job can pretty easily reveal the facts above, and that this guy is at google, so probably not that dumb, you could meander a guess that he's either without sympathy or simply ignorant(as in: he isn't aware of the facts). Going for the latter is in his favor
There's certainly some ambiguity to it, but for the most part it's pretty easy to tell who's never had to work hard, particularly when they're interacting with people who do. In my opinion, it's one of the best reasons to go out to an interview lunch with a candidate -- to see how they behave towards the waitstaff.
I also worked in a grocery store when I was 16 and it was a ridiculously cushy job. I did everything from bagging to grocery return to cart collection to being a checker.
My dishwasher job at 14 was easy peasy too. Scrape off plates, rinse them off, put them in the dishwasher. Came home filthy but the work was definitely not hard.
My work wasn't part of a character building exercise given to me by my parents though. The amount of work I did directly controlled how many holes my clothes had when I went to school.
Your rant really doesn't raise any point. So what if he hasn't had a shitty job? That really is irrelevant.
Unfortunately, some people really are that unaware.
UPDATE: apparently my cynical side called it correctly.
Humans are, well, human.
Second, if these protesters think gentrification is so bad, wait till they get a load of anti-gentrification, like in my hometown of Baltimore, and elsewhere in places like Detroit.
If you want to keep the city vibrant, it is a delicate balance, and yes, if you swing too far towards gentrification you get monoculture, but if you swing too far in the other direction, you get a lot of problems I think are far worse than not being able to afford to live in a "cool" city.
San Francisco has a basic supply/demand problem. More people have a preference to live there than capacity, and the distribution of incomes of those with that preference form a wide gap, driving up prices. Thus the supply is rationed by price. Either they can increase supply, or they can decrease the number of high-end bidders somehow by making the city less desirable somehow.
But to blame the tech workers over this is the height of hypocrisy and irony. Many of the same people at these protest events also complain about suburbia, people driving excessively and not using public transport, etc. People used to avoid the cities, but now there is a trend towards reurbanization, and as more people move back into cities, the natural result of that is an increase in prices unless supply increases.
San Francisco is no different than New York, London, Tokyo, or Shanghai, in real estate trends and gentrification and to fixate on the tech workers or Google Buses, which are not the cause of your problem, and not your politicians, who need to figure out ways to mitigate the problem, I think is only likely to damage your cause by making you look like an angry mob.
Another option (which the city pursues) is regulations like rent control, affordable housing, etc.
San Francisco is unable to build high density housing because many of the same people who don't want the city culture to change also don't want it's skyline to change.
Large parts of SF are suburb-like and could be replaced with high density high-rises, but it would then lose the "SF charm".
Someone else suggested Google shouldn't have built its campus in Mountain View, but Google built the campus there long before the craze of moving back to SF started. In the last .com boom in the 90s, it was Peninsula rents that were sky high. In 1999, I paid $3600 for a 2 bedroom in Foster City.
To suggest Google move its campus close to SF would only make things worse. Most Googlers don't live in SF, so you'd be asking a huge number of people who live in the South Bay to uproot and move up north. That plan won't pass go. I certainly wouldn't, for school district alone.
San Francisco's problems are bigger than Google. It cannot rescue San Francisco.
I have no experience with SF first-hand, but from what I hear it is extremely, extremely expensive to live in. In Tokyo you can get a 1 room appartment for $600 a month ( a kinda shitty one, but you can find one), and it's easy to find meager jobs (fast food joints or convenience stores) to make $10 an hour (comes out to $1600 a month). The jobs are more or less everywhere too, but the point is even in the downtown-y area you can live where you work.
It's possible to work there because the population density of the special wards of Tokyo (the actual "urban" part, there's a lot of mountain) is 3 times that of SF. I only have a cursory knowledge of what it's like, again, but looking at apartment listings, it seems like San Francisco has a pretty high amount of gigantic apartments. Like, apartments that could be cut into 4 separate apartments-type huge.
From the side of the people who are mad about this stuff, about the rent and the transportation:
Here's a guy who has an apartment that takes up half a floor, who takes his private bus to go work out in the countryside, asking me, the guy making his burgers/checking out his groceries, to go live out in the countryside and bus into work because he couldn't survive having an apartment with 200 sq feet less space.
Even worse, this is next to some of the most technologically advanced companies in the world. We're supposed to be the Jetsons. How is it that we can have a halfway-functioning public transit system in nowheres-bourg, France, population 100k , but we can't seem to get one running in an area with 3 times the density and 10 times the people?
I'm not necessarily agreeing with everything, but the rage is justified. And it can be solved by political means.
>but now there is a trend towards reurbanization, and as more people move back into cities, the natural result of that is an increase in prices unless supply increases.
Supply can be increased pretty easily: by having companies build closer to the city center, thus expanding the radius of "interestingness". I'm sure that if Google had built closer to san francisco proper that the area of interesting things would have increased immensly. Instead they built their own little disneyland way out , with a huge suburb in between it and SF.
Obviously square footage is expensive, but what is money when you're apparently rolling in it? Building the Googleplex closer would've made it smaller but at least it would have helped SF expand its area of interestingness.
> Supply can be increased pretty easily
First you say supply can't be increased. Then you say it can. No it's not Google's fault there is not enough supply. It's bad zoning laws that limit the number and size of buildings. And rent control that makes building less profitable.
Houston and Austin get a way bigger influx of people and even money (for Houston at least) than San Francisco but they don't have these problems.
"What kind of fucking city is this?" he shouted, and then walked off.
That's the nut of the whole article/video if you are curious. Really bad move on the Google guy's point. I suspect he may himself be looking for a "better job" before long - as far as I know, no one at Google is critical enough that they can't be replaced essentially at will.
Update: as thrownaway2424 points out, the article has been edited to indicate this was staged.
If the bay area had decent public transportation, these buses wouldn't exist.
You know how google employees from Westchester get to work in Chelsea? They take the train + subway. Because it isn't completely terrible.
That being said, this guy is obviously doing himself or google no favors and looks like a douche.
Urban areas have a lot more pre-existing transit, and transit that can be used by more people than just work at one company, than the Shoreline Amphitheater area of Mountain View.
If the company has it's offices in downtown, they wouldn't need to run shuttles.
AFAIK, there is no intra-city shuttle for their employees who work in their SF office, only Mountain View.
Provide some funding for regular public transit, fit them with WIFI, slurp the data and invade privacy, serve some ads, etc.
That way they get to continue running their buses. They pay an informal tax or money towards advertising, which they can possibly write off as some community benefit thing. They improve the air quality, which improves employee health. And it's a nice thing to do, and all people need to keep a bank of the nice things they do that they can point to when they're caught behaving like dicks.
Some of these companies (Google, Apple, etc) have that sort of capital, but short of going into the public transportation business, the jump from carting around a few (tens of?) thousands of people to making a significant impact on that number is not just "provide some funding".
Seeing the secret white Google buses will annoy some people. Sometimes for rational reasons, but also because people like being annoyed by stuff.
Pointing to a bunch of Muni transport with "This bus provided by Apple!" or "This carriage provided by Google!" will help raise the good-guy profile of those companies and offset against the drone-bus thing.
tl:dr - it's just an image problem.
The same things these people are complaining about are the same thing old Southern white racists complain about -- this becoming a minority majority country. These people wanted America to be a Ollie and Harriet whitebread nuclear family country, and diversity increased and changed the culture.
"Poor culture" is not intrinsically more valuable than "rich tech culture", it's just different, and there's no a priori justification that one groups has a set of preferences and rights that supercedes the others.
The anti - gentrification people are cultural conservatives and don't realize it.
Maybe it is just because I am biased, having been born in a rural area rather than in a city, but I don't think growing up in a city gives you any sort of special rights. Nobody is a higher class of citizen just because they have lived in a city longer than others.
Their apparent false flags operation has succeeded in making both sides look bad.
I do have an issue with the "I've lived here longer than you" bullshit. If these protesters have a legitimate point (and if these buses really are the menace that people are saying, then I suspect that they do), they can surely make it without resorting to such elitist self-aggrandizing crap.
When gas prices went up a number of years ago due to a surge in demand from China,should we "roll over and die as soon as Chinese start driving more cars?"
Other people's demand for products drive up prices if there is a supply constraint, in what moral code can you blame them for desiring what you have?
In the case of SF, there are people who want to live there. That demand drives up the probability that landlords will want to raise rent, and if they can't because of rent control, arrange an eviction.
What should tech workers do? Realize that the people currently living in SF have some kind of nativist right to live there and new immigrants to the city are persona non grata?
I'm not even sure we should blame landlords for wanting to raise rents. I'm sure if you owned a house in the city, and someone was willing to offer you 10x the current rent controlled price you're collecting, you'd be seriously questioning how 'progressive' you feel towards your tenants.
San Francisco has demand that outstrips supply. Either increase supply, or recognize that the city is going to continue to get more expensive to live in. San Francisco cannot escape the fate of London and other cities in this respect.
Drop off kids at 8am. Head off to work. Arrive at work by 9. Work until 6 or 7pm. Pick up kids from after school. Eat dinner. Do homework. Play with kids. Put kids to sleep. Catch up on work emails or emergencies. End up going to bed late.
Work life balance in tech is in someways worse than non-tech, because tech workers take their work with them everywhere.
There's not going to be a lot of time for socializing at block parties.
Having high income residents in an area is a GOOD thing. It has brought SF a more educated culture and cash for improvements the city desperately needed. Shared buses lower traffic and pollution.
Finally, it must be said that the female protester should have thought twice about putting holes in her face, that is a deal breaker for even entry level jobs.
Must that be said?
Perhaps if San Francisco allowed more housing development it wouldn't be so expensive. If you live in a desirable place it's going to be more expensive, especially if supply is restricted.
You can't fight the changing time by stubborning holding onto what you are used to in the past, because in the end, as long as this remains a free country where people can live wherever, the rule of supply vs demand always wins.
Google can't just magic a transportation system out of pocket; the (NYC) MTA's 2012 budget was $14.2 billion; Google's 2012 profit was $10.7 billion. Are you expecting them to cooperate with Facebook and Apple to work something out between themselves?
Do you want Google to just voluntarily send random checks to various city, local, and state governments, with "for mass transit" in the memo line?
The lack of mass transit is the fault of the citizens. Get off your asses, pass some legislation at the appropriate level of government, tax the living daylight out of whatever megacorps and billionaires are in your tax base, and build yourselves some mass transit with it.
Unfortunately this particular discussion looks like it's doomed to fall off the front page fairly quickly. (EDIT: Yep, already gone.) I wish there was a way to have a constructive dialogue without degenerating into emotional chaos.
EDIT: Rumors are swirling that this guy might've been a plant. If that's true, I suppose burying the story might be epistemically virtuous, as a way to contain the spread of false information. That's a separate issue from the flamewar detector, though.
UPDATE: Rodriguez writes that the "Google employee" was in fact a union organizer, staging a confrontation.
Still doesn't solve the very real issue of relationship with SF community however.
For an interesting example, follow the case of the waitress who claimed to have not been tipped and hateful message left. The initial claim was widely reported, the follow-up about it being a lie doesn't quite seem to have reached the same major outlets with the same coverage time.
"this wasn't an employee you bet your ass the local protestors will lose credibility"
I doubt they will. Its all about the noise and creditability isn't tracked very well. Too, many groups (or new names replacing the old) and not enough knowledge about the membership connections.
Maybe BART could offer bus rental services for companies wanting these lines? At the very least it would help to pay for infrastructure for the rest of us.
Maybe I'm biased by the fact that I've lived in cities with usable public transportation
It's interesting that the cities with decent public transportation - Boston, NYC, DC - all have strong cultures of public transportation and large percentages of people that don't have a car. It's very likely that the transportation commissioner in NYC takes the subway to work; it's somewhat less likely that whoever runs the buses in SF takes them to work.
I wonder how much the shuttle system costs Google. It's hard to say for certain, but its probably in the millions of dollars a year.
Now, let's contrast that to the BART extension to SFO, which was completed in 2002 and cost $1.5 billion for 8.7 miles of new track. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Bay_Area_Rapid_T...)
Extending BART service to San Jose (which is hardly a politically trivial affair) would cost a few bucks to say the least. There is also the east-side extension which would compete with a west-side extension:
Unfortunately companies can't really just give money to the government to do their pet projects. It's been tried before and it kind of ends up poorly.
Case in point, the "Green Line Extension" has been talked about for dozens of years now, and funded many times. They keep losing/wasting the money. I don't think Google wants to wait 10-30 years for the Bart system to catch up with their needs (if ever at all).
But I also don't understand why a company providing private shuttles is such a polarizing idea. No one gets bent about hotel shuttles or ones at convention centers, and putting more people in a shuttle is far better than each of them individually driving.
Very different pools of money.
1. People who don't live like them
2. How cities work
See updated article.
Obviously the explosion of tech and the intrusion of the industry in to the city is causing a LOT of problems. Obviously there are a lot of people being displaced who feel they have no say.
It seems like the tech industry is just shouting from a bullhorn. "LEARN TO CODE IF YOU'RE POOR" seems to be the message. "WE'RE THE SOLUTION PEOPLE" seems to be the message. "TECH AND CAPITAL WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING" seems to be the message.
And yeah, part of the fucking problem is that everyone in tech is a "solutions" person. People have their spiritual energies, their moralistic energies, just blindly and naively stowed away behind some screen, literally and figuratively. It is ethically bankrupt and it is total fucking bullshit. It is basically how a teenager envisions the world. So yeah, I'm just as fucking pissed off at all of these newcomers.
I think Radiohead summed it up pretty well:
Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths, he buzzes like a fridge he's like a detuned radio. Karma Police, arrest this girl, her hitler hairdo, is making me feel ill,
and we have crashed her party.
Or how about The Flying Burrito Brothers:
This old earthquake's gonna leave me in the poor house. It seems like this whole town's insane. On the thirty-first floor your gold plated door won't keep out the Lord's burning rain.
So maybe you're getting my drift here... kidnapping a bus full of people, no matter how strongly you feel about things, is NOT the fucking answer. It is just more SHOUTING. All we end up with is people SHOUTING and SHOUTING.
Well, fuck all you people, on both sides. We should be SINGING to each other and with each other. And yeah, tech industry, you need to shut the fuck up. But you know what? I'm just gonna SING.
In addition it is counter productive protesting around mass transit. Would they prefer the employees drove, putting immense burden on the already stressed transport infrastructure?
The whole argument is terribly misguided.
This is often tossed around and is often a canard. SF is currently in one of its biggest building booms in history. Building is likely occurring as fast as it can.
(UPDATE 12:12 PM -- The Guardian amended the headline
to reflect our story more accurately, that though this
man exited the bus and claimed he was late for work,
we have not yet verified his employment at Google)
UPDATE 12:32pm: Various tips have streamed in that this shout-out was staged. Protest organizer Leslie Dreyer talked to us on the phone and verified that this person's identity was Max Bell Alper, a union organizer from Oakland. This person was not a Google employee, and Dreyer was not able to verify if Alper was there in the morning with the group of 20-30 protesters. The Guardian is attempting to contact Alper for comment. Dreyer said she, as an organizer, was unaware that the "performance" had been planned. We are following this as it develops.
1) Since the only time I've been in SF was when the car I was riding in broke down in 1988. Yeah, let's send the North Dakotan to find a wrecker.
Where the heck do you park all those cars then?
It is not unusual, when going up to the city outside of rush hour, to spend 45 minutes driving and then a further 45 minutes looking for parking. Whenever possible I try to park at Daly City or Millbrae and then BART/Caltrain in, but that won't get you to all destinations...
I'm not sure why the bus has to stop on 19th Avenue, as there are numerous side streets it could stop on -- and not one of the major north-south thoroughfares in west SF.
The difference with Muni buses, of course, is that they stop, let people off/on, and then get out of the way almost immediately. I'm not sure why the rest of us are waiting on Google employees for extended periods.
EDIT: I'm not sure how some of the peanut gallery here is reading anti-public-transportation sentiment into my comment. I'm a big fan of BART and Muni and use them regularly.
What I'm marveling over is why Google employees and/or their bus driver(s) can't seem to tell time sufficiently well to not require illegally blocking a major SF thoroughfare for extended periods of time. The Google bus blocks and delays Muni and other forms of public transportation on 19th Avenue just as effectively as it blocks autos. Muni doesn't do that.
I'm annoyed at shuttles (not sure which company) at the Caltrain station which park in the townsend st. bike lane every single evening, making it dangerous for cyclists. This intersection is sufficiently messy as it is.
If you think there should be a law, then that's also a fine discussion.
But from my standpoint, people are complaining about the lack of enforcement of a law that doesn't exist.
We should expect civility from people even if they are acting from behind the shield of incorporation.
Regulation is ok, but its not the best. Ideally we could talk face to face with some humans and ask if they realize the consequences of their decisions.
But I understand this isnt the way things work.
This is incorrect. For example, you are "intelligent," but this does not imply that there is a "little man" inside your brain which is also "intelligent."
Does the Milgram experiment ring any bell ?
That's what you do.
Is the parent commenter suggesting that nobody riding the google bus has the gumption and the decency to sanity check an obviously ungracious and impolite behavior ?
Have these people done the ground-work of asking Google to move the route? To consider that they might be blocking traffic?
Or did they show up one day and decide to make Googlers late to work with no warning?
New people people coming in to a city have to learn to live in that city. But the opposite is equally true. The people in the city will have to learn to live with those new people. You don't get extra privileges for 'being there first'
There's a pilot program that's set to start next summer that charges the corporate buses. It's halfway down the article.
That said, what do you think about MegaBUS and the sort which also park and use regular bus route stops and shelters for minutes at a time while passengers board? There are also chartered buses which do the same.
Or are those okay, or are they also problematic?
If people made the Google buses and other private busses more difficult for employers to have, what would happen is people would cram into cars creating a bigger problem. Or businesses could take their employees back to the suburbs and you could have new Detroits at the extreme. And then people decry the flight of wealth out from the cities...
You can't have it both ways.
I fail to see how these buses are any different from:
* Megabus / BoltBus / other private bus companies that park on city streets (mentioned in the parent comment)
* privately chartered bus (for a school or community group)
Is the issue that they are crowding out actual city buses? Because I could see that would be a problem if the Google bus waits X minutes at a bus stop and people need to walk around it to get to the "real" city bus.
But if it just shows up to pick up a handful of people and then leaves, without disrupting the regular public transport, I don't see what the issue is, or why these "activists" are so butthurt about it.
I don't necessarily have any problem with people doing that myself (long commutes or driving themselves). I just repeatedly see this bizarre cognitive dissonance in the Bay Area where some of the people who spend 3 hours a day riding a bus up and down the peninsula try and assert some sort of moral high ground over the people who choose to have a reasonable commute but drive themselves, because cars.
When the south bay can compete with the cities amenities, then we will see those who value those amenities move south. Until then, the problem will perpetuate.
Now that it's bad enough, maybe people can try to cure the disease instead of treating the symptoms.
I would love to see the solution being Google using Big Data to improve SF traffic.
Breaking down some of them:
> You can't afford it? You can leave. I'm sorry, get a better job
That isn't how it works in the real world. People can't 'just leave'. If you seriously think moving to a more affordable city is an option for everyone you are sadly mistaken. I don't think I really need to go into why "just move" is very naive argument.
> "I'm sorry, get a better job."
Again, this isn't how life works. If it was so easy to 'get a better job' we'd all be out doing it.
> "This is a city for the right people who can afford it."
Who are "the right people"? Who gets to dictate who can and cannot live in a city? Many people being priced out of San Francisco have lived there for generations, far longer than people moving to work in tech. Why are the latter "the right people" but not the former?
I am not saying I totally agree with the protestors, either. Gentrification in general brings many positives and negatives. It's a tricky balance. There are good arguments to be made on either side - "if you don't like it, just move" is not one of them. "You're not the right people" is even worse.
That being said, I disagree with the notion that simply because you live somewhere, you get a automatic right to live there forever.
Can I get that deal in Aspen or Malibu? Of course not.
San Francisco has without dispute the best tenant protections in the country.
San Francisco (now) has without dispute the most expensive real estate in the country.
You can go ahead and say correlation isn't causation here, Just like you can also believe in the easter bunny
From what I can grok from this, their idea is that this deal should only be extended to people who were born in the area. Well-off parents raise you in SF? Congratulations, you now get to live there forever and it is the responsibility of other people to ensure that you can always afford it. Get raised in Smalltown, Kansas? Well I hope you like Kansas, because you will forever be relegated to second class "transplant" status. ...or something.
Not that I agree with the guy in the video in any way, but I 100% •guarantee* the protestors (and the writers at the Guardian for that matter) have their own ideas about who the "right people" people are to live in SF, and that these ideas are not exactly absent from their motivations when protesting or discussing these issues.
Many people have a lot of attachment to their cities and neighborhoods. They do not just want to move to another city (and that may not be an option at all if there job is fixed to the city being gentrified). They probably have friends and family that are probably also located in San Francisco. They see a new power rising and threatening there way of life and it frustrates them. People don't like change.
Boston has a similar problem. Our science and tech industry is almost as bright as San Francisco's and the workforce has to live somewhere. Traditionally working-class neighborhoods like Southie and Dorchester are being changed and it's forcing rents up and driving long term residents out of the city.
Unfortunately, both long-term Boston and San Francisco residents have done this to themselves through NIMBYism. If these cities had been encouraging developers to build new housing stock at the correct rate over the last 30 years or so rents would have stayed relatively stable. Instead they're skyrocketing up.
Everything is going fine for this Google employee right now, but someday he may be facing the same problem. I only hope his group of peers learns the lessons that the previous generations failed to about continuing to build high-density desirable housing.
The real question is, as David Simon I believe asked in a post over the weekend, are we in it together, or not? If we're not and everyone is off to fend for themselves, then you better be okay with it when you're put in the weaker position.
He might as well have said, "Let them eat cake."
NEW INFORMATION: "Google" employee shoutout earlier today at bus protest was staged by union organizer.