Comment by SurfScore | Hacker News Reader

Comment by SurfScore | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've lived all over the country, and I've never seen such a big divide between two groups (wealthy tech and everyone else) as I have in the Bay Area.

The last time I was there, I realized why most of the protests for economic reform and "the 1%" are so strong in the Bay Area: because it is so blatantly thrown in people's faces! The streets are filled with Porsches and Teslas driving by the many homeless people in SF everyday. Rent is absolutely absurd. Most big cities have this problem, but its especially pronounced in SF (probably moreso than everywhere but NYC).

I think the thing that probably makes it worse in SF is, as mentioned in the article, many people don't work in SF. I don't know of many companies in Chicago, NYC, or Dallas providing free transportation to their headquarters in the suburbs, people that live in those places usually work in there too.

I'm not sure what can be done about this; Google isn't moving their headquarters to SF (nor should they). At some point this issue is going to boil over and something will have to change.

Rent is absolutely absurd. Most big cities have this problem, but its especially pronounced in SF (probably moreso than everywhere but NYC).

I keep posting variations on this, but this link is relevant here: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... . "Rent is absolutely absurd" because of basic economics at work: SF is a desirable place to live in many respects, but it's virtually impossible to build new housing there for reasons discussed at the link. In the face of exploding demand and constant supply, prices rise. For more on this, see The Rent is Too Damn High: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO. Most big cities have this problem, as you note, and yet most commentators don't discuss the obvious connection between supply limits and prices, per my essay here: https://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/connecting-the-dot... .

Regular people move from SF and places like it to the sunbelt, where development is easy and real estate prices more reasonable, and the people who have the money and/or need to be in SF stay/move there.

> The streets are filled with Porsches and Teslas driving by the many homeless people in SF everyday.

One might argue that the homeless people wouldn't be there if the fabulous wealth weren't also there. That they can even be there should be a testament to the city's tolerance. In many places, local government does everything they can to remove them. SF has much more social conscience than a lot of people give it credit for.

Actually, having talked with a number of homeless folks and done outreach with our Church, a significant portion stay for the weather. Seriously, it just doesn't get too hot or too cold when you're living outside here so you're pretty much ok even if you have to just sleep in your clothes one night. I talked to a guy who had walked here from Utah spending time across the northern Nevada and some in Central California.

That said, many of the homeless we dealt with were also dealing with challenges in mental illness, whether it was depression, schizophrenia, or addiction. That was much more instrumental in keeping them homeless than any sort of structured neglect.

If the tech giants endowed a single mental health facility that would serve the homeless population of San Francisco and one in the South Bay it would do more good for more people than any other single act. Suggestions on how we could pull that off are welcome.

Such projects are usually the product of extremely focused community organizing. You would need to find someone willing to spend a lot of time and effort to make it a reality. One person can push such a thing through, but they'd need a lot of support and the ability to pay their bills while they're working tirelessly.

Community organizing is really a lost art.

Suggestions on how we could pull that off are welcome.

That's the problem, isn't it? Is such a thing even accomplishable?

We're teetering on an edge. We don't know if we are creating a future of clean and shiny and modern technology for everybody or if we're creating a dirty and scarred and run down begging-for-please-schedule-me-doctor services for non-millionares in society. More technological improvements are needed before we can uplift everybody into Comfort and Prosperity, but in the meantime, do we just let those who aren't us suffer?

There are probably half a dozen significant projects with 100x to 1000x personal, life-impacting ROI we could undertake as a society, but there's nobody strong enough to advance our agendas.

Yes it is (the problem).

In one future the world is ruled by corporations, public services such as internet, medical care, and transportation are provided by them as long as you follow their rules.

In one future the governments seize corporate earnings through taxation to fund basic services resulting in a incestuous and tense symbiotic relationship between companies and governments.

Depending on which side of the bed I wake up on I think one is more likely than the other.

Corporations are already paying taxes pretty much the world over, for a very long time now. Why characterize this normal, standard, nearly universal policy as "incestuous and tense"? Why is this "seizing" and not just normal tax paying?

Heh, you missed the drama of the whole "fair share" taxes debate that Google, Apple, and others are embroiled in both in the UK and the US? How about the Amazon sales tax debate?

Corporations do pay taxes, governments around the world are girding themselves to demand they pay even more taxes. That was the 'tenseness' of which I spoke.

Tolerance is great, but safety should always be the primary concern.

A significant amount of homeless people are homeless, sadly, because of mental conditions. I'm not saying that most homeless people are going to attack you in the street, but things like schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder can be extremely dangerous if they go untreated.

Portland treats the homeless well and its definitely not due to fabulous wealth.

The homeless are not who we should focus on when talking about wealth inequality. Even though it makes a good visual, there are too many other factors at play such as mental illness.

It's the working poor and the rich that are the true divide.

The northwest's homeless problem is a bit different from the rest of the countries; you'll see similar patterns in Seattle, Vancouver (BC), Portland, and even Spokane. There is something about "skid row" that has never went away in that area.

> One might argue that the homeless people wouldn't be there if the fabulous wealth weren't also there. That they can even be there should be a testament to the city's tolerance.

Hmm, I see it more as SF, or society in general, being irresponsible for the homeless rather than being tolerant of them being there. In fact, this brings up another point I was talking about with someone else. That when people say "the homeless problem in SF", they don't actually care about the homeless' well-being. They only care about how the homeless disturbs their daily routine.

Exactly. Now, you can find just 3 groups of people:

* single and DINKY hipsters

* super rich with kids

* very poor with kids (no option to leave - basically stuck)

The problem with structure like this is that, when the next recession hits (and it will hit), the first two groups will leave the city immediately.

I have feeling that solution for SF is to make it more "kids friendly" because people with kids tend to be more involved in community and they are less mobile.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com