No, he doesn't. Although I suspect here on HN there will be a segment - hopefully a small one - of people who agree with him. Gentrification is not always bad, but this guy's arguments are.

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.

This is a complicated issue. I think he has a point but he could probably have said it more tactfully.

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.

Maybe, but it's shortsighted. Yes, currently the Google Employee is able to provide enough value to Google that they pay him a nice salary that allows him to live in relative comfort. Though, perhaps in 10 years, his job will be automated away by better tools, or AI. A good chunk of what programmers and even technical people do could possibly be automated at some point. At which point this employee might find himself in the same situation.

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.

And the point is that he's a huge entitled asshole.

Until Google employee's job is downsized, and he's unable to find work at $startup_flavor_of_the_year. I'm sure he can then pack up and move to a cheaper city.

He might as well have said, "Let them eat cake."

Which point is that?