Comment by JPKab | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JPKab | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Thank you. Shit like this is why I love to visit, don't want to live there. Let's be straight: The homeowners who live in San Francisco are greedy hogs: they refuse to share their city with the newcomers by building denser housing, and the government caters to them at the expense of the poor.

The idiots shouldn't be protesting the Google buses, they should be targeting every NIMBY idiot who thinks that it is possible to keep San Francisco the same as it was before. Cities aren't meant to stay the same, they are meant to shift and change and adapt, and they always will. Want to keep the houses single family, the apartments low-rise, and keep the original buildings? Fine, the buildings will look the same, but the people living in them will be filthy rich, cause nobody else will be able to afford it.

The irony to me is that a city filled with people who claim to be environmentally focused is so dead-set on being low-density. Low-density development is, on the aggregate, worse for the environment, but hey, you get to pay 2500 for that bedroom in a Victorian, so why not?

Devil's advocate:

Why don't the people of MountainView and surrounding towns build high-density developments on their own door-step near the employers? Why don't you accuse homeowners there of being 'greedy hogs'?

Why don't all the people who want to work at Google and Facebook move closer to work? Why do they have to be so selfish to want to live in the city? Why do they expect their employer to bus them to work for free? They're grown ups, they can pay their own way and take Caltrain or drive, and if that's inconvenient then move!

For every dollar that a Google employee does not spend on transport to work, that's a dollar extra of disposable income that can be spent on rent. Google perks can be considered a subsidy which is inflating rental prices. True, right?

Why doesn't Google, an Internet company, figure out ways to build software and products with distributed teams?! Why do you need thousands of people in the same building? How many people does the average employee really need to speak to face-to-face on a daily basis?

>>Why don't the people of MountainView and surrounding towns build high-density developments on their own door-step near the employers? Why don't you accuse homeowners there of being 'greedy hogs'?

The issue here is of people choosing to live in San Francisco. If those Google employees wanted to live near Mountain View, and if building development there wasn't possible, then maybe your comment would make sense.

>> Why don't all the people who want to work at Google and Facebook move closer to work? Why do they have to be so selfish to want to live in the city? Why do they expect their employer to bus them to work for free? They're grown ups, they can pay their own way and take Caltrain or drive, and if that's inconvenient then move!

Because it's a free country, where you can choose to live anywhere you want. There's no legal or ethical reason why someone should feel obligated to live close to work.

>> For every dollar that a Google employee does not spend on transport to work, that's a dollar extra of disposable income that can be spent on rent.

If you want to be pedantic, maybe that's an extra dollar that those folks are spending in San Francisco when they come home after work. After all, they are paying high rents to live in San Francisco, so that they can enjoy the city - where do you think they spend their money on food and entertainment?

>> Why doesn't Google, an Internet company, figure out ways to build software and products with distributed teams?! Why do you need thousands of people in the same building? How many people does the average employee really need to speak to face-to-face on a daily basis?

Google can do many things, and they probably have many people working in a distributed manner already. They also have offices all over the world. None of that will change the fact that there are people working there who wish to live in a city that they love. Do you think that if these employees did not have to physically be in a building in Mountain View, they would go live in Lincoln, Nebraska?

Let's say all these Googlers decided to live in San Diego instead, because the weather's better, the beaches are nicer and it's closer to Tijuana for a party weekend.

At what point would Google charter flights? Obviously not for one employee, but hypothetically, would they do it if 1,000 employees moved today to San Diego? Or Maui? I think they would.

I ask because it's obvious that Googlers get to have their cake and eat it, only because their employer has the resources to pander them. This may be a reflection of how hard it is to find and retain tech talent.

Free food, free laundry(?), free child-care(?), free transport, etc. At what point does a company say enough is enough? How long can this party last for?

> At what point does a company say enough is enough? How long can this party last for?

When they feel they're no longer getting value from it?

You know what else Google gives it's employees? Tens, sometimes hundreds, of thousands of dollars.

How is this any different the the "pandering" you describe?

http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2012-12-18/corporat...

"The City of Mountain View [...]expressly rejects housing as an allowable use in the area."

IIRC there was another rejection late last year, but I can't find it.

There are high density developments going up in Mountain View, but not to the extent that they could in SF, because you can't just build a 40-story skyscraper in a 2-story suburb. (I know nothing of zoning, codes, and all that, beyond playing Sim City, so my definition of 'high density' might not be technically correct -- but I've heard enough complaints about the development that is going on in MTV -- 4 building sites within 2 blocks of my house! It isn't all bungalows here any more.)

As to the SF vs suburb debate, it's definitely one of preference, and SF appeals to a lot of people. It's not that the employees are too lazy to drive, it's that the company doesn't want them working for trendy SF startups.

Could Google, FB etc attract the same level of talent if said talent couldn't live in a hip, young city instead of the dreary strip-mall suburbs of Silicon Valley? I doubt it. Also, there are a lot of jobs in SF, and many people might be in families or relationships where one partner works up in the city.

(Aside: As someone who used to commute via Googlebus, moved to MTV, and is now looking for housing in SF while not being at Google, I have to say I'm not quite sure where I stand on the whole issue. It's somewhat bittersweet to get off the Caltrain in the morning and walk straight past a Googlebus, or worse, see an empty one heading back down south in the evening!)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com