How the Internet Ruined San Francisco (1999)
salon.com
salon.com
I feel like I was deprived of a childhood.
EDIT: I just realized this is a classic 'first-world problem', but extended to 'first-world-upper-class problem'.
Someone always has it worse than you. That does not invalidate pikachu_is_cool's feelings of existential emptiness.
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Oppression%20...
Whenever I read a story on HN about 55-100 hour workweeks and lots of comments making this seem like something which is sane and healthy, only taking vacations when you are between jobs, being a serial entrepeneur chasing failed venture after failed venture with the hope of eventually striking it rich, prioritizing personal relationships and interaction with friends behind your company's interests and relentlessly using any (rare) spare time to work on your "startup" or learn skills other people will pay you money for, I cringe. I will never take a regular job in an environment like this. It would fuck up my mental health in less than a year, and I am very surprised that others don't see this. I can only describe it as a collective blindness for some very important parts of life.
There is certainly plenty of opportunity in one of the biggest tech booms in world history. But it's not opportunity that comes without a big human cost, and this side of the story doesn't receive nearly enough attention. When work and success is lauded as the virtues above all, other valuable things will suffer. Most people aren't cut out for this kind of lifestyle, and there is nothing wrong with that.
I realize this may not be a popular point of view among San Franciscans, but I think the east bay and south bay are actually better if you don't want to be a workaholic. In SF, unless you bought property in the 1970s, you'll be paying somewhere north of $3500 a month for housing. That kind of money requires you to have a high-end job it sounds like you're not that interested in. There are benefits to living in SF, but they come with costs.
A lot of artists and creatives live in Oakland these days. It has good access to San Francisco and other places via BART, and the housing costs are still reasonable.
On the other hand, the most laid-back place in the bay area is definitely Santa Cruz. It always brings a smile to my face to go down to the beach there.
Also, I'm not talking about the rich adult night life. I'm talking about stuff you can do while you're growing up there. All of the kids my age were obsessed with getting straight A's, hardly any of them went out. The ones who were able to either were always in SF/Santa Cruz or were ridiculously rich.
Edit: I think we may be talking about different parts of the Valley. San Jose, Santa Cruz, and SF are nice, but I'm referring to the heart. i.e. Cupertino, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale.
It seems like you must have had a very expensive apartment indeed. There are 3 bedroom standalone homes available for rent in Cupertino for less than 4,000 a month... like this one: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/apa/4287573131.html
I was born and raised in Palo Alto and I go to UC Berkeley now. I spend a lot of time in SF. A lot of what you said relates to my childhood. But a lot of what happened was the result of my choices. I love technology and I love the culture here. One thing that helped me before going to college was taking a year off to work, which really helped me figure out what was important to focus on and what isn't important (not important = grades. important = meeting people). Now that I'm in college, I could easily choose to party all the time and slack off. But that's just not me. Plus, I've had fun at parties/kickbacks in SF before.
As a side note. I use "Silicon Valley" to refer to the SF Bay Area (SF + East Bay + geographic SV). To me, Silicon Valley is a term for the entire technology region, much like "LA" describes the metropolitan LA area, and "Wall Street" describes NY finance in general.
Edit: I should have mentioned I'm referring to Cupertino/Mountain View/Sunnyvale area. I don't really have anything to say about SF and Santa Cruz, they sound like nice places to live.
I think you need to check your privilege here. You grew up in a household with successful parents that wanted their children to succeed. If you didn't get into Berkeley, you'd have your parents be disappointed in you. The main economic driver in your area wasn't something you were interested in, so you'd likely have to move when you grew up.
I would go so far as to say that most people in the US (not even the rest of the world) have childhoods that better resemble a living hell. I suppose most tragedy is relative, and I'm not trying to delve into Candide-style one-upping. I'm just saying that maybe it's not Silicon Valley that sucks, maybe it's just growing up.
I'm not saying that the Silicon Valley is the worst place in the world. For some people it may be a great place to grow up. But there seems to be a disproportionate amount of people who think that the Valley is some sort of godsend place to raise kids, when it isn't at all.
It is a very real problem that is underlooked BY A LARGE MARGIN, which is why I felt the need to bring it up and possibly save some people. Life is not be about being successful and rich. And you are not a failure if you get bad grades.
Also, we have suicides too: http://abcnews.go.com/US/palo-alto-struggles-rash-teen-train...
Please stop complaining.
Your problems do not invalidate his.
My advice is to start figuring out what it is you want to do and sketch a plan to get to that place. If your parents/community are anything like mine, you'll get a lot of hate and no support, but pushing through it is worth it. Find what you enjoy now because you don't want to find yourself 10 years from now deeply regretting the fact that you followed the mold and did what everyone expected of you.
You won't be a failure if you pursue a different path. Don't believe that because it'll paralyze you. And if you don't get a 2400 and don't get into UC Berkeley, what's the worst that'll happen? Chances are you won't become homeless.
I live in a reasonably affluent smaller city and the problem of affordable housing for the "working poor" is about the same here ... but I still haven't seen what I think is a viable solution (developers were compensated for building low-income housing and maintaining low rent for 10 years, but now the rent for those houses exceeds my monthly mortgage).
The only people who are really concerned about this are the ones to insist that SF and Oakland are totally different cities. Come on guys, they've been the same economic region for 100+ years, it's time to admit that they're the same city.
What about cooperative ownership? When an asset is communally owned, it reduces the temptation for people to destroy it for a payout.
For example, TICs are declining in numbers in SF, not increasing. If communal ownership were a viable option, we should see the number of TICs increasing.
>If communal ownership were a viable option, we should see the number of TICs increasing.
I don't understand how that follows. All that indicates is that some particular operating structures (the specific TICs in place in SF) are not viable on one specific market (SF) in one particular moment in history.
I was just suggesting that in theory communal ownership could solve the problem. How to actually get that to work, in practice, is a problem that entrepreneurs have been working on for decades, and it will take many decades more.
That's how it works. Nothing new about it and there's no way to change it, except perhaps stopping the Federal Reserve from creating bubbles with cheap money.
Of course, creating an effect does not create one of its possible causes.