What I see

The thoughts about local action, and improving the place you live in first, apply to everyone involved in the tech scene, wherever they live, as we tend to dream about having global impact without thinking about making small, local and concrete changes instead. So I don't feel it is profoundly irrelevant at all because the problems raised are felt everywhere in slightly different ways, even if the solutions proposed are local. Here in London there is an analogous situation around shoreditch and old street - formerly very deprived areas which are seeing an influx of money and very uneven development.

e.g. The banlieues of Paris, the suburbs of Edinburgh like Craigmillar, the sheds with beds in suburbs of London

While a better social support system is a good first step, it doesn't eliminate problem areas like this, nor does it deal completely with the mental health issues, drug addiction and stress that often comes with extreme poverty. Perhaps in some cities the problems are better hidden (Paris is a good example), but they are there.

My loose Wikipedia-driven math puts that at <0.5% of income working to support >1.3% of population to the tune of a not terribly luxurious $12k per year.

I don't know how that compares to elsewhere, but it doesn't seem like a horrible deal at face value.

Still, the important question is always going to be how that money is spent, not how much is spent. Everyone seems to agree that it could be more effective. Thankfully, some of the issues sound like things the tech community would quite able to assist with:

"By highest-end users, Bamberger means the hardest of the hard-core homeless, who use far more emergency services, such as ambulance rides, than other homeless people. To figure out which ones those are, Salt Lake City uses a data tracking system that shows every time a homeless person gets shelter, counseling or other services from a government or nonprofit agency. Then counselors can tailor housing and services to the person's needs.

This also makes it much easier for government and nonprofits to quickly coordinate their efforts.

San Francisco doesn't have such a system. Its service providers have wanted one for a decade - and this summer, they plan to participate in a pilot project for just such a data-tracking system, led by the Human Services Agency and other city departments involved in aiding the homeless."

1: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Salt-Lake-City-a-model-...

You haven't solved the problem. Just moved it far away where you can't see it.

Furthermore, if there are 1 million people in San Fran and the city spends $150 million a year, that means everyone is paying in $150. Which is a lot of money to the poorer end of the spectrum, but chump change to us techies. Indeed, there are 37,000 tech workers in San Fran who make on average $160,000 [1]. Even if the entirety of the social programs were paid for by tech workers, it'd come down to 4% of their after tax income [2]. Indeed, to pay for the equivalent of a full time minimum wage job for all of San Francisco's homeless would only cost its tech workers 16% of their post-tax salary, or about $10K [3][4]. And that's tech workers in the city alone, which make up just 3.7% of its million inhabitants.

If you are not a tech worker and are not in a position to do more then please realize this rant is not about you. For everyone else who just wants to see the problem 'disappear', I completely understand why a portion of the city hates you. You don't need a tv, or a new car (used is a smarter choice economically anyways), or a daily latte. You want those things. They are nice perks, just like the free lunch at work. In the meantime the people who are struggling with the lifelong problems of homelessness and addiction are just trying to find a lil hit of crack and a spot by the freeway to get through the day.

Some side notes: There will always be the homeless-by-choice, which is fine. If you want to camp under a bridge all summer go for it. But there needs to be an available bed and a warm cup of soup waiting for the people who actually have problems, temporarily or long term.

[0]: 34 / 10.74 = 3.16 (minimum wage equivalent hours of homeless person's benefits)

[1]: bottom of http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/tech-job-growth-is-bo...

[2]: 150,000,000 / (37,000 * 160,000 * .4) = .04 (percent of tech worker salary to pay existing homeless budget)

[3]: 10.74 * 8 = 86.08 (daily income for minimum wage job)

[4]: 150,000,000 * (86.08 / 34) / (37,000 * 160,000 * .4) = .16 (percent of tech worker salary to pay 'full time minimum wage homeless budget')

Given the choice, between the two, I would also prefer "social capitalism", probably due to my background and upbringing, but by no means I can say it's a perfect system.

But anyway, I do agree with your sentiment.

A common attitude I see from people who have "made it" in some way, whether that's running their own business or just working hard and making a good life for themselves, is that their success is deserved and a result of their hard work.

By extension, if you're homeless or poor or on welfare or whatever, it's because you haven't put in that effort. It's a fallacious argument, but it makes it easy for a lot of people to dismiss those in need.

Actually on second though... I've seen that attitude from plenty of people who aren't well off. It's quite pervasive. I guess people just want to believe that it's always possible to succeed through hard work, and that they/others aren't just getting fucked over.