Is San Francisco losing its soul? (2014) | Hacker News Reader

Is San Francisco losing its soul? (2014)

theguardian.com

84 pointsedward101 comments

Here's almost the same article from 1999: "How the Internet ruined San Francisco" http://www.salon.com/1999/10/28/internet_2/ "The dot-com invasion -- call them twerps with 'tude -- is destroying everything that made San Francisco weird and wonderful."

Buildings getting converted to condos, soaring real estate prices, evictions, artists unable to afford SF, traffic, class struggles against yuppies, gentrification. The only thing missing from this 1999 article is Google buses.

Edit: with more comments than upvotes (45 vs 30 currently), the parent article is going to get penalized off the front page. So you might want to slow down the commenting... http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking-really...

I was here the first time. I'm here now. This is so totally different than 1999. In 1999, the boom included a lot of counter-culture people. Hackerspaces were still hidden underground things, and the technology was so new, a lot of pie-in-the-sky dreamers were here trying to make their way in the world.

This time around, there is an established norm for how the startup scene works, and that scene requires MBAs and business suits. The people who have come around to take advantage this time are not nerds, they're not tech people, they're people of all sorts. I think the best way to so describe them is to say that these are normal people. That's fine anywhere else, but not in SF, home of the weirdos.

SF has NEVER been a town of normal people. This gentrification process is basically turning SF into the Valley. The old days where burning man types held parties in their warehouses are long gone now. The first dot com boom made millionaires out of some of these weirdos, like JWZ. But this boom is not doing that. The people getting rich now came to SF just to get rich, and they have no interest in being weird, burning man, or any of the SF-style weirdness.

Yes, in 1999 artists had to leave SF. But at that time, it was just some artists and weirdos leaving. This time, it's ALL of them leaving. There are no more blue collar people in SF. No more weirdos in SF. No more poets in SF. It's a real shame, and while it could have happened in 1999, it didn't quite get going enough to really do the damage that's being done this time around.

NEVER any normal people, eh? How about in the 40's? 30's? Late 1800's? San Francisco has been around a lot longer than a couple of decades and it's still mostly normal people today. Just look around sometime and in other neighborhoods than to which you live...

OOoooooK, the 30's and 40's saw what spawned the Film Noir movement: a climate of fear and paranoia, somewhat related to fears of Japanese invasion during WWII, but mostly came from movies like Dark Passage, and the fact that two major, photogenic prisons were located here. The 50's saw the Maltese Falcon and the beat poets coming to light.

The 1800's were when San Francisco BECAME weird. Ever hear of Emperor Norton? The Gold Rush? Little Dick? The gold rush brought, specifically, risk-takers and odd hermit folks to the Bay Area, even if only temporarily, and Little Dick was a 15-year old female gang leader who murdered Chinese people as a hobby in the 1850's.

SF has always been weird. The only people here, before, who you could consider not-weird were the blue collar sorts. This was not a town of lawyers and doctors and people with children. It was a town of homosexuals and beats and sailors and hackers and burners and hippies. It was a great town. Now, it's just Manhattan west. A millionaire's playground.

The fact that you use murdering Chinese as an example of the "weirdness" that you promote is truly disgusting. I'm not saying that you support such an act, but to include it in a list of things that you are generally positive towards, without any qualification or disclaimer, indicates the implicit unimportance of Chinese lives, relative to SF's unique culture.

SF has also been normal. Normal/weird is not mutually exclusive. SF has also been and is still is quite gentrified. For every Emperor Norton or Little Dick you have the Pacific Union club, industrialists and bankers. Those who had/have chic apartments and townhouses then head off to their mansions in Hillsborough. Hippies and beats did not build all those tall buildings around market street. If you watch all those Noir films, just like walking around the city today, look beyond the main characters and see all the normal people going about their business.

As Manhattan is still the center of fine art, theater, opera and classical music in this country, I don't know that I mind the comparison...

Fine art ? By whose measure? Wealth? Theater/Opera/Classic music : And how does that resonate with society in 2015? What's the average age of attendees? I've had some of my best experiences with art/music venues/performing arts far from what wealth has defined as 'quality'.

Constructed buildings? Yes, blue collar people built them as they did most things.

Wealth/Money is an amplifier.. Too much of it and it drowns out the actual signal and turns it to noise. SF has gone full retard and the result is a hollowed vessel of noise .. Much like Manhattan. 'Fine art' as it were

Where are all the tech weirdos moving to?

Oakland

Austin?

Still SF, and more than ever.

Austin, Oakland, Portland, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Denver, Utah...

Where you see weirdness I see monoculture that calls itself counterculture. And nerd/tech culture has never been part of this. To try and rewrite the history of nerd/tech culture like this is a form of cultural appropriation. The same nerds who were hated and ridiculed in the 90's turned out to be part of the counterculture movement all along! You say a lot of pie-in-the-sky dreamers were here trying to make their way in the world. How is that different to what is going on now? Isn't Elon Musk a pie in the sky dreamer? And does this make him a "weirdo"?

21 year SF resident and tech worker here. A lot of the people who are complaining about the boom are using the late 1980s and early 1990s as their baseline, the time in SF's history when it was actually cheap. That was shortly after Loma Prieta, and at the height of the AIDS epidemic, before anti-retrovirals came out. People were literally dropping like flies back then. There was quite a lot of underground culture then too. A friend referred to it as the "dancing in the ovens" period.

Since then, SF has reverted to its mean. People are moving here again, building new housing is systematically blocked by NIMBYism, and predictably it has gotten expensive again. This is really a failure of long-term policy. The tech industry doesn't help itself in many cases, but if housing had been in balance with demand, things wouldn't be so out of control.

These things always go in cycles. The get rich quick period will end. The people who are only here for money will leave. The people who are here for the city will stay or come back.

So, San Francisco only gained it's soul in the fifties? What about the previous 100 years? You know, the years that all the beautiful architecture was built? The Haight was once great but now it's a hollow shell of it's brief glory and the shell emptied long before the tech millionaires showed up. Do we really need to save it as a museum piece? Has anyone seen a real beatnik in a generation?

I don't think a city should freeze it's self in time so the aging can relive their youth. A truly thriving city is in a consent state of change. So the city goes through a gentrification cycle. After the next crash or long decline, neighborhoods will open up for a future wave of bohemians. In the mean time, a lot of buildings in decline will get fixed and modernized...

Good question, same goes for Nations, what makes a nation ? Waves are naturel, but how fast change is felt as breaking or losing its 'soul' ?

>Emerging in its place is the mostly white, male-dominated, monied monoculture of the tech industry and there appears no end in sight.

It's weird to flinch at reading this. What am I, a racist? But this sentence just isn't true for me. I mean, sure, as the demographic majority there are a lot of white people in tech, but my experience just hasn't been "mostly white". At some meetings I've been the only white guy in the room: how much more diverse do we need to get, exactly?

What is the case where I work is that white people are far more likely to live in San Francisco, whereas the nonwhite immigrants seem to be a little more responsible and live in places like Fremont, Dublin, and Sunnyvale, and tolerate 90 minute commutes to do so. Which is not an aspect of the tech boom that a publication like The Guardian would ever emphasize, because a story about entrenched old hipsters making life difficult for people from Bombay who worked themselves to the bone just to get into the country -- that just doesn't fit the prevailing narrative -- nor does the fact that they're doing so to preserve a culture famous mostly for its reputation among America's majority demographic.

I mean, I'm not gonna deny that being white gives some tech workers (like me) an unfair advantage in life, which also happens to be true in roughly every single other American industry, but I've been exasperated by this enough to point out that the people opposing expansion are generally shortsighted hypocrites -- bring on the evictions, so that the nonwhites who comprise 75% of my scrum team can live in the city where they work, maybe.

And I'd like to apologize apostrophically for stealing my coworkers' right to represent themselves.

In this context, Indians and Asians count as White. Why? Because in the narrative of the author, Whiteness is not a race, but rather a social construct designed to reinforce the privilege of Whites, and to enforce a uniform way of thinking and acting. Whiteness also serves to create and justify economic disparity. In this narrative, anyone who accepts this system, reinforces its values, and receives the benefits of Whiteness, is effectively White.

The tech industry is disproportionately asian relative to the population of the nation. So the whole thing is especially goofy.

Asians play a doubly unfortunate role in the anti racist movement.

On the one hand, they share the same guilt as Whites, since they cooperate with and benefit from White society.

On the other hand, anti Asian sentiment is used as an escape valve, allowing people to "harmlessly" express their racist feelings. It also is a way to pretend to allow freedom of expression, by allowing racial jokes about Asians, and criticism of Asian culture (which I see a lot of on HN).

'He complains of a "soulless group of people", a "new breed" of men and women too busy with iPhones to "be here" in the moment, and shiny new Mercedes-Benzs on his street.'

So he can't tolerate people different than him? Tough luck I say.

hmm sounds like the old argument for red lining maybe they don't like that nice Mr and Mrs Patel moving in next door.

That's quite a leap to assign racism as the core of the author's complaint, don't you think? Especially since I can't seem to find anything referencing South Asians or any other sort of ethnic demarcation.

It is quite a leap...I don't think Ferlinghetti or the author of the article was complaining about racism at all, I think they just don't seem to like the tech people. I'm not really sure why but if I had to guess, I would say they don't view them as cultured people.

As 50 or 60% or the recent tech incomers are from India that is indirect racism.

And India has culture going back several thousand years.

Did you read the article?

"Emerging in its place is the mostly white, male-dominated, monied monoculture of the tech industry and there appears no end in sight."

Seems like he's complaining that SF is losing diversity.

Really seen the stats for the big tech companies? its not white males that are over represented compared to the USA's population its Black, Latino and Females that are under represented

I think its heavily implied in the article with some tech companies having 60% technical from one particular country.

If they use term like a "different breed" that could straight out of a UKIP leaflet.

Its the WASP playing at activists who pushed out a previous generation that seem to be behind a lot of this.

Patels move in areas with good schools, such as Fremont; the last thing they need is SF.

"Good luck" is what he said.

(which I find somewhat amusing)

I believe he means something like this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9089307

I would be sympathetic to his sort of criticism except for the fact that it's really political who you're allowed to deride as "changing the culture". I mean, if he was complaining about all those darn Chinese or Mexicans changing the culture of San Francisco, he would have a problem. Not that I think the criticisms would be equivalent, but simply that it proves that people don't really think "culture" of a place is sacrosanct.

Quite I said as much and got down voted for my pains

Your point is different. The other poster's point is that wanting to preserve SF's culture against tech workers, is like wanting to preserve a city's culture against Chinese/Mexicans. Your point is that the article is really concerned about Indian immigration.

I agree that there is anti-Indian/Chinese sentiment, but I don't think this is the main driver of the article. The animosity against White nerds is real, and proportionately fewer tech workers from India or China live in SF (they live in the greater bay area)

That's not how I read it and when a white 70 year old uses terms like "different breed" I would bet he doesn't "really" mean white males.

This is a "dog whistle" term

Someone isn't 'different' because they have their noses stuck in a device 24/7. They are simply not considering others around them.

I see no reason why I should have to tolerate people going around not being present with others. We all have a right to our feelings, so saying "tough luck" is equivalent to saying "I don't care what you feel", which is actually the point of all of this.

Aren't you saying "I don't care how you feel" to everyone choosing to engage with the world less directly/personally and more removed/technologically?

I'm saying the inverse, I think. The person in the article has a good point, and we shouldn't tolerate 'tough luck' as the response.

Someone in their phone clearly doesn't have the bandwidth to care how I feel about their engagement with our reality. I've watched teenagers literally shake their friends to try to get them out of their phones to answer a question on which Jamba Juice they wanted. That behavior is irritating because it mutes my ability to state my feelings to that individual.

Obviously I don't talk to everyone I see in the world, but given a significant amount of people run around with their nose in their phone all the time, it can affect how someone who isn't in their phone views the world. Less people engage in conversation, less people 'see' you on the street, less people are 'aware' you exist, etc. It's a real problem and SF is the epicenter of it because a) this is where it all gets built and b) it's part of the tech culture.

Someone in their phone clearly doesn't have the bandwidth to care how I feel about their engagement with our reality.

Your aesthetic preferences do not impose any obligations on anyone else.

I guess a better way to phrase it is: "you can feel however you want".

As long as you realize that brooding and feeling some type of negative way is a net negative on human civilization. You could think about the lives that people must live that they're using their phones that much. Maybe pressures they face at work that force them to constantly be available, or difficulty meeting friends with adult schedules so they have to try to fit in conversation when they can.

Oh well I'm sorry but your feelings don't dictate whether or not someone lives next to you. Go live in a subdivision that has rules about what sort of people you like to be around. Just because you're intolerant doesn't mean they should not be able to do as they wish.

> I'm sorry your feelings don't dictate whether or not someone lives next to you

Are you aware of what a blaming statement is? That's where you say I said something when I really didn't. For example: I never said anything about dictating who lives next to me. I said 'tolerate' as in 'accept'. I don't have to accept anyone who walks around with their nose in their phone all the time...in my life. That's it. I said exactly 0% about anyone living next to me, but I damn sure will tell someone who is stuck in their phone to watch out where they are going.

> "be here" in the moment

Weasel words.

I hear this all the time, and no one can tell me exactly what it means.

Like, burying my nose in a book is certainly not "being here" or "living in the moment," but that's probably a sanctioned activity to people who say stuff like this.

I'm pretty sure that same question was asked decades ago.

Here's a story of urban development in SF during the 50s.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-11-09-245099...

The problem is, the restrictions on development, which make housing in such short supply are also the very thing that makes San Fran a beautiful city. Remove those restrictions and both of the following will happen

a) artists will have an easier time staying b) it will look like Midwest or LA.

Ed Lee is developing the City faster than any previous mayor in my 43 years of living here. In the past few years I've seen no less than 30 cranes up in the City at any given time.

right. That's probably true, but I thought it was the case that Bay Area has restrictive development rules relative to the rest of the country. Is that not the case?

I can't speak for the Bay Area, but SF Mayor Lee used to work in the planning department and has eased restrictions quite a bit from previous times. He's also got connections to bring in developers and money to work within the restrictions that currently exist.

has eased restrictions quite a bit

That's great news—SF has been the least affordable city in the country for a couple years: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/... , and for years I've been reading articles from people who say they a) hate high housing costs but b) also hate any new buildings. Which is amazing, because it's like saying, "I hate that supply and demand function!"

The solution to rising prices in the face of rising demand and constant supply is simple: build more, per Yglesias in The Rent is Too Damn High (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO). That Lee is now doing so, on at least some level, is great!

Long time San Franciscans tend to like their space and (historic) views, both of which are lost with more high rises. Ed Lee, as was the case with Willie Brown, doesn't seem to care for those things. Which in turn angers long time residents.

As well, this boom and bust cycle (previous dcom era) fueled by outsiders makes it hard to live here for people who wish to make it their long-term or permanent home. The influx, transitions and seeming carelessness for our city & it's people can be very hard on families who have lived here for generations. This is why articles like this are written for multiple generations, as seen by some of the replies to the OP.

Developers are also getting around the affordable housing requirement by paying money into the affordable housing fund. That way they are not actually required to make a certain percentage of there housing developments affordable.

I've dealt with SF Planning several times in the last few years. With one exception (existing illegal units) planning restrictions have only gotten worse. For example development along the Embarcadero has been banned by ballot measure. Meanwhile the key rules continue to steadily tightened with things like the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan. And it's not just the rules but the slowness of the process that makes it so painful and costly.

And that's just SF Planning. Numerous other SF Gov created problems also make development incredibly slow and costly. I'll just quickly list a few examples: SF Bulding Code does not permit plastic drain pipe; anyone can easily demand a hearing on an already issued building permit; SF Water charges $9000 for a new water meter; and rent control laws are strict and constantly changing. All of these are as strict or stricter in SF than almost anywhere in the US.

The reason for the jump in building is that office and apartment rents have become so ridiculously high it now makes sense to build in the few remaining sites despite all the costs. Even these projects had to go through tortuous approval process, such as the Transbay Transit District, and unbelievably many projects started back in the last tech boom! The building boom will likely grind to a halt in a few years as builders run out of sites.

Rant over. SF is a great place but this is in spite of it's crappy local government that has literally created many of its problems.

The restrictive development rules you are referring to are height restrictions on buildings.

"Relative" is a good description, as one might find the development rules of the rest of the country quite "permissive."

You probably thought this because it is repeated ad nauseum on HN regardless of if it is correct. Any SF housing thread turns into a mindless echo chamber of "NIMBYS!" and "The planning commission is to blame for the lack of new housing".

It takes a generation to fix the negative effects of development restrictions. Apartment buildings typically go through a life cycle. They start out targeted at high-end residents, because that justifies the initial construction costs, then as they age get targeted down market. Chicago has a ton of reasonably affordable apartment housing, and most of it was built in the 1970's.

It will be decades before the shiny new buildings being put up new in San Francisco are affordable for ordinary people.

Perhaps the new buildings won't be cheap, but supply is supply. The old buildings may cease to be ludicrously expensive as they are now. I heard stories of the real estate agent telling the line of people out the door coming after a Craigslist post to leave if they don't plan on paying more than posted price.

With regards to b, just look at what's happening in Mission Bay. Developers have been able to raise new building after new building -- and you have a glut of bland luxury-style apartments surrounded by corporate offices and uninspired restaurants whose main selling points are a high-end aesthetic. It's pretty, but it's dry and dull.

I agree. that's the unfortunate tradeoff though. Not sure why I got downvoted :)

Imagine every startup in the world moving to SF! The startup world will get trapped in a cycle of exorbitant rents/salaries and exceptionally high burn rates. This would mean that 'real' innovations would more or less die down and any company which is in an 'attractive space' and can raise money would be free to spend it on even more rent/salaries. Spending on ever higher rent/salaries so that they can 'compete' for limited resources. The situation has come down to '10 year lease deals' being the last option. The cycle will continue until we realize how we got caught in this trap in the first place!!

I would've had no motivation to move if people didn't keep telling me that I wouldn't be able to raise money because VCs didn't like to invest 'outside the bay area'!! I tried to reason with a partner at one such VC firm and he said 'that is how the world works'. Seriously?!! This is a guy trying to invest in innovation and yet is so oblivious to bringing innovation into their own sector.

Sorry for the rant.

San Francisco has a soul?

It's a port city. Like New York, Vancouver or any other city connected to the outside world San Francisco gets waves of different immigrants with each generation. Today's wealth is just another gold rush, of which SF has seen many. It's a boom-and-bust city.

I would like to see the same article written from the point of view of bay residents who are being displaced by the art folk.

Or one from 50 years ago complaining about all the bohemians moving in. Change happens.

Don't worry. When VC funding dries up and 90% of these startups die, then rents will fall, buildings will vacate, and the whole cycle will start over again.

People forget that these things go in cycles and that nothing lasts forever.

"Facebook, Google, Apple and other companies lay on shiny luxury buses to ferry their employees on the approximately 90-minute trip. San Francisco's Municipal Transportation Authority estimates about 35,000 ride the air-conditioned, Wi-Fi-provisioned buses each day."

Facebook has only a couple thousand employees, and Google has maybe 15,000? in Mountainview, and certainly not that many who live in SF. Not sure about Apple. Are there more companies with shuttles, or is this number made up?

Counting one employee riding twice per day may make the difference.

Considering the number of buses I see every day, I would agree. Companies like Genentech & Yahoo transport emplyees as well. It's also an SF MTA estimate and I'm pretty sure they have a good idea of the traffic & transit conditions in the City.

Since these busses are direct competitors, the MTA also has probably the strongest incentives of any actor to overstate the severity of the problem.

Tech shuttles don't compete with the SFMTA in any way.

No, I disagree. The SF MTA only serves SF not the south bay. They also charge for use of the MUNI bus stops that these buses use.

SFMTA routes end at the borders of the city. They are not direct competitors to buses going down the peninsula. If anything, SFMTA lines are feeders, because the corporate buses don't wander all over the city.

LinkedIn, Yahoo, Genentech and EA also have buses. Other smaller companies also contract out Bauer's (http://www.bauersit.com/) to provide shuttle services as well. I'm not saying this adds up, but there are other companies participating.

San Franciscans have no one to blame other than San Franciscans for the housing policies that are pricing people out of the market. Well meaning but ultimately deeply misguided liberals are still insisting that housing supply doesn't affect pricing (http://truth-out.org/news/item/26656-developers-aren-t-going...), while others are are calling for a moratorium on building (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/201...).

Meanwhile, in Washington DC, rents are falling because of the increase in supply, while both the population and number of jobs in increasing. DC also has a unique character that they've been able to preserve despite growth; San Francisco needs to do the same, and fast.

San Franciscans need to start pushing the city for a lot of new housing units, probably 100,000, with expedited planning, approvals, and building if they don't want to get completely priced out of the market.

More on DC:

* http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/11/dc-rents-ar...

* http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/falling-rents-in-dc-a-product-o...

* http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-23/washington...

* http://dcinno.streetwise.co/2014/08/01/did-you-know-d-c-s-re...

* http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/dc_area_rents_drop_3_a...

If there had been any doubt about the Guardian's accuracy, the responses in this thread have dispelled it.

Not a single post stating there's a vibrant, interesting culture emerging but instead a flood of neo-liberal "screw you"s interspersed with a few "you're a racist" and a "being absorbed in your iphone is diversity" along with a "good riddance to the gays" for bonus points.

Dear god I'm glad I got out when I did.

The problem with comments like yours is that you've chosen to shame the top level posters instead of replying to a single one of them. Shaming works well to enforce uniform beliefs in a tight knit social circle, such as you may have enjoyed in SF before the tech influx. It doesn't work so well online.

I am in fact a software engineer. When I lived in the city I had fiends who were social anthologists, post docs from over seas, drag performers, dance studio mangers, red cross workers even a poet. Not single one still lives in the city (even though one of them had a building named after him).

I only make software so that I can have a rich life outside of a cubical among a diverse set of people who can teach me things. In today's San Francisco that sentiment is no only unobtainable but would render a person un-hire-able.

Tech worker here who lived in the valley and frequented SF often. I ventured elsewhere about 3 years ago and recently visited friends for a week to decided if I want to come back. The city has definitely changed.. The valley has definitely changed. Cultured has definitely fled. Egos have definitely gone through the roof. People have definitely become more impatient and unfriendly (esp in SF). If I come back, I would live in either Oakland or Berkeley. The city looks a lot more worn (aside from the newly minted millionares who have refurbished the Victorian homes in SF). Things have become a lot more homogeneous (not in a good way) and scaled up to meet the expectations of the monied. I have several friends who have lived in the valley for about 10 years who are currently looking to go up to either Seattle/Portland or move out to Austin. Female friends who comment about the nature of attitudes of males in the valley and how they don't feel they can find a level headed husband... And this all has to do w/ tech.

New Money .. Egos .. and ever escalating rent/property values putting even more pressure on expression, culture, art, and the 'chill' atmosphere that was hallmark of SF. The new types I could imagine enjoy it very much and the bay still has much to offer everyone.

It is what it is. However, this time around (2015), individuals thankfully have more choices around America and the world to pursue a tech minded career. If the bay area doesn't excite you anymore, I highly suggest getting out of there and seeing other parts of the world and not just for vacation. I am constantly shocked at how much more I have begun to enjoy art/culture/music venues/socialization/biking/nature after having left the bay. People tend to drink the kool-aid while in the bay and believe it is the only and best place on earth. Maybe that is a good thing as it keeps the hidden gems from getting flooding w/ money.

I've gotten a chance to live in a city that was on the rise and have carefully observed the way in which money has influenced the way it is shaped... Stuffy SOHO mixed use development condos priced at $300k+ .. art that i paid $70 for now goes for $600 ... Tinderfication of dating (everyone becomes a transaction). Drowning out of culture/expression.

I guess it seems wise to me, from my experience, to simply move around and enjoy cities in their prime. Life is too short to sit around playing bidding wars for culture/housing and endure the snotty attitudes/foolishness therein.

There is no reason to get hostile in objection to these truths. The SF/bay area of today is not the SF of yesteryear. Culture is absent. People are more tense. The goal is to cram people in like sardines (much to the ignorance of what the Nimbies wanted to preserve). Money talks is the new motto ...

I don't even want to get into the race (doesn't apply if you're white/Asian) and gender issues that have become even more pronounced.

I will be quite thankful if the next revolution in tech is not spawned from the bay area. Maybe it will focus more on actually improving society vs the current trajectory of monetizing people w/o compensation.

I'm commenting because I don't want this on the front page. Not that I am writing more comments that I would otherwise just to get it off the front page, but rather that I think that the reasons that this algorithm is used, apply to this article.

As a tech worker I am sick of being degraded and dehumanized in the media, with terms like "twerp" and "soulless". What was our crime? Being awkward, White (or Asian or Indian) and male? Not living the lifestyle or having the attitudes that the Left require of SF residents?

The left dehumanizes people that it wants to attack (often physically, as has happened in SF [0]). We should recognize that the dehumanization and degradation of tech workers is not only hateful and unjustified, but also likely to result in violent acts.

[0] http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/tech/mobile/google-glass-attac...

Techies are hated because, compared to old money, they seem to be (being young, probably why) self-centered, give no investments in community, are willfully agreeing to live in illegal condo conversion etc. And also, the type of techies who move to SF are more towards libertarian startupniks; humble Indian H1B workers all live in Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell etc.

How is this characterization of techies different to the reasons someone might give for hating Blacks, Jews or Mexicans? Because it's true? Are you going to require the same standard of evidence for these claims you make about techies, as you would if someone made similar claims about Blacks, Jews or Mexicans?

> someone might give for hating Blacks, Jews or Mexicans?

Because: 1) The groups you mentioned above are too heterogeneous to pass any blanket judgment. 2) The conversation is not about techies in general (say a system admin in Shaker Heights, OH, a programmer in Tacoma, WA etc.) but narrow subset of IT people who is well aware of social tensions in city, caused by rapid influx of money, too busy/lazy to participate in improving social ills of the place _insist_ in moving in here, for variety of reasons, although they work in Mountain View.

Keep in mind I do not hate them; I myself despise hatred.

1) The groups you mentioned above are too heterogeneous to pass any blanket judgment.

But statements against these groups could also be made in a specific context. And I'm sure the people making strong claims against these groups, as you are about tech, would view them as homogeneous.

2) The conversation is not about techies in general (say a system admin in Shaker Heights, OH, a programmer in Tacoma, WA etc.) but narrow subset of IT people who is well aware of social tensions in city, caused by rapid influx of money, too busy/lazy to participate in improving social ills of the place

This is an example of an unsubstantiated claim. Again, how to do determine what level of evidence is needed to make such a claim? If a similar claim was made against any other group, evidence would be demanded.

insist_ in moving in here, for variety of reasons, although they work in Mountain View.

This only makes sense if you assume everything else bad about Tech workers you've claimed is true. If they've done nothing wrong, and prejudice against them is not justified, why shouldn't they move to SF for any reason they like?

Keep in mind I do not hate them; I myself despise hatred.

I understand, but it's irrelevant. You are listing grievances that people use to justify their hatred of techies, and presumably you agree these grievances are well founded, even if you don't think they justify hatred. I'm arguing against these grievances being justified.

But, so what? Did the Beats ask the north beach cafes if they could hang out? Did the hippies ask the residents of the Haight if they could make it the center of the counter culture? Did the gays ask the Castro residents if they wanted to be the center of gay rights? In every case the people mentioned just did it. Just like the tech folks are doing now. Lets see what comes of it rather than grasping on to the past. It's a hell of a lot easier to sell art, do theater, have concerts when your patrons have money. Change is not always bad and reality rarely mimics binary opposition...

You're way off balance and delusional if you think the natural human reaction to a snide smarta* relates in someway to 'hatred' for blacks/jews/mexicans.

Your comments reflect how out of touch with reality a good number of techies are in the valley. It's sad and pathetic and it only exists due to the relatively homogeneous bubble that has been created out there. If it were more heterogeneous like it was in the past, this frame of mind you seem to have settled on wouldn't be the case because you'd constantly be checked by reality of people outside of your sphere on a daily basis. That check/balance has been removed and all that remains is a bunch of immature newly minted self-absorbed dweebs who feel the world should bow to them because they made some app that monetizes other people's data.

You have no clear and sound perspective on race relations. You have no clear and sound perspective on how to treat women. and when you go about being a d*ck, on the off chance that someone checks you, you feel they hate you.. like the jews

Jesus.. This is why i left the bay area.

What defines a "snide smartass" really depends on your viewpoint. I'm sure the people who murdered Emmett Till thought he was a snide smartass, who was living in a bubble of Northern race relations, and needed to be checked by reality.

I don't believe that unlawful violence, whether conducted by the government, or by violent individuals encouraged by supporters like you, has any place in society. You approve of violence when it furthers your own political goals, in this case, to punish middle class White nerds who have unacceptable views on diversity etc. But I doubt you can explain how your justifications don't also apply to, for example, the racial violence I mentioned above.

*sigh. What defines one is when you are unaware that you are one. Your comments reflect on your lack of awareness beyond your bubble.

'unlawful violence' ... 'violent individuals encouraged by supporters like you'

The world isn't as academic as you have convinced yourself it is.

Again, the majority of people on here are tech workers (such as myself) and are highly educated. Yet you act as though there is no validity in any viewpoints beyond your own.

Get your head out of your behind. You'll live a much more satisfying life.

You're most likely not black or jewish nor have you faced any true hardships or oppression in your life. So, please don't refer to people who have in your shallow 'appeal to extreme' arguments. You're educated, got a tech job, and work a 9-5 whose pay is adjusted to the cost of living. There are people who run lawn businesses who make more than you. You're not holy than thou'. The world does not revolve around you. So, give it a rest.

I'm very familiar with other viewpoints. You are the one who is unable to really engage with my arguments, because you prefer cheap shots and personal insults. Your whole post is dripping with condescension, but you haven't addressed anything I've actually said in any detail.

You want to be able to browbeat me with you rude style, but it just doesn't work online.

#1 : tech workers are not under attack. Your suggestion that they are and a far drawn remark that it relates to the oppression faced by blacks/jews is an appeal to extremes and is a logical fallacy.

#2 : In the real world, people conduct violence against others all the time for varied reasons. Just because you have a well paying job doesn't make you immune.

#3 : The left/right/center .. Has nothing to do w/ this matter. If you're an asshole, someone might

> say nothing to you because they stand more to lose than gain

> say something to you for which your response might escalate the matter

> enact physical harm against you w/o words (some people just chose this as a normal response to jerks)

If you somehow think the last option indicates hatred, you are out of touch with reality. You made zero points and your perspective is based on a sheltered view of the world that is reinforced by the homogeneous environment of the bay area in which people often chose : > say nothing to you because they stand more to lose than gain

I've done my years in tech in the bay area. I gain nothing from dishing on you. You're out of touch with reality and my advice is to relax. You make good money, live a cushy life. No one is out to get you. So, get over yourself. Shit happens in the real world. Your job/degrees don't make you immune to it. So humble yourself and realize you share the world with non-techies... Some of which don't want your silly google glass pointed at them... Nor do they care for your reasoning.. People who face real struggles and adversity and equate yours to being a cry baby (I could easily post an article about areas of America where people are shot in the face for looking at someone wrong). But whatever, it's your life to live. Maintain the viewpoint you want. Who am I to tell you different?

Good day

#1 : tech workers are not under attack. Your suggestion that they are and a far drawn remark that it relates to the oppression faced by blacks/jews is an appeal to extremes and is a logical fallacy.

Why is it an appeal to extremes? Not all racial prejudice or violence is extreme. My original point was that we should apply the same standards to claims about tech workers as we would about racial stereotypes, that is, to view them critically and demand evidence.

#2 : In the real world, people conduct violence against others all the time for varied reasons. Just because you have a well paying job doesn't make you immune.

This is a view of mine that you have invented. I never said tech workers should be immune from the real world, but rather that inciting violence is always wrong, and is wrong in this case. Would you tell middle class gays that they are not immune from the real world, and need to deal with violence from people who don't like them?

#3 : The left/right/center .. Has nothing to do w/ this matter. If you're an asshole, someone might...

You can't just rationalize violence so easily. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, or that tech workers deserve special protections not afforded to others. But just because worse things happen to other people, doesn't make violence against tech workers ok. People who face real struggles and adversity probably find White middle class feminists to be cry baby's too, but that doesn't mean these feminists have nothing to complain about.

I don't need any lesson in how to live my life, I live a life consistent with my views which are different to yours. You see value in the grittiness of people's lives outside the White middle class. I also see this value, but I don't think it's necessary for a person to be exposed to this in order to live a fulfilling life.

Give me a break with this garbage. The majority of the people on here are tech workers. 'degraded' .. 'dehumanized'... The left? who the heck is that? Some days I'm right. Some days I'm center.

No one enjoys or will celebrate a homogeneous population in 2015. People want diversity. Money is an amplifier that has diminishing returns. Too much of it and you get white noise and foolishness.

It doesn't matter what your occupation or race is (you could be purple and grind stones for a living for all I care).

As for the google glass attacks, that highlights quite clearly the nature of the type of a-holes that have been created in the tech-sphere : I have money and I can do what I want no matter who it pisses off. Hello .. there is a real world out there and people will punch your lights out if you selfishly go about pissing them off w/o consideration.

The glasshole incidents reflect clearly on the types of jerks that are the new cream of the crop in the valley. What, you think you are so high and mighty that no one should dare knock you out for being a dick? Wake up and stop being snotty.

Please read the Hacker News guidelines and try harder to follow them when commenting on the site. They ask you to remain civil, even when another user is wrong.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

I don't think that people who criticize tech workers are only saying that it would be bad if everyone was a tech worker because the city would be less diverse. Rather, they also claim that tech workers contribute less, and are generally less interesting people to be around, than others. This is what I was objecting to. But your claim that tech workers in particular, and rich people in general, make a city less interesting, is also wrong. There is a lot of diversity within the tech industry (apart from gender diversity). I work with Indians, Chinese, Russians and US citizens. (EDIT: and even the claim that middle class Whites are homogeneous is wrong, and the kind of prejudice that I was originally complaining about).

I believe that attacks on glass wearers were primarily based on objecting to people identifying with the tech industry in a very visible and gaudy way, not on privacy concerns. E.g. the title of the article was "Google Glass targeted as symbol by anti-tech crowd" and from the article, In a video Sarah Slocum shared with KRON-TV, a woman can be heard saying "You're killing the city" while approaching Slocum and apparently trying to rip the headset off of her face.

Do you agree with this, and if so, do you still think that these attacks are justified? Is simply being in the tech industry, and having the wrong attitudes, enough to warrant violence? Or is it the privacy concerns around glass that justify the violence?

A buddy of mine (who happens to be gay) left SF to move to Chicago. His parting words: "SF is the Calcutta of the West. F'k this place"

Can you unpack that comment a bit, for people who aren't terribly familiar with the demographics/culture of India?

I was going to say, i have no idea what that means.

How's he enjoying the weather? I was just back there last week -20F then came back to SF sunny and 70F. Reminded me why I made the opposite move years ago.

-14ºF last week in Chicago though.

Made this account just to respond to this, because it hit very close to home.

My partner and I also moved to Chicago after living in SF for a decade. In short: it was no longer the city that we loved when we moved there.

Now I've lived in cities all my life, so I've no illusions: cities change, neighborhoods evolve, and that's okay. You just find a corner of the city that fits your style, because there always is one.

But this time it's the mood of the entire area that has changed. There's an obsession with money and wealth, and an influx of wealthy individuals that's changing local businesses, prices, and focus. Its becoming like Manhattan of the west - only without the culture or institutions.

Chicago is a much more cultural and cosmopolitan city. But more importantly, also more livable.

In what way? I've spent a considerable amount of time in Calcutta -- it has its extreme positives and extreme negatives like many cities. The analogy needs some clarification.

Thanks for chiming in, media from London. Is it possible to write about this issue from a far-away or recently-arrived perspective?

Worrying about this a decade or two sooner would've been more timely. The city changed dramatically from the late 90s to early 00s. We had a lull in change during the macroeconomic recession, but now the machine is getting back up to speed.

I've been increasingly sad over the years as my friends who are artists, librarians, dancers, therapists, social workers, statisticians, teachers, writers, musicians, accountants, anything other than software engineers, have been falling away from the Bay because it is just so expensive.

Rapid growth can apparently kill anything. IMO it's likely too late to do anything for San Francisco. There's still time to worry about Oakland though.

btw, since this Guardian article uses the "Compare Oakland to Brooklyn" trope, here's a great article putting change in Oakland into a historical context: http://nextcity.org/features/view/oakland-gentrification-lib...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com