Bay Area class tensions relating to tech workers & shuttles

[AndyH]

If mass transit 'sucks', why isn't Google using their significant influence with politicians to make it better?

They did. The path of least resistance is to run their own buses.

while using public infrastructure without paying for it. Most rational adults would view that as theft.

It's funny - absolutely nobody thought of having private buses use public bus stops as "theft" until this whole SF/gentrification issue came up. Since then, Google met with the city and agreed to pay to use the bus stops. So now they're paying to use them, and you still want to call it theft. Most rational people would call that view... irrational.

I don't give you permission to put words into my mouth, garsh. I am aware that at least one tech company has agreed to pay the city for use of the public infrastructure. That's good - and contrary to your assertion I don't call that theft.

That 'whole SF/gentrification issue' didn't just 'come up' - it's been growing all over this country and all over this world. That's the only reason I initially brought up Occupy as an example - because it shows the problem did not just suddenly appear, and it certainly doesn't go away now that someone's paying to use bus stops.

A mission for you: Find out what incentives the city put on the table, and what concessions they gave, in order to get a tech company to build a campus there. And then see how much that tech company has influenced local politics and tax policy since. Then see if you can connect those dots to the situation today. I'll bet you can.

 

[garsh]

I don't give you permission to put words into my mouth, garsh.

Your words. I even quoted them. Here, I'll quote them again:

while using public infrastructure without paying for it. Most rational adults would view that as theft.

And just now, you said:

I am aware that at least one tech company has agreed to pay the city for use of the public infrastructure. That's good - and contrary to your assertion I don't call that theft.

So you *knew* that they were paying, AND you still called it theft.

That 'whole SF/gentrification issue' didn't just 'come up'

Now it's you who is putting words into my mouth.

All I was saying was that nobody thought of private busses using public bus stops as being "theft" until the recent SF/gentrification issue. I realize that you want to lump SF/gentrification in with all of the other activist movements going on around the world, and that's fine, but none of those other incidents referred to using bus stops as theft. It was this recent instance where bus stops became an issue. And the various tech companies being accused of this so-called "theft" quickly met with San Francisco and agreed to pay for the privilege of using those bus stops.

 

[Nubo]

"Gentrification" is the flip-side of Rent Control. When you keep rents artificially low for decades by government decree, it's inevitable that pressure eventually builds to convert these buildings to realize their worth in alignment with 2014 market prices rather than 1984 markets.

 

[thankyouOB]

we have always had gentrification. sometimes the serfs go quietly. sometimes they marshal their voting resources and demand change.

that is what created rent control. sometimes it gets more excited than that. that's what creates the bus protests in SF and uglier stuff. let them eat cake is not a savvy response.

smart companies running exclusive busses for employees who create such tensions should try to provide some recompense to diminish the tensions or improve the perception of what they are doing.

 

[AndyH]

I don't give you permission to put words into my mouth, garsh.

Your words. I even quoted them. Here, I'll quote them again:

while using public infrastructure without paying for it. Most rational adults would view that as theft.

And just now, you said:

I am aware that at least one tech company has agreed to pay the city for use of the public infrastructure. That's good - and contrary to your assertion I don't call that theft.

So you *knew* that they were paying, AND you still called it theft.

Nice. Let me make this very, very easy for you. When I posted the first point you quoted, I did NOT know that a single tech company had agreed to pay for use of the public bus stops. That means that my point stands and I still consider it theft from the public.

When I posted the second quote, it was after reading an article that confirmed talks occurred and a tech company agreed to pay for fair use of the public infrastructure. Since there is now an agreed-upon exchange of value for use of those stops, there is no more theft.

Our problem communicating has nothing to do with facts, apparently, only your ability to put them into proper chronological order and infer a cause/effect relationship. That's not my fault.

Enjoy your week.

 

[AndyH]

"Gentrification" is the flip-side of Rent Control. When you keep rents artificially low for decades by government decree, it's inevitable that pressure eventually builds to convert these buildings to realize their worth in alignment with 2014 market prices rather than 1984 markets.

This process can work well when the business choices are made by people that still have functioning empathy and a stronger tie to their human family than their bank account. Clearly this is a problem in some parts of the USA.

 

[thankyouOB]

"Gentrification" is the flip-side of Rent Control. When you keep rents artificially low for decades by government decree, it's inevitable that pressure eventually builds to convert these buildings to realize their worth in alignment with 2014 market prices rather than 1984 markets.

This process can work well when the business choices are made by people that still have functioning empathy and a stronger tie to their human family than their bank account. Clearly this is a problem in some parts of the USA.

nicely put.
also, too, Leviticus 23:22
And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest; thou shalt leave them for the poor, and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God.

 

[Nubo]

"Gentrification" is the flip-side of Rent Control. When you keep rents artificially low for decades by government decree, it's inevitable that pressure eventually builds to convert these buildings to realize their worth in alignment with 2014 market prices rather than 1984 markets.

This process can work well when the business choices are made by people that still have functioning empathy and a stronger tie to their human family than their bank account. Clearly this is a problem in some parts of the USA.

The devil is in the details. Renters do need some protection against sudden and unreasonable increases. But the table can be tilted too far. A friend of mine in SF owns some rental property (he came here with nothing by the way). He's liberal with a capital L. However he does relate how the City totally disregards HIS concerns in favor of tenants. It took over 2 years to evict someone who not only stopped paying rent altogether but was systematically destroying his property.

Again, devil in the details. When the controls become too abusive to the owners, the owners will find an out one way or another. And instead of a gradual evolution of a given area, you get a sudden inversion. Which manifests as "gentrification". And instead of blaming well-meaning city supervisors and initiatives, it's much easier to blame Google.

 

[derkraut]

I don't give you permission to put words into my mouth, garsh.

Your words. I even quoted them. Here, I'll quote them again:

while using public infrastructure without paying for it. Most rational adults would view that as theft.

And just now, you said:

I am aware that at least one tech company has agreed to pay the city for use of the public infrastructure. That's good - and contrary to your assertion I don't call that theft.

So you *knew* that they were paying, AND you still called it theft.

Nice. Let me make this very, very easy for you. When I posted the first point you quoted, I did NOT know that a single tech company had agreed to pay for use of the public bus stops. That means that my point stands and I still consider it theft from the public.

When I posted the second quote, it was after reading an article that confirmed talks occurred and a tech company agreed to pay for fair use of the public infrastructure. Since there is now an agreed-upon exchange of value for use of those stops, there is no more theft.

Our problem communicating has nothing to do with facts, apparently, only your ability to put them into proper chronological order and infer a cause/effect relationship. That's not my fault.

Enjoy your week.

Don't you guys have anything more productive to do to occupy your brilliant minds?? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[mbender]

Or even something "unproductive"? ( #OccupyYourMind, )

 

[AndyH]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/b...eroding-just-ask-the-business-world.html?_r=1
http://ineteconomics.org/sites/inet.civicactions.net/files/Cyn-Fazz Cons&Inequ 16.3 copy.pdf

In Manhattan, the upscale clothing retailer Barneys will replace the bankrupt discounter Loehmann’s, whose Chelsea store closes in a few weeks. Across the country, Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants are struggling, while fine-dining chains like Capital Grille are thriving. And at General Electric, the increase in demand for high-end dishwashers and refrigerators dwarfs sales growth of mass-market models.

As politicians and pundits in Washington continue to spar over whether economic inequality is in fact deepening, in corporate America there really is no debate at all. The post-recession reality is that the customer base for businesses that appeal to the middle class is shrinking as the top tier pulls even further away.

Rising inequality reduced income growth for the bottom 95 percent of the income distribution beginning in about 1980...the top 5 percent rose, consistent with the consumption smoothing. The inability of the bottom 95 percent to generate adequate demand helps explain the slow recovery.

Everything's fine. Nothing to see here.

 

[Nubo]

In relation to the rest of the world, the SF protesters are ALREADY the 1%.

 

[mbender]

In relation to the rest of the world, the SF protesters are ALREADY the 1%.

So the bar we set for quality of life in the U.S. is now relative to the whole world? Yes, there is tremendous poverty and suffering in the world. Does this mean we should condone "bearable" yet avoidable amounts in America?

 

[thankyouOB]

In relation to the rest of the world, the SF protesters are ALREADY the 1%.

So the bar we set for quality of life in the U.S. is now relative to the whole world? Yes, there is tremendous poverty and suffering in the world. Does this mean we should condone "bearable" yet avoidable amounts in America?

yea, capital is worth more than wages and valued that way.

it is what is behind the free trade zone and TPP.
With free trade zones you get LCD for wages but not property.
the wage in india is the wage in sf.
but the rents are attached to the local market. so the rent in SF is NOT the rent in the punjab.

 

[AndyH]

In relation to the rest of the world, the SF protesters are ALREADY the 1%.

 

[klapauzius]

In relation to the rest of the world, the SF protesters are ALREADY the 1%.

Admittedly, that particular protest might seem elitist for the majority of the worlds population, but I thought
we care foremost about what is going on in the US, right?

And for the development here, this is one among many other signs of rising income inequality.
This might be a structural problem, but in any case, its not good for the overall quality of life in this country. And it affects everyone, except maybe for the ueber-rich, who can actually afford to insulate themselves from the rest of society.

 

[AndyH]

In relation to the rest of the world, the SF protesters are ALREADY the 1%.

Admittedly, that particular protest might seem elitist for the majority of the worlds population, but I thought
we care foremost about what is going on in the US, right?

The rough numbers I keep seeing suggest that one has to have a $100,000/year income to hit the top 20% in this country. I seriously doubt the protesters are near the top 20% much less in the 1%.

 

[Nubo]

In relation to the rest of the world, the SF protesters are ALREADY the 1%.

So the bar we set for quality of life in the U.S. is now relative to the whole world? Yes, there is tremendous poverty and suffering in the world. Does this mean we should condone "bearable" yet avoidable amounts in America?

What it means is protests should be about something meaningful and significant. A bus is neither. And while Buddha teaches us that all life is suffering, these SF protesters are doing quite well. It's not very compelling when the complaint is that someone in a $1million dollar home is being "pushed out" because the prices are being bid up to $2million. Or that rents in one of the most expensive places to live in the country, are going up. The wealthy being pinched by the more wealthy...


I suppose I have failed to make my point clear. I have no shortage of sympathy for suffering, and I do recognize the growing income disparity in the U.S., and I DO AGREE it is a problem. But this is not a justification for any and all random protests. Protesting the "Google buses" is just plain stupid and some of the actions criminal. Saying so doesn't make me a heartless bastard. Because try as they may, those protests really have nothing to do with the people that are really suffering or the underlying causes.

 

[Nubo]

The rough numbers I keep seeing suggest that one has to have a $100,000/year income to hit the top 20% in this country. I seriously doubt the protesters are near the top 20% much less in the 1%.

I can tell you this. I live *near* SF, but I do not live IN SF. I do well but I'm not willing to spend an inordinate share of my income on housing and the other aspects that make SF one of the most expensive places to live in the country; Nay, the world! Too rich for my blood. Any non-homeless SF resident is doing quite well. The "gentrification" that exists in SF already took place some time ago. The Google buses having nothing to do with it. This is more accurately the Old Gentry complaining about the New Gentry.

 

[klapauzius]

What it means is protests should be about something meaningful and significant. A bus is neither. And while Buddha teaches us that all life is suffering, these SF protesters are doing quite well. It's not very compelling when the complaint is that someone in a $1million dollar home is being "pushed out" because the prices are being bid up to $2million. Or that rents in one of the most expensive places to live in the country, are going up. The wealthy being pinched by the more wealthy...


I suppose I have failed to make my point clear. I have no shortage of sympathy for suffering, and I do recognize the growing income disparity in the U.S., and I DO AGREE it is a problem. But this is not a justification for any and all random protests. Protesting the "Google buses" is just plain stupid and some of the actions criminal. Saying so doesn't make me a heartless bastard. Because try as they may, those protests really have nothing to do with the people that are really suffering or the underlying causes.

Thanks for clarifying that, I think what you say makes sense.
In my opinion, the particular protest is not too important, but really just a symptom of the underlying problem.