In Gibson's books the zaibatsu are huge corporations where the top employees are not free to leave. Switching jobs involves your new employer hiring a team of mercenary specialists to extract the new hire. Often the principal does not survive. See "Neuromancer"and "Mona Lisa Overdrive" and they should be enough to get you hooked!
As someone who came of age in the 80s completely infatuated with all things cyberpunk growing up, and now having worked in Silicon Valley my whole career, taking me all over the globe working on computers: I am so amazed that the world Gibson laid out for 2020 is exactly what we have been building.
I am amazed that my daughter will be, in the year 2020, living in the world I imagined and RPGd in at the same age I was at that time (I was 17 years old, playing cyberpunk RPG where my character was living as a 17 year old in the year 2020)
If you have ever been to Singapore, and seen the private security-police, Cisco (not the networking company), that is the city of the cyberpunk world....
I am in love with, terrified by and amazed at our world.
This is incredible. Instead of condemning the perpetrators who attacked and vandalism the bus and disrupted the commuters the spin in that article is that it's Google's fault for being successful?! also since when is protecting your employees form street thugs is a "perk"?
Why no one is asking whether the perpetrators were caught by the police?
Why don't the tech companies just fund improvements to actual mass transit instead of the busses? It seems like in the long run, if they continue to grow, that would make far more sense.
This is California we're talking about. Public services are like black holes for money. The SFMTA (which is only one of many bay area transit agencies) has almost a billion dollar annual operating budget, and "usable" would be a generous term for their service.
As a San Franciscan, mass transit really sucks. Busses are irregular, BART closes shortly after midnight and its connections are limited. MUNI trains were faster a century ago, and are often blocked in traffic as they share roads with cars?
Being a pedestrian isn't any safer as we had a record number of car vs pedestrian deaths this year.
It's not the sort of route that a mass transit system runs. This isn't going a few miles and stopping every few blocks. It's an express-style route, 1-way-at-a-time, to a location 40 miles away which nobody has any reason to go to unless they work there.
To make a 40 mile run in an hour, a bus needs to do very few pickup stops in SF, drive nonstop to destination, then do very few drop off stops in Silicon Valley; then return empty to repeat. Same thing other direction for the evening trip. It's the sort of trip that only makes sense for a chartered coach, not a public bus.
If the route was provided by the local muni bus, people would protest that too - that tech employees were getting special treatment, that a SF tax funded agency was serving geographic areas well outside of SF, that stops should be added at all the intermediate cities (doubling the length of the trip), the system would be more wasteful as buses would run empty on company holidays, and that the companies should directly provide those routes themselves since they only benefit them.
The system presently in place actually makes far more sense than trying to expand muni because it's a very specific purpose and specific route.
What about trains? I thought CalTrain ran down very near to most of the tech campuses, admittedly the companies would still need a minimal bus system to ferry people from the station to the office park.
The tech companies already run shuttles to CalTrain, there are a lot of their employees who don't take that option because it would be a very very long commute from most neighborhoods in SF. CalTrain only has two stops in SF, both on the far east edge of the city. Buses cover more of the center of the city.
Caltrain picks up in only one location in SF (meaning employees would need to get to CalTrain), it takes over an hour from SF to Mountain View, has no WiFi, and drops off about 3 miles from the Google campus[1].
For a company with no shortage of money, a shuttle makes complete sense.
Google runs shuttles to the caltrain and it isn't three miles away from campus. Campus is huge; I see plenty of google employees on caltrain. There are 2 Caltrain stops in SF.
The issue with Caltrain is that there are simply not enough trains running on it to ferry all the people who need to get to the South Bay. My ideal solution is better express routes through the city to the caltrain station and from there shuttles to the corporate campuses. We'd need some serious infrastructure improvements to the caltrain however.
I wish companies were more willing to spend their lobbying money on pushing politicians to commit to infrastructure improvements that could benefit a broader stripe of the population then just their employees.
California already has crazy high state taxes, which these companies pay. That money was supposed to be funding things like mass transit. It gets wasted and public transit is still crap, but we're supposed to believe that if Google only paid even more, everything would suddenly get better?
The politics around transportation in the Bay Area (and CA in general) are pretty bleak. BART still doesn't cover the south bay. The light rail in San Jose didn't go anywhere interesting for about a decade. Bus service is horrible.
Sure, want to put more money into that sink, and see it wasted?
And thus the inequality divide will continue to grow. The haves will build bigger walls with more guns surrounding expanding exclusive spaces. They will enact police harrasment laws to keep out those that don't belong. They will make it more and more expensive to even visit the city to keep the have-nots out, except those that need to come and keep their city clean.
Money is power. Power gets what it wants. The fight for San Fransisco is one-sided. The winners have been pre-determined.
Money is indeed power, but ideally it would not be political power.
But money is the power to obtain goods that you want, even if other people want those same things. In this case, it is living in SF. Googlers have the right to spend their money as they see fit. The government will always be there to take taxes and use them for the public good. But what is left in the employees paycheck is for them to spend.
I am much more concerned about the power of mobs, than the power of money (at least the money of small players like Google employees - billionaires like George Soros do concern me). This is actually a positive step in protecting an under-privileged group (nerds) from left wing thugs.
For those of us not in SF: can you keep the hyperbole down?
It's a company with lots of employees who live in a specific area. It makes economic sense for them to rent a bus, and it's better for the environment to reduce the number of cars.
A bunch of people start attacking the bus; they hire security. It's not sinister or scary, it's predictable.
If you're mad at income inequality, campaign to change the tax code for individuals. Don't attack people going to work in a bus.
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?
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?
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!)
Better public transit would obviate the need for google busses. Caltrain, a low-frequency train operator with a limited route, is not the answer.
Allow RE developers to increase housing stock in SF as well as the Peninsula.
The alternative at the other extreme is Detroit. I'm sure all the 'have nots' are enjoying the fruits of the exodus of the haves from the city. Now that they have the city all to themselves, it's surely a blue collar paradise.
SF in the 80's was not a pretty place. Well, unless 'rust-belt'-city syndrome is pretty. Tech pulled SF (and SJ) out of their doldrums and slow decay.
This isn't surprising -- the wider the gulf between rich and poor, then the rich find themselves living next to people with little to lose. Cf. Mexico, India, Brazil.
So now that Occupy Wall Street has failed to accomplish anything, like-minded people are kicking off Occupy Silicon Valley?
I used to think that wall street was a target because they were seen as getting rich without producing anything, and were blamed for crashing the economy. If that was the reason, though, they wouldn't now be targeting companies like Google, who do produce things and were not responsible for the crash of 2008.
Because of things like this, I now think both protests were just whiny children crying but it's not faaaaaaair!! without bothering to think anything through.
> Because of things like this, I now think both protests were just whiny children crying but it's not faaaaaaair!! without bothering to think anything through.
Says the guy who didn't bother to do 10 minutes of research either in this thread or anything linked to in it. Heh.
Look, I don't think the violence is okay, and I do think to a degree, the protests against the buses and gentrification are poorly aimed. But these people are not protesting without cause.
A recent protest focused quite heavily on the number of evictions going around San Francisco, in an effort to raise the rent on the property. The gentrification here is stark- families who have lived here decades have seen their per-month payouts rise by hundreds, if not thousands of dollars over just the last decade. All of this in a city that by and large doesn't receive tax money from companies making the greatest profit(by working outside of the city's bounds and busing their people in), and can't afford to raise taxes very easily without hitting middle-income families.
Don't turn into just the caricature of someone too aloof to even attempt to understand.
You're right, they do have a claimed reason for protesting that I didn't mention (rising rents), but I think it's a very poorly thought out one, based on emotion rather than rational thought.
If I was renting out a spare bedroom in my house to a college student for $500 a month, and then another guy shows up and says "I'll pay you $5,000 a month for that bedroom," what do you think my reaction would be? What do you think most people would do in that situation? I claim that nearly every one of the protesters, if they were in the position of the spare-bedroom landlord, would happily kick the first guy out and move in the $5,000 a month guy.
I can hardly imagine a way to satisfy the protesters' demands for cheaper rent without taking away that landlord's fundamental right to charge what he wants for use of his own property.
And by the way, tons of poor-ish and middle-class San Francisco home owners have made life-changing amounts of money from having their cheap homes increase in value when the tech industry moved in next door. But you never hear about them because they don't fit the narrative of the haves oppressing the have-nots.
> I can hardly imagine a way to satisfy the protesters' demands for cheaper rent without taking away that landlord's fundamental right to charge what he wants for use of his own property.
There's two ways to do it, and that's neither of them: increase supply (build new structures; apparently SF has over-restrictive policies on building that could be loosened?) or decrease demand (e.g. make corporate-run buses illegal).
> decrease demand (e.g. make corporate-run buses illegal).
AFAIK, those buses aren't operated by the companies themselves, but by external transportation companies as contractors. What would you make illegal, "don't take Google as a customer"?
Arguably there's a bigger beef with the Valley folks--after all, they're the ones who've built the world's largest surveillance networks and data-gathering systems.
> just whiny children crying but it's not faaaaaaair!! without bothering to think anything through
This is shockingly dismissive, IMHO. It's easy to be judgmental when it's not your job or your existence that is being threatened, but if you're the one who is being made obsolete by the ruthless march of innovation / technology, would you not be the protestor?
Do you think your superior intellectual realization that "There are countless other examples industry-and-job-destroying innovations, and from a long-term historical standpoint they've always been a huge net win for humanity" (quoting from an earlier comment by you) would be enough to prevent emotional strife as you accept your new minimum-hourly-rate job?
You seem to implicitly concede one of my core points: that all this crap is based on appeal to emotion, rather than a rational reason for protest.. if we at least agree on that, I'm glad.
Those industry-destroying innovations tend to take many years to pick up steam, and anyone who's paying attention will likely see the writing on the wall long before it happens. I'd like to think that I'd be able to re-train for a new profession before getting steamrolled, but perhaps I'm too optimistic?
If I was forced to accept a new minimum-wage job, I'd probably be angry, but that wouldn't mean that my discontentment was based in reason.
> I'd like to think that I'd be able to re-train for a new profession before getting steamrolled, but perhaps I'm too optimistic?
No, you'd probably be able to pull it off. If you have decent math and writing skills, those would transfer to a bunch of other jobs, and I'd bet that you're pretty smart. In other words, you're probably not a representative sample of the population.
I think we are in agreement. However, I don't see distress at getting fired or forced to move out of the neighbourhood in which you grew up as an illegitimate reason for protest.
I get your viewpoint that what's good for humanity need not be humane to ALL humans, just the overall concept of humanity. However, I can't escape the feeling that there is an unnecessarily ruthless resource re-allocation going on here. Killing one process and allocating those resources to another in an instant makes sense in OS design, but maybe processes that reallocate resources from some living beings to others can be more compassionate without compromising that much in terms of efficiency.
Even my web server (nginx) has a -s stop for fast shutdown and a -s quit for graceful shutdown. :-)
> However, I don't see distress at getting fired or forced to move out of the neighbourhood in which you grew up as an illegitimate reason for protest.
Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but the house I grew up in is owned by my grandparents, so no one can ever force them off their own property (or me, if I wanted to live there). IMHO, it's stupid to complain that you can't rent someone else's property forever, and that they're throwing you out for a better deal. Rent is supposed to be short-term (or at least that's how it is in my country).
You act like there's some significant difference between moving money around for a large corporation and moving data around for another large corporation.
How can you understand what's valuable in tech if you can't even understand what's valuable in life. Having your parents being forced to move so you can't see them when they get old, putting off having kids until you might not be able to or giving up the job you love because you got sick. This isn't your opinion on Facebook vs. Snapchat, it's real life shit.
One of the great things about being a geek was that you didn't have to blatantly accept society's stupidity. I guess no one could really foresee the magnitude of eternal september.
It's not like there is a lack of opportunities outside of SV, every techie went there by their own choice. If they can't handle having their ride to work disrupted once in a while, maybe it's time to leave when there's still some dignity left. But hey I guess there's some online petition they can all sign, I heard it worked great in regards to the Snowden revelation. Happy fucking brogramming.
The buses are not the problem, just a convenient thing to attack. Each bus ride keeps a great number of cars off the roads for that day.
This is good for the environment and reduces the number of vehicles on the road. This seems obvious, but from reading the comments in this thread it seems like this whole kerfuffle is about the buses themselves.
Nah, the kerfuffle is about the symbolism. See people know they can't get a job at a tech company, they have to slog to work in horrible traffic to make just enough money to cover the cost of vehicle maintenance, rent and food. While this busses, they carry the kind of person they want to be but aren't, carried in air conditioned comfort from home to work, where they make more money and they don't even have to drive and they get free lunches.
I understand the anger, I got an earful of it volunteering as a big brother for at risk youth during college in south central LA. If a person doesn't have a vision of how they could get to be that person they want to be, they lash out at the symbols of those folks. Trying to convince young latino men that getting $100 a week for being spotters for the drug dealers really wasn't a path toward that life they wanted, even when it clearly was a path to getting some of the things they wanted right then and there.
Black ski masks? Curly wired-earpieces? Jotting notes on yellow stick-it pad? Jerky answers? That doesn't sound like google at all, more like yet another fake. Remember this one?:
http://www.sfbg.com/googleshoutdown
Even though that is a Master's thesis, the writing is sophomoric.
I was especially offended by the misuse of "externality" in the first page: "Lower income people should not bear the brunt of the negative externalities of economic development" (she is referring to housing prices, which are not an exernality).
60 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 134 ms ] threadI am amazed that my daughter will be, in the year 2020, living in the world I imagined and RPGd in at the same age I was at that time (I was 17 years old, playing cyberpunk RPG where my character was living as a 17 year old in the year 2020)
If you have ever been to Singapore, and seen the private security-police, Cisco (not the networking company), that is the city of the cyberpunk world....
I am in love with, terrified by and amazed at our world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_Government_Services#O...
Why no one is asking whether the perpetrators were caught by the police?
Hopefully if that happens again, the criminals responsible will be arrested.
I believe in the right to protest (even if the protest against buses seems pretty misdirected), but that right doesn't include vandalism.
Being a pedestrian isn't any safer as we had a record number of car vs pedestrian deaths this year.
We are massively under served.
To make a 40 mile run in an hour, a bus needs to do very few pickup stops in SF, drive nonstop to destination, then do very few drop off stops in Silicon Valley; then return empty to repeat. Same thing other direction for the evening trip. It's the sort of trip that only makes sense for a chartered coach, not a public bus.
If the route was provided by the local muni bus, people would protest that too - that tech employees were getting special treatment, that a SF tax funded agency was serving geographic areas well outside of SF, that stops should be added at all the intermediate cities (doubling the length of the trip), the system would be more wasteful as buses would run empty on company holidays, and that the companies should directly provide those routes themselves since they only benefit them.
The system presently in place actually makes far more sense than trying to expand muni because it's a very specific purpose and specific route.
For a company with no shortage of money, a shuttle makes complete sense.
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!data=!4m17!3m13!1m1!1sM...
(EDIT: Added 3 mile source since someone below questioned it)
The issue with Caltrain is that there are simply not enough trains running on it to ferry all the people who need to get to the South Bay. My ideal solution is better express routes through the city to the caltrain station and from there shuttles to the corporate campuses. We'd need some serious infrastructure improvements to the caltrain however.
I wish companies were more willing to spend their lobbying money on pushing politicians to commit to infrastructure improvements that could benefit a broader stripe of the population then just their employees.
Sure, want to put more money into that sink, and see it wasted?
Money is power. Power gets what it wants. The fight for San Fransisco is one-sided. The winners have been pre-determined.
But money is the power to obtain goods that you want, even if other people want those same things. In this case, it is living in SF. Googlers have the right to spend their money as they see fit. The government will always be there to take taxes and use them for the public good. But what is left in the employees paycheck is for them to spend.
I am much more concerned about the power of mobs, than the power of money (at least the money of small players like Google employees - billionaires like George Soros do concern me). This is actually a positive step in protecting an under-privileged group (nerds) from left wing thugs.
It's a company with lots of employees who live in a specific area. It makes economic sense for them to rent a bus, and it's better for the environment to reduce the number of cars.
A bunch of people start attacking the bus; they hire security. It's not sinister or scary, it's predictable.
If you're mad at income inequality, campaign to change the tax code for individuals. Don't attack people going to work in a bus.
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?
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?
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?
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?
When they feel they're no longer getting value from it?
How is this any different the the "pandering" you describe?
"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.
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!)
Better public transit would obviate the need for google busses. Caltrain, a low-frequency train operator with a limited route, is not the answer.
Allow RE developers to increase housing stock in SF as well as the Peninsula.
The alternative at the other extreme is Detroit. I'm sure all the 'have nots' are enjoying the fruits of the exodus of the haves from the city. Now that they have the city all to themselves, it's surely a blue collar paradise.
SF in the 80's was not a pretty place. Well, unless 'rust-belt'-city syndrome is pretty. Tech pulled SF (and SJ) out of their doldrums and slow decay.
Having a bus (or a guard) doesn't take away from the "have-nots" at all.
I used to think that wall street was a target because they were seen as getting rich without producing anything, and were blamed for crashing the economy. If that was the reason, though, they wouldn't now be targeting companies like Google, who do produce things and were not responsible for the crash of 2008.
Because of things like this, I now think both protests were just whiny children crying but it's not faaaaaaair!! without bothering to think anything through.
Says the guy who didn't bother to do 10 minutes of research either in this thread or anything linked to in it. Heh.
Look, I don't think the violence is okay, and I do think to a degree, the protests against the buses and gentrification are poorly aimed. But these people are not protesting without cause.
A recent protest focused quite heavily on the number of evictions going around San Francisco, in an effort to raise the rent on the property. The gentrification here is stark- families who have lived here decades have seen their per-month payouts rise by hundreds, if not thousands of dollars over just the last decade. All of this in a city that by and large doesn't receive tax money from companies making the greatest profit(by working outside of the city's bounds and busing their people in), and can't afford to raise taxes very easily without hitting middle-income families.
Don't turn into just the caricature of someone too aloof to even attempt to understand.
If I was renting out a spare bedroom in my house to a college student for $500 a month, and then another guy shows up and says "I'll pay you $5,000 a month for that bedroom," what do you think my reaction would be? What do you think most people would do in that situation? I claim that nearly every one of the protesters, if they were in the position of the spare-bedroom landlord, would happily kick the first guy out and move in the $5,000 a month guy.
I can hardly imagine a way to satisfy the protesters' demands for cheaper rent without taking away that landlord's fundamental right to charge what he wants for use of his own property.
And by the way, tons of poor-ish and middle-class San Francisco home owners have made life-changing amounts of money from having their cheap homes increase in value when the tech industry moved in next door. But you never hear about them because they don't fit the narrative of the haves oppressing the have-nots.
There's two ways to do it, and that's neither of them: increase supply (build new structures; apparently SF has over-restrictive policies on building that could be loosened?) or decrease demand (e.g. make corporate-run buses illegal).
AFAIK, those buses aren't operated by the companies themselves, but by external transportation companies as contractors. What would you make illegal, "don't take Google as a customer"?
This is shockingly dismissive, IMHO. It's easy to be judgmental when it's not your job or your existence that is being threatened, but if you're the one who is being made obsolete by the ruthless march of innovation / technology, would you not be the protestor?
Do you think your superior intellectual realization that "There are countless other examples industry-and-job-destroying innovations, and from a long-term historical standpoint they've always been a huge net win for humanity" (quoting from an earlier comment by you) would be enough to prevent emotional strife as you accept your new minimum-hourly-rate job?
Those industry-destroying innovations tend to take many years to pick up steam, and anyone who's paying attention will likely see the writing on the wall long before it happens. I'd like to think that I'd be able to re-train for a new profession before getting steamrolled, but perhaps I'm too optimistic?
If I was forced to accept a new minimum-wage job, I'd probably be angry, but that wouldn't mean that my discontentment was based in reason.
No, you'd probably be able to pull it off. If you have decent math and writing skills, those would transfer to a bunch of other jobs, and I'd bet that you're pretty smart. In other words, you're probably not a representative sample of the population.
I get your viewpoint that what's good for humanity need not be humane to ALL humans, just the overall concept of humanity. However, I can't escape the feeling that there is an unnecessarily ruthless resource re-allocation going on here. Killing one process and allocating those resources to another in an instant makes sense in OS design, but maybe processes that reallocate resources from some living beings to others can be more compassionate without compromising that much in terms of efficiency.
Even my web server (nginx) has a -s stop for fast shutdown and a -s quit for graceful shutdown. :-)
Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but the house I grew up in is owned by my grandparents, so no one can ever force them off their own property (or me, if I wanted to live there). IMHO, it's stupid to complain that you can't rent someone else's property forever, and that they're throwing you out for a better deal. Rent is supposed to be short-term (or at least that's how it is in my country).
How can you understand what's valuable in tech if you can't even understand what's valuable in life. Having your parents being forced to move so you can't see them when they get old, putting off having kids until you might not be able to or giving up the job you love because you got sick. This isn't your opinion on Facebook vs. Snapchat, it's real life shit. One of the great things about being a geek was that you didn't have to blatantly accept society's stupidity. I guess no one could really foresee the magnitude of eternal september.
It's not like there is a lack of opportunities outside of SV, every techie went there by their own choice. If they can't handle having their ride to work disrupted once in a while, maybe it's time to leave when there's still some dignity left. But hey I guess there's some online petition they can all sign, I heard it worked great in regards to the Snowden revelation. Happy fucking brogramming.
This is good for the environment and reduces the number of vehicles on the road. This seems obvious, but from reading the comments in this thread it seems like this whole kerfuffle is about the buses themselves.
I understand the anger, I got an earful of it volunteering as a big brother for at risk youth during college in south central LA. If a person doesn't have a vision of how they could get to be that person they want to be, they lash out at the symbols of those folks. Trying to convince young latino men that getting $100 a week for being spotters for the drug dealers really wasn't a path toward that life they wanted, even when it clearly was a path to getting some of the things they wanted right then and there.
The “Google shuttle effect:” Gentrification and San Francisco’s dot com boom 2.0
http://svenworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Goldman_PRFi...
I was especially offended by the misuse of "externality" in the first page: "Lower income people should not bear the brunt of the negative externalities of economic development" (she is referring to housing prices, which are not an exernality).