Sometimes, HN seems like a local San Francisco magazine. For example, just from accidental clicks on beautifully mysterious article headlines, I've learned more about SF's housing problems than I know about the situation in my own city.
There's nothing wrong with this blog post, but as one of the many readers that live more than 50 km away (in my case, 9000), it is profoundly irrelevant.
Maybe we can add a [sf] tag to local news/blog headlines?
For what it's worth, I don't live anywhere near SF, and found this article interesting, which is why I submitted it.
The thoughts about local action, and improving the place you live in first, apply to everyone involved in the tech scene, wherever they live, as we tend to dream about having global impact without thinking about making small, local and concrete changes instead. So I don't feel it is profoundly irrelevant at all because the problems raised are felt everywhere in slightly different ways, even if the solutions proposed are local. Here in London there is an analogous situation around shoreditch and old street - formerly very deprived areas which are seeing an influx of money and very uneven development.
If the perfect economic system was invented, all the free nations would be using it.
Given the choice, between the two, I would also prefer "social capitalism", probably due to my background and upbringing, but by no means I can say it's a perfect system.
Republicans are usually against giving "things for free", so connecting this issue only with liberal capitalism is a bit misleading, because it's a wider opinion than that.
I think he meant liberal capitalism in the liberal/free/laissez faire sense not in the sense of the US slur for someone not quite as right wing as the tea party sense.
Republicans since Reagan are huge proponents of neoliberal economics while Democrats tend more towards Keynesianism. Liberal economic policies are definitely to blame, but the party that is usually identified as "liberal" in America isn't the economically liberal party.
As a European I was absolutely shocked by that street. One moment you're walking in a normal shopping street, and then you cross the lights, and the next moment you're in some deserted street with only drug addicts and homeless people. And there you stand with your travel suitcase shouting "Hey look at me, I'm a tourist".
There are lots of examples of poverty, homelessness and addiction juxtaposed with wealth in Europe -
e.g. The banlieues of Paris, the suburbs of Edinburgh like Craigmillar, the sheds with beds in suburbs of London
While a better social support system is a good first step, it doesn't eliminate problem areas like this, nor does it deal completely with the mental health issues, drug addiction and stress that often comes with extreme poverty. Perhaps in some cities the problems are better hidden (Paris is a good example), but they are there.
I live on the edge of that map and I can't wait for the Tenderloin to get gentrified like much of the rest of the city.
A significant portion of homeless in the Tenderloin are violently insane. I've had several threaten to kill me in the past few months. I've had someone come up and start pushing me until one of his friends yelled, "Leave that cracker alone!" I've had a homeless woman run up to me waving a stick, threatening to beat me up. It's gotten bad enough that I carry pepper spray.
There are some cool things in the Tenderloin, but I'd gladly trade them for not having to fear assault by crazy drug addicts.
Oh, and to those who think nothing is being done about homelessness or that the US doesn't have social programs for this: The city of San Francisco (a city of a million people) spends over $150 million a year on the problem. That works out to $34 per homeless person per day.[1]
I can name several better places for insane violent people to go to: Mental institutions. Jail, sadly enough. Anywhere but the streets of an urban area full of tourists.
People think that the homeless population here indicates a moral failing, when really it's due to factors outside the city's control. The weather is mild year-round, so transients tend to settle here. Also, other states ship their mental patients to San Francisco.[1]
The minimum wage in San Francisco is $10.74 / hr. That means that the amount of money going to the homeless is about three hours of work [0]. If we can hardly expect a full time minimum wage job to support someone, how can a third of that be enough to support "crazy drug addicts" who if anything need more help?
Furthermore, if there are 1 million people in San Fran and the city spends $150 million a year, that means everyone is paying in $150. Which is a lot of money to the poorer end of the spectrum, but chump change to us techies. Indeed, there are 37,000 tech workers in San Fran who make on average $160,000 [1]. Even if the entirety of the social programs were paid for by tech workers, it'd come down to 4% of their after tax income [2]. Indeed, to pay for the equivalent of a full time minimum wage job for all of San Francisco's homeless would only cost its tech workers 16% of their post-tax salary, or about $10K [3][4]. And that's tech workers in the city alone, which make up just 3.7% of its million inhabitants.
If you are not a tech worker and are not in a position to do more then please realize this rant is not about you. For everyone else who just wants to see the problem 'disappear', I completely understand why a portion of the city hates you. You don't need a tv, or a new car (used is a smarter choice economically anyways), or a daily latte. You want those things. They are nice perks, just like the free lunch at work. In the meantime the people who are struggling with the lifelong problems of homelessness and addiction are just trying to find a lil hit of crack and a spot by the freeway to get through the day.
Some side notes: There will always be the homeless-by-choice, which is fine. If you want to camp under a bridge all summer go for it. But there needs to be an available bed and a warm cup of soup waiting for the people who actually have problems, temporarily or long term.
>'The city of San Francisco (a city of a million people) spends over $150 million a year on the problem. That works out to $34 per homeless person per day.[1]'
My loose Wikipedia-driven math puts that at <0.5% of income working to support >1.3% of population to the tune of a not terribly luxurious $12k per year.
I don't know how that compares to elsewhere, but it doesn't seem like a horrible deal at face value.
Still, the important question is always going to be how that money is spent, not how much is spent. Everyone seems to agree that it could be more effective. Thankfully, some of the issues sound like things the tech community would quite able to assist with:
"By highest-end users, Bamberger means the hardest of the hard-core homeless, who use far more emergency services, such as ambulance rides, than other homeless people. To figure out which ones those are, Salt Lake City uses a data tracking system that shows every time a homeless person gets shelter, counseling or other services from a government or nonprofit agency. Then counselors can tailor housing and services to the person's needs.
This also makes it much easier for government and nonprofits to quickly coordinate their efforts.
San Francisco doesn't have such a system. Its service providers have wanted one for a decade - and this summer, they plan to participate in a pilot project for just such a data-tracking system, led by the Human Services Agency and other city departments involved in aiding the homeless."
Thanks for writing that. As a European I'm always shocked by this aspect of San Francisco. Come on, you, the great land of free, surely can afford to help the disadvantaged. But it looks like nobody's even trying.
I was looking for pointers on how I can help - and here they are - thank you!
> Come on, you, the great land of free, surely can afford to help the disadvantaged.
A common attitude I see from people who have "made it" in some way, whether that's running their own business or just working hard and making a good life for themselves, is that their success is deserved and a result of their hard work.
By extension, if you're homeless or poor or on welfare or whatever, it's because you haven't put in that effort. It's a fallacious argument, but it makes it easy for a lot of people to dismiss those in need.
Actually on second though... I've seen that attitude from plenty of people who aren't well off. It's quite pervasive. I guess people just want to believe that it's always possible to succeed through hard work, and that they/others aren't just getting fucked over.
People in the US all believe that if they just work hard enough for somebody else, they can become millionaires.
There's also this fun narrative about the mysterious "job creators," which are angelic creatures from beyond the firmament who seek only to sprinkle money down on the destitute in exchange for a paltry 40 hours of their lives per week. Personally, I don't believe in them but I know enough people who do.
Many people believe in "It is not your fault if you were born poor, but it is your fault if you die poor". It is very hard to make them understand that some people just don't have enough opportunities, even though they are born in a western/capitalist country.
I've been to SF several times, walked through the area specified at least once and just revisited it via street view. In every case it immediately impresses me as a cleaner version of Baltimore with better streets.
I think this guy has absolutely the right idea, particularly with volunteering.
If you're fortunate enough to not have experience the effects of poverty, addiction or homeless getting to know the people who have an continue to struggle with it is probably the next best thing.
A good friend of mine who grew up as the comfortable son of a successful banker credits his time spent interning with social services as completely reversing his previously dismissive ideas about such things.
29 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 69.7 ms ] threadThere's nothing wrong with this blog post, but as one of the many readers that live more than 50 km away (in my case, 9000), it is profoundly irrelevant.
Maybe we can add a [sf] tag to local news/blog headlines?
The thoughts about local action, and improving the place you live in first, apply to everyone involved in the tech scene, wherever they live, as we tend to dream about having global impact without thinking about making small, local and concrete changes instead. So I don't feel it is profoundly irrelevant at all because the problems raised are felt everywhere in slightly different ways, even if the solutions proposed are local. Here in London there is an analogous situation around shoreditch and old street - formerly very deprived areas which are seeing an influx of money and very uneven development.
1 percenters complain on their blog how streets should be cleaned from poor, sick and ugly.
How about changing your system so, that govermnent takes of care poor and sick, instead they have to rely on donations?
Given the choice, between the two, I would also prefer "social capitalism", probably due to my background and upbringing, but by no means I can say it's a perfect system.
But anyway, I do agree with your sentiment.
Maybe the US just needs a proper social system.
e.g. The banlieues of Paris, the suburbs of Edinburgh like Craigmillar, the sheds with beds in suburbs of London
While a better social support system is a good first step, it doesn't eliminate problem areas like this, nor does it deal completely with the mental health issues, drug addiction and stress that often comes with extreme poverty. Perhaps in some cities the problems are better hidden (Paris is a good example), but they are there.
A significant portion of homeless in the Tenderloin are violently insane. I've had several threaten to kill me in the past few months. I've had someone come up and start pushing me until one of his friends yelled, "Leave that cracker alone!" I've had a homeless woman run up to me waving a stick, threatening to beat me up. It's gotten bad enough that I carry pepper spray.
There are some cool things in the Tenderloin, but I'd gladly trade them for not having to fear assault by crazy drug addicts.
Oh, and to those who think nothing is being done about homelessness or that the US doesn't have social programs for this: The city of San Francisco (a city of a million people) spends over $150 million a year on the problem. That works out to $34 per homeless person per day.[1]
1. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/S-F-spendi...
You haven't solved the problem. Just moved it far away where you can't see it.
People think that the homeless population here indicates a moral failing, when really it's due to factors outside the city's control. The weather is mild year-round, so transients tend to settle here. Also, other states ship their mental patients to San Francisco.[1]
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/us/once-suicidal-and-shipp...
Furthermore, if there are 1 million people in San Fran and the city spends $150 million a year, that means everyone is paying in $150. Which is a lot of money to the poorer end of the spectrum, but chump change to us techies. Indeed, there are 37,000 tech workers in San Fran who make on average $160,000 [1]. Even if the entirety of the social programs were paid for by tech workers, it'd come down to 4% of their after tax income [2]. Indeed, to pay for the equivalent of a full time minimum wage job for all of San Francisco's homeless would only cost its tech workers 16% of their post-tax salary, or about $10K [3][4]. And that's tech workers in the city alone, which make up just 3.7% of its million inhabitants.
If you are not a tech worker and are not in a position to do more then please realize this rant is not about you. For everyone else who just wants to see the problem 'disappear', I completely understand why a portion of the city hates you. You don't need a tv, or a new car (used is a smarter choice economically anyways), or a daily latte. You want those things. They are nice perks, just like the free lunch at work. In the meantime the people who are struggling with the lifelong problems of homelessness and addiction are just trying to find a lil hit of crack and a spot by the freeway to get through the day.
Some side notes: There will always be the homeless-by-choice, which is fine. If you want to camp under a bridge all summer go for it. But there needs to be an available bed and a warm cup of soup waiting for the people who actually have problems, temporarily or long term.
[0]: 34 / 10.74 = 3.16 (minimum wage equivalent hours of homeless person's benefits)
[1]: bottom of http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/tech-job-growth-is-bo...
[2]: 150,000,000 / (37,000 * 160,000 * .4) = .04 (percent of tech worker salary to pay existing homeless budget)
[3]: 10.74 * 8 = 86.08 (daily income for minimum wage job)
[4]: 150,000,000 * (86.08 / 34) / (37,000 * 160,000 * .4) = .16 (percent of tech worker salary to pay 'full time minimum wage homeless budget')
My loose Wikipedia-driven math puts that at <0.5% of income working to support >1.3% of population to the tune of a not terribly luxurious $12k per year.
I don't know how that compares to elsewhere, but it doesn't seem like a horrible deal at face value.
Still, the important question is always going to be how that money is spent, not how much is spent. Everyone seems to agree that it could be more effective. Thankfully, some of the issues sound like things the tech community would quite able to assist with:
"By highest-end users, Bamberger means the hardest of the hard-core homeless, who use far more emergency services, such as ambulance rides, than other homeless people. To figure out which ones those are, Salt Lake City uses a data tracking system that shows every time a homeless person gets shelter, counseling or other services from a government or nonprofit agency. Then counselors can tailor housing and services to the person's needs.
This also makes it much easier for government and nonprofits to quickly coordinate their efforts.
San Francisco doesn't have such a system. Its service providers have wanted one for a decade - and this summer, they plan to participate in a pilot project for just such a data-tracking system, led by the Human Services Agency and other city departments involved in aiding the homeless."
1: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Salt-Lake-City-a-model-...
I was looking for pointers on how I can help - and here they are - thank you!
A common attitude I see from people who have "made it" in some way, whether that's running their own business or just working hard and making a good life for themselves, is that their success is deserved and a result of their hard work.
By extension, if you're homeless or poor or on welfare or whatever, it's because you haven't put in that effort. It's a fallacious argument, but it makes it easy for a lot of people to dismiss those in need.
Actually on second though... I've seen that attitude from plenty of people who aren't well off. It's quite pervasive. I guess people just want to believe that it's always possible to succeed through hard work, and that they/others aren't just getting fucked over.
There's also this fun narrative about the mysterious "job creators," which are angelic creatures from beyond the firmament who seek only to sprinkle money down on the destitute in exchange for a paltry 40 hours of their lives per week. Personally, I don't believe in them but I know enough people who do.
Hm. What do their Series A funding deals look like?
Edit: John Oliver pokes fun at income inequality, he says it in a much more entertaining way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno
I think this guy has absolutely the right idea, particularly with volunteering.
If you're fortunate enough to not have experience the effects of poverty, addiction or homeless getting to know the people who have an continue to struggle with it is probably the next best thing.
A good friend of mine who grew up as the comfortable son of a successful banker credits his time spent interning with social services as completely reversing his previously dismissive ideas about such things.