The real problem is not Google (or Apple, FB, etc) but the limits on development of new housing and rent control. I live in London, and outside of my window I can see now 5 new huge developments. Because of massive influx of people prices are increasing, but at much slower rate.
I lived for 4 months in SF last year, and my crappy flat was more expensive then in London. What is worse, I rented it in a sketchy deal from a woman, who wasn't even an owner. She rented a flat for a long time, and due to rent control she was paying probably a fraction of what she should be. So she lived in Oakland and sublet flat in Mission.
I understand that people don't want 'character of city' to change, but with gentrification it is changing anyway. Best cities in the world are always growing, but SF seems to be very stubborn and want's to be a kid forever.
People need to stop with this. Higher urban density is "not" the answer. It puts an incredible amount of strain on every other service around it from roads, education, sewage, water, police, hospitals etc. It never ends (or doesn't end well) It's the velocity of change, not change itself, that's the problem for SF. Not sure about your dodgy rent controlled landlord but sounds like without here you can't afford to have experienced 4 months of SF.
Seems kind of silly to me, yes this means that many people have to leave the city, but there really is not much that they can do about it. San Francisco's city government is not going to be able to either (a) kick out the tech people nor (b) figure out a way to lower rent (and in turn tax revenue). It's in the cities interest to keep the rent/cost per home as high as possible and in turn keep the tech people around.
I really don't understand why this bothers the others in the city. If they do not own where they live (and chose to rent) then they don't OWN their home and in turn have no right to live there. Rather, it makes much more sense that they should live somewhere within their means. If they are angry about that, it seems to me that they are just throwing a fit.
I personally am from Chicago, and I know there is a similar situation there. Most of the city (even for high paying jobs) commute in because there is a fairly decent train system, but also the prices are 10 times higher per square foot in the city. The people who do live in the city are wealthy or homeless. Though San Francisco's rent is twice as high as Chicago's on average, no one near Chicago wants to waste their money living in the city unless they want to be in the heart of the city and enjoy the scene. If you can't afford that, then perhaps you didn't make very good choices in your life (aka didn't make enough money to obtain what you want) and you should try and find a way to achieve that goal without inflicting pain (stress, wasted time, etc.) on others.
That is probably the most condescending thing I've seen on hacker news (and I've seen a lot of that).
The protesters may be wrong in their methods and they are probably fighting for a losing cause. But to say people made bad decisions in their life because they are not earning twice or thrice the national median income is just ignorant.
You compare SFO wit Chicago. But I am guessing the high earners living in the city also work there, unlike SFO where they commute OUT to work.
There are no easy solutions to this problem. But please do not straight up dismiss it.
Disclaimer: I do not live in the region so I have no idea about the specifics. I just felt the parent comment was wrong.
The real problem starts with voters, since they're the ones electing the mayor, city council, and other officials, who respond to voter preferences against building stuff but who also deal with voters complaining about high rents. They're in a situation similar to the ones Bryan Caplan describes in The Myth of the Rational Voter, which is a fascinating book that deserves not just to be read but reread (http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies/dp...).
So there's a piece of land at 22nd and Folsom. It is currently owned by Steve Johnson. He bought it from a guy named Mark, who bough it from a guy named William, who inherited it from his father, who bought it from a guy named Sam, who bought it from a guy named John who inherited it from his grandfather who purchased it from a rancher named James.
James was given the land by deed of the Unites States after it's previous tenant, also a rancher, was forced out as a result of a war between Mexico and the US and given a small amount of gold.
This rancher was named Julio and his family had been on the land for 2 generations.
Previous to that a native people had lived there for many hundreds of years until being forcibly removed by a band of Spaniards waving a piece of paper.
Now, please tell me more about property rights and justice.
> If they do not own where they live (and chose to rent) then they don't OWN their home and in turn have no right to live there.
I don't know if this is an American thing or not, but to a Dutch person this remark is rather revolting.
In The Netherlands, if you pay for your home it is your right to live there, regardless of how you finance it. Home owners are not somehow more privileged than renters are.
> no one near Chicago wants to waste their money living in the city unless they want to be in the heart of the city and enjoy the scene.
As I understand it, the problem in San Francisco is not just about the city center, it's the entire 40 miles radius around the Google campus and other SV hotspots where rents and housing prices have increased so much young adults can't afford in the areas they grew up in anymore.
> If you can't afford that, then perhaps you didn't make very good choices in your life
You are a disgusting person.
> you should try and find a way to achieve that goal without inflicting pain (stress, wasted time, etc.) on others
This would be nice in an ideal society, but in a liberal society like the U.S., this simply isn't an option for many people.
If they do not own where they live (and chose to rent) then they don't OWN their home and in turn have no right to live there. Rather, it makes much more sense that they should live somewhere within their means. If they are angry about that, it seems to me that they are just throwing a fit.
Ah, it's clear that you're being a little small-minded and looking at things at a micro-level, at the scale of the person. In startup terms, be more disruptive, think 30,000ft, not 6'.
An argument like the one you mentioned above is one of complacency and inaction that originates around a tautology. "If they can't afford it, they shouldn't be there." = "If they don't like the status quo, they shouldn't protest the status quo." Other similar arguments could be formulated; "If you don't like the NSA, move to a different country", "If you don't have high speed internet because you can't pay $200/mo for fiber, you should cope with slow internet."
Note that the arguments I give are not actually constructive criticism or logical arguments, but tautological loops that leave people in positions of complacency.
I will offer that the better position to take is: "We should all have inexpensive high-speed internet. How can we get there?" "The USA should not spy on its citizens. What can we do to change that?" And correspondingly: "We should have a stable and healthy housing situation for all, what can we do to change this?"
Now, it sounds like you most certainly don't agree with that last question, since you mention:
It's in the cities interest to keep the rent/cost per home as high as possible and in turn keep the tech people around.
I wonder if you feel the same way about the USA: "It's in the US's interest to keep the rent/cost per home as high as possible and in turn keep the high-income individuals around"?
>>If you can't afford that, then perhaps you didn't make very good choices in your life (aka didn't make enough money to obtain what you want) and you should try and find a way to achieve that goal without inflicting pain (stress, wasted time, etc.) on others.
This is the most insensitive, privileged comment on this issue yet.
You're right that they don't own their home. The key is that they feel entitled to living there anyway, as the commie leftists whose ideology defines the city's politics do not respect capital, like the capital that goes into building homes, or the right of the owner of that capital to make a profit. Rather, the landlord is treated as an invalid actor and a cartoonish villain.
That's why there's rent control, it's also why the housing stock is so poorly maintained, and one important reason why no one's built middle-class housing in the city for decades (though other anti-development sentiment also exists).
1) They want Google to have to pay the city a reasonable fee to operate buses.
2) It's easy to say, "they're renting and have no right to live there." To throw people out because they no longer make enough money to keep up with skyrocketing rent costs is to say that you care more about money than community. It's very close minded and expressly business oriented to think that there's no reason people should have living situation security.
1) The decision to rent vs own is not as clear cut as you are making it. Google a bit - there is actually a lot of debate on this, because it makes a lot of financial sense.
2) If you feel that people deserve the fruits of their labor, this statement is hypocritical. Perhaps there is some assumption that this literally only means dollars - but I don't actually think so. A sense of home, a community, and personally satisfying lifestyle all require effort and work. They are hard or impossible to just purchase with dollars, but they are the fruits of labor none-the-less. This is being disrupted and taken on a mass scale by those who have more resources in dollars. I don't have a solution, but saying "fuck you i have more money and therefore you don't deserve those things you worked for" is not it.
3) Chicago has a lot of high rent/value property. It also has plenty of places one can live reasonably well on salary that isn't "tech worker" high. In fact those places are even cheaper than a lot of the suburbs. Those places aren't impossible to find either. On top of that there is a good public transit system that actually makes getting around the city pretty easy.
> I really don't understand why this bothers the others in the city. If they do not own where they live (and chose to rent) then they don't OWN their home and in turn have no right to live there.
First: choose to rent? You're suggesting that they've just decided to gamble away their savings on questionable investments, rather than choosing to purchase an apartment in San Francisco?
Second: As for "having no right to live there" if you don't own the home -- I don't think that's legally accurate even in the US? AFAIK most modern states give a considerable amount of weight to the idea that where you actually live, is considered your home/residence, and that "your home is your castle".
That said, it does sound strange to me. The idea that infrastructure (roads) should somehow be free to private citizens but not corporations strikes me as very peculiar. Isn't the whole idea of government infrastructure that it's collectively financed (by taxes and fees)?
Seems like there's two sides to the protests: A frustration with rising prices for housing, and a frustration with Google (and other tech companies) for their role in enabling the public-private monitoring complex and emerging police state.
I can understand both of these grievances, but taking them out on the buses still strikes me as odd. I suppose it's an efficient way to get media coverage and get noticed by the companies -- but without a plan for change (going back to one-person, one-car commutes sounds rather reactionary) -- I don't see it helping much.
The logical next step for Google would probably be to buy land and build company housing? Much like the industrial giants of old.
> there really is not much that they can do about it
Protest?
> San Francisco's city government is not going to be able to [...] figure out a way to lower rent
Allow more homes built?
> (and in turn tax revenue)
Why would lower rent mean lower tax revenue? They could tax paycheques instead.
> It's in the cities interest
But not in the citizens' interest, which vote the city leaders.
> I really don't understand why this bothers the others in the city.
Because they can't afford to live anymore in a city where they have lived their whole life.
> If they do not own where they live (and chose to rent) then they don't OWN their home and in turn have no right to live there.
Maybe they "chose to buy" but could not afford to. And to phrase your sentence correctly, the landlord has legal right to evict the renters, but that says nothing about the renters' moral right to live there. Remember, everything Hitler did was legal.
> If they are angry about that, it seems to me that they are just throwing a fit.
By the same logic, if the Jews were angry about the German's confiscating their property and killing them, they were just trowing a fit... What a perverted logic!
> If you can't afford that, then perhaps you didn't make very good choices in your life (aka didn't make enough money to obtain what you want)
Maybe that does not neatly fit into your worldview and maybe it even directly threatens your idea of how good and moral person you are, but the truth is that most poor(-er) people are not poor because of their own "wrong" choices, but because of external circumstances they had no influence on. Likewise, the fact that you have access to the internet is almost in no way due to your own ingenuity, goodness or hard work, and mainly the consequence of hard-working people that came before you and invented and built the infrastructure, and gave you the opportunity to freely enjoy it.
> you should try and find a way to achieve that goal without inflicting pain (stress, wasted time, etc.) on others.
While it is perfectly fine, of course, for the others to inflict pain/stress/wasted time on them.
If they do not own where they live (and chose to rent) then they don't OWN their home and in turn have no right to live there
This is not quite the view of the law. This is why there are quite involved and drawn out eviction proceedings in California and the Bay Area. Under the law, even people who do not own their home have some right to live somewhere and not be made homeless arbitrarily.
In fact, in Texas and other states, the fact of living somewhere can magically establish your ownership of a neglected property without your paying money for it.
As someone who's on the other side of the world - is this real? I mean, seriously?
How many of these "protestors" are there? I haven't seen any pictures of huge crowds. The only photo I have seen showed about 4 or 5 cranky looking people standing in front of a bus.
The whole thing smells like news media being a) lazy and b) hungry for a "conflict" story and so playing right into the protestors' hands. From what I can see, this shouldn't be a story at all.
Actually "symptoms" become "symbols" that people rally around. Sitting at the front of the bus instead of the back was a symptom of racism not the cause. You can't "attack" an underlying cause but you can attack a physical manifestation/symptom of the problem.
The thing I find interesting about attacking the Google buses is that South Bay/Peninsula companies aren't really the problem. What's changed in the last 5 - 7 years is how many startups are in San Francisco. So it's the abundance of well paid jobs in the City (along a little with the ability to work remotely) that's dramatically changed the situation. That's why there wasn't this sort of intense dynamic in the 90's up to the dot com bust. The Google buses are more just salt on the wounds. Even if they stopped it wouldn't change the dynamics very much.
However, I understand the source of the frustration. Of course, like all markets, the problem may solve itself over time. After all, many of the unique aspects of SF that draws tech workers there or stay there will get priced out of the market making it much less appealing.
Googlers, what is your opinion on relaxing the remote work rules? Seems like a very direct way to ease this tension, but I have no perspective on how detrimental it would be to Google's culture.
As I understand, Googlers "work remotely" already, meaning, no development is done in their desktop machine, but on remote servers, maybe someone can confirm.
EDIT: I am apparently wrong as some mentioned, so I would expect a more detailed explanation.
Why would that help, when the core of the issue is that Googlers live in SF but work in Mountain View? It's not like they will move to less desirable locations just because they can.
I didn't get the protests until I realized that the higher rent is dramatically changing the character of the city. You won't find cheap ethnic food or eclectic family run businesses much longer if The valley keeps exporting its housing problem.
Hating techies (and the target of hate, make no mistake, is all tech workers) is easy, convenient, misguided and counterproductive. it is easy, because hatred is a simple, attractive emotion. It is convenient, because it requires no thought about policy changes, urban planning, zoning, transportation, density, parking or anything else that makes a city. It is misguided because it fails to take into account the lack of development in this city that lead to this crisis -- essentially, SF's residents forced SF to be an exclusive enclave, and are now surprised it's becoming an exclusive enclave for someone else. Finally, it is counterproductive because the tech population is not going to leave the city, and the more hate you lob in their direction, the less willing they will be to cooperate in making the city affordable -- why collaborate with the people who actively vilify us?
" ...This goes way, way beyond a cheap bus ride - although the public transport scene in Brazil’s big cities would star in Dante’s ninth circle of hell. A manual worker, a student, a maid usually spend up to four hours a day back-and-forth in appalling conditions. And these are private transport rackets controlled by a small group of businessmen embedded with local politicians, who they obviously own."
If the city really wanted to stop the rising rent they could just implement rent-control, and do it on a block by block basis, so you don't have the same issues that exist in NY.
you had better believe that this 'grass roots' protest is funded by people with fat fat wallets.
They are making tech workers into the New Jew using propaganda. Propaganda is the hidden force behind all of modern politics.
If you go back and look at the rise of hitler and the nazis, it becomes clear that the upper class needed a scapegoat to preserve their wealth from the inevitable oncoming swell of populist-leftist politics coming up from the working class. The upper class knew what was coming, so they found a scapegoat and subverted the working class populist sentiment, diverting working class anger onto the scapegoat, the jews. If you want references for this idea, see the article "I was Hitler's Boss" by Karl Mayr and also the new book _Hitler's_ _First_ _War_.
Anyway, the same thing is happening now--the elite are pushing the idea that tech workers are to blame for rising prices.
They are demonizing tech workers so that populist anger is directed away from themselves. It is also possible that this anger in SF against tech workers is actually in fact anger against cheap import H1b labor scabs from overseas, but the media is altering and changing the actual tenor and content of the protest to make it looks as if it is a protest against tech workers in general.
Also, as a side effect of demonizing tech workers, they can get more cheap labor H1Bs into america because the tech worker will then be an unsympathetic figure.
[+] [-] pisarzp|12 years ago|reply
I lived for 4 months in SF last year, and my crappy flat was more expensive then in London. What is worse, I rented it in a sketchy deal from a woman, who wasn't even an owner. She rented a flat for a long time, and due to rent control she was paying probably a fraction of what she should be. So she lived in Oakland and sublet flat in Mission.
I understand that people don't want 'character of city' to change, but with gentrification it is changing anyway. Best cities in the world are always growing, but SF seems to be very stubborn and want's to be a kid forever.
[+] [-] jusben1369|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lettergram|12 years ago|reply
I really don't understand why this bothers the others in the city. If they do not own where they live (and chose to rent) then they don't OWN their home and in turn have no right to live there. Rather, it makes much more sense that they should live somewhere within their means. If they are angry about that, it seems to me that they are just throwing a fit.
I personally am from Chicago, and I know there is a similar situation there. Most of the city (even for high paying jobs) commute in because there is a fairly decent train system, but also the prices are 10 times higher per square foot in the city. The people who do live in the city are wealthy or homeless. Though San Francisco's rent is twice as high as Chicago's on average, no one near Chicago wants to waste their money living in the city unless they want to be in the heart of the city and enjoy the scene. If you can't afford that, then perhaps you didn't make very good choices in your life (aka didn't make enough money to obtain what you want) and you should try and find a way to achieve that goal without inflicting pain (stress, wasted time, etc.) on others.
[+] [-] pavanky|12 years ago|reply
The protesters may be wrong in their methods and they are probably fighting for a losing cause. But to say people made bad decisions in their life because they are not earning twice or thrice the national median income is just ignorant.
You compare SFO wit Chicago. But I am guessing the high earners living in the city also work there, unlike SFO where they commute OUT to work.
There are no easy solutions to this problem. But please do not straight up dismiss it.
Disclaimer: I do not live in the region so I have no idea about the specifics. I just felt the parent comment was wrong.
[+] [-] jseliger|12 years ago|reply
This isn't mysterious or hard, and I've written comments about it before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7073079). There are two ways to lower the cost of something: increase the supply or decrease demand. It's quite easy to build more units on a given parcel of land but SF has mostly chosen not to do so (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francis...).
The real problem starts with voters, since they're the ones electing the mayor, city council, and other officials, who respond to voter preferences against building stuff but who also deal with voters complaining about high rents. They're in a situation similar to the ones Bryan Caplan describes in The Myth of the Rational Voter, which is a fascinating book that deserves not just to be read but reread (http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies/dp...).
[+] [-] williamcotton|12 years ago|reply
James was given the land by deed of the Unites States after it's previous tenant, also a rancher, was forced out as a result of a war between Mexico and the US and given a small amount of gold.
This rancher was named Julio and his family had been on the land for 2 generations.
Previous to that a native people had lived there for many hundreds of years until being forcibly removed by a band of Spaniards waving a piece of paper.
Now, please tell me more about property rights and justice.
[+] [-] tinco|12 years ago|reply
I don't know if this is an American thing or not, but to a Dutch person this remark is rather revolting.
In The Netherlands, if you pay for your home it is your right to live there, regardless of how you finance it. Home owners are not somehow more privileged than renters are.
> no one near Chicago wants to waste their money living in the city unless they want to be in the heart of the city and enjoy the scene.
As I understand it, the problem in San Francisco is not just about the city center, it's the entire 40 miles radius around the Google campus and other SV hotspots where rents and housing prices have increased so much young adults can't afford in the areas they grew up in anymore.
> If you can't afford that, then perhaps you didn't make very good choices in your life
You are a disgusting person.
> you should try and find a way to achieve that goal without inflicting pain (stress, wasted time, etc.) on others
This would be nice in an ideal society, but in a liberal society like the U.S., this simply isn't an option for many people.
[+] [-] brenschluss|12 years ago|reply
Ah, it's clear that you're being a little small-minded and looking at things at a micro-level, at the scale of the person. In startup terms, be more disruptive, think 30,000ft, not 6'.
An argument like the one you mentioned above is one of complacency and inaction that originates around a tautology. "If they can't afford it, they shouldn't be there." = "If they don't like the status quo, they shouldn't protest the status quo." Other similar arguments could be formulated; "If you don't like the NSA, move to a different country", "If you don't have high speed internet because you can't pay $200/mo for fiber, you should cope with slow internet."
Note that the arguments I give are not actually constructive criticism or logical arguments, but tautological loops that leave people in positions of complacency.
I will offer that the better position to take is: "We should all have inexpensive high-speed internet. How can we get there?" "The USA should not spy on its citizens. What can we do to change that?" And correspondingly: "We should have a stable and healthy housing situation for all, what can we do to change this?"
Now, it sounds like you most certainly don't agree with that last question, since you mention: It's in the cities interest to keep the rent/cost per home as high as possible and in turn keep the tech people around.
I wonder if you feel the same way about the USA: "It's in the US's interest to keep the rent/cost per home as high as possible and in turn keep the high-income individuals around"?
[+] [-] smtddr|12 years ago|reply
This is the most insensitive, privileged comment on this issue yet.
[+] [-] fennecfoxen|12 years ago|reply
That's why there's rent control, it's also why the housing stock is so poorly maintained, and one important reason why no one's built middle-class housing in the city for decades (though other anti-development sentiment also exists).
[+] [-] shittyanalogy|12 years ago|reply
1) They want Google to have to pay the city a reasonable fee to operate buses.
2) It's easy to say, "they're renting and have no right to live there." To throw people out because they no longer make enough money to keep up with skyrocketing rent costs is to say that you care more about money than community. It's very close minded and expressly business oriented to think that there's no reason people should have living situation security.
[+] [-] sophacles|12 years ago|reply
1) The decision to rent vs own is not as clear cut as you are making it. Google a bit - there is actually a lot of debate on this, because it makes a lot of financial sense.
2) If you feel that people deserve the fruits of their labor, this statement is hypocritical. Perhaps there is some assumption that this literally only means dollars - but I don't actually think so. A sense of home, a community, and personally satisfying lifestyle all require effort and work. They are hard or impossible to just purchase with dollars, but they are the fruits of labor none-the-less. This is being disrupted and taken on a mass scale by those who have more resources in dollars. I don't have a solution, but saying "fuck you i have more money and therefore you don't deserve those things you worked for" is not it.
3) Chicago has a lot of high rent/value property. It also has plenty of places one can live reasonably well on salary that isn't "tech worker" high. In fact those places are even cheaper than a lot of the suburbs. Those places aren't impossible to find either. On top of that there is a good public transit system that actually makes getting around the city pretty easy.
[+] [-] e12e|12 years ago|reply
First: choose to rent? You're suggesting that they've just decided to gamble away their savings on questionable investments, rather than choosing to purchase an apartment in San Francisco?
Second: As for "having no right to live there" if you don't own the home -- I don't think that's legally accurate even in the US? AFAIK most modern states give a considerable amount of weight to the idea that where you actually live, is considered your home/residence, and that "your home is your castle".
That said, it does sound strange to me. The idea that infrastructure (roads) should somehow be free to private citizens but not corporations strikes me as very peculiar. Isn't the whole idea of government infrastructure that it's collectively financed (by taxes and fees)?
Seems like there's two sides to the protests: A frustration with rising prices for housing, and a frustration with Google (and other tech companies) for their role in enabling the public-private monitoring complex and emerging police state.
I can understand both of these grievances, but taking them out on the buses still strikes me as odd. I suppose it's an efficient way to get media coverage and get noticed by the companies -- but without a plan for change (going back to one-person, one-car commutes sounds rather reactionary) -- I don't see it helping much.
The logical next step for Google would probably be to buy land and build company housing? Much like the industrial giants of old.
[+] [-] tomp|12 years ago|reply
Protest?
> San Francisco's city government is not going to be able to [...] figure out a way to lower rent
Allow more homes built?
> (and in turn tax revenue)
Why would lower rent mean lower tax revenue? They could tax paycheques instead.
> It's in the cities interest
But not in the citizens' interest, which vote the city leaders.
> I really don't understand why this bothers the others in the city.
Because they can't afford to live anymore in a city where they have lived their whole life.
> If they do not own where they live (and chose to rent) then they don't OWN their home and in turn have no right to live there.
Maybe they "chose to buy" but could not afford to. And to phrase your sentence correctly, the landlord has legal right to evict the renters, but that says nothing about the renters' moral right to live there. Remember, everything Hitler did was legal.
> If they are angry about that, it seems to me that they are just throwing a fit.
By the same logic, if the Jews were angry about the German's confiscating their property and killing them, they were just trowing a fit... What a perverted logic!
> If you can't afford that, then perhaps you didn't make very good choices in your life (aka didn't make enough money to obtain what you want)
Maybe that does not neatly fit into your worldview and maybe it even directly threatens your idea of how good and moral person you are, but the truth is that most poor(-er) people are not poor because of their own "wrong" choices, but because of external circumstances they had no influence on. Likewise, the fact that you have access to the internet is almost in no way due to your own ingenuity, goodness or hard work, and mainly the consequence of hard-working people that came before you and invented and built the infrastructure, and gave you the opportunity to freely enjoy it.
> you should try and find a way to achieve that goal without inflicting pain (stress, wasted time, etc.) on others.
While it is perfectly fine, of course, for the others to inflict pain/stress/wasted time on them.
Congratulations, your logic is irrefutable!
[+] [-] stcredzero|12 years ago|reply
This is not quite the view of the law. This is why there are quite involved and drawn out eviction proceedings in California and the Bay Area. Under the law, even people who do not own their home have some right to live somewhere and not be made homeless arbitrarily.
In fact, in Texas and other states, the fact of living somewhere can magically establish your ownership of a neglected property without your paying money for it.
[+] [-] midas007|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] venus|12 years ago|reply
How many of these "protestors" are there? I haven't seen any pictures of huge crowds. The only photo I have seen showed about 4 or 5 cranky looking people standing in front of a bus.
The whole thing smells like news media being a) lazy and b) hungry for a "conflict" story and so playing right into the protestors' hands. From what I can see, this shouldn't be a story at all.
[+] [-] jusben1369|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whistlerbrk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jusben1369|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adharmad|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badman_ting|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jusben1369|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ubercore|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|12 years ago|reply
As I understand, Googlers "work remotely" already, meaning, no development is done in their desktop machine, but on remote servers, maybe someone can confirm.
EDIT: I am apparently wrong as some mentioned, so I would expect a more detailed explanation.
[+] [-] tomp|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rrhyne|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raldi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noamsml|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavanky|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lnanek2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woah|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e12e|12 years ago|reply
Agreed, the hyperbole in the headline and text is rather distasteful, considering what's happening in Ukraine (and Egypt, and...).
[+] [-] matthuggins|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e3pi|12 years ago|reply
s/Z/P/g; # P(p) = poverty, wealth disparity
" ...This goes way, way beyond a cheap bus ride - although the public transport scene in Brazil’s big cities would star in Dante’s ninth circle of hell. A manual worker, a student, a maid usually spend up to four hours a day back-and-forth in appalling conditions. And these are private transport rackets controlled by a small group of businessmen embedded with local politicians, who they obviously own."
http://rt.com/op-edge/brazil-protests-world-cup-014/
[+] [-] vxNsr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrownaway2424|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squirejons|12 years ago|reply
If you go back and look at the rise of hitler and the nazis, it becomes clear that the upper class needed a scapegoat to preserve their wealth from the inevitable oncoming swell of populist-leftist politics coming up from the working class. The upper class knew what was coming, so they found a scapegoat and subverted the working class populist sentiment, diverting working class anger onto the scapegoat, the jews. If you want references for this idea, see the article "I was Hitler's Boss" by Karl Mayr and also the new book _Hitler's_ _First_ _War_.
Anyway, the same thing is happening now--the elite are pushing the idea that tech workers are to blame for rising prices.
They are demonizing tech workers so that populist anger is directed away from themselves. It is also possible that this anger in SF against tech workers is actually in fact anger against cheap import H1b labor scabs from overseas, but the media is altering and changing the actual tenor and content of the protest to make it looks as if it is a protest against tech workers in general.
Also, as a side effect of demonizing tech workers, they can get more cheap labor H1Bs into america because the tech worker will then be an unsympathetic figure.
[+] [-] dgabriel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] railzfailz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pg_rails|12 years ago|reply
Hate it when the great unwashed get uppity.