[npinguy]

Real problem.

Terrible article.

> “What these techies don’t realise though is that we’re no different to them - they’re just one misstep, one paycheck away from being us.”

I don't presume to know Jimmy's life, and everyone goes through hard times. However, unless it's your first job out of poverty, if you are one paycheck away form being homeless, you are doing something considerably wrong with your life.

More atrocious quotes: > “You see camps of people sleeping rough just two miles from Sergey Brin’s (Google co-founder) house,” he says. “And the irony is, not even his engineers get paid enough to live here."

Yes, the employees of large companies do not tend to live in the same neighborhood as the CEO of those companies. And?

> “We are trying to get tech billionaires involved in what we’re doing. They donate millions to good causes, but almost nothing to the local community they are helping destroy."

We really can't accept these kinds of statements without pushback. Just how are tech billionaires "destroying" communities? Is it their fault they have come up with ideas that are worth millions and billions of dollars so they can afford to pay a lot of money to the best and the brightest to work for them, who then want to live in these neighborhoods? Blame the landlords who giddily raise the rent and drive people out of their homes. Blame the Government for not spending the billions of additional tax revenue they get from these companies on better social programs. Blame the republicans for equating "social programs" with "socialism" and therefore "communism" and therefore "evil". Blaming the "techies" is moronic.

> "At their weekly meeting, the team leader makes an announcement to the some-100 guests gathered - Google is hiring. The company is holding a jobs fair in a few weeks’ time and they are looking for chefs, cooks and cleaners. Some groan, but most are keenly listening and a group stay behind after to sign up. In desperate times you cannot be too proud to “make a deal with the devil”, one guest says."

Oh, cry me a river.

[fragmede]

>> “What these techies don’t realise though is that we’re no different to them - they’re just one misstep, one paycheck away from being us.”

> I don't presume to know Jimmy's life, and everyone goes through hard times. However, unless it's your first job out of poverty, if you are one paycheck away form being homeless, you are doing something considerably wrong with your life.

Privileged much? If you are one paycheck away from being utterly destitute, living on the streets and foraging in trash cans for food, then yeah, there's a problem. The problem being a lack of social programs by your government.

"Techies" may be more than one paycheck away from destitution, but unless they've won the startup-IPO/acquisition lottery, they're not that many more paychecks from homeless, especially in the case of life-altering disease or accident.

[bjwbell]

I quit my job 8 months ago and I'm still many many months away from homeless. If you're frugal it's not difficult to save up a year's worth of living on the money from a couple years of programming.

[fragmede]

100-paychecks from destitution is certainly better than one, but only by 99 paychecks.

[4ydx]

The older I get the more it seems that empathy is only derived from a person being able to understand their own humanity and the inherent vulnerability. The rest think they are supermen (or women). Trying to communicate with them is rather draining :P

[Iftheshoefits]

> However, unless it's your first job out of poverty, if you are one paycheck away form being homeless, you are doing something considerably wrong with your life.<

It is exceedingly easy to be one paycheck away from being homeless in America, even for some holding two or three jobs. This doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong with their life.

[tomjen3]

As a HS drop out, yes. As a tech guy gainfully employed in the valley? You are doing something wrong if one missed paycheck could kill you.

[silencio]

One missed paycheck can turn into multiple missed paychecks, which can fuck over even the people with a rainy day fund.

I'm a tech gal in SF, but there was a period of ~6 months or so where I had back to back to back upper respiratory infections from hell and I was so fatigued and ill that I wasn't taking up any new contracts. Lucky for me I'm my own boss, and lucky for me I'm a cheapskate with a big rainy day fund. Not that many employers would put up with someone not working for 6 months at a time. "Doing something wrong" doesn't just mean "incompetent developer" or "person spending beyond their means". It could be something as simple as me being out of commission this entire past week because sinusitis (seriously, fuck these infections) plus nausea/period cramps. It could be something as awful as being terminally ill.

That's just myself too... my husband and I just started trying for kids, so that's an additional layer of responsibility we're preparing ourselves for. Then I don't know what might happen to either of our parents, just in case. The list goes on. One paycheck can absolutely make a difference, and not just of the "you must be stupid" variety.

[ryan-c]

I agree with you, but many people are doing something wrong. I've known plenty of people in tech who do not seem to be able to live below their means. I've had coworkers/managers/friends look at me like I had an extra head when I balk at the cost of things that don't even seem to register for them, especially when I mention I save 40-50% of my net income (and my pay isn't particularly impressive by silicon valley standards).

[Iftheshoefits]

It's easy to save with no debt, no family and an income that is even 50% of the typical entry-level SV income. Most--as in the majority--of people who "work in tech" especially of they're younger than 40 had to take on significant student loan debt to get degrees, certifications and what have you to get those jobs. Your savings rate is extraordinarily unusual, and it doesn't necessarily mean you're smarter about money matters, or that everybody else is dumb about them.

[Dylan16807]

How many people are making enough money to have a home, but little enough money that they would literally have no options if their paycheck was 5-10% smaller?

I expect that group to be very small. Everyone else can put away a few percent and quickly get out of the situation of being a paycheck away from homeless.

Yes, it's hard to scrimp more than is strictly necessary, but that's part of being responsible.

Now the problem of being one medical issue away from bankruptcy is a lot harder to solve by yourself...

[humanrebar]

I mostly agree with your thoughts, if not your tone. However:

> Just how are tech billionaires "destroying" communities?

The bottom line is that CEOs could be tracking things like the average cost of living and average commute times of their employees. Keeping both of those as low as possible is, I would argue, an ethical issue if not a moral one. How can you pay $10/hour to the breadwinner of a family in San Fransisco? Aren't you asking for an inhumane lifestyle (yes, insane commutes times count against a sensible lifestyle)?

So can we pay $10 in a safe area with an ultra-low cost of living? Or can we pay a living wage so people can live a reasonable commute from work?

> Blame the republicans for equating "social programs" with "socialism" and therefore "communism" and therefore "evil".

Left or right, white collar workers that aren't giving a significant portion of their income to charity (as in, measured by percentage points) are not living ethically and sustainably. Things like hospitals, orphanages, shelters, and soup kitchens used to be funded by voluntary donations from middle class professionals to service organizations (unions, Lions Club, Episcopal Church, etc.). At some point (probably about the time neighborhoods disintegrated), people stopped taking responsibility for each other. Right, left, or middle, people can keep pointing fingers and voting the same way or they can leverage their passions into helping real people for a change.

[ryan-c]

> Left or right, white collar workers that aren't giving a significant portion of their income to charity (as in, measured by percentage points) are not living ethically and sustainably.

By this logic I don't see how anyone not giving away everything they don't need to live can be considered "ethical".

This is not to say I don't feel I should be contributing to these things - I would just prefer that it be dealt with via taxes. People have a very hard time being generous to people outside of their communities, and as you said neighborhoods are no longer communities.

[humanrebar]

It's not worth unpacking the ethics here, but I think there's common ground. I would suggest that if someone has an income greater than the median and expects someone else to pay to support the poor, his math is off.

[ryan-c]

I do not expect "someone else" to pay for it. As best as I can figure at least 20% of my gross income is going towards social programs already via compulsory contributions (income taxes). Required contributions to these programs based on peoples' ability to pay seems like a good solution to me, though the allocation of those funds could be done a lot better.

As far as voluntary contributions go, I do make some, but a big issue is finding and vetting charities where donations would do the most good. Psychology plays a bit into it too - "We currently have W and need X to meet demand for services. Every Y above X lets us also do Z" is more appealing than "Every dollar helps!" with no transparency.

[Swizec]

> I don't presume to know Jimmy's life, and everyone goes through hard times. However, unless it's your first job out of poverty, if you are one paycheck away form being homeless, you are doing something considerably wrong with your life.

I thought that was the default state of being an American. Always essentially one paycheck away from being homeless due to various debts and other interesting things.

And god forbid you get sick ...

[tomjen3]

Debt is something that you sign up for, so it is your fault. Sometimes it is the best choice, but most of the debt cases in the US were not a good idea when they signed that credit card.

And yes in general you don't want to be ill, ever.

[jqm]

It's a rough job propping up the economy of the world through consumer spending fueled by massive debt, but Americans are always up for a challenge.

I mean.. if it weren't for my GF's credit card, how would that Bangladeshi clothing sewer buy rice?

But ya, it's a messed up system that seems to work mostly for the credit card company.

[jqm]

Someone down voted that comment, and understandably so as it probably came off a bit flippant...

So here are some numbers. The US, with ~320 million people is nearly 25% of world GDP. The US has public/private debt of ~146 trillion dollars. Consumption fueled by this debt contributes greatly to economic activity around the globe.

So yes, debt should be avoided. But if everyone avoided debt at all turns it would not be good scenario for the global economy. And, there has to be losers for the system to keep working as it is. Back on topic, there are no shortage of homeless who became so because of assumption of debt and inability to service it.

America is not set up on a pay cash and live within-your means basis. Sure, you can try to do this, but it will be hard, you will be the exception, and you definitely won't be emulating your neighbors nor your government.

I feel it's a bit of a messed up system that causes problems and is not infinitely sustainable. But for right now, it is what it is.

[jazzyk]

>But if everyone avoided debt at all turns it would not be good scenario for the global economy

With the government debt over 100% GDP and unsustainable personal debt levels in the US, it is not going to end well, no matter what. In an ideal world, governments should be required to run 1-2% budget surplus, to be spent in cyclical recessions (which was the original Keynes' idea, completely hijacked by supposedly Keynesian economists (like Krugman), who insist on more government spending, despite being in debt to the eyeballs - complete lunacy.

[Swizec]

Is this like freelancers saving money to compensate for the feast/famine cycle, but for governments?

[jazzyk]

An why not? The economic cycle has been known since biblical times (7 years of prosperity, 7 years of famine). The preaches of "saving for the rainy day" have been present in most fables/folk stories in many cultures. BTW, the US is not in a cyclical recession, but a structural one and it may take years to get things fixed (see Japan).

[Swizec]

> America is not set up on a pay cash and live within-your means basis.

To be fair, neither is Europe. But from what I'm seeing younger generations (all of us currently in our 20's) are almost pathologically afraid of taking on debt. People avoid it at all cost. Yes, I understand Americans normally start life with student debt, but it doesn't seem like they're in any hurry to take on additional debt after that. Completely unlike our parents and our parents' parents generations.

I wonder what that will do to the economy at large.

[Squarel]

When me and my partner were working full time jobs at well above minimum wage, we were never more than one paycheck away from trouble, our income just covered our outgoings on bills and food, if anything had broken down we would have been screwed.

It is astoundingly easy to end up one step away from being on the street. From when I helped out at shelters, a lot of the time the story is similar to "Lose job, find difficulty getting new job, lack of success at job hunting causes stress in relationship, trouble paying bills, relationship and house go, end up on street"

[venomsnake]

> Blame the Government for not spending the billions of additional tax revenue they get from these companies on better social programs

The government collects way less than it should, since the IT giants have become really good at avoiding taxes recently.

[humanrebar]

If they're breaking the law, throw the book at them. If the law is messed up, we should fix the law. If you hate the game, fix the rules.

A tax code as complex as ours is really a justice issue. If the tax code weren't the issue, we could have a (relatively) simpler conversation about whether taxes are too low to meet our goals.

[robertfw]

We should fix the law. But that is quite difficult when the political system has been largely bought and paid for.

[thephyber]

Perhaps a terrible article, but also a terrible reply. Moving my reply to the top level because you don't seem like you want to hear any facts.

[vertex-four]

> Blaming the "techies" is moronic.

Not quite - it's certainly the techies' fault for centralising on an area that, plain and simple, can't cope with the demand. You can't point to any particular person who gets that blame, but the CEOs of major companies situated there, and the VCs that fund the startups with the requirement that they move to Silicon Valley, probably shoulder it more than others.

[psaintla]

Absolutely, I do not understand the obsession with tech companies centralizing in a few major cities. There are many beautiful, walkable cities in decline around the country. Each of these cities would make excellent places to live with significantly lower costs of living.

[lmartel]

I think one factor encouraging centralization in SV is that average tech job tenure is so short--if I quit, get fired, or my company folds, I want to be confident that I can get a (good) new job without having to move.

[nerfhammer]

The population growth rate is roughly the same as most other cities in the country

http://e.infogr.am/infographic-20300?src=embed

It's SF's fault that it cannot deal with demand growth, not everyone else's

[vertex-four]

If you use a SaaS that can't deal with demand growth, you use another SaaS or build your own system. If you use a city that can't deal with demand growth for whatever reason... you try to grow demand further?

Anyway - what's income inequality like in those other cities? Similar?

[nerfhammer]

> If you use a SaaS that can't deal with demand growth, you use another SaaS or build your own system.

Obviously that's not similar. You can't "switch" cities like you switch your phone company. You can't build your own city. You aren't arguing that it would be bad for the SaaS for it to be used too much so everyone should try to stop using it to stop hurting it. You are not a city's "client".

Are you saying it would be in their best interest to move away and they're behaving irrationally against their own best interest for not doing so, or that it's a moral thing and they should all choose to uproot themselves according to moral imperatives?

> If you use a city that can't deal with demand growth for whatever reason... you try to grow demand further?

It would be ridiculous to say they are "trying" to grow real estate demand, as if that's something they collectively would or could try to do. Note almost all of these companies started out tiny and slowly grew locally over time and never decided to move in en masse.

> Anyway - what's income inequality like in those other cities? Similar?

I don't know, what would that indicate?