Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right?<p>I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment was at 5% <i>through the great recession</i>. However, I find whenever I suggest that, people act like if they move there they will be lynched - as if the place is a primitive wasteland inhabited by backwards rednecks carrying pitchforks. In reality, it is a modestly wealthy area filled with dentists, insurance providers, accountants, and other mid-level white collar workers. You're more likely to die of boredom, but isn't that better than food stamps, and isn't boredom good if you want to raise a family? The people that read and write these articles don't seem to consider things like this.
This seems to explain at least some of the UBI-love tech founders have. They live as billionaires in a community, that despite all their money and highfalutin ideas doesn't actually take care of its own, unless you have millions if not billions of dollars.<p>Of course to them the only solution is more money, that's the only solution they seem to know. They'd be more believable if they fixed their own literal and metaphorical neighborhoods first before continuing their personal campaigns of empire.<p>Sorry if it's whiny, it's just that the contrast between words and actions is stark.
Housing problem. There's not enough of it, and the people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here.<p>It's a completely artificial construct that drives up the cost of living and robs the poor with rent seeking.<p>All of California's inequality problems go back to that. High salaries for some people help make it stronger, but the greed of the NIMBY homeowners is a far greater cause of putting people at risk for going hungry, because they have been trying so hard to keep them out of housing.
It's a culture problem: with so many people being so rich in the valley, you need to be ruthless to be part of the rich people's club. It means that if you're at the helm of a successful company, you'd rather become a billionaire yourself than letting the poorer people you employ become wealthy.<p>Another factor is that a good chunk of the tech's business was about making things cheaper rather than making new stuff. Amazon is cheaper than bookstores, Uber is cheaper than regular taxi, and so on. Even if the tech helps make the costs lowers, it also often translates into lower worker wages, and doesn't create more value overall that what existed before.
Why is this called a paradox? It's a greed and winner-takes-it-all culture. What are the mechanism in place which would guarantee at least a mild version of wealth redistribution?
This is so so incredibly sad. I see people on this thread saying stuff like "this is how life is" and "suck it up and move" but the core of the problem is that we have literally institutionalized slavery by calling it a market force. This woman isn't a market operator, shes basically a modern day slave. Crucial to the functioning of the system (or Facebook doesn't have food) but somehow also expendable. This is not just a American but a worldwide issue. Whatever the market forces are it just doesn't make any sense that a cook is unable to make a living.
Most of SW jobs in Silicon Valley can be done remotely. Frankly, it's about time our industry embraces this instead of reversing the trend and adding insane "open office" spaces everywhere, killing productivity and happiness.
Why is this a surprise? California is the #1 poverty state[1], spends almost the least on education etc etc. State tax receipts mostly just rewards CalPERs members.<p>1 <a href="http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/" rel="nofollow">http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/...</a>
Its kind of ironic and interesting to juxtapose this article with the post where Chamath Palihapitiya the former Facebook exec says "I want the fucking money" to increase his influence.<p>The economic output in sheer profit terms of Silicon Valley companies is probably enough to feed the continent. There are probably scores of individuals living there that could create a food program with 1/4 of their net worth that could prevent all hunger.<p>This kind of makes the point to me that the skillset to get somebody a lot of money is the exact opposite skillset necessary to care for their neighbors.
"Food insecure" is a very strange way of describing this situation. The people described are spending far more money on rent than they are on food. The real problem is that the rent is too damn high.
There's a book from 2002 called "The Silicon Valley of Dreams" that seems never to have been mentioned on HN.
<a href="https://nyupress.org/books/9780814767092/" rel="nofollow">https://nyupress.org/books/9780814767092/</a><p>It's about the environmental conditions around electronics manufacturing, and their disproportionate impact on immigrants and minorities. Maybe a bit too hardcore for the optimists here (I'd include myself), but it covers similar issues to this Guardian article and is worth being aware of.