I identify as a leftist. I believe the government, and more generally a nation, has a duty to ensure quality of life for its citizens.<p>That said, I think this article is grounded in a false dichotomy:
"As Silicon Valley has had one of its most profitable years in history, thousands of people who live in walking distance from the headquarters of the world's best-known tech giants are going hungry."<p>How does distance to the hungry matter? Companies are already donating. They have no duty to. The failure isn't on their end. I'd also extrapolate that the failure isn't on the system currently in place: if they're getting funded and people are still hungry: why are they hungry?<p>There isn't enough access to jobs, there is too much financial duress, and there isn't a layer of support to help these people. That's entirely on the government to sort. Blaming businesses for not sorting this problem is simply moving the goalposts.
IIRC : Silicon Valley gives generously to homelessness, food banks, and job training for people who can’t afford to live there, eat, and clothe their children. Right?
The problem is nearly all white-collar people in the SF Bay Area are stingy and blind to the plights of anyone else besides themselves. If this weren't the case, there wouldn't be so many homeless people living on freeway on-ramp embankments.<p>Case in point: I remember a hackerspace had a large winter food donation barrel that was sitting out for weeks returned with 1 can in it. 1. One. That says "F U" to hungry people.<p>Also consider how many churches in the SF Bay Area don't do meaningful community outreach and just show up on Sundays.<p>I just hope none of the comfortable and privileged ever end up poor and hungry, because they'd be in for a shock.