I've lived all over the country, and I've never seen such a big divide between two groups (wealthy tech and everyone else) as I have in the Bay Area.<p>The last time I was there, I realized why most of the protests for economic reform and "the 1%" are so strong in the Bay Area: because it is so blatantly thrown in people's faces! The streets are filled with Porsches and Teslas driving by the many homeless people in SF everyday. Rent is absolutely absurd. Most big cities have this problem, but its especially pronounced in SF (probably moreso than everywhere but NYC).<p>I think the thing that probably makes it worse in SF is, as mentioned in the article, many people don't <i>work</i> in SF. I don't know of many companies in Chicago, NYC, or Dallas providing free transportation to their headquarters in the suburbs, people that live in those places usually work in there too.<p>I'm not sure what can be done about this; Google isn't moving their headquarters to SF (nor should they). At some point this issue is going to boil over and something will have to change.
From the quoted LA Times piece: "Unlike in previous booms, the tech industry isn’t creating as many middle-class jobs..."<p>I don't believe this. There are tons of Software Engineer jobs paying around 80-100k in SF. That salary, in that city, puts you firmly in the middle class.<p>However, I agree with this piece. The tech companies and the people of San Francisco as a whole need to really change things. A big part of that change probably needs to happen at the local government level where there is so much incompetence and a decent amount of corruption: <a href="http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-u-s/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-ci...</a><p>SF wants to be a big city, but many of the residents are actively refusing policies that will allow for better services, denser urban areas and other benefits of being a large city. Otherwise, San Francisco will continue to be the largest small town in America, with problems like homelessness and income inequality worse than a city ten times it's size (say, New York City).
Articles like this one always seem to imply that the techies are all sitting comfortably with a giant money vault like Scrooge McDuck, laughing at everyone else and refusing to share. That just isn't the case. In reality, few of them actually have any real financial security. Most work for startups that are living on borrowed time and may not be here in a year or two. Few of them own any real assets such as real estate, so they end up renting just like everyone else. How many who ride these buses even own cars?<p>They all know in the back of their minds that the current boom is just as transient as any other, meaning they could be unemployed and forced to leave at any time. It is difficult to build a strong community on such shaky ground.
Here's my proble. I have no problem paying taxes and investing in my community. But I'd never want to invest in a city as absurd as San Francisco.<p>It is interesting to observe how people in the finance industry in New York view taxation. They'll complain about it, but by and large they're pretty supportive of the whole system. Which is important, because they're responsible for some large fraction of the tax base, as well as a lot of corporate investment in the community. I think Wall Street is happy to invest in New York because the city isn't totally dysfunctional. The people who pay the taxes see benefits from public services, whether its the police or the transit infrastructure. It's a place where people making a million dollars a year will ride the bus or subway to work and so feel invested in the public services they pay for.<p>In San Francisco, the crazies and the hippies are firmly in charge. And as long as that's the case, why would you want to give them your money?
I am a little confused, not living in SF (visited once by accident in the 80's). If I read this right, most of the tech companies are not in SF, but the employees really like to live in SF. So, the tech companies bus their people on exclusive transportation to the tech company.<p>Is part of the problem that the suburbs (that I would imagine benefit tax-wise) are not doing a good job at being an attractive place to live? Is it an industrial park situation? It seems like some land developer has a custom audience for a development.<p>I have read jwz's blog for the DNA Lounge for a long time and get the vibe SF doesn't want those type of venues. It would seem a more entertainment friendly community would prosper in attracting young SF residents.
Part of the reason I moved away from the Bay Area is that no one seems to care about it. Everyone is too busy working all the time for their start up, and so there's very little in the way of community. Oakland seems to be the one exception, where it is cheap enough that you can live without dedicating your life to work. Surprise surprise, it turns out to be the place with the interesting restaurant and arts culture.
My perspective is that the tech community at large - quite some time ago - abdicated integrating into the rest of the world. I invite a careful read of Barlow's bombast[1] from the early '90s and consider how that has played out into today.<p>With the techie desire to remove politics and marketing and the overweening wish to be logical instead of emotional comes the abdication of dealing with the messy, compromising, and non-technical parts of the world and thus, the disengagement.<p>My one experience in SF was generally negative: homeless people were sleeping all over the sidewalks, and the beggars were aggressive. There was a great deal of wealth in evidence, but I didn't see the wealth translated into meaningful assistance.<p>I guess I would expect to see some sort of mission building in the area I was in where people could sleep & use restrooms and not be on the sidewalk.<p>Anyway, I think it's time the tech community grokked that the Internet is and is not a separate space and really got serious about engaging with the world (again).<p>[1] <a href="https://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html" rel="nofollow">https://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html</a>
If I knew of a well run non-profit organization that would strategically and practically invest in San Francisco, I would donate.<p>I can't really think of any that aren't highly political (and thus, not practical). Anyone know of any?