Life Inside the RVs of Silicon Valley(topic.com)
topic.com
Life Inside the RVs of Silicon Valley
https://www.topic.com/life-inside-the-rvs-of-silicon-valley
108 comments
I agree with your premise, and don't know what your medical details are, or much about liver operations in general. But sleeping outdoors is tough on the body during rainy season. The immune system has to work extra hard to fight off internal fungal infections, so depending on the nature of the operations I could see why this would be a medical problem.
Now my question is, could the hospital have tried to work something out, say with the Ronald McDonald House? Absolutely.
And further, people in SV are so short-sighted they have no problem paying their workers so little and restricting new housing that their workers can't find a place to live. I've literally had executives at my Palo Alto company bragging about their NIMBY exploits -- which is at the least insensitive considering almost non of their employees could afford to live in Palo Alto and have a decent commute.
Now my question is, could the hospital have tried to work something out, say with the Ronald McDonald House? Absolutely.
And further, people in SV are so short-sighted they have no problem paying their workers so little and restricting new housing that their workers can't find a place to live. I've literally had executives at my Palo Alto company bragging about their NIMBY exploits -- which is at the least insensitive considering almost non of their employees could afford to live in Palo Alto and have a decent commute.
He is back in housing, but has to wait an entire year to be relisted. Why? To me, that's just bs.
I'm not sure if that's a rhetorical question or not, but the hospital is trying to ensure they don't waste a liver. Not enough people donate their organs, so these really are precious resources. My assumption is they have a one year waiting requirement to ensure the patient doesn't wind up homeless again. Maintaining financial stability is tough. That said you'd think they'd be able to coordinate with the local shelters and housing organizations to work this all out, but my assumption is there's not enough budget for social workers that would do this.
I have had a class on Homelessness and Public Policy. I also spent 5.7 years homeless.
It ends up partly being a chicken and egg problem or "the key is in the safe." I had trouble making as much money as I needed in part because of prejudice. If I could make more money, I could take better care of myself.
Someone who has health issues as the root cause of their poverty needs health solutions to be better able to maintain financial stability. This policy is along the lines of "the beatings shall continue until morale improves." It is an all too common stance in American institutions.
It ends up partly being a chicken and egg problem or "the key is in the safe." I had trouble making as much money as I needed in part because of prejudice. If I could make more money, I could take better care of myself.
Someone who has health issues as the root cause of their poverty needs health solutions to be better able to maintain financial stability. This policy is along the lines of "the beatings shall continue until morale improves." It is an all too common stance in American institutions.
Maybe this is a special case, but many people get frustrated with the rules for organ transplants. For example some lists forbid people over 80, those with morbid obesity, or those on long term medications from receiving transplants.
There's a few arguments here, does it makes more sense to have organs go to the highest bidder, have a list of restrictions with prioritized recipients, or just accept everyone in on chronological and have them hope for the best?
There's a few arguments here, does it makes more sense to have organs go to the highest bidder, have a list of restrictions with prioritized recipients, or just accept everyone in on chronological and have them hope for the best?
I am actually not a huge fan of organ transplants. I have fairly strong, incredibly unpopular views of them. I have a condition that accounts for a very high percentage of lung transplants. I have been getting myself well when the world says it cannot be done, while people dismiss me and call me crazy. I am a former homemaker.
In a nutshell, I feel that organ transplants are not about the welfare of the patient. They are about doctors and scientists doing things that are cool and look heroic.
If a pathetically poor divorced single mom with special needs kids can get healthier while homeless for nearly six years, surely this is not that hard a problem to solve. People just don't want real solutions. They want expensive as hell drugs (the news-making drug for my condition costs $300k annually for an incurable condition and it only works for about 5% of the patients) and they want heroic surgeries that inflate the egos of the medical profession. They do not actually give a damn about actual health.
I seriously wish I had died instead of getting healthier. No one will listen to me. No one respects me or takes me seriously. I'm just a woman and poor, so I couldn't possibly have a clue what I am talking about.
My life remains in the toilet and I can't figure out how to help people completely for free who desperately need help. What is the point here?
But you go debate who is "deserving" of Frankensteinian surgeries and who is not in your dystopian upper class world with someone other than me. It's not really the conversation I want to have. My time would be better spent trying to make a few bucks in hopes of squeaking by again this month.
(Edited to remove gratuitous swearing. I am prone to using the F word like other people use "very".)
In a nutshell, I feel that organ transplants are not about the welfare of the patient. They are about doctors and scientists doing things that are cool and look heroic.
If a pathetically poor divorced single mom with special needs kids can get healthier while homeless for nearly six years, surely this is not that hard a problem to solve. People just don't want real solutions. They want expensive as hell drugs (the news-making drug for my condition costs $300k annually for an incurable condition and it only works for about 5% of the patients) and they want heroic surgeries that inflate the egos of the medical profession. They do not actually give a damn about actual health.
I seriously wish I had died instead of getting healthier. No one will listen to me. No one respects me or takes me seriously. I'm just a woman and poor, so I couldn't possibly have a clue what I am talking about.
My life remains in the toilet and I can't figure out how to help people completely for free who desperately need help. What is the point here?
But you go debate who is "deserving" of Frankensteinian surgeries and who is not in your dystopian upper class world with someone other than me. It's not really the conversation I want to have. My time would be better spent trying to make a few bucks in hopes of squeaking by again this month.
(Edited to remove gratuitous swearing. I am prone to using the F word like other people use "very".)
This is a forum for debate. We're allowed to have, and express opinions, and hopefully not have them misinterpreted, twisted and misrepresented. It sounds like you're going through some tough times, and I'm sorry for that, but that doesn't void anyone else's opinions or experiences.
[deleted]
Well, I think I officially feel ashamed to be an American now...America needs to fix both the medical system and affordable housing. It doesn't really deserve to be seen as a civilized, first world nation as things stand currently.
California in particular is worse of in many of these regards. The imbalance of political power in California, skewed to the urban population centers, to the affluent, and to the left has resulted in policies that disadvantage the less educated, lower income, and rural populace. If you go out into the countryside, you can find an anger which can only be explained by people who have been beleaguered on a fundamental level, that of culture and livelihood. On top of that, there are definite non-governmental socio-cultural systems which further work against them. (It is much easier to see these things when you are outside them or have been cast out of them. Let's just say that I've had the misfortune of a broader point of view.)
What I see happening in California is a cultural and political ascendancy of the left, which has become drunk on power which it is abusing. The political right aren't saints, but no faction of human beings are saints and the corruption of power is universal. While we nerds spend our attention on esoteric fripperies like IPAs and keyboards, our society is starting to resemble France when someone said, "after me, the deluge."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n-xhFLkgiE
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/05/california-schools-ear...
California in particular is worse of in many of these regards. The imbalance of political power in California, skewed to the urban population centers, to the affluent, and to the left has resulted in policies that disadvantage the less educated, lower income, and rural populace. If you go out into the countryside, you can find an anger which can only be explained by people who have been beleaguered on a fundamental level, that of culture and livelihood. On top of that, there are definite non-governmental socio-cultural systems which further work against them. (It is much easier to see these things when you are outside them or have been cast out of them. Let's just say that I've had the misfortune of a broader point of view.)
What I see happening in California is a cultural and political ascendancy of the left, which has become drunk on power which it is abusing. The political right aren't saints, but no faction of human beings are saints and the corruption of power is universal. While we nerds spend our attention on esoteric fripperies like IPAs and keyboards, our society is starting to resemble France when someone said, "after me, the deluge."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n-xhFLkgiE
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/05/california-schools-ear...
There are things I like about California and I lived there for a total of around 12 years. I recently left and I am shocked at how much nicer people are where I currently live.
I don't know what California needs to do to get its head out of its butt. These are clearly systemic problems. I am incredibly concerned about the trend of tech giants who are, for example, pro Basic Income while they live in the San Francisco Bay Area and can't treat their own employees decently and can't solve problems locally.
I am baffled as to why anyone takes their social theories at all seriously. They are, to some degree, the architects of the dire situation in the SFBA, but they think they can cure the country of its social woes by throwing money at the problem.
This sounds to me like virtue signalling, not like they have any clue what they are talking about. It sounds like trying to deflect the justified anger of the masses with Good Intentions while continuing to be part of the problem.
On the one hand, some of them make the news for how much they want to give to charity or whatever. On the other, some of the same names make the news for how badly they treat their own employees. Sometimes people point this out, but, more often, people debate the so called merits of their proposed solutions without going "Hey, isn't this the same guy who just did [shitty thing du jour] to their own employees?"
I am pretty fed up. I have started fussing at the president via tweet. I am waiting for the FBI to show up at my door. Because silencing (or turning a deaf ear to) the people being crapped on in this country instead if taking their problems seriously seems to be par for the course for the rich, including our real estate mogul president.
I wish someone would make me look like a fool by proving such assertions wrong. Sadly, I think that is increasingly unlikely.
I don't know what California needs to do to get its head out of its butt. These are clearly systemic problems. I am incredibly concerned about the trend of tech giants who are, for example, pro Basic Income while they live in the San Francisco Bay Area and can't treat their own employees decently and can't solve problems locally.
I am baffled as to why anyone takes their social theories at all seriously. They are, to some degree, the architects of the dire situation in the SFBA, but they think they can cure the country of its social woes by throwing money at the problem.
This sounds to me like virtue signalling, not like they have any clue what they are talking about. It sounds like trying to deflect the justified anger of the masses with Good Intentions while continuing to be part of the problem.
On the one hand, some of them make the news for how much they want to give to charity or whatever. On the other, some of the same names make the news for how badly they treat their own employees. Sometimes people point this out, but, more often, people debate the so called merits of their proposed solutions without going "Hey, isn't this the same guy who just did [shitty thing du jour] to their own employees?"
I am pretty fed up. I have started fussing at the president via tweet. I am waiting for the FBI to show up at my door. Because silencing (or turning a deaf ear to) the people being crapped on in this country instead if taking their problems seriously seems to be par for the course for the rich, including our real estate mogul president.
I wish someone would make me look like a fool by proving such assertions wrong. Sadly, I think that is increasingly unlikely.
> I wish someone would make me look like a fool by proving such assertions wrong. Sadly, I think that is increasingly unlikely.
I’m sorry to say no such reprieve is on the way. The situation is as dire as you make it out to be. Silicon Valley, tech culture as a whole, can either be the new master or the savior, it just hasn’t collectively made up its mind yet.
I’m sorry to say no such reprieve is on the way. The situation is as dire as you make it out to be. Silicon Valley, tech culture as a whole, can either be the new master or the savior, it just hasn’t collectively made up its mind yet.
Silicon Valley, tech culture as a whole, can either be the new master or the savior, it just hasn’t collectively made up its mind yet.
Oh it's made up it's mind. It's just a question of what kind of master it's going to be while it also makes up its mind about what kind of savior it will claim to be while it's at it.
Oh it's made up it's mind. It's just a question of what kind of master it's going to be while it also makes up its mind about what kind of savior it will claim to be while it's at it.
Unfortunately, I agree with you; its time we start finding ways to cut Silicon Valley off at the knees [1].
[1] I'm aware of the irony of the forum I'm posting that statement in.
[1] I'm aware of the irony of the forum I'm posting that statement in.
At some level, liberal group-think is trying to apply solutions for high-density city living to rural and suburban Californians.
It's a weird sort of militant cultural hegemony that doesn't tolerate even nuanced agreement. The powers that be are actively making life in CA worse, day by day, not realizing the rural and suburban populations support cities by producing the things they need to live.
If you speak privately to most folks who live in LA or SF they'll tell you they HATE the frustrations, but at the same time they're trying to force all Californian's to live like them.
To quote "my dinner with Andre"
“ANDRÉ: . . . And when I was at Findhorn I met this extraordinary English tree expert who had devoted himself to saving trees, and he’d just got back from Washington lobbying to save the Redwoods. And he was eighty-four years old, and he always travels with a backpack because he never knows where he’s going to be tomorrow. And when I met him at Findhorn he said to me, “Where are you from?” And I said, “New York.” And he said, “Ah, New York, yes, that’s a very interesting place. Do you know a lot of New Yorkers who keep talking about the fact that they want to leave, but never do?” And I said, “Oh, yes.” And he said, “Why do you think they don’t leave?” And I gave him different banal theories. And he said, “Oh, I don’t think it’s that way at all.” He said, “I think that New York is the new model for the new concentration camp, where the camp has been built by the inmates themselves, and the inmates are the guards, and they have this pride in this thing that they’ve built—they’ve built their own prison—and so they exist in a state of schizophrenia where they are both guards and prisoners. And as a result they no longer have—having been lobotomized—the capacity to leave the prison they’ve made or even to see it as a prison.” And then he went into his pocket, and he took out a seed for a tree, and he said, “This is a pine tree.” And he put it in my hand. And he said, “Escape before it’s too late.” ― Wallace Shawn, My Dinner With André
It's a weird sort of militant cultural hegemony that doesn't tolerate even nuanced agreement. The powers that be are actively making life in CA worse, day by day, not realizing the rural and suburban populations support cities by producing the things they need to live.
If you speak privately to most folks who live in LA or SF they'll tell you they HATE the frustrations, but at the same time they're trying to force all Californian's to live like them.
To quote "my dinner with Andre"
“ANDRÉ: . . . And when I was at Findhorn I met this extraordinary English tree expert who had devoted himself to saving trees, and he’d just got back from Washington lobbying to save the Redwoods. And he was eighty-four years old, and he always travels with a backpack because he never knows where he’s going to be tomorrow. And when I met him at Findhorn he said to me, “Where are you from?” And I said, “New York.” And he said, “Ah, New York, yes, that’s a very interesting place. Do you know a lot of New Yorkers who keep talking about the fact that they want to leave, but never do?” And I said, “Oh, yes.” And he said, “Why do you think they don’t leave?” And I gave him different banal theories. And he said, “Oh, I don’t think it’s that way at all.” He said, “I think that New York is the new model for the new concentration camp, where the camp has been built by the inmates themselves, and the inmates are the guards, and they have this pride in this thing that they’ve built—they’ve built their own prison—and so they exist in a state of schizophrenia where they are both guards and prisoners. And as a result they no longer have—having been lobotomized—the capacity to leave the prison they’ve made or even to see it as a prison.” And then he went into his pocket, and he took out a seed for a tree, and he said, “This is a pine tree.” And he put it in my hand. And he said, “Escape before it’s too late.” ― Wallace Shawn, My Dinner With André
If only the right would stop trying to roll back or take away women's rights the left might start seeing some serious challenges in California but until that happens we're going to be stuck with the likes of Feinstein.
How did sleeping in a tent help you get healthier?
Did you have access to an electric grid? I love camping, and could see doing it for long periods if I had a solution for powering my laptop/cellphone and a solid connection to the internet.
Did you have access to an electric grid? I love camping, and could see doing it for long periods if I had a solution for powering my laptop/cellphone and a solid connection to the internet.
I went to libraries, Starbuck's and public parks to plug in. I got internet access at libraries and Starbuck's. Initially, I had internet via Verizon, so I only needed to access electricity somehow. I did freelance writing, blogging and resume work (all online) to help cover expenses.
Sleeping in a tent did several things for me.
It got me out of cheap rentals with wall to wall carpeting and hidden mold problems.
It helped me keep my possessions to a minimum. Because I was so sick, everything I touched got infected. The more stuff I had, the harder it was to exercise good germ control.
It allowed me to sleep amidst oxygen producing plants, some of which were aromatic, so they sometimes had mild medicinal effects.
It helped enforce a social quarantine. Being homeless makes it hard to make social connections and people are prejudiced. This helped with germ control, among other things.
It meant I could throw my home out every one to three months and get a new one that wasn't gross from being exposed to me and my germs. Initially, I tried to replace the tent and bedding and my clothes all in one fell swoop every month.
Being unplugged from society made it easier to eat what worked for my health. I was exposed to a lot less social pressure to consume foods at social events to be polite to somebody.
There is probably more, but I think that's probably about all the obvious, easily explained things.
Sleeping in a tent did several things for me.
It got me out of cheap rentals with wall to wall carpeting and hidden mold problems.
It helped me keep my possessions to a minimum. Because I was so sick, everything I touched got infected. The more stuff I had, the harder it was to exercise good germ control.
It allowed me to sleep amidst oxygen producing plants, some of which were aromatic, so they sometimes had mild medicinal effects.
It helped enforce a social quarantine. Being homeless makes it hard to make social connections and people are prejudiced. This helped with germ control, among other things.
It meant I could throw my home out every one to three months and get a new one that wasn't gross from being exposed to me and my germs. Initially, I tried to replace the tent and bedding and my clothes all in one fell swoop every month.
Being unplugged from society made it easier to eat what worked for my health. I was exposed to a lot less social pressure to consume foods at social events to be polite to somebody.
There is probably more, but I think that's probably about all the obvious, easily explained things.
Ouch - that's strange its not how its done in the UK I know that the royal free (one of the main transplant centres) has had people fly down from Aberdeen for a potential match.
And I was approximately 2 hours away whilst being on the transplant list
And I was approximately 2 hours away whilst being on the transplant list
SF Bay area (Nine-county) is 25 times the size of Singapore and 11 times that of London. Its population at 7.7 million is only 1.4 times as large as Singapore's (5.6 million) and less than London's (8.8 million). Its GDP at $721 billion is 2.4 times that of Singapore's ($297 billion) and 1.3 times London's ($542 billion).
Solutions should be possible if rational negotiations could be carried out and affected parties could be compensated adequately. I understand that older residents wish to retain their lifestyle and community character. Could any amount of money and other concessions from new developments compensate them for the potential change that will come quite gradually in any case? Could the new developments be constructed in an area that wouldn't have a direct impact on their daily lives?
More practical concerns like increased traffic jam and effect on property value should be addressable with the tens of billions of economic benefits that could be realized from new, denser developments. Finding a way to equitably distribute these benefits would be a huge headache but since the net results are likely positive, the solution should be possible with the right organization and efforts.
Solutions should be possible if rational negotiations could be carried out and affected parties could be compensated adequately. I understand that older residents wish to retain their lifestyle and community character. Could any amount of money and other concessions from new developments compensate them for the potential change that will come quite gradually in any case? Could the new developments be constructed in an area that wouldn't have a direct impact on their daily lives?
More practical concerns like increased traffic jam and effect on property value should be addressable with the tens of billions of economic benefits that could be realized from new, denser developments. Finding a way to equitably distribute these benefits would be a huge headache but since the net results are likely positive, the solution should be possible with the right organization and efforts.
This, I think is the most ridiculous thing about the bay area. Everyone is spooked about 'Manhattanization' and development like NYC is some ghetto where no one wants to live.
Heck, San Francisco has 20% more land area than Paris with only 40% of the population. What is with the terror SF residents have around increasing population density?
Heck, San Francisco has 20% more land area than Paris with only 40% of the population. What is with the terror SF residents have around increasing population density?
I've concluded that the particular combination of direct democracy and NIMBYism has made california a living hell when it should be one of the finest places to live in aggregate for the whole population in the world.
There is the space and wealth to make it so, but it is so broken that there isn't even a decent public transporation system from San Francisco to Silicon Valley, resulting in the most horrendous and unpleasant traffic jams basically from 6am to 8pm every day.
There is the space and wealth to make it so, but it is so broken that there isn't even a decent public transporation system from San Francisco to Silicon Valley, resulting in the most horrendous and unpleasant traffic jams basically from 6am to 8pm every day.
It’s not terror. It’s just a mask for predatory, unchecked real estate speculation.
There's always eminent domain, aka Theft By Government.
"Screw you all, we gave you a chance to play ball and you didn't. So now we have to do things the hard way."
Or, more reasonably, just stay the fuck away from silicon valley if you're looking at starting a business or working for a tech company. Things will even out eventually. Or not, but the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
I don't get what's so great about the area, anyways. Every time I've been it's just seemed like an insanely expensive shithole...but I guess I'm not the one splashing billions of dollars around.
"Screw you all, we gave you a chance to play ball and you didn't. So now we have to do things the hard way."
Or, more reasonably, just stay the fuck away from silicon valley if you're looking at starting a business or working for a tech company. Things will even out eventually. Or not, but the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
I don't get what's so great about the area, anyways. Every time I've been it's just seemed like an insanely expensive shithole...but I guess I'm not the one splashing billions of dollars around.
> There's always eminent domain, aka Theft By Government.
People often forget we create laws and give people rights (property, patents, right of way on roads, attendance to public schools, free speech) because these rights serve society as a whole. Patents create the incentive to make public your discoveries. Property allows you to invest on beneficial use of land - agriculture, preservation - with the assurance you'll be able to continue it.
When the rights society gave you no longer benefit society as a whole and, as in this case, start to harm it, then it's time to discuss them.
People often forget we create laws and give people rights (property, patents, right of way on roads, attendance to public schools, free speech) because these rights serve society as a whole. Patents create the incentive to make public your discoveries. Property allows you to invest on beneficial use of land - agriculture, preservation - with the assurance you'll be able to continue it.
When the rights society gave you no longer benefit society as a whole and, as in this case, start to harm it, then it's time to discuss them.
>People often forget we create laws and give people rights (property, patents, right of way on roads, attendance to public schools, free speech) because these rights serve society as a whole.
Some people believe rights are actually inherent, not "given" by anyone. Indeed the US constitution uses the phrase "We hold these rights to be self-evident", and you'll find the justification is not utilitarian (not based on appeal to some ideal outcome).
Some people believe rights are actually inherent, not "given" by anyone. Indeed the US constitution uses the phrase "We hold these rights to be self-evident", and you'll find the justification is not utilitarian (not based on appeal to some ideal outcome).
>Indeed the US constitution uses the phrase "We hold these rights to be self-evident",
As a matter of fact, the Declaration of Independence uses the phrasing, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." The Constitution does not use any similar language, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and there's nothing equal about San Francisco land ownership.
As a matter of fact, the Declaration of Independence uses the phrasing, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." The Constitution does not use any similar language, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and there's nothing equal about San Francisco land ownership.
[deleted]
Eminent domain is not theft. You are compensated at market value for your loss. The market value is not whatever you decide to hold up billion dollar government works. Eminent domain is government theft in the same way the hot coffee lawsuit was legalized grift.
The only eminent domain case that I'm familiar with was not compensated at anywhere near fair market value. Yes, a check was cut, but at a small fraction of what it would take to make the seller a "willing seller".
The most recent eminent domain case I'm familiar with was the school board wanted to build a new elementary school. They managed to get 90% of the lot except 1 owner. Everyone else was fairly compensated except he wanted 10x market rate because why not. This guy assumed taxpayers had unlimited amounts of money to pay his price. And this is when cases of eminent domain are usually invoked.
The road you travel to work on, the school you went to, the park you play in if you ask enough questions you'll find out someone was an unwilling seller when it came to building it.
The road you travel to work on, the school you went to, the park you play in if you ask enough questions you'll find out someone was an unwilling seller when it came to building it.
Where I've seen eminent domain fall down most often comes when you consider the lost value to property owners "just outside" the development zone. Say you own the house right next to the new school being built. Your home may well lose value due to the increased traffic and noise but you won't see a penny in compensation in most cases.
That has nothing to do with Eminent Domain. The same thing would be true if the owner of the land willingly sold it for a song.
Yeah, I was being facetious - I'm not totally against the idea, although I don't know how it might actually work in practice.
Rights of the individual are all good and well, but they only work when we collectively agree not to be complete and utter assholes to each other for personal gain. That's sort of the whole point of laws and regulations, right? Not to further the interest of whatever special interest group has captured the regulatory agency.
Like, I expect people not to butt into my personal business for no good reason, but I recognize that that expectation is predicated on me not unreasonably intruding on other peoples' affairs.
Rights of the individual are all good and well, but they only work when we collectively agree not to be complete and utter assholes to each other for personal gain. That's sort of the whole point of laws and regulations, right? Not to further the interest of whatever special interest group has captured the regulatory agency.
Like, I expect people not to butt into my personal business for no good reason, but I recognize that that expectation is predicated on me not unreasonably intruding on other peoples' affairs.
That ignores honest situations where ED IS theft and Hot Coffee IS grift.
Random examples: http://mentalfloss.com/article/63514/7-maddening-examples-em...
There are examples of good uses of ED... but to say "ED isn't theft" ignores plenty of examples of corruption or incompetence.
Random examples: http://mentalfloss.com/article/63514/7-maddening-examples-em...
There are examples of good uses of ED... but to say "ED isn't theft" ignores plenty of examples of corruption or incompetence.
Actually, to say Eminent Domain = Theft misleads because it implies all uses of it are theft which even you agree is not the case.
If we did, however, use that logic, then one could say Startup = Scam, because Theranos.
If we did, however, use that logic, then one could say Startup = Scam, because Theranos.
> If we did, however, use that logic, then one could say Startup = Scam, because Theranos.
And there are many more examples even though it is obvious that startups are generally not scams.
And there are many more examples even though it is obvious that startups are generally not scams.
If you are an entrepreneur in a certain field, such as deep learning, and need to stay at the bleeding edge by having people with extensive experience to bump ideas off and hire as employees or partner with, it is one of the best, if not the best, areas in the world. For example, the number of AI meetups in Silicon Valley proper is many times that of East Bay, which is a hub in its own right.
If you work in a right position for one of the tech giants in the area, the compensation you get will leave you with more savings than working in a much cheaper place with smaller salary.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I wish to have other options as well.
If you work in a right position for one of the tech giants in the area, the compensation you get will leave you with more savings than working in a much cheaper place with smaller salary.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I wish to have other options as well.
One of the more prominent companies in AI is in London
Other companies and schools that train experts are in Canada, closer to the East Coast
Bay Area seems to not be so much about people with exceedingly talent, more about people who will overwork themselves for less pay
Other companies and schools that train experts are in Canada, closer to the East Coast
Bay Area seems to not be so much about people with exceedingly talent, more about people who will overwork themselves for less pay
Sure. What's the percentage of startups in SV working on such bleeding edge technology, as opposed to e-commerce, social media, or on demand delivery?
I concur. I guess those are tied to investors who live in the area and do not wish to fund startups they need to travel too far to oversee? I read that a prominent SV investor values his time at $200,000 an hour. If that's true then I guess it makes sense for some investors.
>> I don't get what's so great about the area, anyways. Every time I've been it's just seemed like an insanely expensive shithole...but I guess I'm not the one splashing billions of dollars around.
> If you are an entrepreneur in a certain field...
more prosaic: sure, it's changed some, but it's still pretty hard to beat culturally for certain sorts of people. if you like both art and technology, especially if you want access to both internationally recognized things and little-known indie things, the only other places in the US that feel like they really compete with SF are LA and NY.
i don't have a job at a tech giant, but i do have what i think is a very interesting software development job, that'd be harder (but not impossible) to find in other places. realistically, because i'm cheap/frugal and interested in saving money, rent control is the only reason i can still afford to live here. but i also really take advantage of the city that i live in: in the past couple months, i've seen p-funk, actress, flying lotus, a local industrial-ish electronic duo, a handful of local noise acts, JLin, hauschka, a screening of "sun ra's space is the place", pharaoh sanders, philip glass & kronos quartet, curren$y, and a bunch i'm forgetting since i'm just listing stuff off-hand. that's an especially good few weeks in an especially good year, but even in slower times, i'm usually going to at least one show i'm really excited about every two weeks to one month. i can also eat delicious food for cheap either from taquerias or by going to the grocery store, or if i have the disposable cash, i can choose from a wide variety of higher-end options across a range of prices. i get to meet people from all over the world. i went to college here, and because of all the above, a number of my good friends from school stuck around, and so i have a very solid social network here. i volunteer at a great community radio station, where i met my girlfriend.
so, for a lot of people, even transplants, wanting to stay isn't so crazy. if my GF and i both happened to get evicted, i'm not sure what we'd do. that seems unlikely, but it does always feel like a bit of a worry.
i don't quite understand the resistance of the natives to the influx of new people, esp since this has literally always been kind of a gold rush town. but hey, i moved around a bunch as a kid, and i like meeting people from different places.
when i told a cabdriver that i'd lived in SF for 11 years, he joked that i wasn't a native, but that i could say i was a local. so as a local, i'd say i'm very strongly YIMBY. fucking build. build housing. build better/faster/more regional transit. e.g., make it fast and easy to get from the SJ suburbs to SF and vice versa, whether it's rush hour or post-last-call. some old stuff will have to come down, some neighborhoods will change character. so it goes. better than steadily pricing out all but the most affluent and pushing them to the far edges (or entirely out of) the region.
> If you are an entrepreneur in a certain field...
more prosaic: sure, it's changed some, but it's still pretty hard to beat culturally for certain sorts of people. if you like both art and technology, especially if you want access to both internationally recognized things and little-known indie things, the only other places in the US that feel like they really compete with SF are LA and NY.
i don't have a job at a tech giant, but i do have what i think is a very interesting software development job, that'd be harder (but not impossible) to find in other places. realistically, because i'm cheap/frugal and interested in saving money, rent control is the only reason i can still afford to live here. but i also really take advantage of the city that i live in: in the past couple months, i've seen p-funk, actress, flying lotus, a local industrial-ish electronic duo, a handful of local noise acts, JLin, hauschka, a screening of "sun ra's space is the place", pharaoh sanders, philip glass & kronos quartet, curren$y, and a bunch i'm forgetting since i'm just listing stuff off-hand. that's an especially good few weeks in an especially good year, but even in slower times, i'm usually going to at least one show i'm really excited about every two weeks to one month. i can also eat delicious food for cheap either from taquerias or by going to the grocery store, or if i have the disposable cash, i can choose from a wide variety of higher-end options across a range of prices. i get to meet people from all over the world. i went to college here, and because of all the above, a number of my good friends from school stuck around, and so i have a very solid social network here. i volunteer at a great community radio station, where i met my girlfriend.
so, for a lot of people, even transplants, wanting to stay isn't so crazy. if my GF and i both happened to get evicted, i'm not sure what we'd do. that seems unlikely, but it does always feel like a bit of a worry.
i don't quite understand the resistance of the natives to the influx of new people, esp since this has literally always been kind of a gold rush town. but hey, i moved around a bunch as a kid, and i like meeting people from different places.
when i told a cabdriver that i'd lived in SF for 11 years, he joked that i wasn't a native, but that i could say i was a local. so as a local, i'd say i'm very strongly YIMBY. fucking build. build housing. build better/faster/more regional transit. e.g., make it fast and easy to get from the SJ suburbs to SF and vice versa, whether it's rush hour or post-last-call. some old stuff will have to come down, some neighborhoods will change character. so it goes. better than steadily pricing out all but the most affluent and pushing them to the far edges (or entirely out of) the region.
As someone who is really into artsy stuff, that scene is dead in SF. Seattle, too. A whiff of tech or electricity, and you'll be ostracized in a flash.
I've been really disappointed with these ostensibly libertine cities; weirdly, I'm thinking of heading back to the Midwest for tolerance and creativity.
Dafuq? But them's the breaks...people in the PNW are indifferent to the point of cruelty, on the off chance that they aren't being extremely hostile for the hell of it.
Sorry, but I disagree. Wanting to stay is very crazy. If I got evicted, I'd give a week's notice and take the opportunity to pack a U-haul and leave for greener pastures. What is it with people being content where they are, even when it's a creatively destitute skidrow? Not that I'm one to talk...
I've been really disappointed with these ostensibly libertine cities; weirdly, I'm thinking of heading back to the Midwest for tolerance and creativity.
Dafuq? But them's the breaks...people in the PNW are indifferent to the point of cruelty, on the off chance that they aren't being extremely hostile for the hell of it.
Sorry, but I disagree. Wanting to stay is very crazy. If I got evicted, I'd give a week's notice and take the opportunity to pack a U-haul and leave for greener pastures. What is it with people being content where they are, even when it's a creatively destitute skidrow? Not that I'm one to talk...
I think Toronto, Paris, NYC and London have equivalent talent.
Eminent domain isn't even required, just giving owners freedom to build what they choose. Nothing has to change for the NIMBYs except the surrounding land that they do not own and the public services that they share with all other residents.
> Solutions should be....
Is solution even possible? SF simply does not want a change and immigrants. Lets build new Silicon Valley somewhere else...
I am in Berlin right now, and it is way more relaxed here.
Is solution even possible? SF simply does not want a change and immigrants. Lets build new Silicon Valley somewhere else...
I am in Berlin right now, and it is way more relaxed here.
Or just work remotely. The vast majority of SV work does not require physical presence.
This ends up being sub-optimal. It's great to have physical presence to aid communication with your co-workers and, in some positions, that's pretty much essential.
I've been part of remote teams a lot and the most productive times we had were when we all flew somewhere to be in the same room for a couple weeks.
I've been part of remote teams a lot and the most productive times we had were when we all flew somewhere to be in the same room for a couple weeks.
Personal preference. In my experience most employers can not even provide good office space and hardware. I am way more productive at home.
One good anecdote deserves another. I've been a remote worker continuously for several years. While getting together physically for brief high-intensity sessions can be great for productivity, I've found that being with others continuously even through long low-intensity periods has the opposite effect. Most of my work requires focus more than anything, and the interrupt/distraction load associated with colocation destroys that focus. Most of the other full-time long-term remote workers I've known have made similar observations. Being alone all the time might be sub-optimal, but so is being with others all the time (especially for introverts).
Not true. You are saying this only in theory, not because companies actually offer this as a choice to folks. Many companies in SV have a strong belief that colocation is key to productivity. Whether that's true or not, another discussion, but most folks do not have a choice wrt remote work.
Don’t forget that most advocates have decided that since new construction is expensive, it must be making the affordability crisis worse. They usually want to block anything that’s not BMR/lottery. Anyone who argues otherwise is accused of supporting neoliberal trickle-down economics.
It would be great if all we had to do was agree on how to manage side effects. We don’t even have buy-in on the basic cause and effect relationships involved.
It would be great if all we had to do was agree on how to manage side effects. We don’t even have buy-in on the basic cause and effect relationships involved.
Doesn't the risk of earthquakes prevent building tall buildings? Also London is comparatively flat, a large area on the SF peninsula is a huge useless (From a housing perspective) mountain and large parts of it are hills which makes construction difficult. I'm not saying this is the main reason but it probably makes the comparison a bit biased.
No, city legislation disallows high-rises to preserve the town's image, and keep demand high.
The reason for the lack of housing in the bay area is wholly artificial. NIMBYism at the extreme.
Look at other high population areas in earthquake prone regions. Plenty of huge high rises.
The reason for the lack of housing in the bay area is wholly artificial. NIMBYism at the extreme.
Look at other high population areas in earthquake prone regions. Plenty of huge high rises.
Fair point, loads of other cities have figured it out.
On your earthquake question, the answer is no. See Tokyo as an example. From an engineering perspective we are very good at making buildings earthquake resistant; it just costs more to do so. Height restrictions on construction like those in SF usually have more to do with politics and NIMBYism than with safety concerns.
Asking because I don't know: is SF, on a 100- to 1,000-year time horizon, a good place to invest dense, high rise development?
Since the chance that a major earthquake will occur within the next -1000 years is about 100%, I wouldn't invest a dime in long term real estate in SF...
I'd be more concerned about buying "soft story" (what non-civil engineers call "top heavy") real estate. But modern high density housing is engineered to withstand earthquakes. For example one of the tallest residential buildings in SF, 1 Rincon Hill, was engineered either all kinds of weight balancing measures and reinforcements. So long story short, I'd never buy "soft story" real estate, but the newer or retrofitted stuff should be fine.
It is not guaranteed that the earthquake will destroy your investment.
What is fairly likely is that the-greater-fool will apply. Some people won't discount the risk properly and you are therefore bidding against people who overvalue the asset.
What is fairly likely is that the-greater-fool will apply. Some people won't discount the risk properly and you are therefore bidding against people who overvalue the asset.
Is the value of the real estate principally the value of the building on it, or the right to have that building there? In large parts of the UK, the cost of real estate is a fraction of the replacement cost of the building, so even if the building was leveled in an earthquake, the only way the speculator would lose out would be if the earthquake did so much damage that the city was abandoned and the population dropped enormously.
It's not uncommon with really expensive houses for a new owner to have it demolished so he can build the house he wants instead; the value is in having permission to have a house on that land, and an earthquake won't take that away (unless it's a really huge earthquake that outright destroys land or makes everyone leave forever).
It's not uncommon with really expensive houses for a new owner to have it demolished so he can build the house he wants instead; the value is in having permission to have a house on that land, and an earthquake won't take that away (unless it's a really huge earthquake that outright destroys land or makes everyone leave forever).
Japan would like a word
I'm not sure what Japan would say. 2011 Tohoku earthquake was pretty disastorous.
If that type of earthquake hit SF or Tokyo, I don't really know how much earthquake-proofing will matter?
Stuff like this seems pretty scary for big buildings: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liquefaction_at_Ni...
If that type of earthquake hit SF or Tokyo, I don't really know how much earthquake-proofing will matter?
Stuff like this seems pretty scary for big buildings: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liquefaction_at_Ni...
Not sure why you chose to illustrate this with a photo from over 50 years ago. I'd like to think that our understanding of earthquake safety has evolved since the 40s? 50s? whenever those structures were built.
I actually didn't assert anything here.
It would be interesting if someone with expertise was able to offer better insight. Like the above picture illustrates, I don't know if at some point it matters anymore how well the building or foundation is built if the ground is liquified, or moves too much.
It would be interesting if someone with expertise was able to offer better insight. Like the above picture illustrates, I don't know if at some point it matters anymore how well the building or foundation is built if the ground is liquified, or moves too much.
If you own the land underneath the building, and you're on non-land fill land, then maybe it's okay.
Buying a unit in a highrise in SF never really made sense to me.
Buying a unit in a highrise in SF never really made sense to me.
[deleted]
It's worth noting that even for folks who have enough income to afford an RV park, there are effectively none in the Bay Area. The ones that exist are either: Booked solid with a long waiting list, don't allow old RVs (I found this out when I passed through the area with my 34 year old Avion travel trailer), or are so far from everything as to be useless for most of the folks covered in the article. Or, most likely, all three. Also, among the most expensive RV parks in the country.
I'm pleasantly surprised the city of Palo Alto isn't ticketing or arresting or towing these folks. They passed a law against sleeping in vehicles a few years ago, as I recall. It's deeply troubling, to me, that the solution to homelessness (or near homelessness) is often to make mere existence illegal.
I spent a couple of weeks parking around the University Ave./Downtown area in Palo Alto a few months after I moved into my first RV (a nice/newish motorhome), about eight years ago, to visit with a friend who lived on University, and I didn't have any trouble with police or neighbors, even parked among multimillion dollar homes (it certainly helped that the RV was nice...I got questions from residents but they were of the form "Where've you been?" and "Where are you going next?"), but I'd read there'd been a crackdown on it. I haven't been back in an RV since then.
Last time I was in the area earlier this year, I parked way outside of the valley (about a 1.5 hour drive away, which was literally the closest I could get) and rented a car to drive in (rather than driving my very large F250; the fuel savings paid for the car rental), but I saw that there were little RV villages in a few locations in Mountain View and Palo Alto. If I'd been in a motorhome and didn't have a girlfriend that liked having limitless power and water with me, I would have spent a night or two on those streets just to avoid making that ridiculous drive several times. But, with a trailer, it's just not a great idea to park on streets. Even in places that tolerate motorhomes and vans, they might not tolerate a truck and trailer, and its length often makes it subject to other street parking laws.
I'm pleasantly surprised the city of Palo Alto isn't ticketing or arresting or towing these folks. They passed a law against sleeping in vehicles a few years ago, as I recall. It's deeply troubling, to me, that the solution to homelessness (or near homelessness) is often to make mere existence illegal.
I spent a couple of weeks parking around the University Ave./Downtown area in Palo Alto a few months after I moved into my first RV (a nice/newish motorhome), about eight years ago, to visit with a friend who lived on University, and I didn't have any trouble with police or neighbors, even parked among multimillion dollar homes (it certainly helped that the RV was nice...I got questions from residents but they were of the form "Where've you been?" and "Where are you going next?"), but I'd read there'd been a crackdown on it. I haven't been back in an RV since then.
Last time I was in the area earlier this year, I parked way outside of the valley (about a 1.5 hour drive away, which was literally the closest I could get) and rented a car to drive in (rather than driving my very large F250; the fuel savings paid for the car rental), but I saw that there were little RV villages in a few locations in Mountain View and Palo Alto. If I'd been in a motorhome and didn't have a girlfriend that liked having limitless power and water with me, I would have spent a night or two on those streets just to avoid making that ridiculous drive several times. But, with a trailer, it's just not a great idea to park on streets. Even in places that tolerate motorhomes and vans, they might not tolerate a truck and trailer, and its length often makes it subject to other street parking laws.
I vaguely recall an HN discussion recommending rest stops; I wonder if those near SF have near-permanent residents.
There are only a couple within an hour or so in either direction. I've never noticed a seemingly permanent population; rest areas in populous areas are patrolled regularly by police, and California has an 8 hour limit on stops. It's actually pretty rare to find folks spending more than a day or two at rest areas even in places where police don't visit often.
So, no, I'd bet there is no near-permanent residency happening at rest stops in Northern CA. At least, I've never seen evidence of it. And, I sometimes talk to folks living in weird places when I find them, as I find the subculture fascinating (if a little depressing). I've met lots of Walmart parking lot residents. But, no Walmarts in Northern CA allow overnights, either.
So, no, I'd bet there is no near-permanent residency happening at rest stops in Northern CA. At least, I've never seen evidence of it. And, I sometimes talk to folks living in weird places when I find them, as I find the subculture fascinating (if a little depressing). I've met lots of Walmart parking lot residents. But, no Walmarts in Northern CA allow overnights, either.
I can't think of a single rest area that's within a 1.5 hour drive of Mountain View.
There's one just north of San Francisco on 101 (probably a little over an hour from Mountain View if not driving during rush hour), but nobody is living there. It's very crowded every night, and I've heard time limits are enforced. Truckers complain a lot about any routes through the SF Bay area, as there are very few places for them to rest or even park for a short time.
There's also a couple on I-5, but they might be a 1.5 hour drive from Mountain View.
There's also a couple on I-5, but they might be a 1.5 hour drive from Mountain View.
I'm sympathetic because the wealth inequality Silicon Valley is extremely vast, and these people are on the losing end of the inequity. But truthfully, about half of the people in the article made bad decisions in simply moving to the Bay Area in the last few years, even though it's one of the most expensive areas in the world.
That said, if you are determined to live here when you don't make a lot of money, living living in an RV makes a lot more sense than paying ridiculous rent. Their rent is almost nil, and they get to save money based on a higher wage than they would get in other areas of the country.
That said, if you are determined to live here when you don't make a lot of money, living living in an RV makes a lot more sense than paying ridiculous rent. Their rent is almost nil, and they get to save money based on a higher wage than they would get in other areas of the country.
California, in general, has seen massive housing price increases. A lot of them came from other expensive places, and it sounds like often they came for a specific job or opportunity or need (medical care is a recurring theme).
I find it sort of horrific that folks are having to make decisions like, "Do I get good health care and live in a van or do I live in an apartment I can afford?"
I still can't get over the guy who was on a transplant list but was removed from the list because he lived in a box truck. There's something sick about a society that lets that happen, but I don't know what the cure is.
I find it sort of horrific that folks are having to make decisions like, "Do I get good health care and live in a van or do I live in an apartment I can afford?"
I still can't get over the guy who was on a transplant list but was removed from the list because he lived in a box truck. There's something sick about a society that lets that happen, but I don't know what the cure is.
Well on one hand we tell people that they were unwise for moving to an expensive area. On the other hand we tell people in areas where jobs are disappearing that it's their fault for not being willing to move out of their hometown and move to an area with job growth.
Heads they win, tails you lose?
(long term I would think that access to education will be the solution to this, and yet I also know that if everyone in the rust belt were reeducated with some great skill set, we still wouldn't have enough jobs for them at the pay they would expect)
Heads they win, tails you lose?
(long term I would think that access to education will be the solution to this, and yet I also know that if everyone in the rust belt were reeducated with some great skill set, we still wouldn't have enough jobs for them at the pay they would expect)
Another interesting profile is that of the Google engineer living in the parking lot:
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-truc...
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-truc...
Interesring. It seems... Very practical and economical? I would wager a lot of people would do that if only they weren't afraid of a stigma.
Those living and working in SV are among the richest people to ever live. But studies of happinesss suggest we're not really happier for being richer--it appears people get caught up in "buying things we don't need, to impress people we don't like."
Those living and working in SV are among the richest people to ever live. But studies of happinesss suggest we're not really happier for being richer--it appears people get caught up in "buying things we don't need, to impress people we don't like."
There's a huge difference between the Googler who lives at the Googleplex (with showers, cafeteria, plenty of rooms to hang out, etc.) and only sleeps in his RV and the Standford admin who has nowhere else to go than her RV.
> showers, cafeteria, plenty of rooms to hang out
I think I understand where you're coming from, but Stanford does not have these things?
I think I understand where you're coming from, but Stanford does not have these things?
The woman is 60. Most people taking showers in the university showers are undergrads in the dorms. The age difference would make it uncomfortable and admin staff do not get the same privileges as current students anyways because they don't pay tuition. Stanford has a dining hall, but you need a meal plan, it's not free.
Google offers those things if you're an employee.
Google offers those things if you're an employee.
I don’t think there’s a real stigma for people who can afford to rent an apartment but live in an RV... it’s almost hip at this point. However I don’t think it’s as practical as you think. Addresses are very important.
Well, I should have been more up front that for the record, I lived and surfed for 8 months out of campervan I built myself in Australia. It was pretty great. I didn't really have any major issues, it seemed really practical to me? But I didn't really have a day job then.
I'd do it out of pure spite for the NIMBYs who have made it impossible to pay reasonable prices for housing.
Funny, I thought you were talking about a different Google engineer. Back when I was contracting there we had two people on the project who lived on campus in converted vans. One was an engineer, the other a vehicle operator.
As a side point: the “history” and “significance” of El Camino Real was invented less than a century ago as a marketin* effort: https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/how-el-camino-real-califo...
Oh man. I was driving right by there the other day, and it was the Friday before a Stanford home football game.
I thought those RVs were all tailgaters who were just trying to get a good spot.
I feel terrible now.
I thought those RVs were all tailgaters who were just trying to get a good spot.
I feel terrible now.
Palo Alto is one of the few places it's actually legal to sleep in a vehicle. El Camino is a good (but loud) spot to sleep at where you won't get hassled by cops.
What I don't understand is: why do these people live in SV? I can understand tech worker staying with their big salary, but non-tech workers would live a much better life in a more "normal" place.
Then after they all move out, maybe the tech industry will figure out a way to make it livable for those people when they realise they need them too.
Then after they all move out, maybe the tech industry will figure out a way to make it livable for those people when they realise they need them too.
Several of the people interviewed in the article mentioned the proximity of the hospital where they get their medical needs taken care of. One mentioned having to be nearby because they were waiting for a liver transplant.
I don't know the intricacies of the US health care system, but I think it might be a major setback for their healthcare if they relocated.
And they might not be any more well off if they relocated. They might have slightly higher wages living in SV. Moving elsewhere might mean they couldn't even afford living in a vehicle.
I don't know the intricacies of the US health care system, but I think it might be a major setback for their healthcare if they relocated.
And they might not be any more well off if they relocated. They might have slightly higher wages living in SV. Moving elsewhere might mean they couldn't even afford living in a vehicle.
It seems like for most entry level engineers ranged at $100-120k who wants to live in a one bedroom apartment in SF, a 30% off in rent could potentially be better than 30% cut in salary, considering the current tax rate.
In China, there have been attempts by startup companies offering employees sleeping pods near the office, while providing water and shower so that the employee can simply stay around the office during the course of a year long employment with occasional "offsite" airbnb living. But unfortunately such attempt was shut down: https://www.techinasia.com/china-napping-pods-startup-forced...
In China, there have been attempts by startup companies offering employees sleeping pods near the office, while providing water and shower so that the employee can simply stay around the office during the course of a year long employment with occasional "offsite" airbnb living. But unfortunately such attempt was shut down: https://www.techinasia.com/china-napping-pods-startup-forced...
Company housing is a bad idea, it's already bad enough in the us that your health insurance and retirement savings are tied to your employer, it makes it very hard to go and start something yourself or change jobs, not to mention abruptly losing your job since you have to find a new place to live.
There is a similar concept in South Korean cities like Seoul, they're called Officetels. These are executive hotel rooms designed for office workers to sleep overnight if they work too late - inevitably i guess, most of these have been converted in recent years to AirBnB locations.
There's really two Californias. This talk by VDH digs into this some more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1eNcuGcPW4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1eNcuGcPW4
For those who don't have a RV or car to sleep in, some of them use "Hotel 22", the only 24-hour bus line in the area as a shelter at night.
Short video documentary on the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/hotel-22.html
They ride the bus back and forth throughout the night getting off at each end usually several times.
Short video documentary on the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/hotel-22.html
They ride the bus back and forth throughout the night getting off at each end usually several times.
The junky RVs seem extremely out of place lined up together on El Camino. I've always assumed they only get away with this because they're on the Stanford side of the border between Stanford and the City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto NIMBYs would have run them out long ago.
Gee, have some compassion. After all, someone's got to be the janitor or the cashier, and it's tough to pay sky-high rent on that kind of pay.
There's actually a substantial debate about car camping in Palo Alto. A parking/camping ban was floated, then repealed; these spaces on El Camino seem like a compromise, and are in a bit of a jurisdictional gray-area between Stanford, Palo Alto, and the California Highway Patrol.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/11/18/palo-alto-str...
There's actually a substantial debate about car camping in Palo Alto. A parking/camping ban was floated, then repealed; these spaces on El Camino seem like a compromise, and are in a bit of a jurisdictional gray-area between Stanford, Palo Alto, and the California Highway Patrol.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/11/18/palo-alto-str...
Its not necessarily a bad thing having to see how other real humans live their lives.
I feel sorry for people that can't afford to live there and am greatly upset by the nimby attitude around the bay but I don't think living in RVs on public streets or for that matter tents in parks is acceptable. They need to pay property taxes and contribute. What about going to the bathroom, proper sewage treatment is a necessity for public health. The solution seems to be to stop letting selfish locals dictate policy. Maybe the RVs are the best option at the moment but I hope we don't consider it a permanent one.
It's like something from 'The Grapes of Wrath'.
This reminds me of the "first world problems" meme only in this instance it's more like a first world shanty town.
The Bay area has a huge homeless population with shanty towns all over the place (just hidden).
Am I missing something? Why are they staying in these areas? They can do the same jobs where RV parks nearby.
How many of us clicked on the link expecting decked out airstreams? Great article showing the struggle of people dealing with insane housing prices.
Someone go put a $100 gift card on their windshield.
Seriously, why cant there be an easy app with shameless reputation to allow anonymous tiny donations? Maybe they can pick up $$ at a Walmart
Seriously, why cant there be an easy app with shameless reputation to allow anonymous tiny donations? Maybe they can pick up $$ at a Walmart
Well, I think I officially feel ashamed to be an American now.
I slept in a tent for nearly six years to work on getting healthier, but I was not seeing a doctor. I was doing my own thing. That was frustrating enough, what with not getting taken seriously by a lot of people and facing classism online, etc. But, I kind of understand why I get given so much flak: people genuinely think what I am doing simply cannot be done. They have no mental framework for effectively engaging with me.
But to have a specialty hospital someplace so expensive and a requirement to live near it to get treatment and no help for complying with this expectation, then delist them for sleeping in a truck, it just seems monstrous. The hospital has to know that normal, healthy people can't afford housing here. They should also be fully well aware that people with health problems face the double whammy of high medical expenses plus reduced earnings.
America needs to fix both the medical system and affordable housing. It doesn't really deserve to be seen as a civilized, first world nation as things stand currently. I don't care what our GDP is. We are failing to take care of our people and it is monstrous.