Hacker News Reader

>Because tech workers are contributing to the displacement of the people those places need to survive.

>Yet the reality is you're still contributing to that displacement even though you're not responsible for those policies.

You're arguing that people trying to make a better life for themselves are ruining the lives of others? I think it's extremely clear that Californian's own tax policies, along with NIMBYs are to blame here, not tech workers.

But this is typical, myopic 'blame the catalyst, not the problem' I see frequently from west coast-style leftists (and i say that as a staunch leftist). Tech workers are easy to point at because they are new-ish transplants (most have been here >15 years at this point), and they are considered culturally distasteful, and moderately well off.

Nobody wants to blame the multi-million dollar single family home owning boomer who voted themselves a property tax exemption in the 70s that they can literally pass to their kids (from an ethical perspective, you should be appalled that we're currently living through the birth of an actual, landed aristocracy)

The tech workers are literally trying to make a better life for themselves. The NIMBY homeowners are literally hording wealth. Yet we blame the young tech workers... it's total nonsense.

> You're arguing that people trying to make a better life for themselves are ruining the lives of others?

100%.

> I think it's extremely clear that Californian's own tax policies

California's tax policies have been that way since at least the 70s. I'm thinking Prop 13 and rent control, which were essentially massive giveaways to incumbents at the expense of everyone else.

Your presence is support for those policies, both tacitly by supporting companies based there and directly with your tax dollars.

But I guess it's easier to wave your hands in the air and declare it someone else's problem rather than to acknowledge the part you play in supporting the system.

> Yet we blame the young tech workers

It's not one or the other. You can both be in the wrong. And you both are, for the record.

This is irrational. Though i am not a 'tech worker' my presence is actively trying to undo the harmful policies by being another vote to overturn the paradigm. Literally leaving does nothing but slightly delay the injustices that these policies perpetuate. Effectively brain-drain, but for the voting populace.

The displacement is going to happen with our without tech workers, because of the land use policies. Maybe not today, but as it stands, the region will likely never become more affordable. Blaming the tech workers for literally existing when the suburban tides turned back to urbanism is a trivially irrational post hoc argument.

The dirty little secret of SFBA tech workers is (IMHO) that they're not really liberal. They like to pretend to be and pay lip service to various social causes. They'll vote for the legalization of gay marriage (Prop 8) and recreational cannabis use (Prop 64) and will write checks to the ACLU and pet shelters.

But they'll also vote to protect their investments, being the significant amounts they have tied up in Bay Area housing. And if the campus workers, nurses and teachers have to drive 4 hours a day to get to work, so be it.

> Why unethical? Because tech workers are contributing to the displacement of the people those places need to survive.

Bay native here working in tech, and I'd argue that most SFBAY constituents are contributing to the NIMBY problem, not just tech workers. The vast majority of the workforce in the Bay doesn't work in tech, and they oppose new housing just the same.

The incentives just don't align for there to be a local solution to this problem. Unfortunately it seems this will have to be taken out of local control via bills like SB9 and SB10 that are slowly but surely chipping away at the problem.

So, it's obviously hard to define what the Bay Area actually is. The SF to SJ corridor is one definition but that excludes East Bay, which is significant. Probably the best proxy is the SF-SJ-Oakland metro area, which seems to have a population of ~10 million people.

How many of those are tech workers? It's hard to say. Here's one estimate that suggests there were ~400k in each of SF and SJ a few years ago [1].

Some of those will be single or married to other tech workers. Others will have partners outside of tech. Some will have children. I'd say for every person in tech there's probably 1-1.5 other people as a back-of-the-envelope type calculation.

That puts the tech population at around 15-20%, which passes the sniff test (at least for me) and is significant. Obviously not all of those can vote (eg immigrants are represented highly in tech) but many can. So we're talking about a group that could wield a lot of political power.

But they just don't it seems. My personal view is that Norcal tech workers as a whole are just as self-serving as the NIMBYists they like to point the finger at. I suspect that a large number of them are the NIMBYists at this point.

[1]: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2020/09/16/san-jose...

Tech being concentrated in the Bay Area certainly exacerbates inequality and cost of living increases, though the fault is less individual workers and more corporate leadership and VC firms insisting on concentrating there even when it might not be geographically necessary.

The sad thing though is that it seems even when you disperse highly paid workers who can work from home, inequality will continue even in other markets, see Austin, Miami [0], Nashville [1].

Then again, those markets were booming even before tech workers moved to there.

[0] https://therealdeal.com/la/2021/09/28/miami-nips-at-ny-for-t...

[1] https://fox17.com/news/local/real-estate-market-so-hot-this-...

So let's talk about NYC as it's a place I know a fair bit about, having lived there for >10 years.

NYC is clearly an expensive place... kind of. Manhattan obviously is really expensive but there are 4 other boroughs plus the Hudson Valley, eastern New Jersey and Long Island that are all within commuting distance.

Even with NYC prices, I content that lower-income workers are significantly better off in NYC than the Bay Area. Let me give you a concrete example. I just went onto Streeteasy and found a 2 bedroom apartment in Astoria for $295k [1]. It's a 30 minute commute to Midtown [2]

Even better, it's by public transit so no need for added expensive of buying, parking, maintaining and putting gas into a car.

You simply won't find anything equivalent in the Bay Area.

> Then again, those markets were booming even before tech workers moved to there.

I don't think that matches the data. Depending on what segment you look at prices in the Bay Area have almost doubled since 2012 [3].

[1]: https://streeteasy.com/building/21_27-33-street-astoria/sale...

[2]: https://goo.gl/maps/dvrUrWX88F1jM6gn9

[3]: https://www.bayareamarketreports.com/trend/3-recessions-2-bu...

I agree with some of the points you've made in this thread but you cannot base a policy on unfounded anecdotes. I don't believe that Google allows any of its bus drivers to drive 10 hours per day, I don't believe it requires them to sit around unpaid every day, and of course, I don't believe this individual cannot find a bus driving job somewhere closer to where he or she lives. There has to be more to this story. To use it, unquestioned, to indict a company (and expanding that to indict the entire industry) is not valid.

The real moral failing (not in a serious light) of living there is that you’re funding the Bay Area landlords.

Here’s the rub.. his job also goes away when those companies go away.

I still agree with you for a different reason though - if you believe that it’s a poorly governed place, at some point it becomes immoral or at least unwise to continue to sustain it with your tax dollars.

So you see this kind of argument in the current "labour shortage". Some people will say certain businesses can't afford to pay more and they'll fold otherwise.

I personally don't see the business owner earning an income (sometimes a substantial income) as justification for the workers to earn less than a living wage.

It's the same here: there's no good justification for someone commuting plus working 18 hours a day and getting paid for 10 of those hours.

I'm pretty sure Tesla was one of the lowest paying tech companies in the Bay Area.

I know SpaceX low balls everyone in Los Angeles.

But that's nonsensical from an ethical perspective because you can apply it to infinity. It's the no ethical consumption under capitalism idea.

The right solution is to fix the root cause (NIMBYism) not throw your hands up and move.