This is a well-written piece, much more so than some of the many other articles on the subject I've read in the last couple of years. Still, it provides absolutely no solutions and is rather devoid of ideas. It also seems to ignore basic facts about humanity and society that play out the same regardless of where they take place. Of course a city like San Francisco is currently will be dominated by the rich. Of course the rich will displace the poor and not care about them. Of course they will change things to be closer to their own vision. None of this should be surprising to a seasoned writer like the author. It's human nature. Not only that, but it's so common that pretty much any city with any history of prosperity has gone through the same cycles. Why then, would San Francisco be an exception? Why would it not happen there? There is no reason to see this as anything but a typical progression.
Unfortunately, the author's answer is to make sure you get on the right bus. Let's take a moment to think about what this means. What he's suggesting is that technologists and engineers turn away from the lucrative profession they love and do something that doesn't interest them. What he's suggesting is that people turn down well-paying salaries to essentially be poor so they can be like the 99%. What he's suggesting is just so ludicrous and stupid, it'd be better if he made no suggestions at all. No one is going to do that.
Furthermore, the main reason San Francisco and all of the Valley are still relevant today is technology. I doubt I could find anyone who could claim with a straight face that technology is the reason for prosperity in the area, the influx of people, and general advancement in the area. Simply because the author doesn't understand the new things being built in the area, he decries them. This kind of drivel and banter I'd expect from much less accomplished idiots, not someone as well accomplished and respected as the author.
It almost seems at this point that the hate (and that is exactly what it is) of certain people in San Francisco against technologists is a fad, a wave of anger to be jumped upon because it is popular with the stupid masses. It is obviously uninformed, as for every technologist who actually cashed out stock options or in some way got truly rich, there are thousands who are working just as hard as the author and anyone else merely to stay afloat. When you need a $150k salary merely to afford a $2k / month studio or one bedroom apartment, you can hardly be said to be rich. Poor people have always been walked upon by those who are better off, even if slightly so. It's happening right now everywhere, yet I do not see these kinds of posts coming from other great cities. This is probably because the diversity (in terms of occupation) in other cities is greater and the idiot masses cannot cling to an idiotic idea of the source of their problems.
How about don't be a San Francisco asshole either?
Your last paragraph is something I wish more people understood. It is very eye opening to take a look at the salary information on US New "Best Jobs" for high cost regions. For instance, while software developers typically out earn RNs nationally, registered nurses earn a bit more at the median in SF than software developers. Dental Hygenists also earn almost as much as software developers. Lawyers and Physicians, of course, earn vastly more.
I've thought about this a bit. I think part of the reason tech workers are blamed may be scale. Because dental hygienists and registered nurses draw their salaries and economic value from the population they serve, they simply can't exist in sufficient numbers to displace the other residents. Tech workers, on the other hand, often draw their economic value from outside there region. While this means that tech workers are good in many ways (they bring wealth into a region rather than drawing wealth from it), they can exist in vastly greater numbers. In other words, there can only be so many $112k a year dental hygienists in SF (average salary in SF[1]), just not enough to cause displacement, whereas there really isn't a limit on how many $114k/yr [2] software developers there are in San Francisco. The salaries are roughly the same, but because software developers don't serve the local population, they can exist in vastly greater numbers.
Other factors- there's no multi-billionaire backed PAC group out there trying to convince congress that there is a desperate shortage of dental hygienists in SF, but there is for software, so there is a cottage industry devoted to convincing the American people that software developers are extravagantly paid workers, when in fact they are paid on average nicely but no more or less than many other jobs that require moderate amounts of training and education.
Unfortunately, the author's answer is to make sure you get on the right bus. Let's take a moment to think about what this means. What he's suggesting is that technologists and engineers turn away from the lucrative profession they love and do something that doesn't interest them. What he's suggesting is that people turn down well-paying salaries to essentially be poor so they can be like the 99%. What he's suggesting is just so ludicrous and stupid, it'd be better if he made no suggestions at all. No one is going to do that.
Furthermore, the main reason San Francisco and all of the Valley are still relevant today is technology. I doubt I could find anyone who could claim with a straight face that technology is the reason for prosperity in the area, the influx of people, and general advancement in the area. Simply because the author doesn't understand the new things being built in the area, he decries them. This kind of drivel and banter I'd expect from much less accomplished idiots, not someone as well accomplished and respected as the author.
It almost seems at this point that the hate (and that is exactly what it is) of certain people in San Francisco against technologists is a fad, a wave of anger to be jumped upon because it is popular with the stupid masses. It is obviously uninformed, as for every technologist who actually cashed out stock options or in some way got truly rich, there are thousands who are working just as hard as the author and anyone else merely to stay afloat. When you need a $150k salary merely to afford a $2k / month studio or one bedroom apartment, you can hardly be said to be rich. Poor people have always been walked upon by those who are better off, even if slightly so. It's happening right now everywhere, yet I do not see these kinds of posts coming from other great cities. This is probably because the diversity (in terms of occupation) in other cities is greater and the idiot masses cannot cling to an idiotic idea of the source of their problems.
How about don't be a San Francisco asshole either?