Young, creative people who work hard


I almost don't know what to say, except: Finally, someone admits it.

Rebecca Pederson, writing in The Bold Italic, explains why she actually likes the idea that San Francisco is becoming so expensive that thousands of longtime residents are being forced out; see, if it's more expensive to live here, then young, creative people will work harder:

People who want to make a living here from their creative work should have to hustle; it makes the successes much more meaningful.

Ah, yes. "Hustle." So all the older people who are, say, not trained in the tech field, or might be disabled and unable to "hustle," or the single parents who "hustle" all the goddam day just to keep the family together, or all the "creative" people who work for nonprofits or (gasp) are artists -- and trust me, they "hustle" as much as any tech worker ... they don't get to live here any more. Because

We can’t afford to walk barefoot around Golden Gate Park and write half-sonnets about trees. This city’s too expensive now.

I don't know anyone who thinks we still live in the Beat era. I don't know anyone who has ever written a half-sonnet about trees, and nobody with any sense of public health walks barefoot in Golden Gate Park. Get a clue.

But I do know a whole lot of people, including some who work for websites, who are seeing their lives and their community destroyed by rising prices -- which are due primarily to greed in the real-estate industry.

I don't think all tech workers are anywhere near as dumb as Rebecca Pederson, but I do see a lot of her attitude around: We are young and have money, and you are old and in the way. That's capitalism.

The "older people are losers" attitude was the worst part of the Sixties ethos (although disdain for labor -- often reciprocated by conservative unions -- was pretty bad, too.) This is a big city, with a diverse population. Not everyone is healthy and able to "hustle." Not everyone is young and carefree. Please, my friends: Have respect for the community you recently dropped into.

Yes, I was a San Francisco immigrant, too, in a different era, and I know things will always change, but I don't remember my young friends believing that they were by nature better and smarter than the people who already lived here. It's called respect.




Someone who is sitting on a rent-controlled unit for decades has a distorted, artificially low rent. Great for them, but that comes at the cost of suffering for at least two other people:

1) The landlord whose ROI is down the toilet

2) The tenant who is deprived of thatr ental because it is being squatted in, and so has to pay the high marginal rents of the few vacant units.

So the policy question for the city is this. Who is more important? That (probably) middle-aged, mid-income tenant who is living somewhere where they really shouldn't be? Or those two people - one a risk-taking entrereneur and one a young, ambitious tech or finance working with 21st century skills?

It's a no brainer. We don't need thousands of bad artists. We need people with the education, skills and energy to boost our taxbase.

So I agree with Rebecca here. Higher RE is the problem you want to have - indicative of a booming business climate - the only real passport to prosperity.

Posted by Guest on May. 21, 2013 @ 1:18 pm

Your repulsive.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 12:54 am

Your grammar is repulsive.

Posted by Maldita fondada on May. 22, 2013 @ 6:14 am

Seriously? A human being is responding to someone's statement that some people are worth more than others because of the amount of money they make, and your response is to attack their grammar? (It's not grammar, actually, it's spelling.) I have a PhD in Rhetoric and am a writing professor and I can respond to content and not focus on a fucking missed apostrophe.

Posted by Carrie Hall on May. 22, 2013 @ 6:22 am

Seriously, Thanks.

Posted by SentPacking on May. 22, 2013 @ 6:59 am

Those who contribute little but consume a lot of services drain the city of resources.

So yes, I see nothing wrong with targetting those who can give rather than those who only take.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 7:13 am

I see nothing wrong with targeting those who represent a net zero to humanity because they are so arrogant, vile and selfish. you are a sick little puppy.

Posted by janarchy on May. 22, 2013 @ 3:56 pm

Rather than dressing it up in some vague socialist ideology.

Because left-wing views are, in the end, all about envy, hate and class warfare.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 4:08 pm

So can I get your book at the library?

Posted by pete moss on May. 22, 2013 @ 10:38 am


Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 10:55 am

And proud of it

Posted by pete moss on May. 22, 2013 @ 11:55 am

" that some people are worth more than others because of the amount of money they make, "

In this area most people are worth more than myself because of the amount of money they make. That's how net worth works, although there are many other factors, such as how much you spend, how you invest, taxes, etc.

Posted by A Critic on May. 22, 2013 @ 11:08 am

if the focus is, say, contribution to the tax base then it is not true that we are all equal. some of us are worth more to the city than others, and it should not shock anyone if city policy favors such people.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 11:24 am

it takes a very special kind of reptile troll to argue that some people should be valued more just because they have more money.

Posted by Greg on May. 22, 2013 @ 11:47 am

as with Maldita fondata. Refreshingly frank, really. Lucretia?

Posted by lillipublican on May. 22, 2013 @ 12:21 pm

What i said was that altho everyone has equal rights, blah blah, it should shock nobody if certain entities, including municipalities, seek to attract some classes of people over others.

And typically that would be the classes of people who, you know, contribute.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

Since they won't pay their fair share of taxes, who needs them?

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 2:02 pm

"throw them out" you're gonna have to pay a lot more taxes yourself.

OK with you?

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 2:17 pm

Fine by me! They aren't pulling their load anyway.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 2:38 pm

Of course not.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 2:49 pm

As stated.

Links aren't evidence - they are opinions.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 3:27 pm

no, no. you're repulsive AND illiterate.

Posted by janarchy on May. 22, 2013 @ 3:50 pm

Not on my planet it isn't.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 4:07 pm

Yeah, This is the sort of nihilistic, self-centered fully evil thinking that has gotten us into such trouble. You are clearly a terrible person with an extremely narrow and (need it be said?) incorrect view of what makes a city and, indeed a society functional and good. I do hope you haven't been "deprived" of anything by some mid-income squatter. I mean your education is probably second to none and the trajectory that your life has taken surely means that you deserve all the good things that the material world has to offer. I also hope that you choke.

Posted by Andrew on May. 22, 2013 @ 9:52 am

Such intolerance and hate is coming thick and thin from supposed "liberals" today.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 10:05 am

Intolerance and hate? What am I not tolerant of? The wrong headed view that class distinction and money somehow bestow different value to people? Yes, I will not tolerate that. And no, It's not a death wish nor am I a progressive liberal. I am a democratic socialist. But aside from that, let me ask the question: what makes a city? Do you imagine that the "mid-income squatter" living in the city who works for city hall is contributing less to the city then a young tech person who makes way more money than the product of their labor is worth? Of course not. Should those people who work in and for the city, providing services not be able to afford to live here? Should they just go away at the end of the day after they are done serving the needs of a more affluent, younger and "more valuable" class of, let's face it, overgrown children? The ethical analysis that the writer and this commenter are given over to is, to say the least, immature and completely lacking in reflection. I do hope that this kind of thinking gets eradicated from the earth, I also hope that everyone survives its eradication.

Posted by andrew on May. 23, 2013 @ 1:54 pm

It's your job to notice which way this city is heading and decide whether you fit in, whether you can contribute and whether you can afford it.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 2:07 pm

"This is the sort of nihilistic, self-centered fully evil thinking that has gotten us into such trouble. "

The person's statements are correct. Reality doesn't sugar coat itself, it doesn't play nice, it doesn't conform to your utopian day dreams.

Posted by A Critic on May. 22, 2013 @ 11:09 am

San Francisco used to have its own culture, it was a place TO be moved to, not a place to move to so you can pay off your college loans fastest.

Now, thanks to this horse shit "we dont need more artists" crap, you have turned San Francisco into San Jose. San Jose. The most boring, sensible, city in California. The place that makes San Diego look like NYC.

Congrats, assholes. You blew it.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 9:58 am

self-absorbed losers can hang out, like Oakland, Berkeley and Santa Cruz. Or maybe Detroit?

What are you waiting for? Don't let the door hit your ass . .

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 10:06 am


Posted by Geocities Sam on May. 23, 2013 @ 4:14 pm

OK, lets set aside the "thousands of bad artists" issue for a second. If middle-aged, mid-income tenants are "living where they shouldn't" but were YOU should, there will be no nurses to take care of you when you crash your Beamer. There will be no paramedics to scrape you off the pavement. Forget middle age... who's gonna bring you your Bone Marrow appetizers or $25 salad at your favorite restaurant? Pump your gas? Color your hair? Dispense your Xanax? Do your mani/pedi? By your standards, the city should be filled with young wealthy people who will get PAP smears and checks ups from a virtual Nurse Practitioner online, and never leave their apartment for entertainment or culture because there will be no one left in SF to provide those things. Oh, and you'll have to do your own laundry and clean your own apartment. Prosperity? Good luck with that.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 9:59 am

In fact, affluent enclaves need a regular supply of low-wage folks to provide services, so there are always satellites of affordability around cores of prosperity.

the people you describe can live in Daly City or Oakland. SF isn't in the middle of a desert - it's surrounded by other, cheaper cities and counties.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 10:41 am

"The people you describe" ... Do you not know anyone in these professions? How out of touch with real San Francisco residents are you? Why is it you even want to live here?

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 12:53 am

As an SF native...Dude--- Fuck You. Also, fuck this article.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 10:30 am

You got the trolls riled up. You must be doing something right. :)

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 3:12 pm

I want a challenge instead.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 3:28 pm

Your attitude is beyond the pale - what you fail to mention or even consider is that the tech economy is a bubble.. I have many friends that make 200k plus per year who's companies make - Bagel - nada.

I've been here for 20 years - I too am part or was part of the tech economy. In my time here - I've seen 3 big bust / contractions each one has been a whittling away of the heart of San Francisco's soul - the charcters that make SF what it is..

The very thing I am guessing made it so interesting for you to live here in the first place? As for my landlords they're doing just fine thank you.

I for one will be happy when you and those of your ilk' that could care less about SF past it's economic benefits are long gone....Your Pet food start up on instant messaging platform really is just as bad if not worse than most of the art in this town..

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 11:11 am

beneficial. And of course anyone with a brain can make money in a down market too - sometimes more in fact.

So winners do not fear market cycles, but sheep do. They get slaughtered.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 11:26 am

Profitable ventures... Most of the start up's here will not be here in 2 years - they'll be gone, not because they were aquired or went public or move their headquarters....

having been a tech worker in SF for 20 years do you think I fear the next bust? Not at all... but it's going to happen shortly.

After you've been through a few of them you can them comment about being a sheep or winner or lose okay Biff? BTW does your company make $$?

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 11:39 am

on the way up. And when one market sector is in an upswing, another is in a downtrun, so there's always money to be made.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 11:56 am

...not sheep. You really don't care about people at all, do you?

Posted by Hortencia on May. 22, 2013 @ 1:45 pm

spend less time trying to tell others what to do.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 1:53 pm

Great, hopefully you're not in government.

By the way, you do know that people who live in areas where they participate in their local COMMUNITIES by paying higher than average taxes and providing for their less privileged neighbors are on the whole HAPPIER than those who live in places where they're forced to fend for themselves, right?

For your information:

Posted by Kevin on May. 22, 2013 @ 5:13 pm

morality lecture I will contact you.

Until then, assume I don't give a flying crap about your attempt at a guilt trip.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 5:24 pm
Posted by anon on May. 22, 2013 @ 1:58 pm

Ladies and Gentleman, fascism personified. Yeah, fuck you.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 3:49 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2013 @ 4:05 pm

All these "well healed go getters" who are supposed to be panacea for decreasing civic revenues? It doesn't work out.

Yes the tech workers are indeed working full time plus. But they're getting ripped off themselves by this housing bubble.

I work in home care for the severely disabled part-time and with adults who have developmental delays (autism, downs syndrome, etc.) I don't make that much money but I certainly am contributing. *All*, each and everyone is healthier, and have cut down their need for medical care and therefor the cost on the health care system.

Again I don't make very much but my *labor* is indeed professional, difficult, rewarding and has a high multiplier effect on the economy. I pay my taxes and give further to society and civic stability.

Basically, I see divide and conquer going on here. I need stable, affordable rent to keep contributing. The tech workers need the same.

School teachers can not afford this city. Where is the tax base? Apple computer dodged a lot of it. No, tech workers can not make up the difference. That is an untruth (I think they're lies).

P.S. You will be old day too, in need of quality care. There is no app for what I do.

Posted by Brown hair on May. 22, 2013 @ 7:08 pm