Geez, that article makes a very hard and sudden turn after its introduction filled with glowing positivity towards finally being a member of the bourgeoisie. I mean, that doesn't really have...
Geez, that article makes a very hard and sudden turn after its introduction filled with glowing positivity towards finally being a member of the bourgeoisie.
my friend, a filmmaker, was kicked out of her home in Berkeley along with five queer housemates of color, also artists, so that their landlord could make room for higher-paying tenants.
I mean, that doesn't really have anything to do with them being queer or persons of color. It just has to do with them being artists (presumably of the struggling variety) in an area with skyrocketing property values. I am very sympathetic to the plight of minority groups who are being disenfranchised, and a discussion of groups facing this type of exclusion is a very worthwile topic, but this is really shoe-horned in here in an attempt to elicit more outrage. She briefly touches on the topic of under representation of various groups within the corporate world of tech, but doesn't make much of an effort to actually connect these thoughts.
Zoning laws from the 1950s constrain development
While bemoaning the tech companies themselves for building a walled garden, the author barely glances over this topic, which is pretty universally agreed to be the major factor affecting the urban development of the Bay Area. A long history of NIMBY attitudes in those communities has stifled tremendous amounts of the organic change that should be developing in the area. Tech companies are very aware of these community challenges, and how much it discourages potential employees from coming to the area. The entire reason for offering these additional benefits within the company is an attempt to offset the attitudes of the larger community that would otherwise diminish their talent pool by scaring them all away.
What if big tech invested in developing great public schools, public transit, and affordable housing—perks that their employees and surrounding communities could benefit from?
Several of them do this already. No question that they could all be doing much, much more. But asking them to do it out of the goodness of their hearts is not going to get us anywhere. The local governments need to step up and ensure equitable opportunity and access to services. That is their fundamental purpose. And frankly, any tech company that does get involved in those ways already faces criticism for meddling in the community, and questions of ulterior motives. Stop blaming the faceless, unnamed entities of a wide ranging industry; start putting pressure on elected officials to invest themselves towards building a strong community that they choose to represent, by enacting policies that ensure privileges for all of their citizens, and are not subject to the whims of fickle shareholders eyeing the quarterly financials.
Tech companies are certainly not blameless. On a whole host of topics. But blaming them for the sociological effects of the environments they choose to occupy, and the economic system that they exist in, seems pretty misguided.
Also a small thing but I don't think this author realizes that the entire field of software/hardware engineering is an absolute sausage fest. I'm not happy about this either, but in a class of 50...
Also a small thing but
Women and people of color are often paid less and promoted less, if and when they’re hired and retained as “citizens” at all
I don't think this author realizes that the entire field of software/hardware engineering is an absolute sausage fest. I'm not happy about this either, but in a class of 50 engineering students you'll normally find about 5 women give or take. The reason she sees so little women being hired and promoted is because there simply aren't enough, and if anything, managers are constantly looking for women to bring up.
Also I'm not sure where she is working, but in my intern group of about 12 people in the Bay Area, I was one of 3 white people, both of my managers are POC, as are most people here. I don't know how much I believe the claim that they're 'promoted less' and 'paid less'.
Thoughts like this are why I am a supporter of basic income. We need to divorce working from surviving. As automation is increasing, less and less people need to work traditional jobs to keep...
Now that my physical and emotional needs are consistently being met, I have more time to spend thinking about ideas rather than survival.
Thoughts like this are why I am a supporter of basic income. We need to divorce working from surviving. As automation is increasing, less and less people need to work traditional jobs to keep everyone supplied with food and shelter. The longer this trend continues, the harder it will be for everyone to find enough work to survive. If we as a society provide enough that everyone can survive as a base level (and include health care as well), then people can work only as needed to keep things running, to the benefit of all.
If we want a to ensure a more equitable, just, and humane future, we must spend time collectively imagining alternative economic, political, and urban planning policies. What if big tech invested in developing great public schools, public transit, and affordable housing—perks that their employees and surrounding communities could benefit from? What if employers valued health, education, manufacturing and service workers equally to executives and those in STEM by extending full privileges to contingent workers throughout the supply chain? What if company policies allowed employees to share benefits beyond the nuclear family so that broader communities have access to adequate healthcare and nutritious food? What if powerful corporations institutionalized support for creatives, and not just (or especially not) those whose work serves the bottom line?
The author asks that big companies provide these benefits, but I feel that this should be divorced from corporations and be provided by the government through taxes. Once people have their basic needs met, they can choose to work or not work as needed to whatever extent they desire. If these benefits are tied to a company, the people working for them are no longer as free to chose to stop working if conditions are unpleasant, or they want to change directions in their lives. It basically ends up where we are now with our entire life being completely beholden to our employer continuing to pay us.
That's a strange use of "socialist" there...maybe they meant authoritarian? Totalitarian? Feudalist? Aristocratic? Monarchist? Personally I would go with Monarchist, there are a lot of CEOs out...
That's a strange use of "socialist" there...maybe they meant authoritarian? Totalitarian? Feudalist? Aristocratic? Monarchist?
Personally I would go with Monarchist, there are a lot of CEOs out there who "hold court" and act like Kings, anointed by the venture capitalists gods to rule over their kingdom, no matter who idiotic their ideas are.
Geez, that article makes a very hard and sudden turn after its introduction filled with glowing positivity towards finally being a member of the bourgeoisie.
I mean, that doesn't really have anything to do with them being queer or persons of color. It just has to do with them being artists (presumably of the struggling variety) in an area with skyrocketing property values. I am very sympathetic to the plight of minority groups who are being disenfranchised, and a discussion of groups facing this type of exclusion is a very worthwile topic, but this is really shoe-horned in here in an attempt to elicit more outrage. She briefly touches on the topic of under representation of various groups within the corporate world of tech, but doesn't make much of an effort to actually connect these thoughts.
While bemoaning the tech companies themselves for building a walled garden, the author barely glances over this topic, which is pretty universally agreed to be the major factor affecting the urban development of the Bay Area. A long history of NIMBY attitudes in those communities has stifled tremendous amounts of the organic change that should be developing in the area. Tech companies are very aware of these community challenges, and how much it discourages potential employees from coming to the area. The entire reason for offering these additional benefits within the company is an attempt to offset the attitudes of the larger community that would otherwise diminish their talent pool by scaring them all away.
Several of them do this already. No question that they could all be doing much, much more. But asking them to do it out of the goodness of their hearts is not going to get us anywhere. The local governments need to step up and ensure equitable opportunity and access to services. That is their fundamental purpose. And frankly, any tech company that does get involved in those ways already faces criticism for meddling in the community, and questions of ulterior motives. Stop blaming the faceless, unnamed entities of a wide ranging industry; start putting pressure on elected officials to invest themselves towards building a strong community that they choose to represent, by enacting policies that ensure privileges for all of their citizens, and are not subject to the whims of fickle shareholders eyeing the quarterly financials.
Tech companies are certainly not blameless. On a whole host of topics. But blaming them for the sociological effects of the environments they choose to occupy, and the economic system that they exist in, seems pretty misguided.
Also a small thing but
I don't think this author realizes that the entire field of software/hardware engineering is an absolute sausage fest. I'm not happy about this either, but in a class of 50 engineering students you'll normally find about 5 women give or take. The reason she sees so little women being hired and promoted is because there simply aren't enough, and if anything, managers are constantly looking for women to bring up.
Also I'm not sure where she is working, but in my intern group of about 12 people in the Bay Area, I was one of 3 white people, both of my managers are POC, as are most people here. I don't know how much I believe the claim that they're 'promoted less' and 'paid less'.
Thoughts like this are why I am a supporter of basic income. We need to divorce working from surviving. As automation is increasing, less and less people need to work traditional jobs to keep everyone supplied with food and shelter. The longer this trend continues, the harder it will be for everyone to find enough work to survive. If we as a society provide enough that everyone can survive as a base level (and include health care as well), then people can work only as needed to keep things running, to the benefit of all.
The author asks that big companies provide these benefits, but I feel that this should be divorced from corporations and be provided by the government through taxes. Once people have their basic needs met, they can choose to work or not work as needed to whatever extent they desire. If these benefits are tied to a company, the people working for them are no longer as free to chose to stop working if conditions are unpleasant, or they want to change directions in their lives. It basically ends up where we are now with our entire life being completely beholden to our employer continuing to pay us.
That's a strange use of "socialist" there...maybe they meant authoritarian? Totalitarian? Feudalist? Aristocratic? Monarchist?
Personally I would go with Monarchist, there are a lot of CEOs out there who "hold court" and act like Kings, anointed by the venture capitalists gods to rule over their kingdom, no matter who idiotic their ideas are.