Protesters block MS shuttles in Seattle

[kevm14]

Gentrification. Controversial. For some reason.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/10/53983 ... in-seattle

I like these comments:

TheVergeUrge

What drives up the cost of living is success. The idiot protesters who DIDN’T get college degrees, or only did in useless majors, are now pissed off that the people who worked their asses off can work for a company that is actually profitable and provides services.

Gee, you stupid protesters should have thought of that when you decided to party and drink and fornicate while the nerds were actually studying in college.

Posted on Feb 10, 2014 | 11:19 PM Reply Recommend (3) Flag

minimalist

I am trying to see the side of renters here but I’m not sure there is one that makes much sense.

You can’t stop people from living where they want to live. And cities should be happy that more people want to live and spend money in their cities instead of staying isolated in some wealthy suburb. And local businesses who supply these people with goods and services should be happy that there are more people with expendable income living locally. And property owners sure like the bump in value of their investments.

It seems the only people who don;t like gentrification are people who would like everything to remain the same so they can continue paying cheap rent.

It kind of reminds me of the people in my own city who got pissed that they would no longer have access the cheapest parking in downtown even though a convention center that would bring desperately needed tourism and funds to downtown was replacing it. They would have preferred keeping what was convenient for them as opposed top what was good for the city as a whole. God forbid a city should try to improve itself. Some people really can’t see past the end of their own noses.

Posted on Feb 11, 2014 | 1:08 PM Reply Recommend Flag

Ok, aside from that, you might say "well what if you don't own a home? You don't get any of that equity!" Right.

phor11

But isn’t that something that happens EVERYWHERE?
Demand for housing increases, prices go up. Simple supply and demand.
Are these protesters wanting businesses to somehow defeat the laws of supply and demand in a capitalist society?

Don’t property values also go up, putting equity in the pockets of the people and businesses who were there before?

Of all the things to protest, this one seems to be pretty inane.

It would make sense if they were protesting the fact that businesses were using public bus stops without paying for the priviledge… but that doesn’t seem to be what these protests are about.

Posted on Feb 10, 2014 | 6:23 PM Reply Recommend (2) Flag

flyingtoastr

Don’t property values also go up, putting equity in the pockets of the people and businesses who were there before?

Not if you’re renting. If you’re renting you get a nice “Pay 20% more or you’re evicted” letter when your lease is up from your landlord once the rich techies movie into town.

Posted on Feb 10, 2014 | 6:26 PM Reply Recommend (3) Flag

Oh here we go with the bleeding heart shit. Fortunately there's a GREAT and LOGICAL response to this (terrible) argument.

Dante of the Inferno

If you’re renting, you are exposed to the full range of market forces. You have as much say in where you live for however long as your landlord has agreed to. “Long-term rent” is an oxymoron. Want to stay? Buy a house. Can’t afford it? Then you’ll have to move to where rent is affordable. That’s the thing about renting. If for some reason you are unable to stay or want to leave, you can just pack up and go. Besides, you’re forgetting that property taxes on housing goes up with improvements to infrastructure. If the well-off want to stay, they have to pay just like everyone else.

Posted on Feb 10, 2014 | 7:52 PM Reply Recommend (10) Flag

CtrlAltDel121

when your lease is up

And you have no right to (and should have no expectation of) your rent price remaining affordable when your lease is up. That’s the point of a lease. Moving sucks, but it has to be something you plan for when you rent an apartment year by year.

Posted on Feb 10, 2014 | 9:51 PM Reply Recommend (5) Flag

Exactly.

A Canadian's view:

jordon.simek

This is one thing about the culture difference between America and Canada that I have never really understood. I know as a young Canadian, that many people, including myself, have lived in different parts of the country, going where the work is, and where the quality of life is better. Maybe it is because for the amount of real estate Canada covers, our population is apprx 1/10th that of the States. I really do not believe it is a companies responsibility to take care of their surrounding area. That is a fairly socialist view, imo. If a company that has a large demand for skilled workers is in an area, and because their is a high demand for that skill, they must pay their workers accordingly, then it only logically makes sense that these workers would spend the money that they have earned from their skills. And they have a right to live close to their place of work if they choose to. It seems to me that there is a general lack of will to move where life can be better in the States, and that a broad sense of “This is my home, I’ll never move” attitude is prevalent. Nothing wrong with this, I have a strong sense of home as well. But I do take issue with this attitude when it becomes “others” responsibility to make or keep “your” neighborhood the same.

Posted on Feb 11, 2014 | 10:44 AM Reply Recommend Flag

[kevm14]

On a related note, this is happening:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/15/56146 ... he-machine

Some good comments:

nico_mach
Londoners have less cause for resentment, but here in America, there is growing inequality, there are no opportunities regardless of desire and things will get worse before they get better.

You’re painting with a overly broad brush and it’s just as fair for me to say that the lazy rich aren’t doing anything with their money or we’d have better employment figures. And you know, unlike your basic lazy insults, it’s backed up by the numbers.

The lazy rich are ultimately a bigger problem than the lazy poor. We should go back to taxing them properly in the US.

Posted on Apr 15, 2014 | 12:56 PM Reply Recommend Flag

Jan Steinke
Listen to yourself. Don’t you think you sound a little bit pathetic? You are treating technology entrepreneurs as if they are lucky to get Google Venture funding. It takes much more than being a “lazy rich” to convince VC companies like Google Venture that you’re business is viable and a you won’t screw it up. Because this is the argument the Counterforce is using: “Those lazy entrepreneurs are not doing anything and they get rich. Me, the innocent high school graduate or BA graduate, only gets their tips and coffee money.”

Posted on Apr 15, 2014 | 1:30 PM Reply Recommend (11) Flag

grking
You really should read/listen to more than Fox News etc.

A lot of wealth these days is inherited. A very large percentage of the wealthy are what you would call trust fund babies. They are wealthy because they were fortunate to be born into a wealthy family, and have done nothing to earn that wealth.

This is not to say this is necessarily true of the Google people, but we are returning to the Gilded Age, and dynastic fortunes like the Rockefellers, Gettys, Kennedys, etc. but without the ethos of giving back.

Posted on Apr 15, 2014 | 3:43 PM Reply Recommend Flag

Irishjugg
I think the truth of the matter is that, the google employes and rich tech guys and start up millionaires ARENT old money types.

Technically this is the type of wealth that we as a country should want and encourage over the trust fund, inherited types. It just seems that no matter how people become wealthy, a subset of those who aren’t will always absolutely vilify that and see it as evil because they aren’t part of it.

Posted on Apr 15, 2014 | 3:56 PM Reply Recommend (5) Flag

The last paragraph of the last post sums it up I think.

[kevm14]

gtg465x
Well, the people in the video complain about having to serve coffee to engineers and CEOs of tech companies who make more than them, but then they go on to say that they want the tech companies to leave. Well, who would they serve coffee to then? The coffee shops would go out of business and they would be homeless. From the looks of it, they clearly enjoy spending their days pestering people instead of getting a decent job for themselves. They don’t want a job. They just want to be wealthy without doing a damn thing.

Posted on Apr 15, 2014 | 3:20 PM Reply Recommend (9) Flag

microsoftmissionary
Yet they complain about the wealthy… How crazy

Posted on Apr 15, 2014 | 3:44 PM Reply Recommend (1) Flag

leirbag
They just want to be wealthy without doing a damn thing.

I think they just want to live in a bubble, protected from the economic realities around them.

Posted on Apr 15, 2014 | 3:49 PM Reply Recommend (4) Flag

[kevm14]

The internet is funny.

gtg465x
“the honest, hard-working people who serve coffee”

And that’s where your argument fell apart. Serving coffee is not a hard job. You think serving coffee, which requires no education, is as hard as engineering jobs, which require 4 or more years of extremely difficult education? Have you ever watched an engineer rack their brain designing, coding, or otherwise trying to figure something out for 12 hours a day? You think that comes easy. You don’t think they often go home with headaches because they were thinking so hard and staring at a computer screen all day? You don’t think engineers have to constantly teach themselves new skills just to remain competent at their job as technology rapidly progresses? Yeah, serving coffee is hard… HA!

Posted on Apr 15, 2014 | 3:29 PM Reply Recommend (7) Flag

I have to say, though, that the Google/San Fran gentrification article seems to have an overall more positive vibe than the MS/Seattle gentrification article. Because when it's Google, you know, Google is awesome, and has awesome engineers.

[kevm14]

Side discussion about the cost of a college education. Now this makes a lot of sense.

xPutNameHerex

I do agree with you that a lot of people are graduating with silly degrees that they will never get serious employment with (or at the very least, unreasonable expectations). However, I don’t think that get ridding of them would lower tuition. When you look at colleges without major endowments (many of the mid-range colleges), they actually depend on the tuitions to pay for their expenses (hence the fact they waitlist almost anyone so they always have people to fill their class with). Getting rid of student slots wouldn’t decrease it, and could possibly increase tuition if the programs that were eliminated were the ones producing a profit for the more expensive science programs.

Additionally, tuitions are driven largely by the fact their is such a ridiculously high demand for a college education, limited supply, and a guaranteed money stream. There’s only so many colleges, with only so many spots, and far more people applying for those spots than they would ever be possible to admit. And the government basically guarantees these colleges money with government-issued student loans. These costs, if not recouped, are not lost by the school, but rather by the government/taxpayer (and the government is getting really open about forgiving student debt recently). So the colleges can admit someone getting their funding from the government without worrying if they make their money back on the investment into the student. And the government keeps paying for it, due to political pressures, so the colleges keep increasing tuition since they know they get a guaranteed payment from the government, and a whole mob of people lining up to take limited spots even without the government involved.

Posted on Apr 15, 2014 | 8:43 PM Reply Recommend Flag

Using simple supply and demand rules, it's the easy, practically guaranteed flow of tuition (gov't backed student loans) that may largely be responsible for the unchecked cost!!

So compared to how it was in the 60s and 70s, did the government "fix" anything by allowing a lot more people to go to college? No, school is fucking outrageous today and there are a ridiculous number of graduates with utterly useless majors.

There's your libertarian viewpoint for the evening.

[Adam]

All the more reason to make sure you do graduate with a useful degree. That is one that you can use to get a job where you can earn a living.

[kevm14]

Going to college at all costs was a meme of our entire lives, basically. But knowing what we know now, if you are going for a shit major, seriously, just don't bother and save a TON of money. There's also trade school. But college for the sake of college, at these prices, is just dumb.

[Adam]

Yes.

[kevm14]

http://www.salary.com/8-college-degrees ... m=referral

[Adam]

Kinda related.
http://edmoney.newamerica.net/blogposts ... yers-70117