Tech Buses Fuel Boom, Some Happy, Some Not-So-Happy

By Svanes from Flcikr. At Ritual.

By Svanes from Flcikr. At Ritual.

Go social – share this article with your friendsFacebookGoogle+PinterestRedditLinkedInEmail

The San Francisco Chronicle has a front page piece today on tech fueling San Francisco’s boom. It is based on data analysis of the shuttle stops by Chris Walker, a 29-year-old who lives in Mumbai, India.

While the findngs underscore what others have established, the data is finer and the Chronicle has interviewed dozens of people to find different reactions, from those who welcome the new business brought by tech workers, to those who worry about the loss of community and the spike in rents. READ MORE

It reflects the same contradictions that we have found in reporting on tech, most recently in Erica Hellerstein’s article on the Mission Panaderia in the Time of Tech.  

Filed under: Mobile, Today's Mission

19 Comments

  1. John

    This is a more balanced piece on the topic, emphasizing how there are several genuine and sincere points of view on this topic.

    • Yep! Things are GOOD for the people with lots of money, and BAD for randoms like school teachers and nurses! It’s important to mention that things are GOOD for people with lots of money, as that is a GOOD thing. Not mentioning that things are GOOD for people with lots of money shows a lack of balance.

      • pete

        I have many nurses in my family; my aunt, three nieces and two cousins. They all are doing pretty well. None of them would ever say they are doing ‘bad’ as you say. Stop generalizing.

      • Lores

        The average starting salary is more than the average salary for people working in tech. Especially in SF. This is fine, as they are doing an incredibly hard job. But they are not getting outpriced.

        • landline

          Nurses are great and deserve every penny they earn. However, I am skeptical that a nurse’s average starting salary is more than the average salary for people in tech, especially in light of the study cited in the Chronicle article that said that the average tech bus rider earns $100,000 per year

          • John

            Much of the compensation that tech workers get is not base salary. That isn’t true for a nurse. so direct comparisons of base pay may be misleading.

            There are many worse-paid occupations than nurses.

        • Actually, you and pete up there might have a point with regards to nurses; checking their salaries just now, they’re higher than I thought they were. But we’re definitely losing teachers: Marisa Lagos – High housing costs push many teachers out of S.F.

          • Lores

            The reason why teachers don’t earn a living wage anywhere in the IS is that this society does not value education, which is extremely unfortunate. Another reason why a lot of the tech workers are not U.S. Citizens and only here temporarily.

      • John

        Stephan, are you suggesting that journalists should skew their coverage and deliberately omit one side of the story, just so your side of the story comes across as stronger and better supported than it really is?

        • Nope!

          Are you suggesting that reportage that fails to identify exactly two distinct opposing sides and then give equal time and credence to both is inadequate or incomplete?

          • John

            In the context of this topic, I think it is good reporting to show both sides i.e. those who gain from changes in the Mission and those who lose from them.

            The reader can then make up his or her own mind as to whether the gains outweigh the losses, or not.

          • Awesome! I assume you apply the same logic to coverage of bank robberies, and so agitate for balanced coverage of both the bankers’ AND the robbers’ view?

          • John

            Stephan, I believe that courts of law do indeed allow alleged criminals to defend themselves. and that a newspaper reporting the trial will give both sides.

            A kangeroo court, on the other hand, allows only one side. I sense that is your preference here.

          • Must be nice to be able to “sense” things like that; far more efficient than all this logic and evidence stuff. Hey, are we going to get more rain? Who do you like in the Grand National? Was I really a Slovenian turnip speculator in my last life?

          • John

            When you lapse into nonsense, I know I’ve won the debate.

          • two beers

            John, you’re just making shit up about journalism.

            No one is truly objective.

            A good journalist doesn’t pretend to be objective. In fact, many of the best journalists are strong advocates.

            Only a bad journalist pretends he or she has no bias whatsoever.

            Fox, your model for :”fair and balanced”, not only practices horrendous journalism, it isn’t remotely “fair and balanced.”

            Good journalism is about trying to discover the facts of a story, and present them honestly.

            “He said/she said” stories have their place, but they are weak journalism, and do nothing to change the facts of gentrification, extreme and growing inequality, and tenant displacement.

          • John

            It may be impossible for any one writer to be objective and dispassionate.

            But if they are a journalist, rather than an advocate, blogger or politician, then they have a duty to at least try.

            Reporting just one side is really seeking to further an agenda. Reporting both sides is part of a process of discovery.

          • two beers

            Facts don’t have two sides.

            There can different interpretations of facts. These are called “opinions.”

            Just because you don’t like the subject matter of a story doesn’t mean there are somehow an alternate set of facts to counter the unpleasant truth of the story.

            Suddenly. you’ve become a relativist humanist, eh John? You have no problem in shifting philosophies when it suits you.

          • John

            twobeers, re “gentrification”, the facts would be a set of statistics showing the extent of it, along with proximate causes and correlations as far as they can be validated.

            That could all be reported upon without any suggestion about whether gentrification is good or bad, which is a much more subjective matter.

            Of course, merely reporting gentrification too much can be a bias as well. It implies that it’s a problem since the news cycle features problems more than good news.

            So the facts and figures can be given in a neutral manner. Consideration of whether gentrification is net a good or bad thing is best handled by giving arguments for and against, which is what the Chron article was trying to achieve.

Comments are closed.