Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516393)

And now for a different view:



That's an FT reporter, via Tyler Cowen.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516399)

Did you read the article? If so, why did you feel compelled to offer this? Do you actually think Thurgreed is arguing that no white person has ever done anything to combat racism?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516401)

I read the words he wrote. It struck me as unsupportable. If it was ironic, I retract.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516396)

China is not an enemy, but it does seek world domination[/url]

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516397)

In Minneapolis, we're going through a huge fight over a periodic update to the comprehensive plan, in which the city has proposed a fairly large overhaul, in part as an attempt to address very stark racial disparities in our city and region. Realizing that we have good schools and access to parks and other amenities the large swathes of the southern part of the city that are currently zoned for single family homes, which happen to be very white and to have been redlined that way in the past, they proposed opening the whole city up to small multi-unit buildings up to four units, as a way to introduce greater variety and supply of housing, and thus indirectly ease access.

The result is an uproar from those very richest and whitest parts of the city, some of whom instead argue we should invest in the north side (stand in for "black part of the city", even though it's more complicated than that) so they have good parks and schools too. Nevermind the problem of funding for that, or if it's even possible or desirable to gentrify the north side.

Naturally, all of these rich white people who live in the city also view themselves as super progressive, and as standing against the evil developers who must be behind the plan to add housing to their neighborhoods.

Point being, people are real good at ignoring that they're standing up for racism.

(None of which is to argue that adding housing to those neighborhoods is really going to do all that much for racial disparities, but it is a chip against the foundation of our segregation)

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516397)

In Minneapolis, we're going through a huge fight over a periodic update to the comprehensive plan, in which the city has proposed a fairly large overhaul, in part as an attempt to address very stark racial disparities in our city and region. Realizing that we have good schools and access to parks and other amenities the large swathes of the southern part of the city that are currently zoned for single family homes, which happen to be very white and to have been redlined that way in the past, they proposed opening the whole city up to small multi-unit buildings up to four units, as a way to introduce greater variety and supply of housing, and thus indirectly ease access.

The result is an uproar from those very richest and whitest parts of the city, some of whom instead argue we should invest in the north side (stand in for "black part of the city", even though it's more complicated than that) so they have good parks and schools too. Nevermind the problem of funding for that, or if it's even possible or desirable to gentrify the north side.

Naturally, all of these rich white people who live in the city also view themselves as super progressive, and as standing against the evil developers who must be behind the plan to add housing to their neighborhoods.

Point being, people are real good at ignoring that they're standing up for racism.

(None of which is to argue that adding housing to those neighborhoods is really going to do all that much for racial disparities, but it is a chip against the foundation of our segregation)

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516386)

So I am no fan of the game where different governments bid against each other with tax incentives to attract businesses. But if you accept that that's the game, then maybe this is just a negotiating move in that game. San Francisco previously rejiggered its corporate taxes to shift the burden to tech firms, essentially (I oversimplify). Twitter, notoriously, told SF that it was going to leave the city because of the tax burden. SF then gave Twitter (and others) a tax break to move to mid-Market. If Peskin's proposal passes, you can think of that as an indirect tax on tech firms, and future city leaders can decide to give it back as tax breaks again. Part of the background is that SF thought for a while that it was missing out on the tech jobs created by Apple and Google and others down on the Peninsula and in the Valley, but more recently companies want to be in the city because that's where twenty-somethings want to live, rather than the suburbs. From that perspective, the tax burden ebbs and flows with the city's perceived competitive advantage.

But to your point, the tax break that Twitter got was a six-year break from a city tax that was higher than other city's taxes. It's not like it was a subsidy, from that perspective.

And in the bigger perspective, businesses that depend on foot traffic are going away, relatively, because it's so easy and attractive now to buy things on-line, whether it's having goods shipped by Amazon or food delivered by Uber Eats. That's where the economy is going. Restauranteurs need to adapt, not outlaw newer options. It's a challenge for cities to revitalize neighborhoods in this new world, but they need a better playbook than Peskin's.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516392)

One suggestion from Joelle Emerson in that book I haven't gotten back from my boss is that a way to combat unconscious bias in hiring is to move to structured interviewing, because the focus on specific things in an interview leaves less room for assumptions and confirmation bias, etc. I love that suggestion and am trying to figure out how to make it happen where I work.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 516405)

But if you are conceding that adding a greater variety of housing to those neighborhoods might not do much, if anything, to address racial disparities, why is it "standing up for racism" to complain about a plan that might not do much if anything to address racial disparities?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516397)

In Minneapolis, we're going through a huge fight over a periodic update to the comprehensive plan, in which the city has proposed a fairly large overhaul, in part as an attempt to address very stark racial disparities in our city and region. Realizing that we have good schools and access to parks and other amenities the large swathes of the southern part of the city that are currently zoned for single family homes, which happen to be very white and to have been redlined that way in the past, they proposed opening the whole city up to small multi-unit buildings up to four units, as a way to introduce greater variety and supply of housing, and thus indirectly ease access.

The result is an uproar from those very richest and whitest parts of the city, some of whom instead argue we should invest in the north side (stand in for "black part of the city", even though it's more complicated than that) so they have good parks and schools too. Nevermind the problem of funding for that, or if it's even possible or desirable to gentrify the north side.

Naturally, all of these rich white people who live in the city also view themselves as super progressive, and as standing against the evil developers who must be behind the plan to add housing to their neighborhoods.

Point being, people are real good at ignoring that they're standing up for racism.

(None of which is to argue that adding housing to those neighborhoods is really going to do all that much for racial disparities, but it is a chip against the foundation of our segregation)

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516398)

This isn't factual. The allegation that all white people fight to retain their advantages over non-whites cannot be supported with evidence. It can, however, be refuted with considerable evidence.

To offer one small example, affirmative action did not derive exclusively from the efforts of blacks. To accept your argument, one has to believe that no whites were involved in the Civil Rights movement, or attempts to dismantle Jim Crow. That's simply untrue.

Adder trends into naivete. Everyone agrees his heart is in the right place, but sometimes, he goes too far and says things one might hear during courtesy of the floor at a Berkeley Council Meeting.

I don't see a controversy here. I have distaste for progressives who are all about "awareness" (read "virtue signaling"), enjoy judging non-progressives negatively, but do nothing, and live in segregated communities. But that's not all progressives, and they're certainly not as bad as overt racists.

I don't think you can lay this at the feet of progressives. There are no exclusively progressive neighborhoods. Progressives live among moderates and conservatives.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516398)

This isn't factual. The allegation that all white people fight to retain their advantages over non-whites cannot be supported with evidence. It can, however, be refuted with considerable evidence.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516408)

Because the status quo is the result of and perpetuates segregation. Also, maybe it will do something:

link

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 516412)

But to change zoning across the city when you doubt that it will address racial disparities because "maybe it will do something" seems profoundly stupid.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516406)

I haven't and am not planning on digging into this that deep. But I'm not talking about delivery vs. walk-in food. I'm talking about fully self-contained companies that are essentially closed off campuses in the city. Google does it in NY. It destroys local businesses and if companies are promising a huge benefit to local economies, I don't think eliminating cafeterias for businesses of a certain size is out of control protectionism stifling progress.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516413)

Interesting piece on why you can't pick out the few things Trump has done you agree with to praise.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/andy-...e-moral-ledger

TM

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516414)

If addressing racial disparities were the only reason for the change, that would perhaps be profoundly stupid.

But the primary reason for the change is to allow additional housing options that aren't super-expensive single family homes (increasingly tear down McMansions). And to allow more people to live in the city.

Rather than rehash all the other good things it involves, I'll just link.



I don't know her marital status, but Heather Worthington, chief author of the plan, is not a Millenial. Probably has some on her staff though.

Maybe the mayor is a Millennial?? Not single though.



I purposely hedged because, for example, Gary Cunningham (who lives in W13) has pushed back on the racial disparities point and I think he's right to the degree that he's saying we need to be realistic about how much integration is going to result from simply expanding housing supply. New housing in SW, even if multi-unit, is going to still be relatively expensive for the region and all the rest of our disparities will continue to be a barrier too.

That said, the council is also talking about inclusionary zoning and it's possible some of what gets built in SW (e.g., the Famous Dave's sight, were it still in the future) will be low income housing, which would further help.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 516405)

I'm not nearly as up to speed on the 2040 Plan debate as many are. But if you are conceding that adding a greater variety of housing to those neighborhoods might not do much, if anything, to address racial disparities, why is it "standing up for racism" to complain about a plan that might not do much if anything to address racial disparities? This is a serious question because most people I know have extremely strong opinions (on both sides) about the 2040 Plan, but not a lot of facts or evidence backing up the opinions.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 516411)

Are you basing this on the "all" word in there, and arguing there are a handful of exceptions?

Because outside of that weasel, you've got to be fucking kidding. Every day, in every way, white folk promote other white folk and build a world that keeps the advantages in their tribe. And of the folks you think might be exceptions, most of them are only exceptions some of the time. Hell, I spend a lot of time trying to avoid doing the things that perpetuate this, and still find myself doing them, so I wouldn't claim an exception for myself.

And if you've never called a school you went to to push your kid or your niece or nephew or some clients idiot offspring, never thought on interviewing biff or muffy, oh, hey, they'll "fit in", etc. etc.

Fucking weasel.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 516418)

Maybe you should pay more attention to local affairs instead of frolicking on your fancy bicycle.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516420)

There's is absolutely no reason not to do both. (Although I'm sure his bicycle is fancier than mine).

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516415)

I personally don't need to get outside at lunchtime and don't need to eat food from a restaurant every day. My last employer brought food in three days a week and I ate the leftovers from that the other two. Subsidizing restaurants by prohibiting their competition seems like a lousy idea to me, even though I love vibrant cities. YMMV, and we can agree to disagree about this one also.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516419)

Are you seriously suggesting anyone here does not try to hook up friends of all backgrounds? You only do it for your white friends? Really?

I’m not of any tribe but people I know and like. I don’t give a fuck where you’re from, your skin color, your religion, or anything else... if you’re a friend and I can hook you up, I’ll try to do so.

And that includes dumb white kids, yes. And dumb black ones, Asian ones, Indian ones, gay ones.

You misunderstand how the inside handshakes work, and how the “tribe” is defined.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 516418)

Maybe you should pay more attention to local affairs instead of frolicking on your fancy bicycle.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516419)

Are you seriously suggesting anyone here does not try to hook up friends of all backgrounds? You only do it for your white friends? Really?

I’m not of any tribe but people I know and like. I don’t give a fuck where you’re from, your skin color, your religion, or anything else... if you’re a friend and I can hook you up, I’ll try to do so.

And that includes dumb white kids, yes. And dumb black ones, Asian ones, Indian ones, gay ones.

You misunderstand how the inside handshakes work, and how the “tribe” is defined.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516422)

Very few people eat out every day for lunch. Throughout history people have managed to feed themselves through a combination of eating out, bringing lunch, and going to the company cafeteria. Traditionally, company cafeterias have mostly existed in areas with otherwise very limited outside options.

The new trend by these huge companies with endless cash is to keep everyone inside. Google in Chelsea owns a full city block (and then some). I've visited their cafeteria. It's insane. Anything and everything you could possibly imagine. No one leaves that building and the surrounding businesses, which flourished before they arrived, have turned over at a rate that is way out of proportion for the neighborhood. I imagine it's even worse in areas of the country that aren't as dynamic as the west side of NYC.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516426)

When you say "keep everyone inside," what you mean is that they are offering food that's good enough that people don't want to leave. No one, not even Palantir, prevents its employees from leaving.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516426)

Like bigger companies in our ostensibly free market, some of them would rather go to the government to put their rival out of business than up their game.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516419)

Are you seriously suggesting anyone here does not try to hook up friends of all backgrounds? You only do it for your white friends? Really?

I’m not of any tribe but people I know and like. I don’t give a fuck where you’re from, your skin color, your religion, or anything else... if you’re a friend and I can hook you up, I’ll try to do so.

And that includes dumb white kids, yes. And dumb black ones, Asian ones, Indian ones, gay ones.

You misunderstand how the inside handshakes work, and how the “tribe” is defined.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516423)

Surely you get that people treat their friends better than strangers, and that people's friends tend to share their background. We're having a conversation here about how white people resist the idea that racism is pervasive and not just a quest of Bad people with Bad intent, and your answer is to say you're not Bad. Uh, try again. You are unintentionally proving the point.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516426)

When you say "keep everyone inside," what you mean is that they are offering food that's good enough that people don't want to leave. No one, not even Palantir, prevents its employees from leaving. Rather, they are offering food as a perk to make people want to work there, and to work longer. So employees are better off when they get to choose to go to a cafeteria. Restaurants are worse off, because they have new competition. Like bigger companies in our ostensibly free market, some of them would rather go to the government to put their rival out of business than up their game.



If tech companies are driving up wages for chefs, awesome. In other words, they are competing for talent.



This makes no sense. Twitter stayed in San Francisco because that's where its workers live. Likewise Google in NYC. The tech giants are competing for talent and so they're locating where it lives. Once upon a time, Google was in Mountain View, and it had more and more trouble persuading people that they wanted to work in the suburbs. (And it started providing food to its workers because MV is suburban and you can't walk to food.)



That's an interesting article. What's it's saying is that Bay Area rents are sky-high, and that it's harder to run an ordinary business because you have to pay ridiculous business rents and you have to pay ridiculous wages so that the people who work for you can afford to have a hovel to live in. The fundamental problem is zoning, with places like Palo Alto (the subject of that article) that want to preserve a suburban character with single-family houses and lawns even though demand is through the roof. No one can afford to live in Palo Alto anymore. So it's no surprise that it's increasing hard to run a restaurant there. I don't think it has anything to do with cafeterias per se.



It's not a slippery slope to much of anything, but it's a lousy solution to technological change, much like rent control is a crappy solution to housing shortages. I think I'm hardly an apologist for free markets, but here you having companies competing by offering something that their workers like, and government responding by preventing them from doing it.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 516430)

JFC. Surely you are familiar with the concept that free markets can create externalities, no? How is TM’s point (which I agree with, needless to say) conceptually different from telling Google that their Chelsea location can’t exude noxious odors caused by their profit-making activities?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516424)

http://images.marketchess.com/im/10006/YN0p46G.gif

TM

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 516432)

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516427)

Also, this is just pure, unadulterated bullshit. Google isn't trying to compete with local restaurants. They have many multiples worth of resources to burn when it comes to providing food. The local guy around the corner can't compete on any level, especially when the food is free. So ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 516430)

JFC. Surely you are familiar with the concept that free markets can create externalities, no? How is TM’s point (which I agree with, needless to say) conceptually different from telling Google that their Chelsea location can’t exude noxious odors caused by their profit-making activities?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 516431)

The free cafes are all part of creating the self-absorbed, totally inward looking, truly obnoxious tech culture that has emerged especially in the software/internet/social media world and especially in SF/SV.

These companies should be taking a wrecking ball to them just so their employees will become somewhat sufferable.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516423)

Surely you get that people treat their friends better than strangers, and that people's friends tend to share their background. We're having a conversation here about how white people resist the idea that racism is pervasive and not just a quest of Bad people with Bad intent, and your answer is to say you're not Bad. Uh, try again. You are unintentionally proving the point.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516436)

Present company excluded, of course.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 516428)

I'm betting you have never been on a hiring committee, part of an admissions process, or otherwise involved in the sorting process.

Either that, or, as TM noted, mindblowingly naive or intentionally stupid (or both).