back to article Rich techbro CEOs told to sleep rough before slamming the poor

The US congresswoman who represents some of the wealthiest areas of Silicon Valley has challenged technology moneybags to get some perspective on life – by sleeping rough or living off state handouts. House Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) said tech executives in the Bay Area should try living as the poor do to better …

  1. Nick Kew

    You mean the SF Bay area is getting so overcrowded as to suffer some of our UK-style problems? Like when they cleared out those not fortunate enough to be Rachman's tenants from under London's Embankment.

  2. Lionel Baden

    Means nothing

    "We need to get CEOs to do two things: live on food stamps for a week, or spend a night in a homeless shelter,"

    its after months of going hungry and the absolute fear that you cannot afford food, that really brings home how precious things can be.

    Now I could probably go a week with 1 meal every 2 or 3 days

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Means nothing

      The system won't let me give you more than a single up-vote.

    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Means nothing

      Amen, brother.

    3. ElectricRook

      Re: Means nothing

      Perhaps the precious homeless could put down the bong and work on improving themselves. But then again why bother when you have all the leftover Marxists batting for you.

    4. JJSmith1950

      Re: Means nothing

      I suspect the three down votes you've received are from fans of Tim Worstall. These kind of people regard poverty as a behavioural issue, they seriously think poverty is a choice. They choose to ignore the fact poverty is a structural feature of Capitalism, the system cannot function without it.

  3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Facepalm

    New depths of stupid plumbed by clueless pol: Film at 11

    "We need to get CEOs to do two things: live on food stamps for a week, or spend a night in a homeless shelter"

    This is going to help how? Looks like she doesn't understand what a CEO actually is. If the shareholders want to spend the dividends, why not? The CEO has no authority to drop cash onto the streets and I would like to see him removed if that ever occurred.

    Also, "Income Inequality" is a consequence, not a cause and not a problem. It is a consequence of protectionist measures, rent-seeking and the state making hiring people an ugly proposition. Did I mention calling CEOs criminals for having the temerity to do their job? Not to mention "industrial policies" of all sort.

    With that kind of populist shit on the air, it's like we are really at a Marxist rally.

    1. Rich 11

      Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

      Income inequality is not a problem? I expect you'll be perfectly happy to be homeless and living out of dustbins, then.

      1. LucreLout

        Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

        Income inequality is not a problem? I expect you'll be perfectly happy to be homeless and living out of dustbins, then.

        Being homeless and living out of dustbins isn't a problem of income inequality, its the total absence of an income that causes that.

        Income inequality sees my CEO take home more than I'll earn in a lifetime, for a single years work, once the lucrative stock & options are tallied up. That doesn't actually cause me a massive problem, certainly not one so severe as nowhere safe & warm for my family to rest and no food in their bellies.

        I'm not suggesting income inequality is good or bad, but lets not do homelessness a disservice by equating the two.

        1. Lionel Baden

          Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

          That doesn't actually cause me a massive problem, certainly not one so severe as nowhere safe & warm for my family to rest and no food in their bellies.

          That may be so in your case, but were not talking about you, we are talking about people who can barely cover basic bills before running out of money.

          I'm probably going to stop commenting here even though i have alot to say as I am going to get upset and shout. I spent two years working sinking further and further into debt because of this very issue, so please don't tell me it doesn't exist. It bloody well does.

          1. LucreLout

            Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

            I'm probably going to stop commenting here even though i have alot to say as I am going to get upset and shout. I spent two years working sinking further and further into debt because of this very issue, so please don't tell me it doesn't exist. It bloody well does.

            What possible relevance do you ascribe to the multiples a CEO takes home compared to the cleaner with the cleaner becoming homeless. How much the CEO pays for his next Ferrari doesn't impact how much the cleaner pays for rice or gas. It just doesn't.

            1. Martin
              Thumb Down

              Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

              How much the CEO pays for his next Ferrari doesn't impact how much the cleaner pays for rice or gas. It just doesn't.

              No, but how much the CEO pays to rent or buy his flat does encourage the prices to go sky-high, putting people who can't afford them onto the street.

              1. LucreLout

                Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

                No, but how much the CEO pays to rent or buy his flat does encourage the prices to go sky-high, putting people who can't afford them onto the street.

                No it doesn't. I can't afford a Mayfair townhouse, so I don't live in one. That doesn't make me homeless, it just means I can't afford the townhouse.

                The additional 2 million people we've imported have to live somewhere, that is a fact. That we have managed to house them all, without statistically significant rough sleeping, must have had a greater impact upon what the cleaner can afford to rent than what price the CEO paid for his townhouse.

                Income disparity has no bearing on homelessness. Sudden loss of income does.

                1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                  Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

                  Bullshit.

                  There are plenty of people in the SF bay area that have jobs and cannot find a place to live. Maybe if you weren't so full of yourself you'd be assed to go meet some. I have, and sock and fucking horror they aren't stupid, drug addicted or any of the other things we ascribe to people down on their luck. They are in a bad way, they can't make ends meet and they do things like live in a car or under a bridge despite bringing home what would be a reasonable salary in my city.

                  So blow it out your ass: you know not of what you speak.

                  1. LucreLout

                    Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

                    *yawn*

                    There are plenty of people in the SF bay area that have jobs and cannot find a place to live.

                    There's plenty of people have jobs in Mayfair that can't afford to live there. Most of them in fact. What they do, and I realise this concept will fill you with horror, is they get a bus between where they work and where they can afford to live. You'll find that more than half the people working in the City do the same: I am one of them, because I too cannot afford to live in Mayfair, Hampstead, Wapping etc. So blow that "out your ass: you know not of what you speak."

                    I have, and sock and fucking horror they aren't stupid, drug addicted or any of the other things we ascribe to people down on their luck.

                    There's no we. You may ascribe those things to people down on their luck, but that's a you issue, I certainly don't agree with you. You're coming across as a sanctimonious bellend. You should work on that.

                    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

                      "There's plenty of people have jobs in Mayfair that can't afford to live there. Most of them in fact. What they do, and I realise this concept will fill you with horror, is they get a bus between where they work and where they can afford to live."

                      Bus from fucking where, you entitled prick? There's no place in the bay area that has affordable housing. There's no place for them to go, and commute from.

                      "You'll find that more than half the people working in the City do the same: I am one of them, because I too cannot afford to live in Mayfair, Hampstead, Wapping etc. So blow that "out your ass: you know not of what you speak.""

                      Except that SF isn't London, senor douchecanoe. It's SF. There are no other places to live. Oakland is prohibitively expensive. Jan Jose is prohibitively expensive. So is literally every single scrap of land in between. Having very recently spend a truly abhorrent amount of time helping a friend of mine who does make $100K find a place to live, I've got a damned good idea of what's there. And if you make less than $60K/year you won't find anything to live in. Not even a fucking closet with a bathroom shared with 7 other tenements.

                      Even at $100k/year the dude managed to get a place that was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600 sq ft. And he pays more in rent for that than I do on my overpriced mortgage for my 1200 sq ft house that has a 450 sq ft basement!

                      Maybe you should remove your head from your ass and realise that your personal experience is not not cognate with that of the rest of the western world.

                      "There's no we. You may ascribe those things to people down on their luck, but that's a you issue, I certainly don't agree with you."

                      Funny, everything you write positively drips of victim blaming. It's their fault, they're lazy, if only there were more like you...etc. Fell fuck you in the face with a bronzed goat covered in acid. Sideways.

                      "You're coming across as a sanctimonious bellend. You should work on that."

                      You're coming across as an entitled elitist fuckbag with all the empathy, sympathy and personality of a necrotic testicle hair. I'd say you should work on that, but really, I'd rather you just never interacted with another human being ever again so that your poisonous views on social dynamics aren't spread.

                      You're a bad person.

                      1. LucreLout

                        Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

                        Bus from fucking where, you entitled prick? There's no place in the bay area that has affordable housing. There's no place for them to go, and commute from.

                        Look at a map bellend. See much affordability near Mayfair?

                        No place near the bay area that has affordable housing? Oakland doesn't exist then? Santa Clara a blank spot for you? Sacramento not a place anymore? Hell, within 50 miles you can get as far out as San Jose.... which is the mayfair equaivalent of commuting from Luton to Mayfair. Not unreasonable - I know because that is my daily commute.

                        And if you make less than $60K/year you won't find anything to live in. Not even a fucking closet with a bathroom shared with 7 other tenements.

                        The well staffed coffee shops, bars, newsagents all disagree with you. Just because you feel entitled to better than you can afford does not mean you can't afford to live in the bay area. Grow the fuck up and stop having a tantrum.

                        Funny, everything you write positively drips of victim blaming. It's their fault, they're lazy, if only there were more like you...etc.

                        Me?! You're the one desperate to create victims and blame everyone for their misfortune. 60,000 USD is not the earnings of a lazy man. Nor does it mean you can't afford to live in the bay area. The average salary in retail is less than half that amount, and quelle suprise, they all have a place to live!

                        You're a bad person.

                        And you're an idiot, with no knowledge of finance. Hopefully you don't actually do anything with computers, because you wouldn't be safe with them. Better for us all if you stick to drawing pictures in powerpoint.

                        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                          Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

                          "Look at a map bellend. See much affordability near Mayfair?

                          No place near the bay area that has affordable housing? Oakland doesn't exist then? Santa Clara a blank spot for you? Sacramento not a place anymore? Hell, within 50 miles you can get as far out as San Jose.... which is the mayfair equaivalent of commuting from Luton to Mayfair. Not unreasonable - I know because that is my daily commute."

                          if you'd actually read my comments, you yontz, you'd have realized that I already discussed Oakland and San Jose as well as all points in between. They don't offer affordable housing. Especially not once the cost of transit is factored in. This is what I am trying to explain to you but you cannot seem to understand.

                          Your experience is non cognate with this locale.

                          "The well staffed coffee shops, bars, newsagents all disagree with you. Just because you feel entitled to better than you can afford does not mean you can't afford to live in the bay area. Grow the fuck up and stop having a tantrum."

                          What well staffed coffee shops, bars and newsagents? As a general rule, they struggle to find staff they can afford and regularly go out of business. The SF bay area is regularly hurting for the sort of "menial labour" businesses that keep the world spinning. It's a regular source of complaint from the entitled fuckbag community, however, they're not willing to pay any extra so wages can be "living wages".

                          "Me?! You're the one desperate to create victims and blame everyone for their misfortune. 60,000 USD is not the earnings of a lazy man. Nor does it mean you can't afford to live in the bay area. The average salary in retail is less than half that amount, and quelle suprise, they all have a place to live!"

                          No, they don't all have a place to live. The average bay area retail wage is higher - much higher - than 30K. And they often live 4-to-a-closet in damned near third-world conditions. A single guy making 60k won't be able to afford his own place, and if he can't get a roommate then he's fucked. If he ends up homeless even for a little while, he'll probably never get a roommate and then he's trapped in a position where he can't afford a place to live but is making what would be decent money elsewhere.

                          It is clear to me you understand fucking nothing about the bay area.

                          "And you're an idiot, with no knowledge of finance. Hopefully you don't actually do anything with computers, because you wouldn't be safe with them. Better for us all if you stick to drawing pictures in powerpoint."

                          I'm an idiot because I don't assume every single metro area is the same? Because I learn about the areas under discussion, their quirks, foibles and differentiations and then apply logic, rational though, statistics and research to my arguments?

                          Wow. Let me hope you never have anything to do with computers. You'll just thunder along assuming every single business is the same, and put well more than half of them out of business through overwhelming incompetence born of aught but your own arrogant hubris.

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

                            Then move away from the SF area.

                            If it's unaffordable, or if you can only get menial jobs and are crammed into a shoebox in t'middle of t'road despite your 16 doctorates and 100 hour weeks, move.

                            Let SF do without you.

                            Just think what that'd do to the house prices there if suddenly shops were unstaffed and restaurants uncatered.

                            I just turned down a move there because of the cost of living. Aaaand life goes on.

                            So move. If you can't have a decent life in the Bay Area then move out of the Bay Area! If you're worried about rent prices you don't own a home so you've not got much tying you to that particular locale.

                          2. LucreLout

                            Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

                            They don't offer affordable housing. Especially not once the cost of transit is factored in.

                            And you think all those tens of thousands of people workingin retail in SF earning about 30,00 USD are what? All homeless? All living at home with mum? Don't be so stupid. You took a short sighted positiont hat was readily demonstratable as utter bollocks and you got called out on it. Grow the fuck up and stop trying to pretend black is white.

                            What well staffed coffee shops, bars and newsagents? As a general rule, they struggle to find staff they can afford and regularly go out of business.

                            No staff == no business. Amazingly, there's plenty of business going on, so from that you can draw the only logical conclusion, that they have staff. Given their average rate of pay, it must be perfectly possible to live and work in the bay area on a lot less than you think it is. Perhaps that is because you're from the "right on" section of the entitled fuckbag community, no?

                            The average bay area retail wage is higher - much higher - than 30K. Yes, it's about 33k. Google is your friend here, so do some research before spouting off again.

                            I'm an idiot

                            Yes, you are. Unreservedly so, and seemingly proud of it. May I ask whom it was dressed you for work today?

                  2. ElectricRook

                    Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

                    Let them live in Stockton or some other place where the housing fits their budget. This is America, you can live anywhere you can afford to live. I might want to live in Malibu but the investment I made in an education is not returning the results required to buy a beach condo there. The homeless suffer from the same malady, insufficient education to secure the housing in the most desirable district. Houses are really affordable in say Detroit Michigan, and they have a very liberal government run exclusively by the democratic party.

                    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      Re: New depths of stupid plumbed by ... the above

                      How, exactly, are the people making only minimum wage working at your gas stations supposed to afford to house themselves in SF, you arrogant ponce? The underclass is larger than the privileged one, but there's only enough housing for the privileged.

  4. chivo243 Silver badge
    Alert

    Smell it on the wind?

    I've said it before, this is a huge issue, if enough people become down and out in Amerika, the revolution will not be pretty. What's my address in Montana again?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As someone whom lives near Silicon Valley...

    The rents are obscene & getting worse by the day. When a simple, 2 bedroom, 1 bath, "apartment" that would otherwise be called a walk in closet by Sane people, is going for more per month than anyone not already earning a six figure salary can even HOPE to afford, there's no chance in hell that guy working at McDonald's or the lady at the library is going to afford to live anywhere near their job. Which means commuting, which means extra costs for transportation, which means their already crappy pay gets stretched even farther/thinner, and they have to make hard choices like "Do I pay my rent or eat this month?"

    The "Living Wage" isn't anything of the sort, because the moment McDonald's or the library has to start paying their bottom rung employees that much, it means the business has to charge it's customers more to compensate, which tends to impact the poor moreso than the rich, whom probably don't shop at McDonald's or frequent their local library in the first place. (That's for "The Help", not actual Rich People.)

    So the CEO's spending a week on food stamps or living in a homeless shelter won't do fuck-all. Making them live in the same conditions, to the same restrictions, and same "rent or food" style choices for a year, that MIGHT drive the lesson home, but don't count on it. Those rich fat cats probably think "slumming it" means not washing the Rolls for a week & going with the less expensive brand of Caviar. *Bah*

    So don't try to claim "Income Inequality" isn't an issue. It's a very important one. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and it's all us poor people whom do the jobs that you rich fucks consider "beneath you". Like collecting the trash, keeping the sewers working, mowing your fifty acre lawn, cleaning your Olympic swimming pool, fixing your water heater when it breaks, cooking your meals, watching your kids for you, grooming your pets, driving you around, blah blah blah. How "comfortable" do you think you'd be if you've priced all us poor folks right the fuck out of the area, and none of those tasks get done anymore because there's nobody around whom can afford to live there to do it?

    1. dv

      Re: As someone whom lives near Silicon Valley...

      When the rents go obscene, you should be buying/building new accomodation to get rich quick, not whine about income inequality. Rest assured that the jobs you mentioned, supposedly "beneath me, the rich fuck" actually are REDUCING the income inequality by redistributing the "six-figure salary" among the "all you poor people". That also means that "all you poor folks" can not get "priced right the fuck out" of the area, because sooner or later someone needs to get these jobs done, and pays more to get you to do it even with the not insignificant travel expense. Or, you know, someone could actually start a business doing those "beneath me" jobs in the area, employing some people and actually reducing the income inequality even more. Way to phrase your argument BTW.

      1. Tenacal

        Re: As someone whom lives near Silicon Valley...

        @dv

        So your advice to those who are financially struggling is to buy land or property?

        You have a very interesting perception on what "poor" is.

        1. dv

          Re: As someone whom lives near Silicon Valley...

          Yes and no, but you got me wrong. What I tried to suggest was that instead of marxist finger-pointing a stake-burning, one should actually DO something about the situation he finds himself in. And by that I mean trying to secure additional income, using whatever opportunities arise.

          First, if I don't have the money to pay the rent, I have to move somewhere cheaper; and no, don't even try to tell me that "somewhere cheaper" means "the other coast", North Korea, or under the bridge.

          Second, if I don't make enough to make ends meet, then I have to either get a better job (you know, Silicon Valley style), or, use what is available and change my career completely. If you see "filthy rich six-figure fat bastard", you also see a lot of money for his expenses. It's this money that is used to create jobs and pay people for doing useful work, and ultimately to reduce the "income imbalance". See the six-figure salary not as a problem, but as a solution.

          The yuppy CEO and his salary IS NOT the cause of poorer people's low income, as the commentard above me tried to suggest. Granted, not everyone can afford to buy or develop property. But actually building a nice house using your own hands is not that difficult and/or expensive, and you do usually get advance payment. My comment was all about that mindset. And thank you in advance for another hundred downwotes, you commie barstewards:-)

          1. ecofeco Silver badge

            Re: As someone whom lives near Silicon Valley...

            "What I tried to suggest was that instead of marxist finger-pointing a stake-burning, one should actually DO something about the situation he finds himself in.

            Do seriously think no one tries?

            Seriously?!

            Marxist finger-pointing? "The poor are lazy and don't try"? You have just given yourself away, Marie Antoinette.

    2. Fatman

      Re: As someone whom lives near Silicon Valley...

      Nice post.

      My take, is to really drive the point home; dump a group of CEO's out somewhere remote, ala Naked and Afraid style with shit to live on, telling them that they have to trek 100 miles through (insert environment of choice) to be rescued. Let them be forced to live off the land. I doubt that any of them make it out alive.

      1. Mark 85

        Re: As someone whom lives near Silicon Valley...

        I'm thinking drop them off in Detroit and they have to exit on the other side of Flint....

  6. Alt0n

    It's not inequality, it's poverty

    Doesn't really matter how obscenely rich the rich are, it's how much deprivation those at the 'bottom' are suffering

    1. DragonLord

      Re: It's not inequality, it's poverty

      The problem is that in most 1st world countries poverty isn't really poverty. What it is is income disparity and the effects that that has on your ability to get by. So in a very real sense the problem is that the people that are driving the prices up in the local area are earning so much more than the people that support the infrastructure in that area that they (the have-nots) are inching closer and closer to relying on the welfare state and having to move away to a more affordable area but still somehow keep their job. However the story being about the USA means that there isn't a welfare state to fall back on, and thus they will end up in real hardship while still earning more than those that are actually on or below the poverty line.

      1. ecofeco Silver badge

        Re: It's not inequality, it's poverty

        "The problem is that in most 1st world countries poverty isn't really poverty."

        You REALLY need to get out more often. It is only a minority of 1st world nations that don't have large pockets of 3rd world conditions somewhere within their borders these days.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Stop

          Re: It's not inequality, it's poverty

          "Third-world" conditions? That is an outright lie. Would you like some examples of countries in this world with actual third-world conditions? How about Sierra Leone, Malawi, Niger, Liberia, Bolivia, Colombia, Somalia... I would much rather prefer to be impoverished in the United States, living next to a dustbin, rather than dying of Ebola on a Liberian street, lying near the corpse of my own husband. You -- and I, as a matter of fact -- both have no right to lecture one another as if we have any understanding of what it's like to be impoverished and to truly live in "third world conditions".

  7. Bunbury

    Holier than thou?

    I looked through the link to see whether the congresswoman had actually done the sleeping rough for a night or lived for a week on food stamps. She may have done but I couldn't find that in the article. Not sure why a CEO would "do as I say not as I do". Though a number of American CEOs do seem to act to help needy people through philanthropy.

    It seems to be a common feature of capitalism that it increases average wealth but also results in wide disparities of wealth.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Holier than thou?

      Wide disparities of wealth? That's crony capitalism you're thinking of. There will always be disparities of wealth under any economic system -- capitalism and socialism included -- but disparities such as these are unprecedented.

  8. Amorous Cowherder
    Pint

    Don't know who said it but there was gent in the Victorian era who said, "The poor will always be with us.".

    No matter what you do and most of us try to do something, charity donations, helping out at shelters, etc, no matter how hard you try there will always be the "haves" and the "have nots". The best we can do as those with a little more than the "have nots", is to make sure we help as much as we are able to manage and do our best to ensure the help we do give is as effective as possible.

    1. disgruntled yank

      A long reign indeed

      I knew that QV had one of the longer reigns of European history, but not that it dated back to the 1st Century AD. Google gives Matthew 26:11 as the source of "the poor you will have with you always."

    2. Tom 13

      Re: gent in the Victorian era

      You're exceedingly late for that quote. It's actually Roman era and when King James did his translation I believe it came out as "The poor are with you always, I am only with you for a short time."

      The problem with the modern welfare state is that Adam Smith's invisible hand is an amoral bastage. The more money you are willing to spend on poverty, the more of it the hand generates. Poverty isn't done away with by charity donations or building shelters. That's only done by changing people's perspective on life. Which is a hard thing, a very very hard thing to do. And quite frankly, none of the usual whiners about income inequality are up to the job. So I really would rather they stuff it where the sun don't shine instead of getting all sanctimonious and insisting that government, at the point of a gun, imposes their morality on me and mine.

    3. ecofeco Silver badge

      It's not that there will always be poor, it's the number and the size of the gulf between the haves and have nots.

      Too many poor and governments get overthrown and not in a nice way. History is littered with examples, but it seems most of the wealthy need a refund on their history classes.

    4. Florida1920
      Headmaster

      Victorian???

      Don't know who said it but there was gent in the Victorian era who said, "The poor will always be with us."."The poor will always be with us.".

      "For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always." Matthew 14:7

  9. Sampler

    A night, a week?

    Yeah, that's going to help understand how it is to be poor, because at the end of your night in a shelter or your week on food stamps you know you're going back to the same old lifestyle.

    Being poor isn't about an uncomfortable nights sleep or a week of constricted diet, it's about daily, ongoing hopelessness. No hope of being able to better your situation as you're running to stand still, no hope of things turning around, not knowing if you can make the rent his month or end up in the gutter - when your mind is weighed with all these worries you don't have the capacity to get out there and resolve it, just sink lower as things get pricier (transport, heating, food, accommodation) whilst the pay cheque stays the same n(or even shrinks with overtime cutbacks).

    I've been there, it's horrifying, I was near to the point of wanting to end it all as I played sick so I could work from home as I didn't have enough money to fill the gas tank for the fifty mile drive to work, cruising the reduced food isle at the local discount supermarket so I could eat that day.

    I was lucky, I was helped out of it, I wouldn't have been able to do it myself, I'd've still been there, or maybe have finally gone through with the other option.

    Someone above wrote "When the rents go obscene, you should be buying/building new accomodation to get rich quick, not whine about income inequality." Sorry, but how fucking retarded are you, when someone can't afford fifty pence for a meal how the fuck are they supposed to invest in building new accommodation; when they're so tapped out taking loans to pay for travelling expenses who's going to give them a mortgage to buy property? Get your head out of your arse, I'm glad you've never had to be in such a position (evident by not understanding the problem) but don't try and lecture the choir when you know nothing.

    The system needs reviewing, minimum wages need to be exactly that, not below the minimum to comfortably live - but then that's never going to happen when the 'elite' who've never had to struggle a day in their life to keep their family warm and fed can wipe away evidence of them stealing from the public purse as they feel like it and think we're too stupid to catch up with them - each of them being paid more than most for a job they then claim everything back as an expense whilst also having lucrative 'deals' with lobbyists to further sell out their country.

    1. dv

      Re: A night, a week?

      I actually have had to be in a similar position for a good few years (my eyes are still watering at all the missed opportunities), and my arse is fine without my head in it, thank you. What I'd describe as retarded though is taking loans to fill up the tank for a 50 mile commute, and then not having 50 pences to afford something to eat.

      Also how does one "steal from the public purse", doing a job that someone is willing to pay for?

      1. ecofeco Silver badge

        Re: A night, a week?

        "Also how does one "steal from the public purse", doing a job that someone is willing to pay for?"

        Missed all those news article about failed million dollar projects that SOMEONE sure as hell got paid the lion's share for, did you?

        Some of them right here on El Reg!

        1. dv

          Re: A night, a week?

          Yeah.... nah. There's a tiny bit of difference between multi-million publicly funded failed projects (i.e. funded with the money TAKEN from you, over which you don't have any governance anymore) and employing someone to do something useful for you (i.e. entering a voluntary, mutually beneficial, two-sided contract).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A night, a week?

      I believe it was the eminent political philosopher Jarvis Cocker who said of poverty tourism:

      Smoke some fags and play some pool, pretend you never went to school.

      But still you'll never get it right

      'cos when you're laid in bed at night watching roaches climb the wall

      If you call your Dad he could stop it all.

      You'll never live like common people

      You'll never do what common people do

      You'll never fail like common people

      You'll never watch your life slide out of view, and dance and drink and screw

      Because there's nothing else to do.

  10. disgruntled yank

    Playground

    Recreation areas in the US often require reservations, and I think that the techies were not wholly at fault, though they were imprudent, in the matter of that dispute. I do think that the HR departments at Twuftlebnb might want to announce a policy of "Don't Be Evil in Tee Shirts Bearing the Company Name."

  11. Kernel

    It's very perplexing

    I've never really been able to understand why those who were at school with me and left at the minimum leaving age (15), with no qualifications, shouldn't, 45 years later, be in the same financial position as myself.

    Surely the 3 years of additional education and 42 years of on-the-job training, tertiary education and experience in my chosen field (not to mention at least another two weeks of classroom based training before the end of the year) have nothing to do with this obvious social injustice?

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Been there, done that, not a fan of being poor.

    People here talking of "income inequality" (Poverty) have never experienced it.

    I lived homeless under a plastic tarp on the government side of Vail Mountain for 6 months, bathed in an ice cold mountain stream and worked at Burger Thing for minimum wage back in the 70's. Rents in Vail at that time when I got like $2/hr, were over $1,200 a month. If it wasn't for company meals I would have starved. Thank God I had a sleeping bag and tarp.

    It's NOT recommended but the experience did one positive thing for me. I never wanted to have to do that again.

    So I resolved to go back to NY, go to school, got an education, got married, bought a house, had a family, etc. Being poor and independent paid for my education. Everything else just fell into line and I never looked back. I'd hate to lose all that now but I would survive. I developed FAITH in my own abilities. It wasn't luck, I chose well.

    Motivation or the lack thereof is a big part of staying poor, being spoon fed the bare minimum by social services only continues the problem and the lies. You have to do something drastic for yourself or you will be poor all your life. Relying on the government is not the solution.

    Crying how "The Man kept you down" all these years is not going to raise you out of the poverty cycle. The "Man" that is keeping you back, are the handouts that keep you from REALLY bettering yourself.

    You can only do that by the skin of your own intestinal fortitude!

    No one else is going to do it for you.

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: Been there, done that, not a fan of being poor.

      "Being poor and independent paid for my education."

      You are going to have to explain this one. Especially what decade, because these days, being poor means you do NOT get an education.

      "Everything else just fell into line and I never looked back."

      That's called "luck." But go ahead and think you did it all on your own. Most self righteous people do.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Been there, done that, not a fan of being poor. (ecofeco)

        It meant that I qualified for (AS WILL ALMOST ALL POOR PEOPLE HERE IF THEY ONLY TRY) to have my junior college education completely covered by grants. There was no "Luck", I did everything MYSELF.

        You just have to get up off your lazy ass and do it. That's NOT LUCK! It's gumption.

        You obviously didn't read the post, where I mentioned the 70's, you just (over) reacted.

        You must be one of those white guilt doofus' that blame everyone but themselves for their own shortcomings and feel everyone "owes" them a living.

        If you don't like what the world gave you, at least try to CHANGE it! If you convince yourself you can't do something, it will never get better.

        If you wish in one hand and shit in the other all you end up with is a handful of shit.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Been there, done that, not a fan of being poor.

        Oh, I'm sure you have plenty of experience with being below the poverty line, and even more knowledge about the life of this man. But go ahead and continue smearing anyone who disagrees with you, though -- I won't be so self-righteous as to call you out.

  13. ecofeco Silver badge

    A week?

    A week? One whole week? That's not experience, that's dilettante.

    I dare them to do this for a year. Hell even just a month.

    They can't and won't.

  14. Gray
    Devil

    America's reaffirmed Republican paradigm

    God has blessed our noble overlords with endless wealth. Screw the undeserving poor.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      Re: America's reaffirmed Republican paradigm

      Yep, it's always them evil, evil Republicans -- even as under the current progressive Democratic paradigms, 46.5 million U.S. citizens fall below the poverty line -- the highest recorded figure in U.S. Census history.

      Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

  15. Fluffy Bunny
    Holmes

    I know what this really means

    "Rich techbro CEOs told to SLEEP ROUGH before slamming the poor"

    What this really means is "You have money...and I want it"

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @DV.

    I already work two jobs, so don't have the free time to attend school nor look for a third. I drive a 12 year old car because I can't afford anything newer. I live in the aforementioned "Walk In Closet" because I paid out the nose to secure it, and now I don't dare leave it lest the manager find some trumped up charge to fuck me out of my not inconsiderable security deposit. In order to move I would need first & last month's rent, plus any security deposit the management of the new place requires, and given the already mentioned obscene rates, there's no way in hell I can come up with it. (Not if I want to eat, put gas in the car to make the commute, and continue to take my heart drugs that keep me alive). I have a Degree but it's essentially worthless, and given the unemployment rate in the area, I'd need a Ph.D. to compete against some of the others for worse jobs than I'm already working. Getting a better job would be nice, but given the competition FOR those jobs (*every* job), I'm lucky to have what I have & don't dare risk this boat by rocking it to reach for another. I'm not pointing a Marxist Finger, I'm Giving You The Finger. What that rich bastard CEO pays for his Ferrari impacts me because in order to pay for it, he decided to axe my wife's job. Now she's looking for work, and the CEO is complaining about the quality of the gold inlay of his cup holders. That otherwise rich person making ONLY a six figure salary around here isn't spending their money in ways that help the folks down around my end of the economic ladder, they're "investing" it in tax loopholes, offshore accounts, and business that maximize their profits by out sourcing everything they can to Third World Countries where they can pay some shmuck twenty-five cents a day to do what they'd otherwise have to pay folks like me "A Living Wage" to do. Would I do the job? Yes. For a quarter a day? No. The fact that the rich bastard pays a million a month for his penthouse apartment means all the *other* apartments in that complex will be equally expensive, all the way down to the "Walk In Closets" at the bottom. This happens thousands of times over, in thousands of locations through the area, until the rents *EVERYWHERE* are too fucking high. So your "fix" to buy land (in the SV or San Francisco area? BAH Hahahaha!) is so completely out of touch it's not even in this same plane of reality. Building a house is *NOT* "cheap", and ESPECIALLY not in an area where the land itself can run a million plus, the codes to build to cost a hundred grand to comply with, and you'd better have it built in six months or less or else the City/County will fine you for the "blight". So where, in my two jobs a day, car older than my son, now unemployed wife supporting, MBA owning & using as toilet paper for all the good it does me, "Living Wage" earning & *STILL* not making it, "lazy fucking ass" to improve my situation? Maybe kidnap a rich mother fucker, hold them for ransom, and pray the cops don't shoot me for being poor?

    *Urinates on you in disgust*

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: @DV. @AC

      The way you described it, you need to find a job somewhere else because you will never be able to get ahead where you are in the position you have.

      THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE. FACE IT.

      The predicament you are in will never change otherwise. MBA's are a dime a dozen in any metropolitan area, move somewhere more rural and your education might get better recognition.

      Your housing costs will be much lower as will most other costs. You may even find that you could get petter pay.

      IF YOU DON'T TRY, NOTHING WILL IMPROVE.

  17. Tom Maddox Silver badge
    Go

    SV problems

    The problem is not just one of income disparity (software engineers, CEOs, and other tech employees receiving orders of magnitude more income than workers in other fields), although that issue is significant, it's one of outflow. Because the Silicon Valley economy has so many highly-paid employees in tech and related fields (e.g., IP lawyers), prices for all goods rise. The well-to-do don't feel those price rises especially, but the people barely scraping by definitely do. Housing tops the list by a country mile, but the issue with housing is not just one of income disparity (demand), it's also a question of supply. San Francisco proper exists within a 49 square mile grid, and there's a limit to how much it even can be built up, to say nothing of all the issues caused by anti-growth crusaders. South of San Francisco, however, dwellers on the Peninsula and in the South Bay have made themselves a big part of the problem. From South San Francisco to San Jose, try finding more than a handful of residential buildings outside of downtown San Jose that are taller than three stories. Housing in and for the Valley has been artificially constrained by growth limits, while demand continues to grow, both in terms of population and income, meaning that there's no choice but for housing costs to spiral ever upward. It's all well and good to claim that someone should build more housing (and more housing is constantly being built), but the anti-growth laws on the books throughout the Bay Area are ruinous for the poor.

    If the tech CEOs really want to do something helpful, they can lean on the mayors and city councils throughout the Bay Area to remove growth limits and fund improved public transportation. Rather than contributing handouts, they can contribute political will and financial capital towards fixing the one dominant issue that makes the Bay Area so expensive. They can also pay their damn taxes.

  18. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    "This is going to help how? Looks like she doesn't understand what a CEO actually is. If the shareholders want to spend the dividends, why not? The CEO has no authority to drop cash onto the streets and I would like to see him removed if that ever occurred."

    It helps when the CEO (who after all, as Chief Executive Officer has *some* say) realize that poor are not "degenerates" (as one CEO is quoted saying in the article), and at least to some extent live a day (well, week) in their shoes and see how it is.

    I would say -- the food stamps would be the one to try out; the homeless shelter, if someone is a good sleeper they may show up, get in, and sleep; they'll see plenty of homeless up close but (if they are already uncompassionate to their plight) they may gain nothing from it. Telling them "You have x this week -- yes, all week -- to buy all your food. No, that's not just for you (unless of course the CEO is single, adjust amount of cash accordingly.) Yes, that means you will not be able to go to ANY restaurants; yes, that means you will not be able to get (insert posh groceries here). You want to have a little night cap and unwind? You cannot buy alcohol with foodstamps; you would not have enough anyway, and wouldn't have the money to spare for anything describable as a fine drinkable, sorry! Oh and don't cheat by going through leftovers!" And someone may want to remind them at the end, these people do not do this for a week, it is PERMANENT for them, unless they get out of poverty they NEVER get to eat out or get (insert fancy grocery).

  19. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    To expand...

    I know I just posted.. but to expand on this a little.

    First, I do want to point out, the CEOs are *not* the big problem causing wealth inequality. I saw an analysis recently, and it showed it was actually more like the top 0.1% rocketing away in wealth from everyone else, and these are mostly stock brokers (mainly the ones using Hight Frequency Trading to game the system and take a cut of almost every transaction) and bank executives, averaging $2 billion apiece. They're wealth is continuting to increase at the expense of everyone else, *including* the highly paid CEOs etc. That's not the point of this exercise I think...

    So anyway.. the statement "When the rents go obscene, you should be buying/building new accomodation to get rich quick, not whine about income inequality." is an EXCELLENT illustration of why some of these people should see how it is. You sound spectacularly out of touch. Realize, the various welfare programs are designed to keep someone below the poverty line AT the poverty line -- I'm not saying it's designed to keep them down, but it's not intended for them to have any extra money at the end of the month. Do you think any of these people can present a business plan, the bank will see they'll get that loan back and will loan the money out? Oh no -- if they ever run out of cash, they choices are basically not paying some bill, letting the late fee tack on, and hoping your power or whatever is not shut off; or payday loans, which will effectively charge you over 100% APR ($15 fee per $100 for a 1 month loan is typical -- this is 535% APR -- and no, you won't get anything back for early repayment, they may even try to charge you a penalty.)

  20. Grade%
    Alien

    They dreamt big in the old days.

    The glorious fifties and the expansion of the US economy is a tremendously fascinating time. It's evident that the inability of the present to formulate similar "real" plans like building an outlying megaplex tied to the metropolitan areas by high speed transportation links so that the blue collar workers can service the knowledge workers there is a symptom of corporate malaise and a desire to merely extract wealth at the lowest cost possible. To translate that: The social covenant that corporations should abide by is broken and needs to be reasserted.

    I would advocate the lash, for these CEOs unable to better see the humanity in their fellow brothers and sisters. THAT, I think might help.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like