<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>twblalock</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s not morally wrong to move to a city and purchase housing at a market rate. Nor is it the moral duty of any individual to provide or preserve affordable housing for his or her neighbors. That&amp;#x27;s the government&amp;#x27;s job.&lt;p&gt;The government (and the voters) of San Francisco has reacted very badly to the influx of new people, which is happening in the context of decades of poor zoning and housing policy.&lt;p&gt;I also don&amp;#x27;t buy the argument in the article you linked, because there are many other cities in the world that have successfully solved increased demand by building more housing. For example, the Tokyo metropolitan area has a population nearly the size of California&amp;#x27;s in a fairly small area but rent is cheaper than in San Francisco and it&amp;#x27;s more affordable for working-class people.</text><parent_chain><item><author>abalone</author><text>See the Prop C campaign (e.g. Marc Benioff) for more insight in this issue. SF tech didn’t invent homelessness but it has clearly exacerbated it, simply by generating a lot of demand for housing.&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, the tech industry generally tries to point the finger at lack of supply and blame NIMBYS for obstructing housing construction. But this can be seen as a defensive strategy: it’s pretty clear that a sudden, massive surge of high income earners into a constrained area in the top of a peninsula with weak tenant protections will push a lot of poorer people out of their housing.&lt;p&gt;It’s not only the fault of the city not to build housing fast enough. We’ve even seen “strange” effects in other boomtowns (Seattle) where building doesn’t solve the problem.[1]&lt;p&gt;It’s not that strange if you &lt;i&gt;truly&lt;/i&gt; understand economics 101. It contains the concept of price inelasticity, which one might see under boomtown conditions (insatiable demand for a necessity, essentially). But to even engage in a real economics discussion kind of misses the point. Mostly the tech industry wants to deflect blame for the problem.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;knock-la.com&amp;#x2F;seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-side-housing-advocates-5b4ca5ed6d02&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;knock-la.com&amp;#x2F;seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-si...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>komali2</author><text>&amp;gt;But when you go home after work, also be prepared to see the dystopia that your industry has created as a by-product.&lt;p&gt;Has this actually been concluded? That it is the &amp;quot;tech industry&amp;#x27;s fault?&amp;quot; Because I feel like I could fence off any claims as such by asking, &amp;quot;well, why didn&amp;#x27;t the government do anything about it?&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Based on my experience in multiple major metropolitan areas, the &amp;quot;tech industry&amp;quot; here in SF seems to be the most engaged in &amp;quot;doing something about it&amp;quot; than anywhere else. Is it because the problem is bigger? Maybe they&amp;#x27;re just better at marketing than the companies in other cities? Fair questions. Maybe.&lt;p&gt;I remember reading in the local papers when I lived in Mountain View that Google was going to assign some # of a new housing project they wanted to be low income housing - at my understanding, to be a total loss to them. They were going to build bridges, footpaths, and parks to &amp;quot;offset&amp;quot; the burden of the increased number of residents in Mountain View. I have seen similar from other companies.&lt;p&gt;In Houston, BP nuked the gulf of mexico and then fought &lt;i&gt;everyone&lt;/i&gt; over how &amp;quot;responsible&amp;quot; they are for it. Chevron donated some fossils to the Museum of Natural Science. I dunno, I just feel like people are being unduly critical of the tech industry in SF, as if some homeless people poop on the streets because rich engineers ride buses paid for by google. Why isn&amp;#x27;t there better public transit, so the buses aren&amp;#x27;t necessary? Why block the proliferation of scooters and bicycles, so people are far more motivated to take Lyft or Uber? Why aren&amp;#x27;t there more public, 24&amp;#x2F;7 restrooms? And why isn&amp;#x27;t the Oil industry taking more flack for turning Houston into a 75x75 mile square of choking freeways? Because poop is grosser? Grosser than runaway climate change? Poop happens in Houston, too.&lt;p&gt;I just feel like SF is a big giant target, the go-to punching bag, because Big Tech, and yet meanwhile Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Finance, Big Ag gets away with dramatically worse in cost and human suffering.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer</title><url>https://evertpot.com/a-look-back-at-sf/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>pm90</author><text>&amp;gt; simply by generating a lot of demand for housing.&lt;p&gt;Oh for fucks sake. You realize this is what happens when a city becomes successful right?&lt;p&gt;If you want to blame someone, its the NIMBYs: scuttling housing projects that would have eased the bubble and helped house a lot more people for reasonable prices, while benefiting from the economic successes of the companies and people moving in.</text><parent_chain><item><author>abalone</author><text>See the Prop C campaign (e.g. Marc Benioff) for more insight in this issue. SF tech didn’t invent homelessness but it has clearly exacerbated it, simply by generating a lot of demand for housing.&lt;p&gt;In a nutshell, the tech industry generally tries to point the finger at lack of supply and blame NIMBYS for obstructing housing construction. But this can be seen as a defensive strategy: it’s pretty clear that a sudden, massive surge of high income earners into a constrained area in the top of a peninsula with weak tenant protections will push a lot of poorer people out of their housing.&lt;p&gt;It’s not only the fault of the city not to build housing fast enough. We’ve even seen “strange” effects in other boomtowns (Seattle) where building doesn’t solve the problem.[1]&lt;p&gt;It’s not that strange if you &lt;i&gt;truly&lt;/i&gt; understand economics 101. It contains the concept of price inelasticity, which one might see under boomtown conditions (insatiable demand for a necessity, essentially). But to even engage in a real economics discussion kind of misses the point. Mostly the tech industry wants to deflect blame for the problem.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;knock-la.com&amp;#x2F;seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-side-housing-advocates-5b4ca5ed6d02&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;knock-la.com&amp;#x2F;seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-si...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>komali2</author><text>&amp;gt;But when you go home after work, also be prepared to see the dystopia that your industry has created as a by-product.&lt;p&gt;Has this actually been concluded? That it is the &amp;quot;tech industry&amp;#x27;s fault?&amp;quot; Because I feel like I could fence off any claims as such by asking, &amp;quot;well, why didn&amp;#x27;t the government do anything about it?&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Based on my experience in multiple major metropolitan areas, the &amp;quot;tech industry&amp;quot; here in SF seems to be the most engaged in &amp;quot;doing something about it&amp;quot; than anywhere else. Is it because the problem is bigger? Maybe they&amp;#x27;re just better at marketing than the companies in other cities? Fair questions. Maybe.&lt;p&gt;I remember reading in the local papers when I lived in Mountain View that Google was going to assign some # of a new housing project they wanted to be low income housing - at my understanding, to be a total loss to them. They were going to build bridges, footpaths, and parks to &amp;quot;offset&amp;quot; the burden of the increased number of residents in Mountain View. I have seen similar from other companies.&lt;p&gt;In Houston, BP nuked the gulf of mexico and then fought &lt;i&gt;everyone&lt;/i&gt; over how &amp;quot;responsible&amp;quot; they are for it. Chevron donated some fossils to the Museum of Natural Science. I dunno, I just feel like people are being unduly critical of the tech industry in SF, as if some homeless people poop on the streets because rich engineers ride buses paid for by google. Why isn&amp;#x27;t there better public transit, so the buses aren&amp;#x27;t necessary? Why block the proliferation of scooters and bicycles, so people are far more motivated to take Lyft or Uber? Why aren&amp;#x27;t there more public, 24&amp;#x2F;7 restrooms? And why isn&amp;#x27;t the Oil industry taking more flack for turning Houston into a 75x75 mile square of choking freeways? Because poop is grosser? Grosser than runaway climate change? Poop happens in Houston, too.&lt;p&gt;I just feel like SF is a big giant target, the go-to punching bag, because Big Tech, and yet meanwhile Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Finance, Big Ag gets away with dramatically worse in cost and human suffering.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>One Year in San Francisco as a Software Engineer</title><url>https://evertpot.com/a-look-back-at-sf/</url></story>