Disclaimer: This essay is an analysis based on my experience as an observer and participant in the Yes on F and No on H campaigns, not a statement made in my capacity as a local leader in DSA SF or as a candidate for Steering Committee. I attended the strategy meeting where we endorsed F, but other than that, was not party to the organizing that DSA SF’s Electoral, Housing, and Justice committees did to make their campaigns successful; I hope I’m not too far off the mark. Also, as I’m writing this, the ballot tabulation in the race for mayor has London Breed about 1600 votes ahead of Mark Leno with only a few thousand left to count. Breed seems to be the mayor-in-waiting, though it’s not technically a lock and I wouldn’t be surprised by a recount effort if the margin is close at the end of things.
Even as the agonizing ballot-counting process continues in the San Francisco mayor’s race, the San Francisco Democratic Socialists of America had 2 big reasons to celebrate the outcomes of Tuesday’s primary election. Our chapter’s organizing efforts around props F and H resulted in two decisive victories that can serve as solid cornerstones of future organizing, and they show how our organization can effectively mobilize both offensively and defensively in elections. The circumstances surrounding the measures couldn’t possibly have been more different. Prop F – a civil right to counsel in eviction cases – was a measure that we had been powering since its inception at an endorsement meeting. Prop H – a campaign by the reactionary San Francisco Police Officers Association to deregulate their use of Tasers and limit oversight power by the civilian Police Commission – arrived after a contentious police commission meeting brought San Francisco’s years-long struggle against Tasers to a bitter end, and the DSA SF Justice committee took it upon itself to be the organizational home of the opposition.
Prop F was DSA SF’s first homegrown electoral campaign in its modern history, brought forward by veterans of Dean Preston’s 2016 supervisorial bid at an endorsement meeting late in 2017 (DSA SF member and local writer Chris Roberts recapped this well over at Jewish Currents.) It aimed to fulfill San Francisco’s long-empty promise of a civil right to counsel in evictions, proposed by then-Supervisor David Chiu in 2012. From signature-gathering (which culminated in a dramatic delivery of over 22,000 signatures to City Hall back in January) to months of lit-dropping, door-knocking, and phonebanking, DSA acted as home base for this measure, though we found allies in San Francisco’s broad constellation of tenants’ rights organizations, particularly the San Francisco’s Tenants Union. Passing civil right to counsel wasn’t a fight likely to attract much organized opposition, though we did see the SF Apartment Association and the Chronicle (lmao) were opposed. Our main goal was turnout; to give politically dormant renters (turnout in primaries skews towards older, less progressive, and home-owning voters) a compelling reason to vote – and for a ballot prop, which unaware voters are usually reticent to vote for, especially if it means new costs for the city.
Aided by the Mayor’s race brought on by the passing of Ed Lee, turnout we got. While the ballots are still being tallied, projections put our final turnout in SF at over 50%, which is usually unheard of except for presidential elections. We had to have a smart ground game to reach the voters we would need to put together 50% + 1, considering we had a pretty small budget and a staff of one. We had to be able to utilize the volunteer resources we got efficiently, build our capacity quickly, and hit every neighborhood in our list once, since we couldn’t manage more than one mobilization in a weekend. We were fortunate to have allies in San Francisco’s Anti-Displacement Coalition that helped us with literature distribution and outreach.
We built capacity quickly. Experienced lit-droppers and door-knockers became canvassing trainers. Phonebanks regularly filled our office space, and we did internal outreach while we phonebanked voters, making sure we’d have enough people to cover our turfs that weekend, which we almost always did. We drilled scripts into our heads, and tweaked and tweaked as we built a base we would target. In the closing days of the election, we were the targets of a big ad buy by the SF Apartment Association, including on grindr (lol); we were the beneficiaries, conversely, of a progressive unity rally aimed at pushing a slate of candidates and ballot measures across the finish line. (There was a rad door hanger that I cannot find a single photo of online that said “FREE LAWYER FOR ANY EVICTED TENANT BUT ONLY IF YOU VOTE”, which is pretty tight.) And on election night, we won a civil right to counsel for all evicted tenants in San Francisco, which is already inspiring lawmakers across the Bay – and across the country – to enshrine this right for all tenants, not just the most needy. We may have passed the most important tenant protection in San Francisco since rent control, and though the implementation remains to be seen, we have a powerful tool that the most vulnerable tenants in San Francisco – like in Midtown, the public housing community that District 5 supervisor London Breed refused to meet with regarding the proposed demolition of their homes – can use to make their case. The organizing opportunities are plentiful here, but we can and should be out talking to folks about their rental agreements in the coming months, helping people understand their new right. The network we built to pass F is a part of the burgeoning tenant movement in California and the nation. I can’t wait to see what we do with it – and for other cities to try it as well.
Prop H was a different story, but DSA’s work with the coalition that has been fighting the SFPOA’s decade-plus-long attempt to arm SFPD with Tasers – San Francisco is one of the last holdout departments of any large city to not have them – along with our PAC, campaigning apparatus, and firm stance against police militarization set DSA SF, and the Justice committee, specifically, to be the home of the No on H operation. “Fuck yes on F!” was appended with “Hell no on H!” and with financial backing from the ACLU, we started to funnel our resources into defeating the SFPOA at the ballot box.
The POA may have overplayed their hand pretty badly with prop H. The police commission had already voted to give them Tasers, fast-tracking the one Department of Justice recommended reform that gave them a new weapon and ignoring hundreds of others, but the POA decided they wanted more. They sought a downgrade in their use-of-force policy that would’ve allowed them to use these lethal weapons on verbally noncompliant people, and they would’ve required another ballot initiative or an 8/11 Board of Supervisors vote to modify it. They got a comically misleading ballot question and funneled hundreds of thousand dollars into the campaign, and many opponents feared the challenge was insurmountable, that the deference to police that is so widely felt even in contemporary liberal society would allow the POA to stroll away with this one. Fortunately, we were very wrong. If DSA SF lore is to be believed, the Justice committee looked this threat right in the eyes and saw that they had to kill this measure because it wasn’t clear who else would.
The defeat of H showed that the once-powerful POA may be starting to lose its grip on local politics. Years of scandal, continued violence and brutality, and a population beginning to distrust police more and more in the years since Ferguson and the rise of Black Lives Matter may have given them a more unfavorable playing field than they expected. The near-universal condemnation of local leaders in political circles, activist groups, and faith communities left the POA with few institutional allies outside of SF’s more reactionary spheres. That DSA SF is actively involved in projects that seek to disarm, demilitarize, and disengage the police – from No on H dating back to the early work we put into the Good Neighbor Guide to Sweeps – is the foundation for what are hopefully lasting alliances against police and policing, against jails and incarceration. In San Francisco, we have income inequality that rivals developing nations. The class divide here is scarcely better illustrated than by the violence that is required to sustain it; to brutalize and dispossess the poor and homeless, to act as a well-armed buffer between gentrifiers and the gentrified. We saw their vision of public safety – for the compliant, for the beneficiaries of the status quo – decisively beat. Between F and H, I think it’s fair to say that after only a year and a half on SF’s political scene, DSA is leaving a lasting impression and providing organizational capacity for politics that are inconceivable in San Francisco’s Democratic political machine except for at its leftmost fringe. It’s not an exaggeration to say that prop F changed the game for tenants, and it’s not speculation to say that prop H failing will save lives. It’s political vision like this that will provide solid ground for us to stand on as the opposition to that machine.
Which brings me to the Mayor’s race. If the current margin holds, then we see yet another example of the city voting in favor of progressive policy but not its most outspoken progressive politician (prop C, the universal child care initiative brought forward by Jane Kim and Norman Yee, seems likely to pass, but Jane will not win the Mayor’s race; this is reminiscent of the 2016 November election that sent Scott Wiener to the State Senate while the voters passed Kim’s prop W to make City College tuition-free for SF residents.) However, with San Francisco’s top-3 instant runoff voting being utilized to its fullest potential yet, we came devastatingly, heartbreakingly close to beating Ron Conway’s political machine – he made no effort to conceal his preference for who would be the next mayor. And we saw the line between the city’s moderate Democrats and its small population of Republicans blurred; while Republican Richie Greenberg managed only a few percent SF’s votes for Mayor, Breed seeking the endorsement of former Reagan cabinet member George Shultz and the lion’s share of tech’s political expenditures makes it clear which side she was on. Ranked-choice voting makes it possible to analyze voting blocs that are appearing around political poles in local politics, ones that exist both within and beyond the local Democratic hegemony. While I don’t think breaking from the Democratic party locally is feasible at the time, I think we’ll start to see a base that engages in electoral contests strategically. In fact, I imagine that Kim’s base, which has sent second- and third- choice votes to Mark Leno over London Breed around 70%-20%, is a key part of that base.
DSA’s work continues into the next election cycle with both the Our City Our Home ballot initiative, the Coalition on Homelessness’ ambitious attempt to house 4,000 of our homeless neighbors permanently, and our endorsement of Tony Kelly, an esteemed local environmental activist who nonetheless faces an uphill battle against developer-backed candidates for Supervisor in San Francisco’s District 10. Organizing the forces that expanded Right to Counsel and defeated the POA into a political pole that is more explicitly and vocally anticapitalist than even the progressive wing of the local Democratic party is an onerous task, but one that we’ll need to accomplish if we want to seek political power – within or without the Democrats. And if we can effectively build and maintain that pole, then by the time London Breed is up for reelection, there may be hope to break the alliance between the moderate Democratic machine and big business in San Francisco for good. The key question is what happens between now and then – 18 months will be up before we know it.
Among pundit media analysts, there is very little disagreement that proponents of throwing me in the fucking sea say a lot of things on the subject that are misleading or wrong, and there is very little chance of an angry mob wielding pitchforks and torches dragging me from my home and out to the storm-tossed coast of the Atlantic where they will leave me to fend against the fierce riptides, thundering waves, and bloodthirsty sharks, even if the left does somehow regain the full power of government. Instead, defenders of that position make a different argument: by taking extreme positions, they say, the left creates more political room for rational reforms to take hold.
Throwing me in the sea “solves precisely none of the problems that have foiled every attempt to dispose of a centrist critic of left-wing movements in the frigid seas in American history,” concedes Ezra Klein, “[b]ut it stands an excellent chance of getting the the country quite a lot closer to doing so.” Clio Chang argues it “open[s] the door for all kinds of gruesome demises of a reviled commentator whom nearly everyone agrees is out-of-touch, content with the status quo, and actively harmful to left-wing progress.” Jared Bernstein agrees: “For far too long, Democrats have way over-negotiated with themselves, starting debates where they wanted to end up, and getting confounded by compromise with a loudly protesting victim. The Chait-in-the-Sea plan is one of the few I’ve seen for a long while that sees the folly in this and takes strong, corrective action.”
It is possible that this is true. On the other hard, it’s possible it’s not. Ocean conditions are hard to predict, and the dark depths of the sea can conceal many mysteries. Defending the act of throwing me to my watery demise as a force for good, without considering my ability to swim back to shore, or survive until I am rescued, puts a lot of weight on these uncertainties while ignoring drawbacks that are more plainly obvious, such as whether this mob can successfully apprehend me at my home or office and march me to the coast.
There is broad agreement among progressives that the United States would be much better off if it had thrown me into the sea, or accomplished some similar feat, many decades ago. Instead, the political columnist class in America has slowly but surely consolidated its consensus around the status quo, as the financial unsustainability of independent journalism and debate in a media landscape dominated by vanishingly few and increasingly powerful media conglomerates created by unregulated capitalism has resulted in fewer and fewer outlets willing to take even a remotely radical stance against it.
Throwing me into the sea now does not address this problem. Nobody really claims that it does. Their alleged contribution is to refuse to acknowledge the problem at all. They assume an outsized effect on the ethical and judgmental landscape of the commentariat, and dismiss criticisms of their plan as a defensive stance taken by a comfortable punditry that, out of craven self-interest, would not like to be thrown in the sea. They tell a different, much simpler story than other critics of the so-called corporate media. In their minds, the only important question is the ability of the fierce currents of the Atlantic ocean to rend me limb from limb and cast me into the depths for eternity, and the only obstacle to progress is the continued relevance and deference of the media-consuming masses to our narrow consensus against being thrown into the sea. (They omit the commentating elite of their own wing, most of whom would not much like to be thrown into the sea themselves, I presume.)
This is helpful if you believe heavily in the “Overton window,” a theory of politics which holds that the main trick is to have your favored idea framed as the centrist option between “radical” alternatives on either side. By moving the window towards throwing me in the sea, my would-be assailants create space for practical alternatives, like the commentators of major news outlets feeling compelled to offer ideological support for potentially radical changes to the social compact every once in a while. Meanwhile, they energize the masses with a simple, clear reason to revolt and instigate chaos. “Throwing [Chait] into the sea is a good way to demonstrate the revolutionary potential of the working class, for the downtrodden of America to rise up against an elite that cannot understand their struggle in anything but the most abstract terms,” argues Chang.
Suppose it is true that the thought of me being cast into the sea will entice a significant number of fed-up readers into the streets, with the intent of making me an example for the rest of the pundit class to notice. What happens if I am able to return safely to shore, aided by a friendly current or observant fishing boat? Does the mob curse fate for thwarting their ritual sacrifice, or each other for failing to consider an infinite number of possible outcomes of their poorly-thought-out act of retribution? The left failed to consider this before the infamous tar-and-feathering of a Wall Street Journal opinion writer last summer, yet they seem unwilling to learn from that experience.
The theory also dismisses the possibility that the mob who assembles in the street to drag me into the sea opens itself up to the attack that they are merely content to cause havoc and destruction, regardless of outcome, targets and principles be damned. They attempt to deflect this vulnerability by doubling down on personal attacks (“Jonathan Chait retire b*tch” and “Chonathan Jait” are familiar phrases to me at this point) and turning up the volume. It will work if the mob can execute its fantasy without losing the faith of the less-radical masses, who may be skeptical of their means if not necessarily their aims. Far-right radicals often get away with this kind of gambit – but only because they benefit from a partisan right-wing media ecosystem. The mob currently growing in strength and number outside of my home must run the gauntlet of an independent news media unlikely to let them drag me out to sea without harsh recrimination, not to mention the police, who are hopefully going to arrive any minute now, as a brick has smashed through a window of my foyer and I can hear the chants getting closer.
Again, it might work. But the mechanism by which it would is fairly perverse. It assumes that incremental progress is be- hey! Stop! Let go of me! Put me down! What are you doing?
Editor’s note: After Mr. Chait sent us his piece, which he have reproduced in full, he was taken from his home by an angry mob and thrown into the Hudson river. He was rescued by the coast guard after waving down a nearby tugboat, and while the experience was traumatic for him, he suffered no serious physical injury and is expected to recover. In the meantime, we have agreed to let Mr. Chait take a leave of absence, where he plans to spend time upstate, far away from large bodies of salt water.
I recently published a polemic about Trumpcare (Rot In Piss) at the San Francisco Phoenix, DSA San Francisco’s online journal for leftist thought. It’s not an endorsed position, but it argues that the problems with the GOP’s health care plan, and the weaknesses of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, are problems with capitalism and that taking on the insurance industry head-on is the only way to provide decent care for everyone, based on human need. Give it a read (and read up on the rest of what DSA SF is up to!) at the Phoenix.
There’s a cynical aphorism floating around San Francisco’s tech and tech-adjacent circles, stating that the start-up economy, especially of late, is primarily a wealth transfer from Venture Capitalists to landlords and developers. There’s no denying that the industry’s high salaries and real-estate budgets, bankrolled by deep-pocketed venture capital firms, are a driving force behind the Bay Area’s multi-year rent boom. From the skyline down to the sidewalks, you can see the effects that booming industry, and the attendant redevelopment and displacement, have had.
All over the city, especially in the eastern neighborhoods – close to BART, Caltrain, the freeways – new modern buildings have gone up to meet the demands of professional-class renters, with high rents to match. It’s very visible in SoMa, from the skyscrapers in the east, by the Embarcadero and the Bay Bridge and the ballpark, through the west, where the freeways empty out into warehouses, some converted into modern-looking offices, and an unsubtle mix of old Victorians and mid-rise metal-framed condo buildings. All this construction, according to developers and their allies in government and public dialogue, is meant to relax the stress placed on the housing market caused by the boom. But does it? One recent case study suggests otherwise.
At the corner of 8th and Harrison streets, the brand-new LSeven luxury development1.LSeven looms large over the western SoMa landscape. It’s within walking distance of BART, Muni, and a growing number of tech offices in the neighborhood – Thumbtack, Atlassian, Airbnb, and many more call the neighborhood home – as well as the similarly redeveloping mid-Market corridor, home to Twitter and Uber and Dolby. But the tenants haven’t shown up – at least not in the numbers the developer was expecting. So what is a corporate landlord to do when their units won’t rent at the exorbitant rates they’re asking? Some of the luxury developments in the neighborhood have begun to offer move-in specials as demand has cooled slightly. But L7 has opted to take a different path – by converting their unrented units into high-rent SRO housing with the help of Homeshare.
In a scheme reported by San Francisco Magazine2.SF Magazine that sounds potentially at odds with housing law, Homies are asked to provide their age, gender, and sexual orientation to Homeshare, who then aims to match them with compatible roommates with whom to move into a unit in one of the properties Homeshare contracts with (the others are 340 Fremont, in Eastern SoMa, Potrero 1010 at the foot of Potrero Hill, and Artistry and Parc on Powell in Emeryville.) Homeshare overfills these units by placing dividers up, subdividing bedrooms or common space to generate a comparable rate per square foot of space. Is this the venerated market intervening? We’re told that luxury building is necessary to meet demand. Yet when the renters never show up, the house finds a way to get its money back.
As luxury housing continues to spring up around western SoMa, redevelopment continually threatens the remaining character of the neighborhood. The historic Stud, up the block from LSeven, will almost certainly have to relocate once their business-saving agreement is up3.SFist. The Folsom street corridor has seen a spate4.Triptych, SFist of restaurant5.Citizen’s Band and Pinkie’s, SFGate closings, and others still are still on life support 6.Brainwash, SFist. Ground has finally broken on a towering micro-studio development 7.Socketsite across Dore from the Powerhouse, at the heart of the Folsom Street Fairgrounds and last half-block of SoMa’s famed Miracle Mile. What will happen if those don’t rent8.I have a suggestion? It’s impossible to tell, but it seems that for corporate landlords, capitulating on their sky-high demands and disappointing their investors is the least preferable option – and they’ll leave neighbors, renters, and housing activists in the lurch without a second thought.
Corporate landlords are changing the rules of the game and making it impossible to keep up. There’s no one quick fix that will ‘solve’ the housing problem, but letting developers such as LSeven take over whole blocks of land and use them as test tubes for experiments in late capitalism cedes ground to developers that will take monstrous effort to regain. A vision of housing in San Francisco – or anywhere – must put the needs of people before the profits of developers. We the people should not accept ‘innovation’ that manages our expectations of what homes ought to look like downward, especially not in a time and place where there is at once so much wealth and so much need. And for the people that devote their professional and personal lives to keeping the edgy, queer, kinky heart of western SoMa beating – we ought to be working to fight the sad possibility that the only pair of Jeremy Novy’s iconic bootprints left in the neighborhood might be within LSeven itself 9.Broke-Ass Stuart.
On January 20th, 2017, Donald Trump – the physical embodiment of every fucked-up instinct, insecurity, and preoccupation of the American psyche – will be inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States of America. There is widespread fear that his administration, stacked with reactionaries and far-right demagogues and backed by a unified Republican congress, will be able to reverse every federal gain made in the realm of LGBT rights in the last 8 years. There is no hope, in the immediate future, of the patchwork of employment or housing laws that protect LGBTQ people completing itself and covering the country. No chance of a federal ban on the torture of queer youth. What is more likely – not guaranteed, because we cannot know these things, only make judgments based on what has already happened and is likely to continue – is a state-by-state assault on nondiscrimination ordinances, insidious ‘bathroom bills’ that are monstrous invasions of privacy targeting trans people, and the introduction of laws that turn the notion of religious freedom into a weapon that is, unsurprisingly, usually aimed at LGBTQ people. It is not a pleasant reality to consider.
But on January 20th, as in all uncertain times of protest and social upheaval, there is opportunity. An opportunity to show the onlookers around the globe what can happen when the people who dare to dream of a better world come together. There will be moments, on January 20th, when it feels like anything is possible. When the overwhelming presence of the crowds and the chants and the signs and the slogans transport and transform us, elevate us to a plane where we see not just the people in the crowd but the forces that brought us together and the power that is so very nearly in our grasp.
LGBTQ people, by and large, do not raise one another. Our relationships are usually not like those of our parents. Our coming-of-age stories are often marked by fear, deceit, and trauma, as we realize that the bodies we were given cannot fit the mold we were raised in no matter how we might try. But we have role models and influences. People who help us on our way. Breadcrumb trails, left by strangers, to whom we feel affinity nonetheless as we discover that our ideas about ourselves were not unique or wrong or shameful. Norms change, and the way society understands gender and sexuality does as well. But so long as there are people in the world living in places where nonconformity to those norms is punishable – by restricting access to bathrooms, or housing, or employment, or healthcare; by bullying, or harassment, or ostracizing; by institutionalization, or torture, or extortion, or death – it will be the responsibility of liberated LGBTQ people to fight like hell against those injustices and pass that hope on to a stranger who needs to know there is a better world out there.
So on January 20th, in these times and places when all things are possible, it is our duty to be the most transcendently queer versions of ourselves. Not just for one another – though certainly because it is how we come to know each other. Not just because projecting our self-image and identity gives us strength, though it is an individually empowering thing to do. Not just so we can look fierce for the news, though that certainly helps spread our truth. We come as our truest selves because our identities are a rebuttal to the social structures we overcame. We do it for the people everywhere, young and old, who need inspiration and guidance on their own path of discovery. We do it for the skeptics: the ones who question if we need a space in the revolution, as well as the ones who question if we need a revolution at all. We do it because any promise of a just future is incomplete unless we overcome – and ultimately overturn – the social barriers that force us to present half-selves in certain company.
On January 20th, if you are able, put on your best wig and marching heels and clean your leathers and put glitter on every damn thing and wear the clothes that makes you feel the most like you, whatever that means, and meet your neighbors in the street, and share your dreams with one another. So long as we have hope, it isn’t too late to start making them come true.
It is an insult to the activism that took part across the country as the epidemic spread. While Ronald Reagan was refusing to act on the crisis, fury and desperation were rampant. Suggesting that their legacy is one of compassion and not complicity erases the legacy of mass movements such as ACT UP, as well as countless local community clinics and organizations that tried to help the afflicted and combat the stigma that tore apart communities, many of which continue to do so today.
- Why was she talking about AIDS at Nancy Reagan’s funeral in the first place, if not to praise her?
- This piece doesn’t acknowledge the fact that the Reagans were not only not involved in starting the conversation, they were instrumental in silencing it. I will not hold my breath waiting for a condemnation.
- It’s probably not a good look to use your own gaffe as a chance to toot your own horn.
|1.||↑||Gawker: Hillary Clinton’s Reagan AIDS Revisionism Is Shocking, Insulting, and Utterly Inexplicable|
|4.||↑||Buzzfeed: Nancy Reagan Turned Down Rock Hudson’s Plea For Help Nine Weeks Before He Died|
|5.||↑||Mic: These Horrifying White House Transcripts Show How America Used to Think About AIDS|
|6.||↑||The Atlantic: Can States Protect LGBT Rights Without Compromising Religious Freedom?|
|7.||↑||Which is not over, especially not for gay men of color, especially in the South|
Much like they recently did with the drought, the New York Times has found a West coast phenomenon to report on in their piece1.New York Times about Soylent, the protein-powder meal replacement that’s gained a dedicated following (as well as venture funding) in the tech industry, and its ilk. Soylent is fine, if you are inclined to consume what I can only imagine can be described as “tasting like nothing, but worse”. I couldn’t see myself getting on a waitlist for that kind of thing, so spare me that assumption. The focus of the piece was not on Soylent itself – they covered that last year2.New York Times – but on the trend of Silicon Valley’s army of coders and entrepreneurs forgoing traditional meals for a tall glass of protein powder, in the interest of being more productive. While I read the article, my thoughts turned to the future, because Silicon Valley is where the future happens before you really want it to, and they went a couple of ways.
I read about my peers, the coders, who view their self-sacrifice as virtuous, and where their extreme ambition, by today’s standards, could fall in line with the other tech industry norms that would have been unheard of in a pre-dot-com world. Tech workers are not a monolith, but the way that we talk about ourselves (and are talked about) has a very real impact on the way we are understood as a demographic. We are rockstars, devil-may-care wizards of our craft with a rider of Red Bull and pizza on the company dime. We work hard and play hard, and are happy to follow up a month of crunch time with a big blowout party with our colleagues. We do what we love, motivated not just by the check that we live on but the mission we live for, an immaterial compensation that the visionaries at the helm have provided to us by merely existing. What isn’t part of that lexicon is an honest account of the competition, which is not wholly unlike that of every other economy; The Internship may have been a fun3.not that it was actually much fun: AV Club look inside the office-playgrounds at Amphitheatre Parkway or Hacker Way or Infinite Loop, but there’s nothing quite so endearing about tales of attrition and alienation at Amazon4.Gawker, constant crunch in the games industry5.Kotaku, a CEO publicly rescinding an offer to a candidate who asked for career advice online6.Discussion on Quora, offending comment deleted7.Screenshot by Rod Begbie (twitter), or a wage-theft lawsuit that involved a stacked cast of heavyweight corporations in the valley8.Pando. Is this what we’re racing to the bottom for?
This says a lot about the tech landscape, but what is also telling is the way it dictates life outside the confines of the office park as well. San Francisco seems to be mired in a game of whack-a-mole with startups trying to monetize its public parking9.SFGate, and they already settled their battle against private use of their transportation infrastructure by the shuttles for an absolute pittance10.San Francisco Examiner. City councils in Santa Clara County’s transit district have voted against improving a vital bus corridor, with Sunnyvale in particular citing the self-driving future as a reason to vote nay on restructuring traffic flows along the route11.StreetsBlog SF. Struggling public school systems are in competition with charters focused on computerized learning12.Hack Education13.Salon. How does a trend like Soylent fit into this future? As a time-saver for professionals, less hungry for a decent meal than a professional record that hopefully translates to a good deal more money down the line? As sustenance for those living an augmented existence, wired into google glass and entertainment and virtual reality, with their IDE running in the background, too attentive to their stats to focus on things that don’t have a game layer? As a budgetary measure for school lunches, or an industrial foodstuff for the masses to survive on while the upper crust dine on whatever artisan fruits and vegetables and locally-sourced meats14.Jacobin haven’t been ravaged by drought? It’s impossible to know, and industry-backed schemes don’t always succeed15.SFist, but they can have a habit of sticking around more than most people would want them to.
I read about my peers, and the various ways driven workers in all professional fields prove their devotion to their careers. Long hours and shitty dinners and an urge to follow up on email on vacation are certainly not unique to software engineers. Deadlines, release dates, presentations, and the occasional panicked phone call are facts of professional life. But the tech industry stands out with respect to the reverence it pays towards them. The basic facts of life are equalizers; you and your CEO may not have much in common, but you both need to eat, sleep, and get dressed every morning. It speaks volumes about the valley that disruptions to those functions seem to warrant more discussion about specifics than debate about whether or not they’re setting a new standard for work-life penetration.
The most basic commonality to all human experience – more universal than how we eat or sleep or put on pants in the morning – is our mortality. That we will all die on our journey is a truly terrifying fact, yet it is there, staring back coldly at us as we gaze toward all points on the horizon, no matter our station. Some people cope with this by dedicating their lives to service or sloth, some by chemically altering their consciousnesses to better reason with death or ignore it altogether, some by building personal monuments to opulence and comfort that are the envy of all or disavowing all manner of wealth and possession because they can’t take it with them, some by cowering in fear of it and some by provoking it, flirting with it, taunting it, seeing how close they can get to the abyss without destroying themselves. We traverse the mortal coil navigating between these various extremes, making choices big and small, guided by only our understanding of the consequences and the forces that bring them about. In the end, it is not my personal concern if a peer of mine eschews a burrito in favor of a vitamin-rich slurry so he or she can spend an extra five hours in a week dedicating service to someone else’s startup scheme. But as us two, me and this peer of mine, lie on otherwise parallel deathbeds, as they unplug us from whatever simulation – digital or analog – diverts us from our pain, and explain to us that despite their best efforts, the healthcare system does not have the means to keep our bodies in working order, that all the vital-sign monitoring and synthesized tissue and bespoke heart valves and futuristic procedures could not meaningfully extend our time on this earth, regardless of who’s paying for it all, as we consider the sacrifices we made to reach that end, I will have a few spare memories of al pastor meat leaking grease through foil or burning the roof of my mouth on a hot egg sandwich or every once in a while properly executing the alchemical rites to cooking a decent meal, and my peer will have memories of blending a nutritionally-sufficient powdered beverage in the interest of logging a few extra hours at a terminal. Neither decision is particularly important, and the richness of the human experience is a subjective thing, but I imagine my peer will wonder why he or she did that, and if it made any difference.
|1.||↑||New York Times|
|2.||↑||New York Times|
|3.||↑||not that it was actually much fun: AV Club|
|6.||↑||Discussion on Quora, offending comment deleted|
|7.||↑||Screenshot by Rod Begbie (twitter)|
|10.||↑||San Francisco Examiner|