> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Dan Minette
[snip]
> So, why am I cruel and elitist to suggest that others can make the same
> decision I did? I left my roots in the upper Midwest because it was the
> best way I knew to take care of my family. I was thrilled to be able to
> move from Houston to Madison CT. I still don't like living in Texas after
> all these years. So, when I say others can make the same tradeoff I did,
> how in the world can you consider it elitist?
You clearly understand how painful it is, yet still call for others to do
it.
> But, isn't California growing? Why build more stuff in your area where
> there is plenty of room elsewhere? As companies move, those employees can
> move to an area where the school teachers, restaurant workers, police
> officers, nurses, librarians have seen their standard of living improve.
> The teachers can move and teach in those schools. What in the
> world is wrong
> with that?
I thought it was self-evident that we need teachers, dry cleaners, police,
firefighters, etc., here. If they all leave, we're in big trouble.
> If you want to do some good in the world, start a
> company in an
> area that has improving conditions for poorer people. Otherwise, you are
> just perpetuating the problem, IMHO.
I have started companies here. And to survive, they have to be competitive,
which means paying people roughly what the competition does. The problem is
structural, which fundamentally cannot be solved by individual companies.
That is why Joint Valley Silicon Valley exists.
> Why not start a company in Madison Wisconsin. They have top notch people
> there, and there is affordable housing in the area. I know, my
> brother-in-law owns a house in a small town just west of there has a house
> for his family of four that cost him about 25k to buy and fix up about 10
> years ago. It isn't a mansion, but he can afford to own it on his job
> working for a building supply company.
That does not improve things for people who whose jobs are essential to the
local community.
>... but that the solution is for Silicon Valley to
> come to earth. Until it does, the sensible thing is to leave. If you
> really can start a company, start it someplace that still has
> decent prices,
> so you know your kids teachers are paid enough to live on.
We disagree deeply. I don't believe it is right to call for people to leave
a community that has problems. I believe in working to transform the
community. A large part of the reason I have remained on Plugged In's board
of directors is to argue against others who believe that Plugged In should
teach computer skills that will allow people to "escape" its crime, poverty
and other problems -- to move elsewhere. We remain committed to providing
technology resources to East Palo Alto to enable individuals and the
community to create new dreams and act on them. I think that's a large part
of why it has been successful. Communities don't take long to figure out
your goals; when they realize that you're not there to help make things
better, but to help individuals escape, perpetuate the community's
disconnection from the rest of society, your support erodes fast.
I'm working to improve the community I live in. I'm not accepting the
inequity and telling the disadvantaged to go away.
> No, what I described is not trickle down economics. My folks were very
> poor. My dad lived in an orphanage. My mom had to sell back yard
> vegetables from a wagon to get enough money for flour. Yet, they
> were able
> to raise us in comfortable surroundings. That works. If we can take in
> the poor of the world, and have their children be economically successful,
> then progress is being made.
Not if the result is enclaves of the rich and powerful where children and
marginal workers are forced to leave. That's the Grapes of Wrath, not a
just society. By the way, my parents were both teachers. My dad grew up in
a sharecropper's family in Appalachia and managed to get a Ph.D. from
Columbia. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with that, and it says a lot for
our system that it was even possible. But it would be wrong to tell
everyone in Appalachia to do the same, or everyone in East Palo Alto, or
everyone in the bottom 20 percent of income in Silicon Valley.
...
> OK, let me ask you some questions, because I cannot reconcile your numbers
> with your numbers.
>
> You said the cost of living has gone up 20% since 1993. Is that
> number low?
> Did you accidentally misquote it? If you did, no hard feelings, but it
> would help explain things.
No, that's what the report says.
> The average income for the bottom 20% has gone up 38% nationally.
> That's a
> lot more than 20%.
The comparable national number, from JVSV's report is 12 percent. I'm
wondering if you are quoting household income, which is what this report
covers. And I appreciate the fact that instead of making assumptions,
you're asking questions that might uncover why there's so much confusion
here.
> Has it gone up less where you live? If so, why aren't
> your teachers, firefighters, etc. getting the same raises
> obtained by there
> peers elsewhere in the nation. Also, if you look at the 2nd 20%, and the
> 3rd 20%, incomes have gone up 35% nationally. Why not in Silicon Valley?
> What's wrong there?
That is the question, isn't it, regardless of how one argues the statistics?
I don't think there's an easy answer. One could just say "greed," but that
would be unfair, since greed is an individual trait and this clearly is a
structural problem. Perhaps it could be interpreted as a lack of
self-confidence among low-income people, which leads them to fail to demand
appropriate wage increases. Or it is it a failure of labor unions.
I suppose there are many ways to describe it, but I believe the solutions
lie in the education of the minds and spirits of those at the bottom, a goal
that has many practical obstacles, such as child care, in the way of it.
And if one expects them to simply relocate, you've done nothing about it,
especially since those who leave will just be replaced by others with the
same issues.
The poor will always be among us, but that doesn't mean we should not feed
them, physically, mentally and spiritually. If they were slaves working
under a cruel dictator, then physical relocation might be appropriate path
to freedom. That should not be true here, now. The paths should lead
through schools, community centers, churches and so forth, not through the
desert and the Red Sea.
Nick
