Clueless Anti-Tech Activists

by W.F. Price on April 8, 2014

Commenter TFH posted a link about another anti-tech protest in San Francisco in which tech workers were blamed for the massive rent increases hitting a number of West Coast cities. The techie targeted in the latest protest is Kevin Rose, founder of Digg, who is accused of parasitism (by anarchists, no less).

According to a flyer, well-compensated young techies are “ravaging” San Francisco while service workers “suck their cocks, watch their kids, and mop their floors.” Maybe it’s true; I have no idea. From the looks of the protesters, however, the language seems rather imaginative. I also didn’t notice many tech workers with kids in tow when I was in town. In fact, there aren’t many kids at all in San Francisco.

But I’d like to address the idea that tech companies are responsible for the rent increases. I’ve been thinking about this issue a lot, because Seattle rents went up faster than anywhere else in the US last year, and because of that I’m going to move. Seattle, with its third-rate public transportation, traffic problems and costly parking just ain’t worth what they’re asking these days. My choices in Seattle are pretty constrained, the rent of a two-bedroom apartment having gone up on average about 90% over the last four years. Up north close to the border, on the other hand, I can rent a pretty nice one for about what a similar apartment would have cost in Seattle before the housing boom. And I don’t have to go so far to get my kids. Maybe I’ll come back someday, but there’s no point in sticking around if you’re just going to get ripped off.

I suppose I should be furious, like the anarchist girls in the link above, that I am being run out of my hometown. As a fourth-generation Seattlite, don’t I have a right to stay? Fortunately for me, I don’t really want to. I’ve wanted to get out for years, but stayed because of family; sometimes you have to do that if you have kids.

But whether or not the prospect of being forced out of a tech center bothers me, I’ve been paying attention to what’s going on, and I can say with some assurance that it isn’t the techies who caused this problem. Seattle has been a tech city to some degree for ages. Aerospace is high tech (Boeing), and then Microsoft came along in the 80s. Neither company had much of an effect on real estate, despite the fact that a bunch of billionaires were created in the area in the 90s, and a lot of people got paid a lot of money for their tech work. Amazon has even been around since the 90s, and although the company has hired thousands in Seattle recently, it doesn’t create anywhere near as much wealth as MS or Boeing.

Seattle’s housing was quite reasonably priced throughout the 90s, despite an enormous influx of tech wealth. What pushed up housing costs was the speculation of the housing bubble, and the rising rents are a result of speculation as well. The last housing bubble created an unholy alliance between city halls and real estate developers, and despite its deflation, this alliance remains in force. Today, big companies are once again pumping foreign money into real estate development in American urban centers. They have already bought legislation that gives them tax breaks and the right to build whatever they want, and they are partnering with banks that own foreclosed homes in an effort to corner the rental market. That corrupt Chinese officials are hiding their ill-gotten gains in American real estate, and have been doing so for years, is an open secret. Deutsche Bank is ramping up its real estate investment operations in the US, and California in particular. Surely the Dutch must be involved, too (would the Dutch ever pass up a chance to make a buck?).

It takes only a little effort to see what’s really going on, but these activists are aiming their guns at an innocent target. Why? Perhaps because there’s nothing they hate more than a successful male that they do not personally own.

{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }

Jeremy April 8, 2014 at 08:09

According to a flyer, well-compensated young techies are “ravaging” San Francisco while service workers “suck their cocks, watch their kids, and mop their floors.” Maybe it’s true; I have no idea.

Sounds like revenge of the nerds. Unfortunately, techies aren’t paid *that* much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
jose April 8, 2014 at 08:37

People who think that “Techies” are the reason why the rents are so high in Seattle are stupid! It takes more than people coming over to change and raise prices. Like you said its more about speculation of properties and the more money that is dumped there the higher the properties and rents become.

I live in the big Apple and believe me I’m over here paying over $1,500 a month in rent for an apt in an okay neighborhood and i’m a techie!lol

Still i think that Seattle is “Hot” now which is why banks and investors are bringing in so much money. The same thing is happening in NY even if you go out of the city like the Bronx you will not find a one bedroom apartment for less than $1,100 a month! Looking to pack up and get out as it has been too much to handle.

Great Post Mr.Price!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
continent April 8, 2014 at 09:31

The same thing is happening in politics. Money talks, BS walks.Editorial carton had the edifice of Supreme Court building with mutation.
PLUTOCRACY UNDER THE LAW
http://pagesix.com/2014/04/04/vegas-or-bust-for-republicans/?_ga=1.262928779.687764685.1396626315

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH April 8, 2014 at 10:31

Perhaps because there’s nothing they hate more than a successful male that they do not personally own.

That’s it right there. Note that their prominent signs call for his castration.

Now, on the subject of tech workers driving up real estate, the answer to rising prices, is to create new supply. Higher rents mean a bigger profit margin for construction companies, meaning the speed of the supply response will match the need for it, if the market were free. But NIMBY-driven zoning laws restrict new supply, especially in San Francisco, where new supply is resisted with great intensity.

Nonetheless, San Francisco has 26 new highrises (each over 25 stories) under construction. Protesters who hate this (given that construction work creates overwhelmingly male jobs) say this changes the ‘character’ of the city, but by that logic, demolishing existing skyscrapers and replacing them with single-family Victorian ‘painted ladies’ should be done.

On the Chinese, yes, they are buying up real estate everywhere. On the West Coast of the US for sure, but also in Australia (where I was over Christmas). I calculated that it would not take much (say, $200 Billion) for Chinese investors to buy up 20% of all Australian residential real estate. $200B is not much given how much money is being generated in China at present.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Jaego April 8, 2014 at 10:54

Nice sleuthing. And Anarchists are impossible to take seriously since they march with Communists – a complete denial of their own supposed belief system. They are always the first to get purged yet they never learn.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Justinian April 8, 2014 at 11:01

A trad-con alpha wrecks another man’s life:

Husband of woman McAllister kissed: ‘He has wrecked my life’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith April 8, 2014 at 12:40

Government policy (“affordable housing”, “smart growth”) is at fault for unaffordable housing, not techies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Brian April 8, 2014 at 13:00

San Francisco has high rents primarily because of awful government policies. Namely, rent control and restrictive local ordinances on building. Other regulations contribute to costs and I suspect parts of the building code are bad, but

This property manager explains San Francisco’s high rents pretty well:

http://www.gordonpropertymanagement.com/san-francisco-property-management-advice-why-are-rents-so-high-in-the-city/

I don’t know why rents in Seattle are skyrocketing. There’s no rent control in Washington State, but I don’t know about other local or state laws. If you want to know if rents are higher than they would otherwise be, you’d have to investigate the incentives for people to supply enough housing (from construction to renting out units) and whether government has meddled with them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
John Savage April 8, 2014 at 13:03

Ahhh… Have mercy on the little dearies. Feminism is about to go moribund and without something to protest the reason for existence in the life of an activist evaporates.

Protesting against phantoms is a hedge against idleness, ennui and a life of absurdity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Brian April 8, 2014 at 13:03

Whoops. Correction to finish the last sentence of paragraph 1 in my previous comment: …, but I think these are the biggest causes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price April 8, 2014 at 13:10

I don’t know why rents in Seattle are skyrocketing. There’s no rent control in Washington State, but I don’t know about other local or state laws. If you want to know if rents are higher than they would otherwise be, you’d have to investigate the incentives for people to supply enough housing (from construction to renting out units) and whether government has meddled with them.

-Brian

Part of it is that there are a lot of empty rooms in the city, but not a lot of empty units. Most of the homeowners are empty nesters or otherwise childless, and older, so you’ll have one or two old folks with a four bedroom house. Young people can’t afford to, or don’t want to, buy houses, which are a lot more expensive than they were in the 90s. So this created an apartment shortage. Combine this with zoning changes and tax incentives from the early 00s that encouraged either luxury apartments or so-called “microhousing,” and the situation is pretty dismal — this is why middle-of-the-road two-bedroom units have seen the highest price rise. Plus, most of the section eight compliant housing is set aside for recent immigrants rather than working Americans, so there’s precious little left over for young middle class families.

Add the international bankers to the mix, and you get a giant ripoff.

Troll King April 8, 2014 at 16:07

I saw that link and thought to myself…so what if the tech companies did leave.

I mean, really. What if they did? From what I understand California is basically bankrupt. They have more debt than some countries GDP. If the tech companies left, what would be left? I guess they would have some wine making business and some tourist attractions along with movie studios. But even on the movie side California doesn’t seem to be leading anymore. Some of the most popular shows and movies in recent years have been filmed in Georgia(The Hunger Games, The walking dead) and most other big shot movies are filmed in places like New Zealand or Europe depending on what type of scenery they need.

Maybe I am missing something but it seems to me that if the tech companies did leave it might would sink the economy even more which would just exacerbate the situation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Troll King April 8, 2014 at 16:24

Here you go Welmer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-sign-two-executive-orders-aimed-at-narrowing-gender-gap-in-wages/2014/04/07/3f0ce4a8-be74-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html

I know you have made the argument several times that feminism is on the decline and that it peaked in the 90s but I just don’t buy it. We have our first feminist president. Feminism has seeped so far into the culture that no one, outside of a few conservative commenters, even notices it anymore. Hell, leaving feminism and grrl power aside for a moment, basically anything that was taboo or fringe in the 90s is mainstream now. I remember watching Al Gores fat and frumpy wife Tipper go on and on about rap music and video game and Vchips and what not as a little boy. Today Ice T is a TV star on Law and Order and his Cop Killer lyrics, along with all the glamorized sex and violence and grrl power, would be nothing compared to what you can hear, or watch on tv(I just watched the new 300 movie and can you really claim something like that, or Spartacus or Game of Thrones, would have been allowed in the 90s??? Compared to today the 90s were downright conservative in many ways…), on the radio or download from ITunes.

Anyways, I just don’t believe that feminism peaked in the 90s or even 00s. Hell, I am not sure it has even peaked yet. TFH might talk about doubling down, and I think he has a point there, and the misandry bubble but I am still not convinced.

*Note*: I actually like sexualized and violent media. In fact, I would argue that the only reason all those concerned moms and liberal manginas and feminists went after the various types of media and got all those warning labels and nanny blockers was because men were having fun and enjoying themselves without having to ask permission from the nearest woman. God damn, women really are some fucking control freaks. They are like miniature Stalin’s that bleed once a month.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
TFH April 8, 2014 at 17:23

Trollking,

I know you have made the argument several times that feminism is on the decline and that it peaked in the 90s but I just don’t buy it. We have our first feminist president. Feminism has seeped so far into the culture that no one, outside of a few conservative commenters, even notices it anymore.

Peak misandry is the decade of 2010 to 2020. I said this on the first day of 2010, and still see nothing to convince me otherwise.

It is still ascendant, but the counter-forces (red-pill men) are also growing, and at a faster rate than ‘feminism’.

The absolute peak may be late in the decade, with a deflation by 2020.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Troll King April 8, 2014 at 18:17

TFH,

Im not really arguing with you there. It is absolutely amazing to me how fast the manosphere has grown in just the last couple of years. In many ways feminists are their own worst enemy. Manboobz and Anita Sarkeesian and SRS(shit reddit says) and the whole tumblr social justice sphere have done more to recruit men to the red pill than most bloggers.

Im just not convinced that feminism will fail or that power will shift. To me feminism seems to be largely an emergent evolutionary response due to the female herd instincts(collectivism and hypergamy) that comes about in societies once the basics of survival are met. It really shouldn’t be a surprise to most here that feminists are constantly harping on about expanding the social safety net, not matter what anyones politics are. The more that is given to women and provided through subsidies and redistribution the more power and control they have over society and probably their individual lives. It’s a strange irony that the most privileged and well taken care of group of women to ever live on this planet are also the ones who claim to be oppressed and bonded as second class citizens.

For the movers and shakers at the top of the economic and political and cultural systems feminism is too great of a draw. I really don’t see it reversing any time soon. Even if the culture changes, so what? We will still be left with all the laws implemented that suppress men. The more I think about it the more I think we will need some sort of major crash to really reverse course. Some claim that is around the corner. IDK.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
AskABoomer April 8, 2014 at 19:19

@Troll King

‘Anyways, I just don’t believe that feminism peaked in the 90s or even 00s.’

What you believe would depend on your age.If you’re a Boomer(The Greatest Generation®) or older, you have a completely different perspective on life. You’ve seen the beginning, middle and end of a lot of things first hand. Whenever something goes too far away from or against human nature it will be gone. Technology doesn’t have too much effect on human nature either. I’m sure that when telephones were invented that it was a big thing at the time. This idea about how the world is going to hell and how things were so much better in the ‘good old days” is nonsense and a delusion that a lot of people have(you know, the girls were better looking in my day, the beer tasted better, the food better and even the weather was better blah blah blah) People were not any more moral or honest in the past and life was in general a lot crappier but no one knew it because you only know your own era and it seems normal to you and what you’re accustomed to.
Crazy females have always been around and the media likes to show this 1% because let’s face it, ordinary news about what’s happening is pretty boring.People want to see the bizarre stuff as Barnum understood in the 1800′s.

I can remember watching Tipper and those bluestocking spinsters and feminists at those hearing and they had absolutely no effect on anything. Cable TV was still new at the time and they had no effect on that.
I talk to a lot of females and many of them are young and can tell you that in real life they are no different than they were 40 years ago.And yes, females have always been little tyrants trying to keep the men under control and to stop men from completely dominating them.
The 90′s were no different from today except that it was the beginning of the nanny police state which will also go the way of the dodo.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
AskABoomer April 8, 2014 at 19:38
chinesefootsoldier April 8, 2014 at 21:54

I’ve always wondered what kind of warped mentality leads left wing extremists to conclude that their broke asses somehow contribute more to humanity than entrepreneurs. The guy started Digg and invests in startups. You serve coffee, mop floors, and “suck their cocks”. Who’s the parasite here again?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire April 8, 2014 at 22:30

This link, I feel is quite appropriate here.

http://www.antifeministtech.info/2014/04/the-feminist-war-on-tech-startups/

Also a little thought exercise.

What is the relationship between the continuously expanded definition of autism and aspergers (to include many high functioning boys) and the recent feminist hubbub over ‘brogrammers’ and similar tech men?

hints:

-these conditions primarily affect males and are often characterized by lack of socialization combined with proficiencies in math, science, etc.

-the hubbub over ‘brogrammers’ appears to center around feminists being forced to share power in the workplace with these men that they can’t do without in order to make businesses run.
It would appear that it’s becoming clear to feminists that there’s a class of men (on the top end of the corporate ladder) whose talents they are unable to duplicate.

-mental illness classification seems like a pretty easy way to marginalize or strip rights from someone that you don’t like without requiring that they break the law first.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Julian O'Dea April 8, 2014 at 23:44

The women in this protest are simply jealous that they lack male minds and male organs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
cxj April 9, 2014 at 00:48

“Tech-workers on average earn four times the wages of a normal service worker. ”

Frankly, I’m outraged these worthless “anarchists” even make 25% of what a hard working tech nerd makes. The sense of entitlement these hipsters have is astronomical – why would you deserve to live in a highly desirable city?

Fucking special snowflakes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Troll King April 9, 2014 at 05:25

OT

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-to-introduce-australian-story-for-transgender-friend-cate-mcgregor-20140220-333×4.html

I don’t even know what to say. I guess this is coming to America soon. If it isn’t already here. I thought Australia was supposed to be somewhat manly, I didn’t know they were that feminized.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King April 9, 2014 at 06:41

OT.

I was lurking on the RooshV forums and found this:
http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-34885.html

I don’t know what I find creepier, that Yale interrogates thing women and threatens to expel them if they don’t pork up or what I read in this article linked in the forum:

http://yaleherald.com/featured/the-skinny-on-yale%E2%80%99s-preemptive-screening-for-anorexia/

To quote:
“Yale, by contrast, has lacked a physical education requirement in recent memory—despite its one-time promotion of the masculinized archetype, that of a strapping gentleman swathed in blue and unmistakable for his burliness. Further contributing to that ideal’s obsolescence were the 1969 introduction of coeducation and the 1990 passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In certain situations, though, the powers-that-be at Yale have taken an interest in its students’ physicality. From the ’40s through the ’70s, for instance, Yale and several of its peer institutions mandated that nude photographs be taken of all freshmen, supposedly to assess the prevalence of rickets and scoliosis in the student body.

No longer subject to what some took as eugenic gestures, this generation of Yalies visibly embodies a variety of dimensions and, by extension, disabilities. But unbeknownst to the majority of Yalies, their BMIs are calculated, in isolation, from the medical records they must submit prior to matriculation.”

WTF? o.O??? Yale and other top level institutions used to require incoming students to take naked selfies? Or more accurately, be photographed naked. I don’t know which is more disturbing, the eugenic element or the fact that they did this supposedly for medical reasons like Scoliosis. I mean, from what I understand doctors and even the military don’t do that…or not anymore. I wonder how many congressman and other top level people have nude pics stored in some archive at Yale? I tell you guys, the red pill has some interesting and weird stuff in it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
TFH April 9, 2014 at 08:44

Not to be outdone, the NYT has an article that openly says the productivity generated by tech startups is bad :

http://www.antifeministtech.info/2014/04/the-feminist-war-on-tech-startups/

See the commentary by PM/AFT, who correctly points out that women don’t like it that this productivity is being generated in a manner that they cannot easily control.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
continent April 9, 2014 at 11:42

The U.S. Supreme Court gives another victory for Plutocracy. Link
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ray Manta April 9, 2014 at 16:39

Troll King wrote:
To me feminism seems to be largely an emergent evolutionary response due to the female herd instincts(collectivism and hypergamy) that comes about in societies once the basics of survival are met.

Femenism can’t exist in societies that have strong male kinship networks. Nation states tend to suppress them in favor of rule of law.

The more that is given to women and provided through subsidies and redistribution the more power and control they have over society and probably their individual lives.

Wrong, technology did provide a temporary advantage for women. However forces are now working in the opposite direction.
1. Female sexuality. Was once a very scarce, inelastic resource. The emergence of full-immersion adult entertainment technologies will demote it to a dirt-cheap commodity. This will be an enormous blow in terms of power over men.

2. Male expertise. The greater complexity of technology is shifting in favor of men. This is directly in opposition with Maria Shriver’s notion of “a woman’s nation”. The anti-tech protest that occurred is just a symptom of what’s going on. You have women resentful of technically oriented men both because of their inability to compete (women have been declining in this sector for decades) and their inability to transfer resources from men to themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
QuidProQuo April 9, 2014 at 16:54

By the photo I only see 4 people (2 girls and their boyfriends?). Their rambling manifesto against Rose/Capitalism is predictably incoherent and absurd. All they want is 3 billion from Google. Why do I get this feeling that the author of the article created “Counterforce” with a few her friends so she had something to write about? This is a non-story.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire April 9, 2014 at 22:57

Ray Manta

“Feminism can’t exist in societies that have strong male kinship networks.”
————————-
Like what this guy’s advocating perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkxDEDEYOsU

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH April 10, 2014 at 00:08

Seconding Ray Manta’s paragraphs :

Wrong, technology did provide a temporary advantage for women. However forces are now working in the opposite direction.
1. Female sexuality. Was once a very scarce, inelastic resource. The emergence of full-immersion adult entertainment technologies will demote it to a dirt-cheap commodity. This will be an enormous blow in terms of power over men.

2. Male expertise. The greater complexity of technology is shifting in favor of men. This is directly in opposition with Maria Shriver’s notion of “a woman’s nation”. The anti-tech protest that occurred is just a symptom of what’s going on. You have women resentful of technically oriented men both because of their inability to compete (women have been declining in this sector for decades) and their inability to transfer resources from men to themselves.

All very true. And this is just the start, since now more and more money is going to be created in ways women don’t understand, and cannot easily figure out how to steal (which will drive them mad).

QuidProQuo,

Why do I get this feeling that the author of the article created “Counterforce” with a few her friends so she had something to write about? This is a non-story.

You might be right. After all, Kevin Rose is not among the 50 richest people in the Valley, and his big claim to fame was several years go. An odd target in 2014, particularly when Mark Zuckerberg has 100x the wealth. Kevin Rose is not even a C-level officer of a public company.

But it seems they are more interested in the ‘snip off your balls’ part.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Thos. April 10, 2014 at 05:53
johnsavage April 10, 2014 at 19:27

Welcome to the new and improved U.S. of A., the United States of Absurdity.

Even more sad, is that we are amongst the best of nations… (?) [cringe]

God help us all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ray Manta April 10, 2014 at 22:52

evilwhitemalempire wrote:

Like what this guy’s advocating perhaps?

I was specifically referring to extended family groups that trace their lineage through the male. Examples include La Cosa Nostra, Bedouin tribes, and the Hatfields and McCoys. Feminism can’t gain a foothold in those societies because networks of male relatives won’t throw each other under the bus in order to please women.

Jack Donovan appears to want to build small, self-sufficient communities held together by common goals and probably ethnic identity. I think that can work – unrelated men can and do come together to work as a team. Of course, they have to adopt the ethos ‘bros before hos’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: