> My problem is this: a lot of tech companies, based outside San Francisco go out of their way to make it easy for employees to live in SF and get to work outside of it.
This is not accurate, for two reasons.
First off: Many of the peninsula cities (where these tech companies are located) make it even harder to build housing, especially for immigrants. Most of the housing in cities like PA and MV are single family homes that cost upwards of seven figures. You can't even afford that on your average tech salary; the only reason the people living there can afford it is because they moved in before the prices rose so much.
The second, something I only learned recently, as of Sept 30th of this year, companies in the Bay Area with over 50 employees are legally required to either subsidize public transit for their employees, or provide their own (source: https://commuterbenefits.511.org/). Painting Google busses as "going out of their way to make it easy for employees to live in SF" is (at least as of last month) not accurate
>> "Painting Google busses as "going out of their way to make it easy for employees to live in SF" is (at least as of last month) not accurate"
Ok but as you allude to those buses have been going on much longer than the last month. Also - they aren't public transit. They're private transport. I don't know the specifics of that law but I don't think private transport provided by the company would count.
> Ok but as you allude to those buses have been going on much longer than the last month.
You're right. I did. Because they have. I don't know the details of any legislation that may have applied before the one that I linked. But I would like to highlight the irony of the voters (via the government) of California legally mandating that these busses be run (see Kalium's comment), even after they have become such a hot button issue.
It's no wonder that we have so many social problems we can't manage, when our voters and legislators act so schizophrenically.
In terms of "a lot of tech companies, based outside San Francisco go out of their way to make it easy for employees to live in SF and get to work outside of it", this argument could be applied verbatim to the government paying for freeways to allow cars to efficiently drive back and forth between cities. This argument could also be applied to people who commute in from the suburbs (look to the bay bridge; there is a metric ton of them) and 'take' high-paying jobs that could be given to the locals who can't afford the rent here. But it doesn't matter. Criticizing the commuter busses for allowing people to live somewhere other than they work is an unrealistic perspective that ignores reality. People will live where they want to and can live. People will work where they want to and can work. Neither of these facts are the busses faults
This is not accurate, for two reasons.
First off: Many of the peninsula cities (where these tech companies are located) make it even harder to build housing, especially for immigrants. Most of the housing in cities like PA and MV are single family homes that cost upwards of seven figures. You can't even afford that on your average tech salary; the only reason the people living there can afford it is because they moved in before the prices rose so much.
The second, something I only learned recently, as of Sept 30th of this year, companies in the Bay Area with over 50 employees are legally required to either subsidize public transit for their employees, or provide their own (source: https://commuterbenefits.511.org/). Painting Google busses as "going out of their way to make it easy for employees to live in SF" is (at least as of last month) not accurate