Slashdot Mirror
'I'll Make Their Life Miserable': Tech CEO Bullies Low-income Vendors By His Home (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes an article on The Guardian that has caused a spark on social media: A Silicon Valley tech CEO has sparked backlash for comments slamming local fruit vendors, saying he would "make their life miserable" and "destroy" their produce if they were stationed near his house -- making him the latest wealthy Californian entrepreneur to publicly rail against low-income people. Mark Woodward, CEO of software company Invoca, published -- and later deleted -- a Facebook post saying that he would have no qualms about aggressively harassing unauthorized fruit sellers in his neighborhood if they got near his home. "I would go out there and make their life miserable. I would do whatever it took to make them leave. If that meant destroying some of their produce, or standing out there with signs to chase everyone away, Or just making them very uncomfortable, I would do that in a heartbeat."
...Invoca is a software company based in Santa Barbara, California that develops a Software as a Service platform for marketers...
Yeah, so, to guy is pretty much an asshat anyway.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
So, are you saying that zoning laws are bad. Or are you saying that poor people can ignore them because they're poor? Can I, a-non-poor-but-not-rich-person, also ignore zoning and commerce laws at my discretion?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Should we pay attention to every rant? Even if it's a CEO of a company?
When I am ranting, I spew all kind of nonsense, threatening to exterminate all life on Earth, etc. Does it mean something beside the fact that I have a temper so hot that I can't restraint myself from public display of expressing it.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That's how rich I want to be." -- Rita Rudner
Apparently the bar for this level of wealth has been dropping significantly over the years.
Look, I fully agree with your generalization because as a normal person I don't have to be concerned with a public image. Once you are in the public spotlight the game changes, and everything you do will be scrutinized because at that level you sell your image. Celebrities, including CEOs are not smarter than other people. Sometimes quite the opposite, because they get caught up in their image and neglect the basics.
It's like the guy in SF who publicly wanted to be a "thought leader" and then starts bashing homeless people. I have no sympathy for that person, because their goal was to be a public voice. The contract for selling your soul for loads of cash and public spotlights is messy. The next guy should be a whole lot more careful about what they say, and read the contract.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
And when we have no home no job no doctor. We will just hang at your place and go head and call the cops the jail will give us room and board + a doctor.
There are already people doing pretty much the same thing because they've fallen off the ladder. It costs way more to keep them in jail rather than help them get back on their feet.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The problem is not two sided. We as a culture, would much rather ignore the problems of the poor than face them.
This argument "I don't want to see poor people" are Coded in a lot of different ways.
"Worried about property values", "Maintain community values", "Allow our children to safely play outside"...
But it really comes down to the fact that we don't want to see poor people. Because they can be scary because there isn't much for them to lose. And we may emotionally feel bad for them, and we don't want to feel bad.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"They mark only the latest example of a male tech CEO making aggressive, insensitive and tone-deaf remarks about people less fortunate than them."
Really? Do we have to throw gender into this?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Then you are just doing what he's doing, being a vigilante.
If he wanted the fruit vendors gone and they were truly unauthorized, then call the police on their non-emergency number. It's that simple. If the fruit vendor were authorized, then take it up with the city. Going there and destroy people's produce is destruction of property, which is vandalism or malicious mischief in California punishable by up to a year in prison.
You realize he doesn't mention the word "poor?" He's only ranting against an authorized vendor setting up and selling in front of someone's house? And his rant was "if that was my house...?" This is a hit piece on a wealthy white guy for being wealthy and white.... the article continues on about tech companies and income disparity - it's ridiculous. All this guy was saying was that he didn't want an unauthorized "farmers market" set up in front of his house. I live in a fairly cheap middle class neighborhood... and I wouldn't want that, either - no comment about the financial status of those involved, it's entirely meaningless.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
It costs way more to keep them in jail rather than help them get back on their feet.
Sure it would, and it could be done. But have you noticed that such things need to be a 'top-down' solution, but instead it seems like 'someone' keeps trying to force people closer to the bottom to solve it instead? It's almost like the rich want to keep reminding the rest of us that we shouldn't complain because it could be made much, much worse for us (e.g., we could be made to 'fall off the ladder', and end up jailed, in essence, for being jobless and homeless -- so you'd better keep your 'proper' place).
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Apparently, some people think that the first step towards being filthy rich is to treat people like garbage.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
And that's why when you hear anyone spout "responsibility" or "no more handouts", it's really code for "I'm rich, f**k you, lower my taxes".
Because welfare and other programs, yes, they are handouts, but they also try to keep people on the straight and narrow and try to help them stay on the right side of the law.
Cut them off, and they still need to eat - it's not like they're going to find a job because you cut them off (assuming they can hold a job). Instead of buying their food, they're just going to steal it. And steal everything else they need. Throw them in jail? Well, good for them.
It's just that while the rich lower their taxes by cutting them off, we end up paying for it still. The stores have to make up for the stolen goods, damaged stores, etc, so prices start rising in general. The poor get health care by ER, which is the most expensive health care around (seriously - if you could give them access to a doctor's clinic, you can save so much money - treatment by ER costs double to triple what a doctors office would charge), so we all pay in increased health care costs because they're using the most expensive form of health care we can provide. And then there's the whole justice thing - courts, police, jails, etc., taxes go up so we can house them. It costs over $100K per prisoner per year. And that doesn't even include intangible costs like the degradation of society.
Of course, the rich save because they don't live in areas that have to deal with these issues.
So it doesn't matter if you want to preach "responsibility" - you're not going to save money. Sure you save on your taxes, but you'll pay for it everywhere else. Sure it doesn't show up under a neat little line item, but that's just because it gets added up under a bunch of different other line items.
There are some issues here that may apply. Is the vendor blocking traffic? Some placements will generate traffic congestion. That makes the vendor non-harmless. Is the vendor on private property without permission? That's a bad idea all around, not so much because "hey someone is selling stuff" but because it sets a negative precedent about the right to control what one owns. Blocking the sidewalk? That's no good either. The sidewalk seems to me to be something you can reasonably share -- it's public property, which means the vendor has a stake in it as well -- but if you block the sidewalk, you've gone too far. I don't think it's too much to ask that a vendor arrange their business such that the sidewalk and the road both remain traversible without requiring detour or delay.
I'm no fan of licenses per se, I think they are counter-productive on almost every level I can think of other than as a means of extracting money from the business community (and often that's counter productive as well), but if you're selling food, cooked or otherwise, I *am* a fan of inspection. If you haven't passed a recent inspection for handling, storage, cleanliness and refrigeration / prep as would be considered reasonable practice for whatever it is you are selling, I'd prefer you weren't allowed to sell, and if I can't have that, I'd at LEAST like to know about it so I can avoid your enterprise. Likewise healthcare, sexual services, etc. You should have the right to conduct business, but that should be tempered with the responsibility to do so in a safe and sane manner that takes the health and welfare of your customers into account as much as possible.
IMHO, most communities go way, way, too far when it comes to who can do what, where. And they do this to create "sanitized" zones where the "undesirables" are prevented from sullying the space they consider to be theirs. I find that attitude generally despicable if the space is public. If the space is private, then it should be 100% up to the owner, not the community, how that space is used. You want to spend a zillion bucks on a big house? Fine. Guy next to you wants to put up a rusty old junker on blocks right next to the property line? Fine. You don't like it? Should have bought more property (and perhaps less house) so your tender little eyes wouldn't have to suffer the indignity of photons you don't like. Some high fences would help too.
Anyway. It seems to me that the high road almost inevitably consists of giving your fellow human beings some room to exist and hopefully exercise some opportunity to improve their lot. I'm really pretty tired of "me first" explanations for what amounts to casual maltreatment of others. I understand and agree with concerns about private property you own. Beyond the boundaries of your own property, my sympathies for complaints about actions of others that do not directly pick your pocket or break your leg drop off dramatically.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It costs way more to keep them in jail rather than help them get back on their feet.
Sure it would, and it could be done. But have you noticed that such things need to be a 'top-down' solution, but instead it seems like 'someone' keeps trying to force people closer to the bottom to solve it instead? It's almost like the rich want to keep reminding the rest of us that we shouldn't complain because it could be made much, much worse for us (e.g., we could be made to 'fall off the ladder', and end up jailed, in essence, for being jobless and homeless -- so you'd better keep your 'proper' place).
Yeah and there's a lot of lobbying dollars behind those privatised prisons too , we can't be interrupting their profits with progressive laws!!!
But still at the expense of the taxpayer
Yes, but the people who get the benefit are people who own things and so it's good solid American Capitalism(TM). We wouldn't want poor people to benefit from things funded by the taxpayer, that would be Evil Socialism(TM).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yeah, this guy is talking out his ass, but I'm pretty sure it's because he knows he'll never have to back his words up with actions. Seriously, where do you usually see fruit/ice cream carts? Here in the San Fernando Valley, it's usually around the lower income areas, such as manufacturing districts, public parks, cheaper housing. I've never seen a fruit cart in my lower middle class neighborhood, let alone the richy rich areas. I doubt the 1%ers anywhere would eat off one of those carts anyway, when they can just have their PA go down to Whole Foods and pick up a truck load of whatever. There's just not enough foot traffic or eager customers for the carts in these areas, so they simply have no incentive to be there. This guy is just inventing a scenario where he thinks he sounds tough and can rally his kind against the poors, but would most likely get his ass kicked if he started destroying someones livelyhood.
He is "Shit with feet".
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress
It is unfathomable to me that an electorate can't recognize the conflict of interest that exists if prisons have a profit motive. Americans are very good at marketing. Americans have for profit prisons. American has by far the highest per capita incarceration rate. Do the math.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Whaddyamean 'no'? So the working middle class, who the vast majority of which are just trying to make ends meet every month, are supposed to shoulder the burden of housing and feeding the homeless, instead of the 1% who have 99% of the wealth? Or did you just not understand what I meant by that?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
He's factoring them in at the appropriate level. I.e., negligible in the course of any sane discussion of public policy.
Now maybe you were jockeying for a 'funny' mod, and it's whoever modded you 'insightful' that's the idiot here, but I've grown to appreciate the full range of pseudo-libertarian pseudo-thought on here, and can imagine that you really think pointing to sadists will somehow justify prisons as a solution to poverty. "All lives matter" bro. Right on!.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Well, I've known some rich people; they aren't necessarily assholes.
The problem is that a rich asshole is still an asshole, and unlike an ordinary asshole he's got an enormous societal and political footprint.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm not saying what he's doing is right. But I'm also saying even if you are poor, you don't get a free pass to not follow the law. And if you think the law is incorrect, petition it to get it changed. Solve problems in a civil manner.
What shouldn't happen is bringing your own brand of justice outside of the law. That's anarchy and it's not really good for anyone.