Slashdot Mirror
The Silicon Valley Paradox: One In Four People Are At Risk of Hunger (theguardian.com)
Zorro shares a report from The Guardian: One in four people in Silicon Valley are at risk of hunger, researchers at the Second Harvest food bank have found. Using hundreds of community interviews and data modeling, a new study suggests that 26.8% of the population -- almost 720,000 people -- qualify as "food insecure" based on risk factors such as missing meals, relying on food banks or food stamps, borrowing money for food, or neglecting bills and rent in order to buy groceries. Nearly a quarter are families with children. "We call it the Silicon Valley paradox," says Steve Brennan, the food bank's marketing director. "As the economy gets better we seem to be serving more people." Since the recession, Second Harvest has seen demand spike by 46%. The bank is at the center of the Silicon Valley boom -- both literally and figuratively. It sits just half a mile from Cisco's headquarters and counts Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg among its major donors. But the need it serves is exacerbated by this industry's wealth; as high-paying tech firms move in, the cost of living rises for everyone else.
The scale of the problem becomes apparent on a visit to Second Harvest, the only food bank serving Silicon Valley and one of the largest in the country. In any given month it provides meals for 257,000 people -- 66m pounds of food last year. Because poverty is often shrouded in shame, their clients' situations can come as a surprise. "Often we think of somebody visibly hungry, the traditional homeless person," Brennan said. "But this study is putting light on the non-traditional homeless: people living in their car or a garage, working people who have to choose between rent and food, people without access to a kitchen."
The scale of the problem becomes apparent on a visit to Second Harvest, the only food bank serving Silicon Valley and one of the largest in the country. In any given month it provides meals for 257,000 people -- 66m pounds of food last year. Because poverty is often shrouded in shame, their clients' situations can come as a surprise. "Often we think of somebody visibly hungry, the traditional homeless person," Brennan said. "But this study is putting light on the non-traditional homeless: people living in their car or a garage, working people who have to choose between rent and food, people without access to a kitchen."
I know it may come as a shock to you but a lot of people are skeptical when you come out of the woodwork on the eve of an election and make claims with forged or no proof of some illicit activity decades ago. Some people might not believe you. Imagine that.
Silicon Valley has some of the most draconian development regulations in the US (part of it is a field used for grazing cows). And when you can't develop, you can't build houses and apartments to build up the existing housing stock, and people end up living in cars and garages. Silicon Valley won't become exactly affordable, but at least people will have more places to live at lower rents and prices.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
"At risk of hunger" would suggest only that these people are living in poverty... that while not necessarily severely undernourished, they do not make enough each month to make ends meet, and that means they are not eating well.
Living in a cheaper neighborhood could save them a lot of money each month, but then they could easily end up paying more than whatever they save on the increased commute requirements that they create for themselves by doing so.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The vast majority of this is the fault of shit hole city planning and false liberals. Everything within a half hour drive of google or apple headquarters should be 20+ story buildings and largly would be if zoned appropriately. It's the "perserving" of the old communities that has created a completely unsustainable environment for working class people. Far to many "liberals" are happy to maintain backwards city planning that leaves the working class impoverished so they maintain their own property values and quaint downtowns at the expense of any type of livable environment for those who sell them their food.
I live in the Northbay of California (an hourish drive from SF) and we're experiencing the same thing up here (to a lesser degree of course). Tons of "liberals" who demonstratably don't give a rats ass about anyone earning less than 50k.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Itâ(TM)s not a liberal thing, itâ(TM)s a rich thing. People who are rich tend to want to stay rich and tend to want other rich people to be their neighbors.
Taxes don't matter because the money goes to government worker pensions.
Pensions don't build or repair roads.
Pensions don't teach schoolchildren.
Pensions don't put out fires.
Pensions don't solve crimes or keep the peace.
Pensions don't feed the poor or provide for the needy.
Pensions don't keep the air and water clean.
They do feed the poor. What do you think retired civil servants will be if they don't have pensions? Many of them worked below-market-wage jobs for decades, which means they won't have nearly as much saved up for retirement as their private sector peers. Compound interest means even a small difference in income adds up to a huge difference in the size of the retirement fund.
Not to mention what a dick move it would be to promise pensions then take it away when it's inconvenient.
It means your income to mandatory expenditure ratio is so bad that a single event can leave you unable to afford food. Car breaks down, you get ill etc.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You help build a city and then you are forced to leave? It doesnâ(TM)t seem right a society that does or allows that. We should be finding ways to help our neighbors not ways to get rid of them.
Ah yes, the USA, the richest country in the world. That Janitor should just live 40 miles from his job, bike to work, and live off lentils and splitpeas.
I'm not saying we should give everything to everyone for nothing, but when you have 0.01% of the population with as much wealth as the bottom 90%, placing the problem at the feet of our poorest citizens seems to be missing the mark.
Maybe, just maybe, there is a runaway problem with the way our system is currently setup that is allowing the richest of the rich to consolidate large amounts of wealth, damaging an otherwise healthy market economy. I'm sure that top weighted market is infinitely sustainable, we certainly don't need a strong middle class to drive our economy. And obviously those poor people are lazy and entitled. They have plenty of beans to eat. Ungrateful beggars.
What percentage of them are running around with a smart phone? The cheapest data plan per month will buy a sack of flour, a bag of sugar, and some beans. You can live on that. I have to believe some of this is a matter of priorities
This is 2017, you need a phone to work. Especially in a techie wonderland like San Francisco. So no, the phone isn't optional. Also, we're talking about people living in cars and garages without stoves/refrigerators, wtf good is a sack of flour and some beans going to do them?
First question on USDA questionaire:
Which of these statements best describes the food eaten in your household in the last 12
months: —enough of the kinds of food (I/we) want to eat; —enough, but not always the
kinds of food (I/we) want; —sometimes not enough to eat; or, —often not enough to eat?
[1] Enough of the kinds of food we want to eat
[2] Enough but not always the kinds of food we want
[3] Sometimes not enough to eat
[4] Often not enough to eat
[ ] DK or Refused
Most of the questions that follow include some sort of "because there wasn't enough money for food?" or " but you just couldn't afford more food?"
Of course, the questionnaire never questions WHY there wasn't enough money for food, so it is impossible to distinguish the "deserving poor" from the meth addicts who blew all their money on meth. Or for that matter, from people who simply spend some portion of their income on cigarettes, beer, tattoos, TVs, lottery tickets...people who could afford food for their families if they made food a priority over minor vices and entertainment.
They only build there because they have to. America is big and lots of it is sparsely populated. You should build new cities in better locations.
The San Francisco Bay Area is absolutely beautiful, though not what it was 20-30 years ago (imho). The weather is rarely too hot, or too cold. You almost never see anything close to a tornado, and definitely do not find hurricanes in that cold pacific water. The skies are blue, it rarely rains during the times of year that people want to be outside enjoying life. There is practically no humidity to deal with. It is one of the most beautiful and ideal places to live on the planet. No amount of government intervention would prevent people from wanting to live there. The only thing that could make that happen is for some sort of change upon the landscape that made habitation impossible.