Twitter and Salesforce CEOs Spat Over Who is Helping the Homeless More (theguardian.com)

The CEOs of two of the world's most prominent tech companies got into an online spat on Friday over who was doing the most to address homelessness. From a report: Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey were tweeting at each other about a proposed tax on high-earning San Francisco businesses. It would redirect millions of dollars to help thousands of people who live on the streets, including outside the headquarters of both companies. Benioff tweeted that he was in favor of the tax. Dorsey tweeted that he was not -- prompting a displeased response. "Hi Jack. Thanks for the feedback," Benioff quipped. "Which homeless programs in our city are you supporting? Can you tell me what Twitter and Square & you are in for & at what financial levels? How much have you given to heading home our $37M initiative to get every homeless child off the streets?"

Benioff was referring to an initiative he is spearheading for homeless families. In May he announced that he and his wife would match a $1.5m donation from his company's philanthropic arm. In a second tweet, he alleged that Dorsey had failed to contribute to the city's homeless programs, public hospitals and public schools, despite earning billions and receiving a tax break to relocate in a deprived part of town. Dorsey did not respond.

Comments

You know what would really help the homeless

[rsilvergun]

single payer healthcare with medical services and bringing back mental institutions. Also legalize drugs, all drugs, and treat hard drug addiction as a medical issue like they do in the Netherlands. Finally do a federal housing guarantee. Based on the number of vacant properties homelessness shouldn't exist.

Seriously folks, we know damn well what the solution to this problem is. Of couse, while doing the above works it would also cost a _hell_ of a lot more than the paltry sums being tossed around and wouldn't boost anybody's ego...

Citation needed

[rsilvergun]

the Netherlands is doing exactly what I proposed and doing just fine. Are they just wealthy than us? Better with money?

Also, as for Austerity, go ask Kansas how that's working out for them.

You're right about one thing, the rich will, given a chance, pit us against each other in a race to the bottom. That's why it has to be done at a national level. Europe realized that, and it's why they formed the EU. Britain's aristocracy also realized that, and it's why they spent a fortune getting their people to vote for Brexit.

Re:Is their help actually helping?

[ath1901]

Even better, do not "make homeless" people. But that requires lots of "socialist" stuff like free education, health care and mental care which many Americans object to.

It seems to be a universal phenomenon to focus more on helping those who are visibly in need than preventing the need to arise. Emergency aid for spectacular disasters can eclipse the everyday aid of providing education or sanitary facilities. The cost effectiveness of providing emergency aid instead of prevention is also not discussed enough.

The American version of this seem to be a bit stronger than elsewhere. Politicians can be celebrated for personally helping a sick/poor child while at the same time removing social safety nets and thus creating many more. In many other countries they would have been called hypocrites but in America it seems like they get away with it (yes, it is a very anecdotal statement). It seems like emotional stories are much more important than in many other parts of the world and your personal character is more judged by those stories than by your actions.

$37 million isn't much as you point out and helping homeless doesn't help much in the long run. Spending the same amount on improving education in poor areas or even a marketing campaign for more "socialist" policies would probably be a more cost effective choice.