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

Silicon Valley

[nickmalthus]

" I don't know about you people, but I don't wanna live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place better than we do." - Gavin Belson

Salesforce hates software

[Anonymous Coward]

if you write software you should hate salesforce, because they hate you.

Re:Salesforce hates software

[ConceptJunkie]

No kidding. I quit my last job rather than work with Salesforce (after the company was acquired). That was not something I wanted anything to do with.

Is their help actually helping?

[alvinrod]

It doesn't really matter how much money you throw at something if what you're doing with it doesn't actually help. Perhaps some of these private charities that they are donating to are doing something useful, but San Francisco's approach in general doesn't seem to be at all effective. They were just named the poop capital of the U.S. this last week.

Also, I generally think people that brag about charity are kind of asshole glory hounds. It's a good thing to do, but you don't need to tell everyone else how great you are, especially if it devolves into a public fight like this. Now they both look like jackasses even for all the good that they're doing.

Re:Is their help actually helping?

[djinn6]

Their approach is ineffective because most people are more concerned about "helping the homeless" rather than "making them not homeless".

$37 million sounds like a lot, but with SF housing prices it really doesn't go very far. Realistically the only way to give them homes is to ship them some place much cheaper.

As for those who stay despite being given free housing (because they like the freedom or whatever), simply enforce the laws against pooping in the streets and using drugs. Now put them under house arrest in the aforementioned free housing.

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.

Re:Is their help actually helping?

[Cederic]

Twitter may or may not have programmes. Salesforce very clearly see theirs as an act of virtue for which they demand praise.

I find that disappointing.

Re: Is their help actually helping?

[Dixie_Flatline]

It also requiresâ"and this may come as a surprise to some peopleâ"homes. And affordable ones at that. San Francisco can't be a small city masquerading as a big city any more. They have to build more places to live and stop paying attention to the small numbers of wealthy dopes keeping them from doing the re-zoning they need. They may also want to try getting the state to help them build affordable housing a la Singapore.

Re: Is their help actually helping?

[Type44Q]

I find that disappointing

But hopefully not surprising.

Re: Is their help actually helping?

[dryeo]

One problem is the market won't solve the affordable housing part. I'm outside Vancouver, which has similar problems. They're building like crazy, especially in the close by suburbs (Vancouver itself isn't that big). Unluckily what seems to be happening too much is the cheaper apartments and such getting torn down and replaced by expensive condos as that is where the profits are. There are a lot of people becoming homeless due to the shrinking number of affordable places and by homeless I don't mean the street people (and there's a lot of them too) but people living in their cars, couch surfing and such.
The new Provincial government is doing various things to help but there is a lot of inertia, developers want the maximum profits, same with landlords. There needs heavy subsidies, incentives and even pure government help and in some ways things seem hopeless as people want services but don't want to pay for them (or can't when most of their income goes to housing) and governments are going right.

Re:Is their help actually helping?

[DNS-and-BIND]

So, your argument is that Americans are horrible people. No wonder they're not getting on your bandwagon. With a platform like that, who wouldn't want to vote for you?

Re: Is their help actually helping?

[Dixie_Flatline]

Yeah, that's why I specifically pointed out that they might want to look into building developments like the ones in Singapore. I 100% agree that the affordability problem is impossible to tackle without the government.

Unfortunately for you, BC and Canadian federal politicians want to play both sides against the middle, and try to claim that they can improve affordability without anyone losing the value of their homes, which is obviously crazy. Low interest rates and the Conservatives' disastrous loosening of mortgage rules, with the CMHC underwriting banks so there's no risk to them have created the most pathological possible situation. The markets are hopelessly skewed and I have no idea how Vancouver or Toronto possibly coming out of it without a bunch of people going underwater.

Re:Is their help actually helping?

[ath1901]

That's just dumb. On AVERAGE, emotional stories SEEM to have more weight in the USA than many (but probably not all) countries. That doesn't make ALL Americans comparable to Hannibal Lecter. It doesn't even make the most gullible person in the entire country horrible. Just gullible.

Re:Is their help actually helping?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Way to punch down on vulnerable people. Comfort the comfortable, afflict the afflicted. Speak truth to the powerless?

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...

Re:You know what would really help the homeless

[AHuxley]

Some US cites and states try that transfer of wealth. They soon run of money and have to impose new taxes.
Anyone with wealth finds another state to move to that is more friendly to creating jobs.

Re: You know what would really help the homeless

[AHuxley]

Anyone with wealth invested who remains in that city then has to pay more tax and becomes less and less competitive.
The new larger city and state spending makes more demands on fewer people able to pay the needed tax.

Re: You know what would really help the homeless

[Highdude702]

Detroit?

Re:You know what would really help the homeless

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Of couse, while doing the above works it would also cost a _hell_ of a lot more than the paltry sums being tossed around

Treatment and government supplied housing is cheaper than capturing and imprisoning them. It actually saves money we can use for other good things.

I know this is silly but...

[ckatko]

...if there's ANYTHING we could encourage businesses to COMPETE and measure their virtual dicks by, it should be HELPING PEOPLE.

And not feel good "we trained people to stop being racist" with no scientific verified results. I mean REAL people being REALLY helped. Raw stats. Number of people given free /affordable homes. Number of people given jobs and highschool/college education. FREE MENTAL HEALTH for the homeless.

If anything we should be encouraging through "Slacktivsm" and outrage culture, it's actually demanding companies help the homeless with their billions in profits.

Re:I know this is silly but...

[ckatko]

Have... have you never heard of government housing?

Re:I know this is silly but...

[DNS-and-BIND]

But they're not helping people. San Francisco already devotes vast sums of money towards the problem and it just gets worse. More money isn't the solution. This is just virtue signalling.

Prominent?

[sexconker]

The CEOs of two of the world's most prominent tech companies

Twitter and Salesforce wouldn't be in my top 10 or 100 of "prominent" tech companies.
Hell, neither of them are really tech companies. They're a micro blog company and a service company. They just happen to use computers.

You may as well call Domino's a tech company because they have that Pizza Tracker thing on their site / app / Facebook.

Re:Prominent?

[Highdude702]

Salesforce does a lot more than you think. They are responsible for keeping a lot of companies protected from hackers, and their red team is hard to touch.

I don't see the "spat"

[93 Escort Wagon]

It sounds like it's all coming from Benioff's side, and Dorsey hasn't risen to the bait. So in what sense is this a "spat"?

Their seems to be two kinds of homeless

[bobstreo]

1) People who can't afford the prices of current housing.

2) People who wouldn't live anywhere provided to them due to mental health/substance abuse issues. Not that shelters are that much better than a cardboard box beneath an underpass.

You do not gain any credit if your tax dollars/philanthropic efforts close the local/state medical efforts to help the second category.

Talk/twitters are cheap. put your money where your mouth is.

Re:Their seems to be two kinds of homeless

[Anonymous Coward]

#1 is a very wide-spread problem, much more so than most people realize. Two very big factors that are fueling this are housing prices driven to insane heights by NIBMYs that don't want any low-cost housing near them, or in their city at all, and a minimum wage that has not been increased nearly as fast nor as much as the cost of living has increased. I remember quite well that in school (late late 60s to mid 70s) we were taught that people should spend one fourth of their income for housing. I recently read in another diary here that a person working full time at minimum wage could not afford to rent a two bedroom apartment. I don't know if that statement was true, nor how to prove or disprove it. My income is approximately equal to someone working 32 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, at $7.50 per hour. Here in the rural midwest we have pretty much the lowest cost of living in the nation. It took me 9 months to find a place that I can (barely) afford to live...a 440 square foot apartment. In this area there has been a shortage of affordable housing for many years...because all any developers want to build are "high end (eg. very expensive) condos and houses". Add the NIMBY factor to that and we have the situations that are happening all across our nation...people living in cars, trucks and campers because they can't afford even a small apartment though they have a jobs or jobs!

Re:Their seems to be two kinds of homeless

[pauljlucas]

3) People who were living paycheck to paycheck and had housing, but then lost their job and do not have in-demand skills to easily get another one and so become homeless.

4) People who through either never being taught or natural stupidity can not function as an adult in modern society and so can not do things like budget, set priorities, etc.

Re:Their seems to be two kinds of homeless

[dryeo]

3) could include working people who got evicted, through no fault of their own, usually the property getting developed into expensive housing, and can't find somewhere affordable. Where I am that is probably the number one driver of the invisible homeless.

Re:Here's a clue

[Vanyle]

Sounds like you are with Dorsey then. He doesn't want to have the added tax, doesn't give money to the homeless, but moved his HQ to the deprived part of town, thus giving more access to the work.

Re:San Francisco in general is helping the homeles

[AHuxley]

A person gets into a top US university. With loans. Maybe a full scholarship. Was it their parents wealth?
After years of study and all the money used to get a great education they graduate and find a great job.
Only to find their days are spent walking around waste and trash.

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: Citation needed

[MrMr]

Heavily as in 5% of GDP. Compared with the light dependance of 5.6% of the US. It's not the amount but where you spend it (much of the 5% was indeed spent on socialist hobbies, rather than on job creators like Enron) . BTW, the imported or homegrown rapists are generally not homeless, that makes it easier to find and prosecute them.

America also has enourmous natural gas

[rsilvergun]

reserves. And we have more farm land than anyone. And two weak neighbors we can push around. And I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but damn I'm sick of this right wing Rush Limbaugh bullshit showing up everywhere.

Re:By and large the only "help" that should be off

[melted]

That's what Oregon is doing to their homeless: offering a one-way trip to Seattle. :-)

Re:Fags

[ath1901]

Meanwhile Judge Kavanaugh is out there feeling the homeless.

FTFY

How are taxes going to help?

[guruevi]

If you gave 37M out of your own pocket directly to the "cause" and it didn't "fix" the problem, how would giving less through government agencies do?

The homeless problem in SF is a governance problem, not a financial issue, SF is one of the richest city governments in the world. The problem is thus not money but its policy.

Oh the irony....

[erp_consultant]

I suppose it never occurred to these internet fat cats like Benioff and Dorsey but the homeless condition in SF has been exasperated by people like them that have made tons of money and driven up the cost of housing to unaffordable levels. Their giant egos (evidenced by Benioff's need to tell everyone about how much he has done for charity) have created an arms race for the biggest house, swankiest office, you name it. All at the expense of everyday working people that can no longer afford to live there.

"In May he announced that he and his wife would match a $1.5m donation from his company's philanthropic arm." - Mighty white of you there, Marc. Based on a percentage of his net worth that is the equivalent of you or I donating about $100. A nice gesture to be sure but it's not really going to make much of a change. And let's not forget the tax break that the donation brings. A tax break that you and I - Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer - are footing the bill for. No, the real reason is to appear to be concerned while stroking his massive ego. If he really cared why not just give the money anonymously? Whether the donation actually helps the plight of these people is of little consequence.

Ego stroked - check. Photo opp - check. Opportunity to take a cheap shot at a competitor - check. Building political capital for future favors that benefit him personally - check.

Yes, it looks like everyone wins. Everyone except the homeless people.

Re:Here's a clue

[dryeo]

Is it jobs or is it jobs that pay a living wage? Where I am, there is about zero vacancy rates and lots of hidden homeless who are working full time, living in their cars, staying in someones garage, couch surfing etc. If you only make $80,000 a year and have to move, you're very likely to become homeless, at least for a while and even with a home, most of the income goes to housing.
There's lots of street people too, who don't work but when someone is working full time and can't afford rent, is it a lack of personal responsibility?

Ok, after that nonsesical word salad

[rsilvergun]

I feel compelled to post this

Seriously, are you some kind of Russian troll bot AI that just strings together crap that's meant to get a rise out of Americans?