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

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?

[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?

[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.

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...

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.

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.

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.