It's about half past five and the line at the homeless shelter is already stretched around the building. Hundreds of people line up, waiting for hours with a chance they won't even be served. With a quick glance, many have the appearance of being out on the streets for quite some time. Looking more closely, a man can be seen wearing a button-up shirt and tie. He is the manager of a call center in the Bay Area of California, and earns about $50,000 a year. He is in poverty. This is not a real scenario, but there are many like it that prove to be true. With wages that would normally provide a sufficient livelihood somewhere else, those same wages do not provide enough to sustain a suitable lifestyle with the growing tech scene in Silicon Valley. Many have begun to question the moral compass of the Bay Area community: "Should the man be forced to leave his home in hopes of finding a better life else-where, or should measures be taken to prevent the forced relocation of those not involved in the tech scene?" The right argues that the rising standard of living is just basic economic principals and there should not be any government interference as it is not their job to tailor local economies to certain individuals. The left disagrees and says that someone should not be forced out of their home simply because they have a passion for something other than computers. They believe the government should step in and provide aid that allows working citizens to maintain their standard of living. This is a very complex issue to deal with when large companies are essentially being asked to "slow-down" innovation. Many citizens living in poverty have lived in the Bay Area long before the likes of Google and Facebook. The entrepreneurial spirit and innovative ideology was born with the parents and grandparents of these people. Without them laying the foundation, Silicon Valley would have never become what it is today. It is because of this reason that working class people in these areas need to be well supported and taken care of. If given the ability to succeed, many will take advantage and improve the Bay Area as a whole.

With the quickly changing tech industry, the job market tends to fluctuate without notice. One of the worst time periods for job-seekers in the industry was in the early 2000's. Numerous companies in Silicon Valley were experiencing disappointingly low or negative profit margins. Paul Andrews goes on to explain in his article "California Dreaming" the effects a declining market can have on the community.  Sun Microsystems, the company responsible for creating the java programming language and UNIX operating system (two very big inventions in the evolution of computer science) announced 4,400 layoffs during this time. Apple, the most prominent tech company today in 2016 reported a loss in earnings for the first time in two years back in 2002 (Andrews 1). After these layoffs many of the former employees have nowhere to go. While they were once making a six-figure salary, they are now struggling to find a job or get by on part-time work. In 1999, 34% of the estimated 20,000 homeless people in Santa Clara County had full-time jobs (Nieves 1). Karen Davis mentions a man named John in the beginning of her article "Educated, Tech Savvy and Homeless." She states: "John Sacrosante, who once earned more than $100,000 a year as a free-lance database engineer, spent his 39th birthday last week with the "brothers" he's met at the church shelter where he has been living (Davis 1)." John is a more than familiar case in Silicon Valley. Many professionals in the tech industry face a large amount of risk when it comes to job stability. 

With such a unique line of work there may not be a job for a computer professional at the moment, but it is likely something could open later. This hope drives many who were laid-off to stay in Silicon Valley and work menial jobs until they can get back in the tech scene. One issue that arises however is the fact that most are overqualified and are not desirable hires because they could leave at any moment for a better opportunity. Even if they are able to get hired and are working, they are accustomed to making three to four times the amount they will be earning with their new job. With the price of living already being expensive in the Bay Area with an average rental rate of $3396/month, sustaining their current lifestyle will be nearly impossible (Swartz 1). Their diminished wages will eventually lead to the loss of assets and way of life if they are not able to find work in their field. This is proven by the fact that for the last quarter of 2002 foreclosures jumped twenty percent in Silicon Valley when the industry took a turn south (Andrews 1). This is not surprising when the median price of a house is $410,000, which is more than twice the national average (Goodell 1). These unfortunate events can spiral out of control and cause issues beyond economic turmoil. 

 Their crisis might start with their job but eventually leads them down a dark road. The emotional and physical consequences are something that Eve Meyer, director of the San Francisco Suicide Prevention Crisis Line explains: "They lose their car, and they can stand it,' said Meyer. "Then they lose their house, and that's bad. Then they may lose their family. That's when you get into substance abuse. A year may have gone by the time they call us (Davis 1)." While the effects are apparent, progress for improvement is slow. Many foundations claim to be making a difference, but the results say otherwise. One such foundation is the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. With a primary focus on the Bay Area community, they also provide support internationally. Relations with the local community have become tense in the past due to the dissatisfaction of a poorly executed budget. In "Bay Area Foundation Criticized for Not Doing More For Area's Poor" by Doug Donovan, Donovan states: "While the foundation awarded 54 percent of its total grants last year, or $197-million, to groups in the Bay Area, another 45 percent, or $170-million, went to charities in other parts of California, across the United States, and around the world (Donovan 1)." Although $197-million may appear to be a lot of money, an almost identical amount is going outside the community. This can be quite alarming when 93% of homeless population sleeps outside or in their cars (Potts 1). The Silicon Valley Community Foundation hasn't been living up to its duty to serve Silicon Valley. They must refocus their spending and focus on the community that inspired the foundation in the first place. Once the issues are taken care of there then they should look to expanding their outreach.

The Silicon Valley Community Foundation's naive spending is unfortunate, but not surprising. Many involved in the tech scene are oblivious to what is taking place so close to their office buildings. The companies have made it possible to avoid most contact with those on the streets by providing their own private bus systems. With the little contact they do have, many in the tech scene see the poor and homeless as a nuisance that should go away. They do not make the connection that they are a contributor to the circumstances of those on the streets. Balaji Srinivasan, cofounder of a genetics start-up called Counsyl gave a speech at one of Silicon Valley's most prominent technology incubators (Y-Combinator) in 2013. It was during that speech that Srinivasan essentially called for the creation of separate society run entirely by techies in Silicon Valley (Teschler 1). Based off the idea that there is too much hindrance from the outside world, Silicon Valley would do much better on its own. 

The ideology that the techies in Silicon Valley are "better" than your average citizen is not an isolated one. Many share the same feelings that Srinivasan expressed in his speech. Earlier this year, a software developer in San Francisco named Justin Keller published an open letter on his blog titled "Open letter to SF Mayor Ed Lee and Greg Suhr (police chief)." There are many parts in this letter that could be considered ignorant and insensitive. Keller clearly lacks a sense of empathy, and instead of caring for those less fortunate he would rather them disappear. He starts his letter off with the statement: "I am writing today, to voice my concern and outrage over the increasing homeless and drug problem that the city is faced with (Keller 1)." Here Keller addresses them as "a problem." This can be a very troubling attitude to have because by saying they personally cause the problem the blame is being shifted to the homeless versus the real cause, which is the companies. He goes on to explain how him and his parents were "harassed" by homeless people begging for food, and sleeping on the street while they were visiting. Keller views the situation of those less fortunate as a lifestyle that they choose. As he states near the end of his rant: "The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in the city. They went out, got an education, work hard, and earned it. I shouldn't have to worry about being accosted. I shouldn't have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day (Keller 1)." Keller believes that because he worked hard he deserves to live in the city or is "entitled", failing to realize that many who work just hard are not as fortunate. 

Mia Birdsong argues in contrast to the beliefs of Keller during her TED Talk "The Story We Tell About Poverty Isn't True." In this talk Birdsong tells a few stories of those living in poverty and showcases their innovativeness to overcome these issues. She first mentions a group of mothers in Silicon Valley who started a small cleaning service to get by. With their husbands working during the day, they alternate watching the kids while the others clean (Birdsong). This provides supplemental income for necessities, which can be hard to come by when raising a child. The next story she tells is about a woman who's daughter started to have trouble in school. She was acting out, performing poorly, and had to repeat second grade. Through talking to another mother whose daughter faced similar issues, she was able to start a support group for mothers that meet once a month. Her daughter is now performing much better. The last story she tells is of a man who runs a small cafe. Aside from serving food, this cafe also provides a place for students to do their work after school, plan community events, and teach fascinating things. The point of telling these stories is to show the ingenuity that the poor and homeless possess. How could people with such great qualities end up in such a bad situation? Birdsong goes on to explain how she grew up poor, but was able to get where she is today. She states that: "I am the exception because of luck and privilege, not hard work ...  (Birdsong)." Here Birdsong acknowledges that hard work is not all it takes to be in the position that many in the Bay Area are. It takes a certain amount of luck, and the privilege of knowing the right people to reach that level. A level that to most is unattainable.

As Mia Birdsong clearly points out, there is a skewed perception of the low-income/poor. This skewed perception is contagious and its effects can be seen through the ideologies of those expressed by Srinivasan and Keller. This very common ideology is partially to blame for the lack of progress being made in providing a suitable lifestyle. It is not possible to change the way people feel and make them care. The only way to change their hearts is to communicate these issues so they can see how it directly affects them. The first step is getting an authority figure like Birdsong to reach out to the tech industry. The main contributor to the ignorance exhibited by Srinivasan and Keller can directly be linked to lack of awareness.  They must be willing to sit down and listen to her claims and reflect on how they can personally make a difference. There is a long road ahead before many of these issues are eradicated permanently, but it starts with the tech industry admitting they significantly contribute to the problem.


