The social problems of SF are certainly a bit of a shock coming from Scandinavia, and I can understand the author's excitement about Beijing. But there are a couple of deal-breakers about China that would make it very tough for me to consider moving back:

* You'll always be an expat. You can become an American both legally and culturally, but you cannot become Chinese in either sense. As someone who grew up surrounded by US culture, it makes more sense to live in the US than in China.

* Your business is always going to be at a disadvantage compared to native businesses. I don't have any first-hand experience of this, but from what I understand, government connections are necessary to get anything going, especially in hyper-competitive China.

* There's no public debate. The government has little oversight. The internet is censored. There are plenty of policies that I consider indefensible. The US has plenty of flaws too, but at least there is an open discussion about these flaws and a pathway towards fixing them.

SF can be a bit insular and self-absorbed at times, but I felt more at home there than I did in Beijing.

Häagen-Dazs or no Häagen-Dazs, I feel that SF's moral compass is screwed in slightly tighter than Beijing's.

The sheer arrogance of Swedes dissing US is also annoying. Go to our new ghettos and inspect the great equity the progressives have established lately.

Source: Heritage foundation's economic freedom index (Sweden does very well: http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden)

Waste is treated like an benign abstraction here: an assumed given of "bureaucratic overhead" that nothing can be done about except occasionally talk and handwave over.

I'd guess you'd need to have a culture that encourages whistleblowing, snitches, and oversight to make fiscally conservative socialism work. Such a culture doesn't exist here in the US.

There is a huge difference in how you would read that. The interpretation that you should go for is "The socialist being less socialist for the time being". In other words, they toned it down briefly. They're certainly at it again now.

That said, there is plenty of waste and bureaucratic excess/largess in Sweden - and it's very hand-wavy and nothing can apparently be done to reduce it when you start talking about it.

The last part of your comment I did not quite understand. What do you mean by having a culture that "encourages whistle blowing, snitches and oversight"? You mean that in order to have some kind of socialism to be fiscally conservative - you'd need whistle blowers that would rat out largess and snitch on people who waste State resources?

If that is what you mean, we have some of that (whistle blowers) - but we also have way more waste than what covers whatever gets surfaced. They're also few and far between..

> What do you mean by having a culture that "encourages whistle blowing, snitches and oversight"? You mean that in order to have some kind of socialism to be fiscally conservative - you'd need whistle blowers that would rat out largess and snitch on people who waste State resources?

Yes, precisely. The culture of the US still favors lawlessness, and I don't mean that negatively. Unfortunately, for us all to get along in such an unregulated environment, we have to be civil with one another, be fair dealing, and be intolerant of corruption.

But the US system has grown too fat, and too many selfish and corrupt people are taking advantage of the good graces of the rest of the populace. And the corruption is allowed to run unchecked.

Also, the regulations and bureaucracies and debt and corporations have all crept up on us. So the system is no longer operating to spec, and no major redesigns are planned. I just don't see where we go from here. The presidential candidates we've selected are indicative of system failure.

But it is now quite segregated (not unlike France with its banlieus) full of not-homeless, but, unfortunately, un-assimilated population.

A blog written by an American living in Sweden (check out the other posts on the blog as well):

https://swedenreport.org/2015/05/18/police-yes-there-are-no-...

There are also a few homeless people of Swedish origin, but they are mostly either drug addicts or otherwise mentally ill, making them unable to keep an apartment. Money shouldn't be a big issue as you qualify for social security payouts that cover essentials and rent if you can't get it by other means. However, mentally ill might fail to get this money, it requires a monthly visit at the local social services office and they can require participation in activities as job training as well as accepting any job you can get.

Does that mean the United States is hopelessly economically segregated, with permanently unassimilated redneck populations that refuse to join the urban mainstream? If that's an unfair interpretation, why make the same kind of rhetorical leaps about European cities?

If you checked the blog I referred to, entitled "Police: Yes, there ARE No-Go Zones in Sweden" you would learn that there are essentially lawless areas where the police concedes that they have indeed lost control.

So "segregated" is the right word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/par...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-14/debunking-...

The source article from the blog states "In the autumn of 2014 reported the National Police for 55 neighborhoods in 22 cities around the country where "local criminal networks is considered to have a negative impact on the local community." It's about neighborhoods that are characterized by "open drug sales, criminal dealings that manifests itself in serious violence in a public place, various forms of extortion and unlawful influence and acting out grievances against society."

The blog post you mention (the author makes no mystery of his ideas), and the source article, seems to take an official report stating that 55 zones have seen a worrying rise in crime and mixing it with anecdotal evidence and unrelated quotes to come to the conclusion that there are 55 "no-go" zones where "swedish law no longer applies", to spin a particular story for their readers.

Mind, I'm not claiming liberal leaning press is any different and, as with everything, the truth probably stands somewhere in between.

I've spent over 30 years of my life in Nordic countries. These stories of embedded lawless mini-Afghanistans ruled by local Sharia tyrants don't reflect any reality I've ever seen.

But there is enough evidence to state that there is segregation.

"Segregation (noun): the action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart."

I'm not convinced that having everyone "assimilated" is a realistic goal. People of different social classes tend to not want to associate themselves with one another. And social class is about more than just income.

That is the difference between Sweden and SF. SF allows unrestricted migration from the rest of the continent, Sweden does not.

Sweden, on the other hand, forces people to learn the language before they can even get a job. Those who won't or cannot do that end up in Germany instead.

https://mises.org/library/how-modern-sweden-profits-success-...

The city is a buzzing growth center, as wealthy on the surface as San Francisco, but without any of the obvious problems with "homelessness, the mentally ill, the dirtiness & shabbiness of the city" (which the grandparent poster wanted to blame on liberal government).

You make it sound like Sweden in the '80s was a pseudo-Cuba. That was never the case.

"The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace... Accordingly, we seek a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from statism and toward a private property order."

That's a bold assumption to make.

Facts are objective by definition, but their interpretation it's often not.

The moment you state your objective if promote free market economics it's clear that you will give an interpretation of facts that goes towards validating that view.

You can promote your views this way, but cannot expect people not to take a critical view of them.

Just read anyhting from Paul Krugman on the NYT, and you will see equally partial interpretations of facts that come to very different conclusions.

No problem in promoting your views, just not expect people to take them at face value, or as an "impartial examination of facts", when they are not.

Of course not. But no one asked you to take the views of the Mises Institute at face value. It appeared to me that you were implying they were biased, meaning not credible, based on the fact that they have endorsed free market economics since the 1950s. Which is an assumption that a group that regularly endorses a particular school of economic thought is biased toward that school of thought for reasons other than sound and impartial economic analysis.

If I was misreading what you were implying, then I of course take my previous comments back.

You will find that this type of governance only works in homogeneous societies - where the people can agree and identify with one another (and also have qualities such as good work ethic, social responsibility, love for their country or place, etc).

Once you bring in variously diverse groups into the picture, half of which are only seeking benefits, those same polices tend to produce the opposite effects.

SF is the most disgusting city I've ever seen. The smell of human shit is a block by block experience. Nobody makes any effort to pick up trash on the ground. It's shameful. People just blame the homeless when nothing's stopping them from pitching in themselves.

Don't want to? Don't complain; just pretend it's not a problem, that you don't see it, or even that it gives the city character. That's certainly the norm.

As for what the Clintons did in the 90s, not everyone has a rosy picture of their work. They weren't beacons for progressivism except maybe in education, and many of their reforms including the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act are still very controversial on the left. Other reforms like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act are widely reviled. The Clintons have always been centrists, that's how they got where they are today, and calling them progressive because they have to appease an anti-establishment wing in their party is extremely disingenuous.

> You are not voting for the platform, you are voting for the Clinton dynasty and the predominant wing of the Democratic party at the expensive of true progressive reforms that would bring us more in line with European social democracies.

There's no other option. I voted and campaigned for Bernie, but he didn't make the nomination. I could vote for a third party, with the same issues (Jill Stein is an anti-vaxxer, the libertarian party is too idealistic to see reality). But there's a time for campaigning for personal issues and a time for campaigning for votes, and I've moved from the former to the latter. I still call my representatives, but I don't think pushing my ideal platform is going to help with the presidential election.

So, maximizing my vote means evaluating and voting for the platform I prefer because the alternative is to become apathetic. Nobody wins then. Clinton has a long history of campaigning hard for things, and I don't think her platform is a bad fit for that type of work ethic.

All I'm saying is let's not be disingenuous. Not all politics are opportunists, her primary opponent is a case in point, but the Democratic party electorate chose and so we are stuck with her.

Also, to be clear, the DNC official platform is the most progressive on record in large part because of Bernie's "revolution". Whether or not Clinton backs the platform on a point by point basis is entirely unclear. If Trump doesn't help the Democrats carry at least one chamber of Congress, then we'll have a centrist warhawk in another appeasement loop with an obstructionist legislature. I don't see a way through this where we actually get anything done for the next four years, whether it's Trump or Clinton, unless the Democrats take control of everything and Clinton is forced to truly court the left of left constituency.

Sorry to comment again (I can't edit anymore)—but it wasn't an absurd law to begin with. Much of the black community was in support of such laws, and the only controversy around Hillary specifically of which I am aware was the "superpredator" comment. Bill's another story yelling at BLM supporters for being ungrateful, which was stupid but understandable given the crime rates of the early nineties that millenials never saw.

That said, you're absolutely correct, they're centrists to the core. She's a warhawk who worked to censor violent video games and Eminem. I'll be watching her like a hawk.

Are we talking about the welfare reform that put 5 year absolute limits on public assistance? Does that sound progressive to you?

It also has many ongoing consequences. Poor, working class mothers have to choose between accepting assistance or living with their child's father. If neither made enough to live on the father was forced to leave the household. I don't see anything progressive in destroying poor families.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Wo...

That depends on which services are being cut, and why.

If policies do not achieve liberal goals, even if those policies were initiated by liberals at some point in the past, it makes sense for today's liberal politicians to modify or eliminate those policies.

For example, if a welfare program is keeping people in poverty indefinitely, it doesn't work. A liberal or progressive would want a program that lifts people out of poverty. That was Bill Clinton's argument for welfare reform.

This is true of all large cities as most in the US lean liberal. A lot of social programs are targetted at the homeless and poor, panhandling isn't illegal, easy access to transportation makes getting around easy and cheap, popular tourist areas make it easy to find suckers, etc make it attractive to them. I'm not in SF, but I work in downtown Chicago and see this everyday.

Meanwhile in autocratic police states these people are just tossed in jail or put in work camps or something no liberal would ever approve. Yet we have a Swede liberal here who sees a police state oppress its people thus no signs of discord and thinks everything is honky-dory, instead of realizing that the boulevards are kept clean via beatings and jailings. Reminds me of how the US communist party would talk about how clean and efficient communist cities were. Well, when you have gulags for "undesirables" and jail everyone who isn't at work (not working was illegal), yes, I imagine they are clean and orderly.

So I got a bit confused by the usage of liberal and progressive on this sense as they're fuzzy definitions by themselves.

San Francisco does that, but it has also cut back on the most important social service for those who aren't impoverished: policing. By refusing to punish people for defecation in public, bathing in public fountains, panhandling &c., as well as by offering standard welfare service, SF has made life very easy for the homeless and mentally-ill. Unsurprisingly, there are many of them.

It's also made life not so nice for those who aren't homeless and/or mentally ill and aren't wealthy enough to afford to live above the mess, but I don't think the SF political class cares about them.

Utah has a lot of problems (and is really conservative in most other ways), but you have to give them props for actually trying to solve the homeless issue[0] rather than hiding it or sending it out of town. Although the same state turned down Medicaid expansion funding which would have helped those with mental illness, so it isn't all rainbows and sunshine.

[0] http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic...

I think one of the better explanations I have heard about the network effect (most recently explained by Reid Hoffman, although probably have heard it from others) is the big advantage occurs when a successful start up goes in to the scaling phase. Many people feel or say SF/SV sucks, its too expensive, I can do the same thing somewhere else, etc. and for almost everyone that is probably correct.

Is this in reference to China? Because in that case it's quite clearly false. There's cartoon level inequality in China. You literally see 19 year old guys in Ferraris, which they can barely drive, go past 55 year old ladies sorting trash on the sidewalk. The redeeming quality, except being hard to ignore, is that China is changing rapidly. Few knows what will happen, but it seems clear that it at least won't be the same.

I feel people who go vacation in Thailand is far more hypocritical than someone who goes to work in China. But at the end of the day, it's about the people not the government.

I think my time in New York was negatively colored by having an office right in Times Square, but even so it was a really meaningful experience and a great place to be in. You definitely understand why it's the city that never sleeps, and it felt much more like a melting pot than California did. I enjoyed listening to and engaging with street preachers, I was grateful for all the talented musicians in the subway, and I never ran out of exciting new cuisines to try.

On the negative side, though, I did feel that New Yorkers (and by this point in my life, Americans in general) could be hard to get close to - easy to approach, but hard to connect with. I don't know who I would have turned out to be if I had stayed in New York, but I imagine that would have been a great adventure of its own.

Beijing feels similar to New York in many ways, and many expats that leave Beijing opt to move to New York. Facebook groups with hundreds of members help ex-Beijingers congregate in both New York and San Francisco, and I don't know that that's a coincidence.

Maybe, if nothing else, I want to argue that Beijing deserves to be in the international spotlight and cultural consciousness the same way that New York and San Francisco and London are.

I have found this to be true, especially after living in Germany and finding somewhat the opposite: people are hard to approach, but once you get to know them, you connect with them on a much deeper level than I ever did with people in the US. But of course, these generalizations certainly don't apply to all Americans/Germans.

Sure, at some point reality will dawn but I'm sure he'll have learned a lot and will have a lot to add if he ever moves back. Or he may stay, a perennial outsider he may remain, but finding purpose in a place he might find impact. My main wish is that he forget the expat community, leave it behind and get mixed in with the locals. Too many expats (immigrants) hold on to their communities too long and fail to discover the true host country.

https://backchannel.com/when-it-comes-to-china-googles-exper...

He is in such a privileged position in China. He is a white man with money. He is the _elite_ in Beijing that he so quickly judges in San Francisco. Wake up man, you are the powerful in Beijing, you are the analog to the guy living in the million dollar apartment in SFO.

San Francisco, and the United States has many surface problems, but many of these problems are due to being _liberal_ when it comes to homelessness and mentally ill. Can the USA do better? Of course, without a doubt. But it is such a false equvilancy to compare the laissez faire problems of the west with the oppressive problems of China.

Pollution is a great point. No doubt China is far more polluted than America today. So it is far worse. However China has a much grander goals and incentives for change. They put in place stricter emission standards for new cars. They invest very heavily in renewable energy to the point where most solar cells today are made in China. They acknowledge they have a serious problem. In contrast in America a large fraction of the population are disputing that there even is a problem to begin with.

This attitude mirrors the other state affairs in China and the US. American conservatives blame poor people for their problems. They didn't work hard enough, didn't get an education, have the wrong attitude or whatever. China at least accepts that poverty is a problem. But they have to fight epidemic corruption and many other on problems on many fronts.

China no doubt is a dictatorship. But it is also a developing country. I can't see the justification for America being a de-facto police state. No western nation has as draconian punishment, no nation locks up as many people or has as militarized police. So there is no reason to be smug towards China.

Now, were he to say "the United States has a huge problem with militarization and I dislike this" I would have countered with China's behavior in the South China Sea as a counterpoint demonstrating aggression on the part of the PRC

Would he have mentioned incarceration, I would have brought up the house arrests and indefinite detention of journalists and political opponents to the Communist party.

I could go on. Great, China is working on pollution, but don't for a minute think this is due to global climate change, rather their citizens are dying due to the pollution. Motivations aside, good on them for taking a lead.

And really, that is a poor excuse. Because China is in the midst of an economic Renaissance they are excused from the basic tenants of human rights? Of a free people? By the same argument, slavery was a-ok during the early years of the United States. But I reject that terrible ethical relativism and insist that slavery was as wrong then as it now, and so are the abuses that the PRC commits upon its own people.

You and the parent are missing _my_ point. The author _specifically_ mentioned the social issues, like homelessness. And I _countered_ this _specific_ issue by pointing out that there may be different, and worse, reasons why the city seems to have less of a homelessness problem.

At this point, the parent of our conversation insisted on comparing apples to oranges (yeah okay China has some bad social problems, but what about police militarization? what about incareration?) These are points that I did not bring up, because I was focusing on the points the author made. I decided to rebuke those points with some counter examples.

Everyone wants to compare $WorstThingAmericaDoes with $BestThingChinaDoes and I am comparing $UnitedStatesHomelessness with $ChineseHomlessness

Finally, I do not excuse the faults of the US, there are many of them. And they are as inexcusable as the faults in China.

The US used to be a place where people would arrive with only the money in their wallet and fight their way to the the top. Today your asked to pay 4k a month to live in a suburban hellhole and suck up to investors.

How am I not listening to his opinion? Or yours, if I were so kind as to categorize as such. I conceded that China has many strengths, many of which the US can learn from. How is that an echo chamber?

And I do so deeply apologize if you find my opinion "uninteresting" as if one of the prime forces for an opinion is how spicy it is. I will continue to expound my "uninteresting" opinions which are backed by "boring" facts and "generic" lived experiences. Meanwhile, you can place value on how exciting an opinion is. Agreed?

You assume no one else know what you know because you read some Wikipedia article. Everything you talk about like social problems, privilege or censorship is completely apparent to anyone who ever set foot in China. People are there despite these problems not because they are unaware.

People don't bring up US flaws because this is some country competition were you should keep score, but so you can understand that you value certain things and ignore others. Just like anyone else, including Chinese people. The world is mostly the same.

I brought up the homelessness and potential reasons for the lack of homelessness in my original comment because the author posited those as proof that SFO is broken. I was _responding directly to his thesis_

I brought up militarization and police state/incarceration issues because those were set out as straw men, away from the original point which was purely about how each country treats their mentally ill and homeless.

I should not have gotten taken in by the straw men that were laid out. My main point still remains. China avoids the mentally ill/homelessness issues that SV faces due to the fact that they arrest, detain, force labor and other such actions to counter homelessness. I am making a value judgement that the liberty of the homeless is more valuable to society as a whole than clean streets. You may be free to make a different value judgement, and I will freely disagree with you (isn't liberty great?).

> As a Swede coming to the States, I was disillusioned. I had, as I think many young entrepreneurs have, idolized Silicon Valley as a utopian vision of an idealistic but well-meaning band of technocrats building the foundations for a just and democratic society, but in its place I found vanity, pettiness and greed. Not only did the emperor have no clothes, but the naked corpus revealed was unappetizing to my Swedish quasi-socialist ideals. Ultimately, I felt alone in Silicon Valley... I left.

The reason he's staying in Beijing isn't because it doesn't have social problems, but because he finds it more rewarding.

> "[...] I founded a tech startup in Beijing and chances are I'll stay there. Why? Because in many ways, Beijing has been a better breeding ground for my startup and for my own personal growth than I think Silicon Valley could be today.

> Before you object, I am by no means saying that China is a more just society than the States, or more technologically advanced - it was just clearly moving faster - and you immediately got the impression that Beijing was a city concerned with statecraft and the future of its people, rather than the latest hot gadget. For all its warts (and there are many), Beijing is a city with its eye on the future and a place that you can help shape.

this is so true. not only for china but for technologists who find success anywhere except the US. either it is a self-assuaging tactic or it's creating noise to convince people on the fence to move to what is _perceived_ as a worse place to live(beijing in this case)

Oh, it's moving somewhere alright. Whether it's in a good or bad direction is highly contestable. It's easy to take bold and decisive action if you don't have to worry about things like public opinion and democratic consensus.

> American conservatives blame poor people for their problems. They didn't work hard enough, didn't get an education, have the wrong attitude or whatever.

You haven't talked to many Chinese have you? This is a pretty common attitude in China, too. If you think Americans are self-centered, you haven't been to a country where "to get rich is glorious".

"Beijing might be of historical importance for the creative forces often associated with Silicon Valley"

I note he never explained that sentence. No data was given to further that statement. Instead he makes points about cheaper engineers and cheap housing and food.

" it offered us cheap housing and food, a network of experienced mentors that were happy to take the time to help, steady access to some of the world's greatest engineering talent at a sixth of the cost of a junior engineer in Silicon Valley "

He also says: "Beijing seems to attract large numbers of truly driven, creative and interesting people". Yes, people here are truly driven. But creative? Nope, I didn't experience that. I won't mention how the drive people exhibit here is typically negative. In the US, negotiations are rarely zero-sum, in BJ/SZ it was always Walmart style: are we screwing the partner/customer/supplier to the max.

"Beijing is a city with its eye on the future and a place that you can help shape."

The whole of China is controlled by a small (percentage wise) elite. They and they alone decide the whole future. If you're not part of the future they determine would benefit "their" China then you're out. If they decide suddenly that whatever you've built is something they want, and they can get away with it, they'll take it. Creative people don't thrive here. Ask 100 creative people in China if they'd like to move to Silicon Valley, and you'll likely get an 75% migration rate. That's even higher than the percentage of rich Chinese who want to leave. http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/09/15/almost-half-of...

I grew up in China for ~5 years and I felt that the cultural mindset in China does not breed creativity nor greatness. The social culture there conditions people to be conformist and one-dimensional. The censorship is absurd. People there generally lack a higher overall perspective. Everyone tries to screw each other over for a dollar, not understanding the concept of the Prisoner's Dilemma and how it affects society as a whole.

There's a lot more to it, but basically in my opinion China is still far behind America and will not catch up any time soon. China needs some sort of cultural revolution before that happens.

This is all coming from a Chinese-American who wants to see China succeed. But reality is reality.

I really think he's the kind of guy who fetishizes the exotic. Old school geeks did this with Japanese culture, Japanese media, Japanese women, etc for decades and it was more than a little embarrassing. Its all vaguely racist or at least insensitive and has a "grass is greener" feel to it. China, and to a lesser extent, Korea, are the new Japan for geeky males.

China has a great deal of social problems (many of which are long solved in the West), but I imagine someone with a pocket full of USD, which go very far in China, a white face, and an EU password is immune to it all. The suffering and human rights issues of the locals is just an abstract given to him. Yet somehow the homeless issue in SF is very concrete to him.

I really think this article shows off a questionable brand of millennial economic tourism and is more interesting from that perspective.

It seems that you prefer a world where social problems, mental illness and poverty are hidden from your view by an ethereal force. That is fine, you can live in that pleasant fiction, but don't for a single minute pretend that beating and jailing the homeless is utopia, or that Beijing is anything other than that.

To be fair, he did disclaim at the top of the article by mentioning that he's from Sweden.

It is not like Sweden has solved any of these problems either, it's just quite well hidden from plain sight - as you mentioned in a more eloquent way.

Use assertion as some statistics and compare it with another statistics? That is not how to prove a case.

This is a comment board, not a pendant's paradise.

Funny how having a shitload of money can change someone's perspective on a topic, isn't it?

I had the chance to apply for a green card (just got PERM certified) but have decided that now's a good time to take a break from the valley instead. The biggest feeling of relief is that I can now take a job that isn't my primary employer (!!), found a company, build things and not face deportation as a result. It's been 6 years since I last had that opportunity -- and doing it in the US is at least a year away. Not dealing with US immigration is worth not having a concrete plan :)

Like the OP I'm also an EU [and Canadian] citizen, so I'm not lacking for places to go. Beyond those, there are so many countries that actually welcome people looking to build with open arms.

Like the OP, I'm sure I'll be back someday. For all it's faults, it's still Silicon Valley.

Where San Francisco is a proper city, plagued by the many problems you mention, the actual Valley is basically suburbs, with a majority of spotless single family homes, lots of strip malls and tiny (but mostly spotless as well) city centers.

As a European, like you and the OP, I mostly felt out of place in both environments (less in SF, to be honest), I could picture living there for a few years at most, but not forever.

Everyone is doing that. It's helping the SF landlords, it's not helping the homeless.

If more people treated SF as a long-term city to put down roots, it would probably be in better shape. How you treat a place changes drastically when you actually own property there.

Instead most people make their money and leave, contributing nothing.

Solving the homeless problem is dead simple easy. The solution is to build more houses. Every apartment that gets built, is 1 less person being gentrified onto the streets.

The rooted people are the ones preventing developers from building more, because they don't want competition, and they want their housing prices to stay high.

Renters, are the ones getting screwed by this, because they have to pay the high rents that wouldn't exist without the artificially created barriers to entry.

Gentrification and land use policies are real problems in SF, but homelessness I think is mostly due to addictions and mental illness, not really the lack of adequate housing.

I'm talking about homeowners, you're talking about landlords who charge rent.

I'm talking about people who actually live in the homes they own and have to deal with homelessness in their neighborhood.

You're talking about landlords who own lots of property in SF but go home to their mansions in Sausalito or Palo Alto.

My point exactly agrees with you. SF needs less landlords and more homeowners.

Homeowners don't want their property values to go down, and want the city to be locked in time, never changing and never growing. They are the ones stopping new houses from being built.

Seems to me like the people who win the most by limiting housing are the landlords who can collect higher rent through scarce supply.

Long term homeowners probably don't care much about yearly changes in their homes worth.

They'd probably be fine with more housing being built 'somewhere else' for the homeless. But ya know, definitely not in THEIR backyard.

Developers (aka landlords) aren't the ones protesting new building being built. This is because they would love to be able to build more. Even though they would make less money per apartment, there is so much demand for houses, that the massive amount of new development would make up for it.

There is only so many landlords out there. Their vote isn't particularly significant. But there are a LOT of NIMBY homeowners.

My point is that homelessness severity in any given area is correlated with renter density.

Whatever homeowners you think are blocking new developments, think about the homelessness in their specific area. Is it severe?

Think about the areas in SF that have the most severe homelessness, how many homeowners do you think live in that area?

On the causes of homelessness... I don't think it's due to scarce housing. Even if there were more housing available, I doubt a homeless person could start paying for it. Getting out of homelessness is a more complex issue.

SF is not the only big city with a major influx of people coming there for work, I have seen quite a few European and American major cities, but "armies" of homeless out in the open like in SF I really haven't seen anywhere else.

It's probably a mix of causes, not least the very mild climate, if I were homeless I would rather spend a winter on the streets of SF rather than in Boston or NYC, or a summer in Houston...

I've lived in both Boston and SF and the pervasive homelessness in SF is much much worse.

That's true, I completed a few internships in Cupertino and Sunnyvale, and they are different. They had too little going on for me, though, which is why I moved up to SF. And I also felt less out of place up in SF.

> I could picture living there for a few years at most, but not forever.

I've heard that from a lot of people, actually.

BART went online in 1972. But yeah, if individualism isn't your bag then SF's definitely not for you.

FWIW I'm totally in favor of income inequality; people should both want to and have the ability (social mobility) to become wealthy. I'm also, however, in favor of moving the bottom line up to a point where everyone live comfortable. Individualism should not have to come at the expense of the collective well-being -- at least not to the extent I'm seeing. I don't think that it's fair to say that I can only be wealthy at the expense of making someone live on the street; I can live with being a little less wealthy (pragmatically, the same wealth level) if it means solving social problems.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that individualism doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. After all, individuals still have to live somewhere, and it'd be better if that place didn't smell like pee ^_^

But wait, he glorifies his past alternative life but does feels comfortable in a place where Internet is openly censored and spied on to track and torture activists ? Didn't he just say he loves talking about politics ? People don't get killed by their government for putting Bernie Sanders stickers on their cars here...

Even this aside, on the business side and as a foreigner I would be very scared there: from gutter oil to copycats, it feels totally lawless. What's gonna happen to him if he is successful?

I had an Aussie partner. He came to the USA for the laissez-faire paradise. He explained it was relatively tougher for startups down under. I believe him.

Seeing our (USA) squalor, day in and day out, he began to doubt. Rhetorically, he asked "If this is the result, maybe Aussie's high taxes aren't so bad."

Beijing is a third world city with first world aspirations. The most annoying thing about it is just propaganda and the outright lying about what the situation really is. China cares way too much about faces and Beijing has nothing going for it beyond its government top-down mandate (other cities in China are much more appropriate as tech hubs).

China harvests organs from people who belong to a rather wacky religion[1]. That's pretty bad, and I think counts as getting killed for something minor.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go...

Yes, it is against the law. The violence against these people is sanctioned by the government. Thats the whole reason it is horrifying!

It is not a tricky issue. The fact that this is all sponsored and done by the government makes it even worse!

The US is more like a messy, disgusting, noisy bazaar than a pristine cathedral:

* Strong disagreement and polarization on a lot of important issues: for example, in the US we can't agree on the role of government; in the Free Software world we can't agree on even a standard desktop interface.

* Constant arguing about the best way forward: for example, in the US, we argue on how best to fix economic issues; in the Free Software world we argue on how best to evolve a really old init system.

* Many important problems are ignored, seemingly forever: for example, in the US, a lot of infrastructure (electric grids, roads, bridges, railways, trains) are of subpar quality; in the Free Software world, many projects of extreme or critical importance are in disrepair and/or ignored (e.g., for years, PGP was maintained by a single developer who was broke).

Anyone who comes to the US expecting things to work "as they are supposed to" and for everyone to be in happy agreement on important issues is in for serious disappointment.

Yet, the messy "bazaar" model seems to work... over time. As Winston Churchill said, "you can always count on Americans to do the right thing -- after they've tried everything else."[1]

[1] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu135259....

Likewise in the real world, the US hardly seems like the best receipt for how to run a society. As a Scandinavian I'd say our model for society has worked better. It is in no way perfect. It has its own set of problems, but those problems simply pale in comparison to the gaping problems found in American society.

Of course it depends on who you are building society for. Is it for the many or the few? I'd say it is pointless to build a society which excels at giving the best life for a small minority. That problem was already solved in medieval Europe :-D

Building a society which is good for the majority of people and for the least well of is quite hard.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and barely a comparison.

The US is a lot like a potato:

* it's lumpy! Both the US and a potato are irregularly shaped!

* it's brownish: the US is a mix ethnically

* it's white on the inside: the US is controlled by mostly white people

* it's high in carbohydrates: the US has a large GDP

etc.

And most importantly there are many governments that are absolutely nothing like the free software ecosystem which gives the analogy worth.

The US is not like Free Software in many important ways:

* The US has judges. What is the equivalent of judges in free software?

* US law is based on common law. What is the equivalent of common law in free software?

* The US has elected representatives. What is the equivalent of elected representatives in Free software.

* The US is composed of states, counties, and cities? What are the equivalent states counties and cities in Free Software?

* The US has a congress. What is the equivalent in free software?

* The US has jails. What is the equivalent of a jail in Free Software?

Etc.

I could go on and on, but the point really should be obvious by now. The comparison to Free Software is weak and most importantly, unnecessary. China is just as much like Free Software as US is.

If you're going to complain that China doesn't have stained glass windows and isn't a building made out of blocks of granite, then you've missed the point.

* Strong disagreement and polarization on a lot of important issues

* Constant arguing about the best way forward argue on how best to fix economic issues

* Many important problems are ignored, seemingly forever

Believing otherwise is vain provincial exceptionalism. The original comparison is superficial and bankrupt.

Skål mine nordiske venner.

EDIT: Structure

EDIT2: Pics or it didn't happen!?

Me outside a Hewlett Packard campus building I particularly liked: http://i.imgur.com/pWtoVpm.jpg

Our product: http://i.imgur.com/VL1UQVF.jpg

Company story [now defunct]: http://imgur.com/a/6l1kl

[I'll be writing an obituary on it later.]

// skål och vänliga hälsningar

After that, I worked for several startups in Paris. Tired of living in France, I joined a startup in … Oslo :) Unfortunately the startup died, and I joined Cisco because several years of startups were enough. I do enjoy Norway actually.

Skål!

What I liked in Paris:

* access to culture, many theaters, cinemas, events, etc. * huge tech community (tons of meetups) * relatively cheap food and drinks (but I live in one of the most expensive country now, so feel free to disagree)

What I disliked:

* high rent prices * housing market flooded with old and flats (and getting older) * housing price so high that a couple of engineers could not buy anything else than a crappy 40m2 * crazy working hours (with the commute I was often back home only after 8pm), but don't forget that I only worked for early stage startups

The article describes a lack of moral compass in Silicon Valley and an enriching hacker spirit in Beijing.

What about the other way around? If you apply a standard of morality to Beijing, is it better or worse? If you judge the hacker spirit of Silicon Valley, is it better or worse? Are you holding Beijing up to less scrutiny compared to Silicon Valley?

This is a genuine question. I haven't lived in either places, so I really can't say.

That said, people seem to find it easier to ignore social issues in a culture very different from their own. For a European, the problems in SF fit a familiar pattern and you can pick up a local paper and read all about them. In an Asian country the social situation is different enough that it doesn't trigger your moral unease. Also very very few westerners can just pick up a Chinese newspaper and casually read it. So even ignoring censorship, you are shielded from the problems and conflicts of locals that you don't directly meet and talk to.

There's a large group of "grass is greener" people, but they're not starting companies or moving to Beijing to write about it. They work at the cable company in the middle of nowhere.

There are definitely a lot of corruption and bad things happening in Beijing, but in some circles, like ones the author experiences, people are apparently more up to doing good.

This is definitely a naive view of Beijing, but if you look past the generalization, it shows a rarely exposed part of Beijing and highlighted some problems in the Valley.

- I guess he was disappointed by Obama? Join the club.

- "I moved to Silicon Valley" No you didn't, you moved to San Francisco.

- The Bay Area is one of the most naturally beautiful metropolitan areas in the world. Beijing is one of the most polluted. You can have it.

- "I was confused by the sheer amount of narcissistic Ayn Rand followers." Really? Where are they, I've been here 15 years and have yet to find this mythic horde

All told, I'm getting really sick of the Euro-lectures-Americans schtick.

For example in France, you can openly express your political opinions at lunch with colleagues. By that, I mean you can totally disagree, yell at each other on touchy subjects and then resume your work as nothing happened in the afternoon. That will be the end of it. A political opinion is just that, an opinion and it is totally fun to argue, disagree bringing new points to the table etc.

Arguing on something else than a purely professional matter at your workplace is the last place you want to be here in San Francisco:

First it doesn't fit the local culture of non-confrontation; You'll have confused Californian eyes staring back at you: "You mean everything is NOT awesome ?!?"

Then, you cannot offend anybody, even slightly. Unfortunately it is really easy to do from a French culture where you make points at extremes as examples, use sarcasms or dark humor. You can be sure they'll be taken at face value on the receiver end and reported to HR instantly.

I find that American very quickly get offended and visible angry if you aren't very careful about how you speak. As a nordic we are used to speaking quite bluntly and that is frequently interpreted as offensive by Americans.

What do you mean? I can't help but thinking that your statement is somewhat not related to Silicon Valley and tech, but rather something political (e.g Europeans disliking Trump) or some military/intelligence incident. Am I wrong? Either way, nationalism is only good to some degree.

Those people who "find out" the US is a "sad place to live" haven't found the right place.

I've been subscribing to American news magazines for decades and if there ever was a mention of any problem in Europe, you'd be sure to hear the normal American lecture to the Europeans about how they need to rid themselves of their addiction to their welfare states. Get more flexible labour markets (read, get rid of worker protection laws). Basically the lecture always sums up to be: stop being yourself and be more like us.

If America insists on lecturing us about economics, maybe it should tolerate a European lecture on social policies.

It may be that the inherent American modes of self-reliance, personal responsibility and individual liberty create natural frissons with innovators trying to implement the betterment of society via "liberation technologies."

Whereas Asia, with a deeper cultural affinity for familial duty over individual desire, and an inherent necessity to rapidly raise standards for the millions that still live in agrarian lands, would provide more fertile ground for "sharing economies."

In the near term, it may seem like all the excitement is occurring across the Pacific. But if we can recall the original mission of the PC Revolution: to empower and enhance our natural capabilities, that humans with machines are substantially better equipped at survival and the optimal pursuit of life than either alone can ever be. We may ultimately stumble into that New Jerusalem here in the West.

Where "Man is his own star; and the soul that can render an honest and a perfect man, commands all light, all influence, all fate!"

Yup. Really weird place. Went through something similar and now I'm nearly certain I'll never go back there.

Indeed.

I don't live in SV, but I'm an admirer of Rand and her ideas. "Narcissist" is the probably the last word someone would use to describe me.

Serenity, wealth, agency, and a pioneering spirit. These speak to vitality and placement. Sexual `fitness'... Winners... the psychology writes itself. It will likely be consistent as long as the four factors I've mentioned hold.

    > One of the dumbest statements from a very dumb, condescending post.

    > SF is uber progressive.

I think the author misses some of what's happening in the valley. Supercomputing smart phones requires deep tech. The AI and pushing of Moore's law behind these devices requires deep tech. So do autonomous cars.

I can also subscribe to the image of San Francisco - with homeless and ill people on the streets - it was what made me decide against moving to Silicon Valley, although the offer was very attractive.

Beijing I've never visited, but now Nils made me curious - maybe I should take a trip there someday soon ...

Perfect!

Nils oversold Beijing, it is not that crazy or futuristic if you have been to other large cities - London, New York, Tokyo etc.

But let's be honest - Silicon Valley is often a parody of itself, and it has lost some of the things that made it great. Where Silicon Valley was once heavily subsidized to be a place of technical innovation, it is now an expensive but well-funded hub focused on business execution. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - good technology deserves good execution, and investors deserve to make money - but it is hard not to wonder what could have been. What if Silicon Valley stopped employing some of the world's greatest minds to make us click ads, and instead served a higher calling?

But the author is also clear about the distinction: there's technical innovation, planting seeds, and business execution, harvesting the fruit. Planting seeds is expensive but you get paid back (hopefully) when it bears fruit. Xerox PARC created technical innovation, and Apple and Microsoft made billions harvesting its fruit.

The author is simply bringing up what others, like Alan Kay of PARC, bring up regularly: that we are running out of fruit and no one is working on investing in planting trees. Silicon Valley of the 70's was not about anything demand-driven. True innovation is too far ahead that people don't know yet that they will want it. Silicon Valley at that time made true technical innovation. Since then it's become all about business execution of making money off of that innovation, and yes that's very demand-driven. Again, there is nothing wrong with that. But at the same time, you should be able to understand if he (and others) might be disappointed by that turn.

If you've leaned enough Mandarin to be functional, how long did it take you?

The biggest obstacle I found was that often my ability to communicate with someone had less to do with my level and more with the person's preconceptions of "foreigners". So there would be some people where I would speak Chinese and they'd have a stunned "Whoah, a talking giraffe!" reaction, and with others it was totally normal and fluid.

The concept of "internationalization" as it exists there is "more people should learn English to communicate with the outsiders", not the sort of melting pot ideal in the US.

Chinese do not distinguish between race, nationality, and language, they are all one thing. It is for some reason inconceivable to 99% of people that any (white-skinned) foreigner could learn Chinese, even though most of us do. Whereas it's a real head-scratcher for them if, for instance, an American of Chinese ethnicity who grew up only with English came to visit and didn't magically know the language.

There were many situations where I found myself excluded from things or where people refused to communicate with me directly at all about things that concern me, which may be as much language as cultural.

So I'd say learning the language is a good investment if you spend any period of time there, but being of non-Asian ethnicity will be a giant road-block to any real sense of integration, in spite of overcoming the language issues.

It requires significant and sustained effort. Most people stop studying when they're ok with the situations they care about. What level that is depends on the person.

If you are considering Beijing, don't worry that language will be a problem for everything. But many things will be a lot harder. Selling to Chinese businesses and consumers is the obvious example. Many foreign-run companies sell to foreigners or foreign-owned businesses in China.

Of course, you'll miss a lot of the open office chatter, negating the point of that, you'll get uninvited to meetings that they want to hold in Chinese. Microsoft is worse than this than other foreign companies, my Chinese wife worked for SAP which had more foreigners and less language issues as a result.

But there are plenty of reasons not to come here beyond language, and a few to come if you are at a restless point in life.

Although, I do find it strange that for his talk of "Don't speak of religion and politics" being taboo in SV doesn't apply in China? I'd almost think the stakes are higher. In the US, one might lose some friends, but in China, one might lose the rest of their life.

On a macro level, I'm skeptical of China from a cultural perspective.

Americans tend to get defensive and start listing out flaws in other places the moment the focus is put on them.

I think american exceptionalism and individualism has long made the concept of a caring society or building a better society irrelevant. Nobody cares about this beyond posturing.

As long as the economic cycle can sustain growth it will be hunky dory but the moment things go wrong, the everyone for themselves frontier type economy can quickly unravel. You can already see the pretentions about human rights, freedom, liberalism, have long dissipated. The only thing that matters is making money and seen to be successful.

The new world was based on a culture of plunder but at some point the population must stop and stabilize to build internal bonds. Building a genuinely caring society will by definition come at cost of individualism and economics.

Most countries and people have thousands of years of history and culture and simply talking of freedom, democracy and human rights divorced from their context is completely insincere and irresponsbile. Democracy and human rights in the west was a slow steady evolution.

China is more than 1 billion people, mess up the transition even slightly ignoring history and our own slow evolution and you are looking at a scale of human suffering not seen before, can anyone really be casual about issues like this. The sad reality is no one cares for these people beyond their own countries and human rights is just another tactic to beat others with.

There are tons of problems in the US at the moment, starting with the politics that is destroying millions of lives in the middle east and creating a security surveillance state at home. Nearly all of the things that would be unthinkable just a decade ago from a western democracy have been confirmed and yet have met with little outrage and negligible civic reaction, which confirms the indifference to these values beyond posturing and this should be disconcerting for all.

I'm not saying it's not what the author considers it to be it may well be a great place for him but is it really as great for everyone there?

I've never been there so I can't say but from what I have heard from various source including a very sarcastic you-tube new show[1] I'm not a fan China regardless of how welcoming it may be.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/NTDChinaUncensored/videos

I wonder how different can Beijing really be in this regard. It sure sounds like it's more gritty but I doubt everyone there has more high minded ideals than your usual SV sort.

I had, as I think many young entrepreneurs have, idolized Silicon Valley as a utopian vision of an idealistic but well-meaning band of technocrats building the foundations for a just and democratic society ...

This is isn't on my personal list of what SV is or might be.

What could possibly be giving anyone this impression of SV?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/changing-world-silicon-valley...

Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn founder): In Silicon Valley few entrepreneurs and technologists dream of changing the zip code, or even the state. Here, the goal is to change the world"

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/change-the-worl...

The phrase “change the world” is tossed around Silicon Valley conversations and business plans as freely as talk of “early-stage investing” and “beta tests.”

ad for the University of San Francisco that I spotted on a public bus shelter south of Market Street: “Become wildly successful without becoming a jerk no one likes. Change the world from here.”

https://medium.com/the-mission/silicon-valley-has-a-problem-...

https://books.google.com.uy/books?id=eK52augjU98C&pg=PA97&lp...

... and many, many more.

It paint Silicon Valley as an utopian, idealistic band of technocrats wanting to change the world (which can be interpreted as building a just society, might be a stretch). I'm in Uruguay (South America), and that's very definitely the perception I have (I haven't been to the U.S.)

"Far from the expected glass towers of a technological utopia, what I found was a surprisingly run down city that reminded me of traveling in Eastern Europe."

Why would you expect that? A cursory bit of online research would have informed you otherwise. For such a self-professed online junkie, this strikes me as odd.

"I was told not to discuss religion and politics, which is really all we talk about in Sweden, and I was confused by the sheer amount of narcissistic Ayn Rand followers."

What?! Told by who? SF is and has historically been one of the most politically vocal places in the US! Ayn Rand followers? What? I'm sorry but this is just laughable. What is an Ayn Rand follower? Really, was Market St filled with people clutching well-worn copies of "The Fountainhead." Total nonsense.

"Beijing was dirty, gritty, and wild .."

Beijing is actually one of the most orderly cities I've ever been to. One of the safest as well. The only grit is the air pollution.

"Beijing was an insane mix of history and futurism"

Beijing is actually pretty intent on systematically erasing its architectural history. There are very few hutongs(traditional neighborhoods) left in Beijing. Most of them were destroyed prior to the Olympics. Also for every one Rem Koolhaus designed glass towers there are 10K nondescript glum tower tower blocks, spreading outward from the ciy to the hinterland.

Beijing has some of the worst air pollution on the planet, people regularly wear respirators outside on bad days, it also has some of the worst traffic on the planet, these go hand in hand of course. The future is in moving away from that model of everyone should own a car despite their being viable alternatives(Beijing has a fantastic subway system.)

"I fell in love with Beijing before I had even stepped out of the taxi from the airport."

I don't even understand how this would be possible, that drive recently(2 months ago) took me an hour and 45 minutes to get from the airport to the ring road and there is nothing interesting along that route. The drive from SFO into the city is actually far more interesting by comparison.

Silicon Valley is viewed from the outside -- especially outside the US -- as a mecca for technology, talent, opportunity (and it is, IMO). People tend to assume that also extends to the society in which it exists. That such huge wealth would mean clean streets, social services, public transport and a sense of community around it. That a rising tide floats all boats. Think oil money in Norway. If it's something you've looked to as your goal it's easy to ignore some negative things that you may find about SF online. And whether a quick Google search would have informed you or not that doesn't change the reality on the ground.

Re: Ayn Rand. I took that to mean companies are being built today not because they want to work towards a better world, a better future for everyone, but rather for money alone. There's a lot of people in the bay area (elsewhere too) build businesses to make money and not because there's something they truly want to see in the world. In SF (and SV) on the one hand the messaging to the world has always been "LETS CHANGE THE WORLD" -- though many times it's followed up with "BY BUILDING A SOCIAL NETWORK FOR CATS WHO NEED PIZZA IMMEDIATELY." That can be very disillusioning for someone who moves in.

Re: China: My take was that he was trying to illustrate a different mentality. SF is dead set of maintaining the present. On the one hand it complains about the lack of affordable housing and on the other, it won't allow new (tall) buildings. Compare to the 60s. Could you imagine Sutro Tower being approved under today's midset? (You want to build a 1000' TV tower visible from all over town?! LOL). It's barely possible to get cell towers approved. How many years do you think a proposal to build that crazy awesome Chinese elevated bus would take? I mean -- BART doesn't even go to San Jose. High speed rail?

I think his point was that Beijing has its gaze set on the future where SF has it set on the present, and that sounds like a lot of your complaints too (not paying as much attention as you'd like the past and present in the process -- I can't judge the validity as I've not been yet). The article felt like his positive take on Beijing was that there, they want to build the future, and in SF, they want to keep the present as long as they can possibly hold onto it regardless of cost.

Hope that helps!

IMO: Your response feels like you're just trying to win an argument for the sake of winning an argument, without trying to understand what's being said.

Well...unless all you care about is $$$.

I bet the lack of IP is what will give china and other countries the edge in the long run.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-20/apple-s-lo...

If you can do an exchange semester at one of the Universities here (Tsinghua, PKU, BIT), do it. Doing a Chinese course at BCLU will also get you a student visa. Stay out of Wudaokou for the most part, much as I love the place, you'll just be insulated in the expat circle. Same goes for Sanlitun. Don't party with the BCLU kids too much.

Head over to Zhonguancun, there's this street called Innoway, you can hang out at Garage Cafe or something and get to know some Chinese tech people, practice some Chinese.

The really talkactive people you meet are nice people, but they're usually a bit full of shit. Take the things they say with a grain of salt. Good practice talking about technology in Chinese though.

Get Wechat. You need Wechat. There's a group called Beijing.py on there, they do tech meetups, which might be your beer (they also happen at Great Leap Brewery at lot, so there'll be actual beer). Get a Chinese bank account too, and a Chinese phone number.

You can always teach English. If you teach at a school, it's about 200RMB/hour part-time. You can do this on a dodgy visa.

You can rent a room at about 1500RMB/month in the Haidian area, where all the Universities and tech companies are. You can live off 2000-3000 RMB a month if you're willing to eat the cheap Chinese food. Bring Immodium.

There is a new regulation that allows people on student visas or with a University degree to work or found a tech company in the Haidian area. It came into effect this March. Costs about 6000RMB in registration costs.

Be aware of the air pollution, you might want to get a home filter for it, and wear a filter mask outside. They cost about 20RMB each and last 2-3 days. Get a smog alert app, but after a while you can tell PPM levels from the sky. Blue is 100odd, grayish brown is 200-300, if it looks like Silent Hill you're up in the nice 500s.

Winter is hellish, Summer is hellish. You get strong, cold winds during December, and Beijing turns into a humid baking pan in the Summer months. Heating is centrally controlled, and usually turns on 15 days after it gets really cold. So make sure where you live has an AC.

Traffic is hell, subway is cuddly, but it will get you where you need to be. Chinese have an interesting idea of what crossing the street looks like. When in doubt, walk over with a Chinese person standing between you and direction cars are approaching in.

If haggling is your thing, they're charging you 10x markup. If you're prepared to haggle for 4 hours, you might get the actual price. If not, order off taobao or jingdong instead. For taobao, if its tmall its legit, if its regular taobao look at the ratings and number of transactions.

Get a VPN before you arrive. AFAIK Viper is the preferred choice, and Astrill the most commonly used one. Their websites are blocked in China.

Don't do drugs. If they catch you, you're looking at being barred from the country for 10 years. They're not even good drugs either.

Be wary of cheap foreign liquor. Assume it was made in a bathtub. If you want to get really really drunk, buy cheap Baijiu at 7/11(12RMB for a .33 bottle) and chase it with Milk-tea (5RMB/bottle) to cut the burn. You won't remember the evening. Don't carry drugs on you when you do that. cf previous point.

Don't drink the tap water. If you must drink the tap water, boil it first. Otherwise, have immodium at the ready.

Laobeijing (Old Beijingers) have their own complex social customs. If you pour tea, you're supposed to hold the jug at the bottom if you're pouring for someone older, at the spout for someone your age, and at the top if you're pouring for someone younger. If you're being poured tea, you are supposed to tap both index fingers on the table. And that's just one thing. If you master the art, they'll appreciate it, but still look down on you for being a foreigner. They look down on Chinese migrants too though, so don't feel too bad about that.

Cabs are cheap and plenty, but Didi is cheaper. Don't get black cabs, they'll rip you off. When hailing a cab, stand at the side of the road, look at the direction of traffic, hold out your arm, and make a motion as if you're tapping a small child on the head. Airport cab ride is about 150RMB to Haidian. Airport express is about 20RMB, then you need to switch to the regular subway, which is another 3-6RMB.

Carry toilet paper on you if you're moving around. Toilets have about a 30% chance of providing toilet paper. Most toilets are squat toilets, though foreigner facing businesses may have sit down toilets. Stand on the sides and squat down backwards.

Don't withdraw large sums from ATMs, go to the bank counter for that. ATMs don't always check carefully for fake notes, and may recirculate them. I know of people who withdrew 20 100RMB notes and had 3 fakes in them.

Most places will accept WeChat and Alipay. This goes for small ruddy places too, they'll usually get you to send it to their smartphone. Do carry cash though in case they don't.

Well, this is getting pretty long.

Can't you just put the money back in ATM and then go to a bank counter to recollect it?

Only when I moved to the US and got to deal with American society and American in an everyday manner did I get a needed reality check. A lot of people live materialistically very good lives in America. But the poverty and social problems so visible even in relatively small towns in America is hard for many Scandinavians to accept.

And has the author mentions, it is perhaps not the poverty and social problems themselves but people's attitudes towards them which are most off-putting. While America offers many opportunities for talented people both in terms of jobs you can have, places and climates you can live I find it hard to put in my hard work into a society which has values so opposed to my own. There is this social darwinistic streak. Nobody seems to have any hope of belief that these sorts of problems can be solved. Problem solving seems to simply be about building a wall against the stuff you don't like and hide in your own gated community.

It is also bizarre for a Scandinavian to come to the center of tech innovation and see so little usage of technology in everyday life and in the public sector. Frankly America seems extremely backwards when it comes to actually implementing technology in society. We are used to paying pizza on the door with a card reader, fill out taxes and pay them online or through an SMS message. Tax info is automatically collected and filled out so you only need to verify it. Many super markets use LCD displays to update prices across the aisles and people frequently do self checkouts. While things like certainly exists in pockets in the US, it is surprisingly common how manual many tasks are done, and how much paperwork is involved in both private and public sector. Visit a hospital in the US and you have to fill in all sorts of papers. Need a subscription, more papers. And then they got to count the pills. In Norway subscriptions are sent electronically from your doctor to all pharmacies. I can request a new prescription from an iOS app.

I suspect a lot of this comes down to that there is no interest in America to improve society as such. One only things in terms of business which can make money and not in terms of how can government be modernized and work better towards it citizens. But in America there is zero faith in government. However that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. How can you expect quality government if you have already decided government is inherently bad?

I wish it was different because I really want to live in the US. I hate Norwegian darkness and climate. I also enjoy how much more sociable Americans are. But values of American society is very hard to accept or stay indifferent to.

a.) less homeless/mentally unstable (what do you think an Chinese authoritarian government does to these people in Beijing, the capital?)

b.) no discussion of religion or politics in SF. tons of ayn rand followers (did he really go to sf?)

c.) lots of constructions in Beijing (lots of them empty, badly built, debt financed)

d.) cheap stuff

e.) creative people (what innovations came out of beijing?)

f.) silicon valley is now just focused on business execution (again, what innovations came out of beijing?)

no mention of Bejing's

a.) crippling internet censorship. (you couldn't hit any foreign websites regularly unless via VPN, and even that fails frequently)

b.) pollution

c.) corruption

d.) unease towards foreigners

e.) 2-3 hour traffic jams

f.) language barrier

I find fintech in China particularly interesting. Alipay and all the services around it are eons ahead of anything we have in the west.

The Chinese government is an oligarchic, nepotistic cesspool that violates human rights on a massive scale with absolute impunity: the author's extensively elaborated moral outrage about the presence of homelessness in San Francisco juxtaposes absurdly with his starry-eyed gloss over the sickening injustices of the Communist Party.

I'd rather have a government that fails to effectively address homelessness than a government that blithely sells executed prisoners to Western roadshows. [1]

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/145...

So an article by a self confessed criminal. I didn't read past that.

Actually it is hard to talk about this with an America because you got your labels all wrong. You label things liberal and conservative in ways nobody else does which confuse more than clarifies.

The economic policy by e.g. the republican party is primarily liberal. Their social policies are conservative. The democrats are generally socially liberal and somewhat less liberal in economic policy. But neither follows what we normally associate in the rest of the world with left wing economic policy. That would be labeled socialist or social democratic.

Also, my labels aren't "wrong" they are different. For example, I wouldn't call your label of conservative wrong but would just say European conservative.