I'm in favor of the Twitter perks; that neighborhood has needed help for a long time. But I think you dismiss too lightly the displacement of people and the substantial rich/poor divide in this city.
The problem isn't the NYT's reasoning. They just have different values than you do. To some extent I agree with them; San Francisco has definitely gotten less diverse. We don't get smart people from "all over the planet". We get them mainly from whitebread America, Europe, and certain parts of East and South Asia. They're generally well-educated and well off. A lot of people who have been in SF for generations are getting priced out of the city, and that is disproportionately affecting black and Latino residents.
One can legitimately say, "so what?" But it's not irrational to dislike that.
We get them mainly from whitebread America, Europe, and certain parts of East and South Asia.
I.e., they come from half the planet (Europe + USA + China + India == about 3.5 billion people) rather than the whole planet.
You are correct that the NYT has different values, and it's important to recognize what those values are: they view certain privileged [1] groups as deserving of being statistically represented in SF. Their underlying value system is basically corporatism.
(The term "corporatism" is only peripherally related to modern LLCs. While a modern LLC may be a corporation, so are "black people", "poor people" and "long time residents" in the sense that the NYT is using them.)
Well, most of them come from the well-off portions of those places, so it's a lot less than half the planet. But yes, you seem to get my point, which is that the population in SF is not representative of the globe at large.
I guess if you wave your hands some you could call it a flavor or corporatism. But I think your description of those groups as privileged is pretty rich. From a certain angle it's technically correct, but in a way that aggressively misses the point. You might as well call them lucky duckies.
There are about 2^(6 billion) subgroups of humanity. The NYT consistently chooses a small subset of those subgroups to focus on, and to give moral consideration to.
The particular grouping chosen by the NYT is just an arbitrary moral choice to privilege the {race == black} subgroup over (for example) the {SSN % 7 == 2} subgroup.
I didn't claim their grouping choices had nothing to do with history or morality, nor did I claim randomness. I specifically said that the NYT's choice of which groups deserve privilege is based on an "arbitrary moral choice".
Yes, the choices are moral choices. But by calling it arbitrary, I presume you mean: "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."
If they are without reason or system, then the can hardly be derived from existing moral systems (that, is morality), or the application of those moral systems to (and lessons learned from) historical circumstance (history).
But by all means carry on with your aggressive point-missing. Would you care to pick this particular nit? Or perhaps a different one?
The problem isn't the NYT's reasoning. They just have different values than you do. To some extent I agree with them; San Francisco has definitely gotten less diverse. We don't get smart people from "all over the planet". We get them mainly from whitebread America, Europe, and certain parts of East and South Asia. They're generally well-educated and well off. A lot of people who have been in SF for generations are getting priced out of the city, and that is disproportionately affecting black and Latino residents.
One can legitimately say, "so what?" But it's not irrational to dislike that.