Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 428 posts

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#401

Post by DougN7 »

sofal wrote: post #396
DougN7 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you see someone look down on another's thoughts because they aren't "critical thinking enough, you'll find someone (or a culture) that assumes they have all the facts, and have considered all possibilities. That is hubris. I find people who are truly open don't hold so desperately to facts, because they tend to change over time.

The fact that this entire comment could have been written by (for example) a flat-earther in response to criticism of their flat-earth beliefs makes it difficult to understand what kind of "facts" you are disappointed that people hold so dearly to, and what kind of facts you believe change over time. Depending on your response, I might agree entirely with you or disagree entirely. I understand that human knowledge is…

Flat earthers are derided now, but that wasn't always so. You might have been in that camp 500 years ago and been just as adamant then as you are now.

500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?)

Heck, maybe antibiotics do contribute to autism some how. I very much doubt it. But it would be hubris to assume I know absolutely everything there is to know about the human body, antibiotics, and all their interactions. So I disagree with anti-vaxxers, based on current evidence. But I won't dismiss them and consider them less intelligent.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#402

Post by sofal »

DougN7 wrote: post #401
sofal wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that this entire comment could have been written by (for example) a flat-earther in response to criticism of their flat-earth beliefs makes it difficult to understand what kind of "facts" you are disappointed that people hold so dearly to, and what kind of facts you believe change over time. Depending on your response, I might agree entirely with you or disagree entirely. I understand that human knowledge is…

Flat earthers are derided now, but that wasn't always so. You might have been in that camp 500 years ago and been just as adamant then as you are now. 500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?) Heck, maybe antibiotics do contribute to autism some how. I very much doubt it. But it would be hub…

Flat earthers are derided now, but that wasn't always so. You might have been in that camp 500 years ago and been just as adamant then as you are now.

We knew this 500 years ago too, but even if we didn't it would not have been rational to pretend to know the shape of our entire world without having evidence to back it up. All we would know is that it appears to be flat from our limited vantage point, and we were free to investigate further using various methods.

500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?)

500 years from now it will still be the case that light can behave like a particle and a wave depending on how you're measuring it. We may have better, more accurate models to explain the behavior of light in 500 years.

So I disagree with anti-vaxxers, based on current evidence. But I won't dismiss them and consider them less intelligent.

The reason that many people believe vaccines cause autism is because of a fraudulent study by Andrew Wakefield. Believing in a claim based an a proven fraud is not rational regardless of what is discovered in the future.

To put it generally, if you believe in claim X for bad reasons, and it later is discovered that X is true, it does not mean that you were retroactively acting rational for previously believing in claim X for bad reasons.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#403

Post by linkregister »

phkahler wrote: post #362
jdhn wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I would call the Detroit market hot, it took me about 3-4 months to find a new job. However, I'm not a software developer, so rhat could also have something to do with it.

Every single person I know in software has a decent job and I'm having a hard time finding good people. We're slowly increasing staff, but it's hard. Back in 2008-9 I worked somewhere that was hiring a LOT and the problem was just sifting through the mountains of people after the crash. This is the complete opposite. Part of the problem is internal - since management wants to operate very lean we need to find really…

"Our salaries aren't competitive, but we still wonder why we can't hire any good people!"

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#404

Post by linkregister »

Veelox wrote: post #347
geebee wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, maybe not. Even in the excelsior, a 1200sf ft house that is liveable (not remodeled highly, just liveable) will run you $900k. It can go up from there easily. It's possible , I suppose... You'd need to be a one income family at 100k, because there's no way you could cover that and child care. But yeah, a stay at home spouse and a working spouse who brought in 100k might be able to make it work south of 280.…

Even with your edit I would like to chime in that I got a condo in San Jose that is 3 bed, 2 bath for <500k. It isn't fancy but it is home.

When did you buy this condo? Surely not recently.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#405

Post by dllthomas »

closeparen wrote: post #119
spoonie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah what's probably best is some number closer to "monthly net after taxes, rent, insurance".

If I take home $2500/mo and pay $1000/mo rent and $500/mo expenses, it takes 9 months to save a six month emergency fund. If I take home $5000, pay $3500/mo in rent, and spend $500 on everything else, it takes 24 months to save a six month emergency fund. Yet my monthly net is the same. Ratio matters a great deal. Maybe less so after you've established savings.

True that ratio is more relevant to savings where your target scales with local COL. That's true for some things, not for others.

Though I might argue, regarding an emergency fund in particular, that establishing and maintaining such would be something that should be accounted as an expense rather than savings.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#406

Post by [deleted] »

xor1 wrote: post #394
geebee wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask you about one thing, though? Both my kids are in SFUSD schools, and San Francisco actually has a large number of 10/10 rated schools. This is based on test scores, of course, so it doesn't tell the whole story. For instance, take a look at this: http://www.greatschools.org/california/san-francisco/schools... Do you think that your elementary school in Colorado are vastly better than the top three we see her…

I've never even heard of anyone moving to an area because of elementary schools, or factoring them into a decision related to moving and/or purchasing a home. Only the quality of high school matters from what I've seen (in rich parts of LA and Orange County).

[deleted]

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#407

Post by DougN7 »

sofal wrote: post #402
DougN7 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flat earthers are derided now, but that wasn't always so. You might have been in that camp 500 years ago and been just as adamant then as you are now. 500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?) Heck, maybe antibiotics do contribute to autism some how. I very much doubt it. But it would be hub…

Flat earthers are derided now, but that wasn't always so. You might have been in that camp 500 years ago and been just as adamant then as you are now. We knew this 500 years ago too, but even if we didn't it would not have been rational to pretend to know the shape of our entire world without having evidence to back it up. All we would know is that it appears to be flat from our limited vantage point, and we were fre…

> To put it generally, if you believe in claim X for bad reasons, and it later is discovered that X is true, it does not mean that you were retroactively acting rational for previously believing in claim X for bad reasons.

That is true. Isn't it equally as true that if one goes around telling people they are wrong, and then it turns out that one is wrong (based on new evidence), one has been wrong AND a hypocrite? The temptation is to say "ahh, but THIS TIME we have better science!". That's always been the case.

My point isn't about truth and error as much as hubris, humility, and respect.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#408

Post by sofal »

DougN7 wrote: post #407
sofal wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flat earthers are derided now, but that wasn't always so. You might have been in that camp 500 years ago and been just as adamant then as you are now. We knew this 500 years ago too, but even if we didn't it would not have been rational to pretend to know the shape of our entire world without having evidence to back it up. All we would know is that it appears to be flat from our limited vantage point, and we were fre…

> To put it generally, if you believe in claim X for bad reasons, and it later is discovered that X is true, it does not mean that you were retroactively acting rational for previously believing in claim X for bad reasons. That is true. Isn't it equally as true that if one goes around telling people they are wrong, and then it turns out that one is wrong (based on new evidence), one has been wrong AND a hypocrite? Th…

I think a big part of the reason why hubris is bad is because it causes you to make mistakes when determining truth from error. If someone goes around telling people a claim is false without sufficient justification, and they're doing so as a reaction against people believing in the claim for bad reasons, then you could say that their hubris (or something like it) caused them to make an error in judgement.

There is a difference between saying that a belief in a claim is not rationally justified and saying that a claim is false. Both sides of these debates can make mistakes. Those against believing in the claim can make the counterclaim that it is false, and they might not actually have justification for that. On the other hand, often those that believe in the claim misinterpret the other side as making the counterclaim when they are in fact not doing so.

In the case of autism there has been extensive research since the moral panic began, and no evidence for a link has been found where it was expected to be found, thereby bringing increased justification for the counterclaim. I think this is also true with many other unsupported claims out there that are popular enough to have been exposed to systematic scrutiny.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#409

Post by Danihan »

nradov wrote: post #378
Danihan wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, all the smartest, most capable people should stop having kids. Considering intelligence is something like 85% hereditary, that will work out excellently!

There is no reliable evidence of people in the Bay Area being smarter or more capable on average than other major metropolitan areas. The average Bay Area resident may be slightly more educated but that doesn't necessarily prove anything about their level of heritable intelligence.

What would you consider reliable evidence? I'd say the Bay Area GDP and tax base alone would point that way.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#410

Post by gergi »

theparanoid wrote: post #259
chaostheory wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grew up in FL. Weather is actually terrible about 8 months of the year. It's too humid and hot. The climate is perfect for mosquitos, forcing you to wear long sleeve clothing at night during this humid weather ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalitis ). Insects and arachnids thrive in FL's swampy climate. People who aren't from either that or a jungle need to take time to adjust. Imagine being sweaty after walkin…

Interviewing in Seattle at Amazon, arguably the outdoor recreation capital of the US, only one of the interviewers had had time to take advantage.

> arguably the outdoor recreation capital of the US ... as long as you don't mind being damp the whole time. It's not a nice place to be outdoors much of the year.
Post reply on HN