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

The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 249 posts

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#101

Post by dragonwriter »

mjfl wrote: post #3

Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right? I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment was at 5% through the great recession . However, I fin…

> Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less?

Because people who are food insecure don't have savings to relocate, or the ability to take the income they have with them, generally.

> I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there

Lincoln has a population of 250,000; there are, per the article, 720,000 food-insecure people in Silicon Valley (and with California’s CoL-based poverty rate of 15%, ~4.5 million poor in California.) Aside from the previously mentioned considerations, that suggestion wouldn't be viable for making even a noticeable dent in the problem.

> However, I find whenever I suggest that, people act like if they move there they will be lynched - as if the place is a primitive wasteland inhabited by backwards rednecks carrying pitchforks.

While not necessarily addressing Lincoln specifically, that's (while perhaps exaggerated) pretty consistent, at least for the non-whites overrepresented in Silicon Valley’s needy, consistent with what non-white (and white, the though it usually bugs them less) travellers have consistently told me: their worst experiences of in-your-face, constant racial/ethnic discrimination and tension in the US are almost always in the Midwest, both white v. non-white and between non-white groups.

> isn't boredom good if you want to raise a family?

Not really. There might be some things that are good that very loosely correlate with boredom, but boredom itself is bad.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#102

Post by new_hackers »

coldtea wrote: post #94
mjfl wrote: post #3

Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right? I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment was at 5% through the great recession . However, I fin…

> I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. What, the local taxidermist is hiring?

Yes, clearly Nebraska has nothing to offer, move along

www.berkshirehathaway.com

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#103

Post by Veelox »

jhoechtl wrote: post #44

Why is this called a paradox? It's a greed and winner-takes-it-all culture. What are the mechanism in place which would guarantee at least a mild version of wealth redistribution?

The paradox is that Silicon Valley is one of he wealthiest parts of the country and yet >25% of the population is food insecure.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#104

Post by dsfyu404ed »

knightofmars wrote: post #92
elgenie wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you move? A train or bus from the Bay Area to Nebraska will run around $100. That’s around the same amount as Bay Area rent costs for just the time spent on the train/bus during the trip. > How do you find a job? To start, “Help Wanted” signs and odd jobs in the usual places (e.g. Home Depot). Then, network or use free internet at public libraries to search for something better. > Are there really many jobs…

TL;DR: "They should just move." is a naive response to the issue presented. Children and family/friends who are around to support you and also sometimes watch your children are often a reason. Could someone move themselves and their two children? Yes, it would cost $300 (to start). Then you'd need to find a place where all three of you could live before you've actually even found a job. This short-term place to live…

The high CoL states generally have pretty strong tenant protection laws. Talk to friends, family, anyone. Find a couch you can crash on for a week while you find a job. Skip your rent to save up for the move, make a small partial payment and go to court to avoid being evicted quickly. Buy a bus ticket and never look back. Children complicate things and working in a trade that's easy to find another job in makes things easier but the basic workflow is the same.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#105

Post by ebiester »

stinky wrote: post #26
mjfl wrote: post #3

Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right? I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment was at 5% through the great recession . However, I fin…

There is a solution. At the moment successful EU countries such as Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark are struggling with aging population and not enough people to fill blue colar jobs. I think EU should make it easier for US citizens who get any job here to move over. Americans in general are super hard working. Europe needs hard working people, while we can provide them with free universal healthcare, free universit…

They already have the Turks there for precisely that reason, and have since the 50s.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#106

Post by knightofmars »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #104
knightofmars wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TL;DR: "They should just move." is a naive response to the issue presented. Children and family/friends who are around to support you and also sometimes watch your children are often a reason. Could someone move themselves and their two children? Yes, it would cost $300 (to start). Then you'd need to find a place where all three of you could live before you've actually even found a job. This short-term place to live…

The high CoL states generally have pretty strong tenant protection laws. Talk to friends, family, anyone. Find a couch you can crash on for a week while you find a job. Skip your rent to save up for the move, make a small partial payment and go to court to avoid being evicted quickly. Buy a bus ticket and never look back. Children complicate things and working in a trade that's easy to find another job in makes thing…

Please re-read my "Sure, but..." paragraph and the sentence after it. You just did exactly what I was describing.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#107

Post by tclancy »

Alex3917 wrote: post #87
nostrademons wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're more likely to die of boredom, but isn't that better than food stamps, and isn't boredom good if you want to raise a family?" That's pretty much it. The Bay Area gives you the chance to be on the cutting edge of change, which - for a certain personality type that tends to be overrepresented in the Bay Area - is often reason enough to live there. Most of the people who want a stable & boring environment to rai…

> There's also the issue where history has basically never been kind to groups of people who felt they could live a stable, boring existence while clinging to old ways and enjoying a high standard of living. As an interesting counter example, iirc one of the main groups of people who survived the Irish potato famine were the Celts, because they refused to give up the old ways of eating wild Clover and switch to growi…

I think you've read a myth: grass isn't particularly nutritious for humans[0] and I doubt the Celts were regularly eating clover. It's an interesting example you raise though, given the famine was caused by rich people ignoring the needs of the poor.

[0] http://www.health24.com/Natural/News/Can-humans-eat-grass-20...

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#108

Post by taway20171214 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #101
mjfl wrote: post #3

Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right? I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment was at 5% through the great recession . However, I fin…

> Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Because people who are food insecure don't have savings to relocate, or the ability to take the income they have with them, generally. > I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there Lincoln has a population of 250,000; there are, per the article, 720,000 food-insecure people in Silicon Valley (and with…

> their worst experiences of in-your-face, constant racial/ethnic discrimination and tension in the US are almost always in the Midwest

i'm asian american.

here's what life is like somewhere other than maybe 3 or 4 cities in the US:

1. constantly explaining to people why i am not white (where i'm from, where my parents are from, why my last name is what it is [it's anglo])

2. children are constantly getting the 'eyes pulled back' and other racist names/gestures at school, and all the adults (teachers/admins) think its hilarious too (it's just a joke! don't you love being the butt of jokes? why can't you just let everyone make fun of you all day and take it silently?)

3. name-calling 'chink', 'gook', etc are normal occurrences, not exceptional events.

4. the general feeling that nobody thinks you're really american. i.e. when discussing whichever asian country is in the news today they'll say "no offense".

5. oftentimes being ignored by people, even when you walk right up to them and ask them a question. for example when shopping in a store.

6. hyperawarneness of the hollywood situation (in tv and movies white people = gods, everyone else = a literal joke)

7. limited cuisine that you grew up with (although this one is changing)

basically it's just non-stop suffering. that's why everything is cheap in the midwest. it fucking sucks unless you are the 25% of the population that its designed for.

quite frankly if i had kids, i'd rather be STRUGGLING in california than outright RICH in the midwest, because i don't think you can be rich enough to actually buy your kids a good enough life to make up for racism. it's borderline child abuse.

the kicker of course is not only do i experience this kind of stuff in i.e. michigan, people visiting from the midwest do this to me in my own home city.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#110

Post by zkms »

mjfl wrote: post #3

Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right? I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment was at 5% through the great recession . However, I fin…

> Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right?

The "is doing %s a fundamental right?" argument works a lot of ways.

Is preventing other landowners from building high-density housing on their property (which would decrease the "$2000/month" rents, a blindingly obvious signal of low housing supply) a fundamental right? The crisis mentioned in the article would be quite lessened if minimum rents in the area were far lower; which they would be if NIMBYs weren't abrogating the property rights of others by preventing the construction of new dense housing.

Post reply on HN