The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 3:57 PM UTC

Helmet wrote: post #145

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 reality is those perspectives are from someone educated enough to understand economics, government programs and how the system works, and someone with a supportive well functioning family. All of which someone working a food-service job is unlikely to have. Don't make assumptions. They can move. My reality is of a first-generation immigrant. My parents did not have degrees and worked minimum wage jobs. They mov…

Man you're all over this thread handwaving away real concerns because of your parents. It's totally reasonable to think that a family with kids who moves to Nebraska is still going to be food insecure. If I'm an unskilled worker and I can live in the bay area near my family, where I'm comfortable, where I have friends and I'm food insecure or I can go move out to the Midwest where I have none of that and I'm still food insecure because now I have the added costs of childcare, less public transportation options, etc. AND I have none of the support network I had around SV then there's no way I'm moving. Maybe the difference between all the people in the article mentioned and your parents is that what made sense for your parents actually doesn't make sense for these people.

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

#162

Post by ballenarosada » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 3:58 PM UTC

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 should longtime residents have to leave the Bay Area because of your ignorance/piles of money? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right?

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

#163

Post by kodablah » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 3:58 PM UTC

zzzzzzzza wrote: post #137

taway20171214 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"no offense" doesn't mean that they think you're not american, even though it could mean that, similar to "where are you from". I'll grant you tv/movies, though that is undeniably getting better. I grew up in a town literally called "white settlement", conservative suburban but semi rural texas, most of my friends were asian and while I don't think they NEVER heard the word chink, it was never in a threatening or eve…

White Settlement is definitely not semi-rural IMO compared to how many towns in TX are rural and semi-rural. However, having also grown up in a similar style area just west of there, I concur with not hearing anything like GP mentioned. It's unfortunate that GP had bad stereotyping/racist experiences, but it's fortunate that they visited every single city and are able to make these claims about all but 3 or 4 without doing their own stereotyping.

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

#164

Post by SauciestGNU » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 3:58 PM UTC

zzzzzzzza wrote: post #137

taway20171214 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"no offense" doesn't mean that they think you're not american, even though it could mean that, similar to "where are you from". I'll grant you tv/movies, though that is undeniably getting better. I grew up in a town literally called "white settlement", conservative suburban but semi rural texas, most of my friends were asian and while I don't think they NEVER heard the word chink, it was never in a threatening or eve…

For my family it's not so much racial slurs as the constant question "what are you" because rural white people aren't used to seeing mixed race Asians. The question is dehumanizing, especially when you hear it your whole damn life.

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

#165

Post by workthrowaway27 » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:01 PM UTC

CocaKoala wrote: post #156

Helmet wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How? How do you move to Nebraska when you have $100/week for food? You scrounge and save up or work odd jobs and get enough to move. > How do you find a job, when you have literally 0-day you can spend without working? There are plenty of jobs. They're not very good jobs, or jobs that most people want to do, but life isn't always about doing what you want. If you cannot afford to live somewhere, you need to move. >…

So your proposal is that the single parent work a second job in order to move to Nebraska. Who takes care of her child while she does this? Does the kid go to child care? How does the single parent pay for the child care? Does she need to get a third job to pay for the expense of her second job? What happens when the car she takes to work breaks down, and wipes out her savings? What about when she gets sick because s…

That's an uncharitable interpretation of OP's point of view. I interpreted OP as saying something like: these people obviously can't afford to live where they are now, they don't have an reasonable expectation of being able to do so anytime soon, so they need to change what they're doing rather than expecting someone to come rescue them.

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

#166

Post by kafkaesq » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:01 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #112

Housing problem. There's not enough of it, and the people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here. It's a completely artificial construct that drives up the cost of living and robs the poor with rent seeking. All of California's inequality problems go back to that. High salaries for some people help make it stronger, but the greed of the NIMBY homeowners is a f…

It's a completely artificial construct that drives up the cost of living and robs the poor with rent seeking.

It's called "zoning", and it's a perfectly natural construct.

And if you're going to be fair, you'd acknowledge that ultimately it presents a set of tradeoffs, with both positive and negative impact.

All of California's inequality problems go back to that.

Inequality is a very complex problem, with many forces and actors at play. Any analysis that attempts to reduce it to a single causal factor will instantly fail.

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

#167

Post by newshorts » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:02 PM UTC

Helmet wrote: post #130

Joe-Z wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What do you do with the people left behind? What do you do with the engineers once they've written all the software to automate our daily lives? But haven't you read what the very empathetic and kind poster before suggested as an answer?: These fucking losers should move to whatever hill cave's still vacant, because they are to blame for not having gotten rich fast enough. I really like your writing, very precise an…

There is no such thing as "fair redistribution" - it's theft through political means and it will just further obscure the market. You will end up exacerbating the problem. The solution is to build more housing and stop subsidizing one-another, so that those that can afford to live there do and those that cannot move.

Look up ordolibralism. It seems to be working pretty well.

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

#168

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:05 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #112

Housing problem. There's not enough of it, and the people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here. It's a completely artificial construct that drives up the cost of living and robs the poor with rent seeking. All of California's inequality problems go back to that. High salaries for some people help make it stronger, but the greed of the NIMBY homeowners is a f…

>Housing problem.

Well this is part of what keeps tech workers from making as much as they'd like to and it definitely contributes to the plight of unskilled workers but not as much as this board seems to think it does. There's no realistic zoning changes in SV that are going to make a big enough dent. Unskilled workers will still be spending absurd amounts of their paycheck on shelter except now they'll be living under a restaurant exhaust system or above a noisy bar.

The real winner of zoning changes is going to be well-paid professionals who can buy up real estate with their savings and become the NIMBYs of tomorrow.

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

#169

Post by crdoconnor » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:06 PM UTC

rblatz wrote: post #132

jorgemf wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the pay rises more will come. Things are not that simple

It’s almost like that’s how the market is supposed to work! The price moves around until demand and supply match.

Right. Everybody is charging for scarcity.

Some people charge for the use of the labor they do with their own two hands.

Other people are simply charging for the scarcity of land which they didn't create or make valuable, but were granted the exclusive right to use by the government.

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

#170

Post by b6 » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:09 PM UTC

Helmet wrote: post #141

dragonwriter wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Because people who are food insecure don't have savings to relocate, or the ability to take the income they have with them, generally. B.S. If they cannot afford it, they can move. My parents moved, I have moved, it f'ing sucks, but it's completely possible and feasible and the responsible thing to do.

Downvoters, please explain yourselves. Parent post is fundamentally making a statement about what is possible. If you think it is impossible, the burden is on you to explain why, considering it is possible even to escape from an actual prison, and we are talking about the possibility of escape from SV!