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

#181

Post by arkh » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:23 PM UTC

celdon25 wrote: post #79

arkh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be a huge error. The US culture already pervades everywhere in the EU thanks to their medias. We really don't want them to invade us directly and out-birth our native population using our health care system and social benefits. They should stay in their country.

1. I can't picture that many Americans moving to Europe, even if it were easier. 2. Of those who do move, do you think they will be smart or stupid for doing so? Will Europe get America's best or worst people? 3. Isn't Europe full of Middle Eastern refugees and globalists? Is your view a minority or is it a common opinion of Europeans?

1. I don't either but if we limit immigration from one kind of culture we should limit it from all.

2. I'd say those who want to profit from "free" healthcare first. Kind of what happen with our expats: once they start popping kids they come back because they can pay a lot less.

3. Full of Middle Eastern refugees? Asking this is like someone asking if the US is full of Mexican illegals. No.

I started my comment a little "tongue-in-cheek" but the more I think about it the more I realize the culture difference could be hard: out of the UK people speak a foreign language, no credit score system, a lot more socialism, less PC-ness, being patriotic (out of sporting events) is usually not well viewed. And instead of simple racism you have xenophobia: most people don't care about your skin color but a lot will care about your country of birth.

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

#182

Post by ballenarosada » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:25 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #69

mjfl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. A person with a non-terrible credit rating can max-out around $16,000 using multiple credit cards. It's not a great idea, but I've seen it done, and confirmed that it's not a good idea. But if your alternative is a life of misery - escape! Also, it's highly unlikely that moving will be as expensive as $16,000 anyways. Perhaps $6,000-$7,000 for a small family of two?

Nope. Many people cannot get credit cards with credit limits that high. You are talking about the kind of credit available to someone who is earning a reasonable salary and has a long credit history. A person who meets that description is not likely to need to move for financial reasons in the first place. https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/6341/whats-the-ave... Also, it is just not a good idea to borrow $15,0…

Yup. Please give this advice to the first service worker you meet today, and let us know how it goes

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

#183

Post by nine_k » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:27 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…

I did nearly that: I moved to a relatively small city away from technology centers, where my wages from a remote developer job were enough for quite comfortable life. No, nothing like a primitive wasteland, of course.

But that the next position offered to me, paying, say, 3x my then-current wage, was in NYC, full-time and on-premises only, so I moved, despite the cost of living.

Probably once communications improve in these remote areas, working from there will become a more widespread option for IT people. Most of my current team works remotely, from offices in other cities across the globe.

The other problem was getting education for children. Finding and affording it is an important cause for moving.

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

#184

Post by BeetleB » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:27 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #161

Helmet wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fo…

>Man you're all over this thread handwaving away real concerns because of your parents.

He's not handwaving anything. He's not promising anything, either. If someone wants guarantees, they've got the wrong mindset. It's all about managing probabilities.

>It's totally reasonable to think that a family with kids who moves to Nebraska is still going to be food insecure.

And it's totally reasonable to think that low income people who stay in SV will remain 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.

Thank you for phrasing it as a choice. Just please own the outcomes of your choices!

Don't treat staying as a "default". Think of it as two choices (many, in reality, of course), and you are actively choosing one. So own the difficulties you will have while food insecure.

Advice often given to me in life, that I'm sure you've heard: If you're in a bad state, things are not going to change unless you do something about it. Granted, that something may make your life worse, but not doing much about it is usually a guarantee that things won't improve.

I'm not understanding some of this thread. Are people seriously looking for some kind of guaranteed solution? Most serious decisions - the major you pick, the school you go to, the city you live in, the job you decide to take - have attached to them a risk that your life may be worse if you follow through. When I was quitting my first job because of poor management and the work conditions, almost everyone tried to discourage me with your type of question: "Well what if you take that other job and it turns out even worse?" I just couldn't understand the question: So if your job sucks you will just sit and hope for better management?

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

#185

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:34 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #184

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

>Man you're all over this thread handwaving away real concerns because of your parents. He's not handwaving anything. He's not promising anything, either. If someone wants guarantees, they've got the wrong mindset. It's all about managing probabilities. >It's totally reasonable to think that a family with kids who moves to Nebraska is still going to be food insecure. And it's totally reasonable to think that low inco…

Unlike a young tech worker who isn't materially tied down to any location and can view all locations as equal, many people have strong ties to the bay area which serve to keep them there. Moving to Nebraska is pointless if all it does is make you worse off and that's the main point of my post and one you haven't addressed. Most of these families are in some crappy circumstances where they're at but moving would only make those circumstances worse - so let's not pretend there's options here that there aren't.

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

#186

Post by mjfl » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:38 PM UTC

ballenarosada wrote: post #173

Helmet wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, those that cannot afford to live in SF: hill caves.

"Hill caves"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln,_Nebraska#/media/File:...

You're an idiot.

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

#187

Post by kafkaesq » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:42 PM UTC

zkms wrote: post #180

kafkaesq wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 forc…

> It's called "zoning", and it's a perfectly natural construct. No particular implementation of zoning law is a "natural construct", and USian zoning laws have an extremely particular focus on preventing the construction of high-density housing (hell, some jurisdictions even criminalise roommates in pre-existing housing). There's nothing natural or inherent about that; and plenty of other countries have more sensical…

Oh, not every ordinance (or planning department directive) is "natural" or reasonable, of course. But zoning generically is a pretty well established and generally understood practice by this point - on par with the idea of "democracy", or for that matter, this business land "ownership" in the first place.

Or that is to say, "natural".

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

#188

Post by Helmet » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:42 PM UTC

ballenarosada wrote: post #177

workthrowaway27 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This usually looks like homelessness. I think the OP doesn't admit any more charitable interpretation. If you think "change what they're doing" is a cogent policy position, then I don't know what to do with you

The above poster gave you an accurate interpretation of my position.

"Change what they're doing" is far more effective than the vast majority of any government policy position. If you continue to subsidize these people by taxing those on the upper-income brackets and redistributing the wealth, you will simply prolong the problem.

The issue is that SV is far too expensive to live in unless you work in tech, law, finance, etc. If you don't, you need to move to somewhere where you can actually lead at least a semi-comfortable life, and where you can put yourself and your family in a position to succeed.

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

#189

Post by frk1206 » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:44 PM UTC

taway20171214 wrote: post #114

mjfl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is the "lynching" argument. You pay for your bigotry.

look dude. in america, if you aren't white, living in a place where it's 90% white is really, really, really unpleasant. people basically treat you like human garbage on a daily basis. this has a massive effect on your well-being and psychology, triple so if you are a child growing up in that environment. i wish you would at least try to attempt to understand this instead of using the 'lynching' hyperbole which is ob…

As a brown immigrant with family living in places like Dallas, Houston and st Louis I vouch for this. Even though I'm filthy rich compared to the poor woman the article talks about even I could instantly increase my quality of life by moving to st. Louis. I would consider this a huge downgrade from the bay area primarily since it's simply unsafe and hostile for someone with my "color". My family members who grew up in the Midwest grow up living in lowkey constant fear. So yeah moving might be a terrible downgrade for many non whites.

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

#190

Post by meebs » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 4:45 PM UTC

mjfl wrote: post #56

foldr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone can borrow $15000. Wealthy people seem often not to realize that poor people don't have access to credit on the same terms that they do.

Nonsense. A person with a non-terrible credit rating can max-out around $16,000 using multiple credit cards. It's not a great idea, but I've seen it done, and confirmed that it's not a good idea. But if your alternative is a life of misery - escape! Also, it's highly unlikely that moving will be as expensive as $16,000 anyways. Perhaps $6,000-$7,000 for a small family of two?

As an intern I wasn't even allowed a $500 credit card despite making well over the median wage. Imagine making much less? I'd be laughed out the building.