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

#201

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:03 PM UTC

b6 wrote: post #193

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> many people have strong ties to the bay area which serve to keep them there It sounds like you're saying that something there is important to them, so they choose to stay. We all make choices and live with consequences. > but moving would only make those circumstances worse How can anyone be sure of that? But let's say it's true that moving anywhere else would make their situation worse. Then what are they upset ab…

>It sounds like you're saying that something there is important to them, so they choose to stay. We all make choices and live with consequences.

Yes, I guess that's basically my point. Many in this thread are talking about "options" and "choices" but really what we're talking about is an option that's better for these families than the status quo. No one cares that there's a million things that could make these families worse off, we're here figuring out what could make their lives better. What I'm saying is that for most of these families the option: "moving to Nebraska" belongs in the million pointless worse off options bucket and not in the life-improving options bucket. Even when you speak of "consequences" you mean the negative effects of their decision not to move to Nebraska, but I'm saying that not moving to Nebraska doesn't have that many negative consequences because moving to Nebraska is a totally shit option for most people.

>How can anyone be sure of that? But let's say it's true that moving anywhere else would make their situation worse. Then what are they upset about? They're already in the best place, aren't they?

You don't understand why someone trapped in the cycle of poverty would be upset? Why someone who has to go to a food bank every week to get by would look at the incredibly wealthy citizens of the city they inhabit and be a bit peeved? Are you familiar with poverty? Are you human?

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

#202

Post by d--b » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:08 PM UTC

seattle_spring wrote: post #119

d--b wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many people? Are you serious? San Francisco + Silicon valley has 3 million people. That's less than half of New York City. The amount of money the region makes is more than enough to support that population over that area...

The Bay Area has 7 million people. I'm not sure why you cherry picked a subset of the region to claim a low population, but it strikes me as intentionally misleading.

I got the number from there: https://jointventure.org/news-and-media/news-releases/1260-s...

It's the top result from googling "silicon valley population"

Still 7 million people is not a lot density-wise, I'm just saying you just can't blame high prices on people density only...

At least you can blame it on "not enough housing". Which sounds weird to me, cause cheap housing is very quick to build.

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

#203

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:10 PM UTC

Helmet wrote: post #199

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> many people have strong ties to the bay area which serve to keep them there. My family had strong ties to Yugoslavia, until NATO bombed it, so we moved to Germany. We had strong ties to Germany, until it seemed likely that our temporary refugee visas weren't going to get extended, so we moved to the USA. We had strong ties to Washington DC, but it was too expensive. We ended up in Roanoke, VA. You do what you need…

I think you're still missing the point. These families can't afford to live in Nebraska either.

You repeatedly phrase your family as being different from these people, your family knew what to do and made temporary sacrifices for a better long term success right? And these families just lack the grit or determination or smarts or whatever of your family right? Have you considered these families are doing the same thing as your parents? That they're making the same calculations your parents made but that the Bay area is still a better scenario for them? That your family isn't really that different from these families?

Moving from a SV Chipotle to a Lincoln Chipotle is great until I try to figure out what to do with my 2 year old son and realize all the gains I've made and more will be eaten up by childcare bills that my mom/grandma in SV could have done for free.

Moving isn't some inherent good that magically makes you better off, it's a calculation: just because your parent's calculation came up with "Move" doesn't mean these people doing the exact same calculation are going to come up with "Move."

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

#204

Post by jorgemf » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:18 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.

That is my point. It doesn't solve the problem

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

#205

Post by BeetleB » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:27 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #185

BeetleB wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>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.

Can I borrow that crystal ball of yours?

You're acting as if you/they have complete information about what life in Lincoln/elsewhere will entail.

A lot of your comments are simply loss aversion. Focusing on what you may lose, not on what you may gain.

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

#206

Post by b6 » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:28 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #201

b6 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many people have strong ties to the bay area which serve to keep them there It sounds like you're saying that something there is important to them, so they choose to stay. We all make choices and live with consequences. > but moving would only make those circumstances worse How can anyone be sure of that? But let's say it's true that moving anywhere else would make their situation worse. Then what are they upset ab…

>It sounds like you're saying that something there is important to them, so they choose to stay. We all make choices and live with consequences. Yes, I guess that's basically my point. Many in this thread are talking about "options" and "choices" but really what we're talking about is an option that's better for these families than the status quo. No one cares that there's a million things that could make these famil…

> Many in this thread are talking about "options" and "choices" but really what we're talking about is an option that's better for these families than the status quo.

OK, this is interesting. One source of fundamental disagreement between people in this thread seems to be that some people are looking at options that are currently available, and some people want better options. I'm more in the first group because life is short and I don't want to wait in a bad situation for years in the hopes that someone somewhere will provide some totally new option that I'm really pleased with. Of course it goes without saying I want better options to be available for everyone. But that takes time.

> You don't understand why someone trapped in the cycle of poverty would be upset?

Yes, of course I do. I'm sorry if I made my point badly. It's just that you say moving anywhere else would make their situation worse. I don't accept that at all, but if it's true, then they're already in the best place for them to be. What do you want? Instant worldwide elimination of poverty no matter what choices people make?

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

#207

Post by danans » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:40 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #27

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…

"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…

> the only people having babies in Silicon Valley are seemingly Indian and Chinese, along with a smattering of Mexicans and other immigrants. I have a bunch of white friends here, and of the ones who have had kids or are planning to in the near future, they fit into two groups: 50% have moved back to their hometown already, and 50% are planning to.

I have a feeling that you are seeing there a hyperlocal trend influenced by the particular local demographics. In the east bay from Oakland and north and in the mid peninsula, SF, and the North Bay, there are a lot of white families with kids (along with the other demographics you mention except perhaps fewer Indians)

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

#208

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:47 PM UTC

b6 wrote: post #170

Helmet wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

[deleted]

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

#209

Post by notthemessiah » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:48 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.

The job market doesn't necessarily behave the same as commodity markets: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/keynes

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

#210

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 6:12 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.

It's feasible and responsible in some circumstances (e.g., you are comfortable with savings, then your income collapses and you have no near term prospects, but you have a working vehicle, a destination with better prospects, and savings to cover costs during the move and in the gal between relocation and securing a job or at least establishing local benefit eligibility. (Or, in place of savings, softer assets like a social network that includes people willing to provide short term assistance in the destination location, either in cash or in kind, such as a place to stay.)

If you are working but food insecure without savings or such alternative support assets, then even if the long-term prospects are better in the destination, it may not be l feasible or, even if feasible, responsible because of the transition costs.

You can't make up for starvation today with better long-term prospects.