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

#221

Post by jdtang13 » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 8:46 PM UTC

taway20171214 wrote: post #108

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…

> 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…

If you really feel this strongly, then I would suggest you raise your kids in Hong Kong or Singapore -- any sort of Anglophonic East Asian city would be good. The situation of Asian-Americans will likely not get better in the future.

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

#222

Post by jpao79 » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:02 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #219

jpao79 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there could be a case for a YC startup focused on relocation. The idea is to simplify the process for non-tech people to discover options for employment, housing, culture, community, etc. in the various smaller towns and cities in the US. The ability for people to do any product discovery (where the product is the city/town) prior to relocating is quite limited with huge ramifications/risk if you get your selec…

I know founders who've tried to do a relocation-financing startup. They failed to get traction and ended up running out of money. AFAIK, so did most of their competitors, as well as startups in the general "here are some nice other places to live" category you describe. (It was a pretty crowded space...you can bet that any market where there are Internet commenters saying "Why isn't there a startup doing X?" actually…

To your point about someone already doing it, this is roughly what I was thinking although with a more global focus:

https://teleport.org/cities/

https://teleport.org/cities/portland-or/

https://teleport.org/compare/portland-or-vs-raleigh-vs-los-a...

Seems like it was founded by former Skype employees and recently acquired by a Relocation/Move coordination company.

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

#223

Post by epistasis » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 9:18 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #129

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…

people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here Well that cuts to the very heart of democracy doesn't it? Why would the government of territory X not answer to the taxpayer-voter of X, over people who merely want to live there? There are reasons why they might of course, enumerate those reasons and the real dynamic will come to light.

It also cuts to the core of property rights. If somebody is building something according to local laws, why should neighbors be allowed to stop that legal construction? That is what happens now, and it drives up construction costs dramatically, further driving up costs of the very very little new housing that gets built.

What rights go along with property? Does it include the right to stop your neighbor from changing and improving their property?

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

#224

Post by CocaKoala » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 10:09 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…

> Then what are they upset about? They're already in the best place, aren't they?

They're upset because they're food-insecure. Did... did you forget how this whole conversation started?

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

#225

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

julesqs wrote: post #218

Helmet wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had no family here. If your car breaks down and you can't take it in, you fix it - been there, done that. I sympathize with their situation, I have personally LIVED their situation, but if they cannot afford to live somewhere they need to figure out how to move.

> they need to figure out how to move no, they don't. You need to consider that telling people to leave the geographic area that is their family home is a shitty response. You need to consider whether, perhaps, there are government policies that can help these people. You need to consider whether sneering at poor people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps makes you a shitty person. Also how is a single working…

For the love of god....

I'm intimately acquainted with both being poor and poor people. I have never in my life sneered at them and I donate generously to help them when I am in a position to do so. I have been poor for the majority of my life (I am not anymore) and I have seen firsthand what works and what does not.

Your government projects, ideas, and policies are a complete disaster that do nothing but exacerbate the problem.

>You need to consider that telling people to leave the geographic area that is their family home is a shitty response.

It is the only honest response. It is not what people want to hear, and it certainly isn't as comforting as what most liberals will peddle to the poor working class, but it is the honest truth (as I see it, given my experiences and education).

I'm being very blunt in this thread because I am passionate about this issue. I have seen people's lives ruined, people that I grew up with, because they were trapped in a cycle of poverty and crime because their parents refused to do what needed to be done: pack their bags and GTFO and move somewhere where it is cheap to live and where crime is low.

>You need to consider whether, perhaps, there are government policies that can help these people.

Do you realize the scale of redistribution that would have to occur so that poor people could manage to live in SV? This place is too expensive for middle and upper middle class professionals, much less the working class.

What are your great government backed ideas? Publicly subsidized housing? Have you ever lived in a government housing project? Have you been near one? If you haven't, I will gladly share with you my experiences.

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

#226

Post by closeparen » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 10:24 PM UTC

Helmet wrote: post #225

julesqs wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they need to figure out how to move no, they don't. You need to consider that telling people to leave the geographic area that is their family home is a shitty response. You need to consider whether, perhaps, there are government policies that can help these people. You need to consider whether sneering at poor people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps makes you a shitty person. Also how is a single working…

For the love of god.... I'm intimately acquainted with both being poor and poor people. I have never in my life sneered at them and I donate generously to help them when I am in a position to do so. I have been poor for the majority of my life (I am not anymore) and I have seen firsthand what works and what does not. Your government projects, ideas, and policies are a complete disaster that do nothing but exacerbate…

The typical proposal from the leftist NIMBY camp is to harden rent control, eliminate no-fault eviction, and require that any new housing production be allocated to existing needy residents by government lottery. Optionally add downzoning to reduce landlord incentives to let buildings die of neglect (no opportunity to build anything more profitable). This effectively makes it impossible for outsiders to displace anyone.

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

#227

Post by closeparen » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 10:26 PM UTC

zkms wrote: post #110

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 blindi…

Many seem to think that the right to vote on zoning is embedded in real estate ownership.

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

#228

Post by closeparen » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

ratboy666 wrote: post #81

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...

Yes... too many people. If a software eng or ceo wanted to eat out, someone has to prepare the food. The person, in turn, has to live there. So, if 86,000 is "poor" (defined as the minimum needed to live in the area), the person doing the food preparation has to be paid at least that. The "burger flipper" has to be paid that. If people moved out, quickly the "burger flipper WOULD be paid that". But that, in turn, wou…

Your claim is incredibly easy to verify: are there restaurants in New York and Paris?

Apparently so.

There are too many people to maintain our suburban character, sure.

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

#229

Post by celdon25 » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 10:39 PM UTC

arkh wrote: post #181

celdon25 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lit…

There are actually relatively few racists in the US (especially in non rural areas), but I have been aware of the rampant European-style racism for awhile due to my mother being a flight attendant, and how she was treated. Sad to hear that we even have apologists for it on Hacker News.

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

#230

Post by closeparen » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 10:39 PM UTC

d--b wrote: post #202

seattle_spring wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Large-scale housing production is prohibited in the Bay Area as a matter of public policy. Reasons include honoring the “rights” of neighbors to be spared from unwanted changes in their neighborhoods, general anti-capitalist beliefs that markets are the wrong way to allocate housing or that private capital is the wrong way to build it, rejection of the idea that supply and demand apply to hosuing, and the simple observation that when new housing is built, it tends to be expensive.