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

This is Real, That's Not

streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 364 posts

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#191

Post by timeeater »

imgabe wrote: post #132
timeeater wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately it is not true in general that the reason accounts are being banned is incivility. Censorship of unwanted opinions is very much real on this site.

There is a flag in your profile called "showdead" that you can turn on to see the comments that have been deleted. There might be some minimum karma requirement for this, I'm not sure. But I've had it on for a while now and I usually read a few of the dead comments. I see a lot of incivility, inanity, very little in the way of a politely expressed, well-thought out but unpopular opinion.

I didn't claim that incivility does not also exist. And the banned accounts don't show up in showdead anymore, either. What you consider "well-thought out but unpopular opinion" could also be subject to your personal biases.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#192

Post by chaostheory »

The majority of the homeless do recover from homelessness within several months with a combination of help from both public and private programs. However, approximately 20% remain chronically homeless.

The reason people fail to realize that they could be chronically homeless is because no one expects to suddenly suffer from either mental illness or drug addiction problems. Until we regain a national mental health program again, this will always be an issue

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#193

Post by Ntrails »

headmelted wrote: post #186
pjc50 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the UK. Although it's not a normal loan in that repayments are linked to income and there is a promise that it will be "forgiven" at retirement (which I'm a little skeptical of)

The UK loans are actually a good deal if you really understand them, which students here inevitably don’t. It makes demanding government to pay for tuition here pretty abhorrent imho. I know a lot of working class/blue-collar families here, and talking with them, it really becomes clear how incredibly selfish and unreasonable it is to expect their taxes to buy someone wealthier than them an education that they themse…

I think that the modern loans are a far less amicable deal than I had just a few years ago. Interest rates far higher despite an incredibly low rate environment.

But. The repayment thresholds and the loan forgiveness period do massively reduce the onerousness, especially on those in lower paid roles who would otherwise never repay. My main complaint about the system is really how it drags on the middle.

The successful graduates pay off their loans in 6-7 years, or less. If you're earning 40-50k, you'll take more like 20 years to pay off the loan which feels like a long hard slog. I still think graduate tax would have been the right call.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#194

Post by zeckalpha »

nullc wrote: post #53
eigen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The top 1% earned an average of $515,371 while the annual income for the average taxpayer was $41,740. > The minimum net worth of the top 1% was roughly $10.4 million, according to Forbes. The top 10%, on the other hand, has a net worth of about $1.2 million. [ https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/average-net... ]

The discrepancy between $10.4 million net worth and $515k income (which I assume includes gains) confused me for a moment, until I realized that the $10.4 million figure likely includes at least one large non-income-producing piece of real-estate.

These numbers loosely correspond with the 4% rule for gains.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#195

Post by timeeater »

tchaffee wrote: post #190
timeeater wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I literally asked a question. And I meant choose San Francisco as the place to be homeless in, not choosing homelessness. If you would apply the principle of charity, you would have been able to read my comment correctly.

Here is your claim: > homeless people flock to places with spare money and mild climate. Here is what it would look like as a question: Do homeless people move to places with spare money and mild climate? The "why else" construction is not a literal question. It's rhetoric device used to make a claim about reasoning. It implies that you've thought through all the possible reasons and you've come up with the obvious a…

I wrote the reason MIGHT be spare money and mild climate, and in that context my question is an actual question, not rhetoric.

"It implies that you've thought through all the possible reasons and you've come up with the obvious answer."

No, me writing "MIGHT" literally implies the opposite of that.

It is also an aspect to consider, in any case - it is a valid question of why there are many homeless in a rich place. Merely claiming "inequality" is not actually an answer. In theory, the rich place should offer more job opportunities than poor places elsewhere.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#196

Post by AmericanChopper »

ggm wrote: post #169
AmericanChopper wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But for nine months we reduced homelessness and structural health problems to single digit or less and it almost certainly saved money. > That's the truly amazing thing: the net budget effect on federal and state funded interventions was probably better, and they STILL unwound the programmes. According to the treasurer of Victoria, they allocated $150 million budget to provide this accommodation for 2000 people. Th…

That's a forward commitment for 18 months of secure housing and 24 months of complete support for mental and physical health and welfare. Its not the amount spent to take 2,000 people off the streets right now.

You're correct, if you look at the line items in the budget the cost to get 2000 people off the street right now is actually $42,250 per person per year. Still far from $13k. Also depending on what document you look at it's either 2000 people or 1700 people so it's somewhere between $42,250 and $49,705.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#197

Post by zeckalpha »

twblalock wrote: post #145
Iv wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are taking a loan assuming: - You will graduate - Your diploma will get you a high paying job If either of these assumptions fail, you are back to square one, poorer than someone who own nothing.

Then graduate, and major in something that will help you get a job. I needed loans, and I made good decisions with my education, and I graduated -- should that opportunity have been taken away from me because other people did not handle it well?

Didn’t the OP do those things and still end up homeless?

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#199

Post by draw_down »

Well, I’m not sure I agree with the emphasis on mental models. It’s 100% possible to understand exactly how the world works and be poor/homeless. In fact if you start out that way in life I’d wager your mental models are likely to be bang on, the world forces you to look at it.

Certainly the other upper class person who became homeless had bad mental models (“I understand finance so it’s wrong that I’m homeless”), but that seems more like a psychological defense than anything. Being poor is traumatic, being homeless is traumatic; you’d expect defense mechanisms.

The bit about MeFi is darkly funny, but I never spent much time there to say more than that. It certainly isn’t surprising that a bunch of liberal techie types think the world of themselves but actually treat those in need like shit.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#200

Post by dtech »

emteycz wrote: post #188
bberrry wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is literally no tuition in Sweden. The loans are for rent and general cost of living. You can have literally zero means and still go to university in another city.

False. It's subsidized to zero for citizens, but many schools are not free for foreigners either from EU or outside of it. Same in most EU countries.

Yes, so for EU citizens, there is no/low tuition in the EU, making the statement true.

This works this way for most social programs in most countries. E.g. to can't migrate to a country and then claim unemployment benefits. That doesn't mean the statement "the country has an unemployment program" is false.

Post reply on HN