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

On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

residentcontrarian.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 920 posts

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#901

Post by AWS_IAM_AMA »

Aeolun wrote: post #898
Aeolun wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never having to think about money is an incredibly privileged position though. That’s true regardless of your standard of living.

This comment seems to fairly controversial for some reason. If someone reads this still and disagrees, can you let me know why?

Hi! I'll give it a try, though I didn't downvote you. My reading is that your comment is trying to argue with the one above it, even though you're both coming from the same direction.

GP says that "SV techs" are unrelatable because they always want more $, and mentions that they're satisfied with what they make. They don't try to say that they're not in a privileged position, just that they don't see the need to always be wanting more.

Your comment, then, is a bit of a non-sequitur - even though it's correct, you don't really have an argument to have with GP. Maybe it's just your phrasing that's throwing people off.

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#902

Post by criticaljudge »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #659
criticaljudge wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the only reason those homeless people don't get their houses is that nobody wants to give them to them? I rather doubt that number. More likely those empty houses are in places where nobody wants to live, or that are unsuitable for homeless (because the environment to support them is missing in the location).

The empty houses in UK and especially London is a well-known and researched problem, they are prime real estate where the owner decided that renting them out is not worth the trouble, they are just land-banking and waiting for their 'investment' to grow. Many (of those) owners don't even live in UK. We had a 'homeless' guy build his house in a forest, but ofcourse the government showed up to remove him. Many people w…

The housing situation in London may be special, and I would bet you can find socialist laws behind it that make renting out properties nonviable (like rent controls and making it impossible to get rid of bad tenants). Here in Berlin there is a similar discussion, some people claim empty houses are the cause of the crisis, others say it is a myth. Since I had that debate recently I looked up the articles who found no such surplus, but the "believers" just want to believe, because it is such a handy explanation.

I don't think number of houses is the problem, either. People need houses in certain places. That's why homeless hang out in San Francisco where a flat costs 1 million dollars, while a couple of hundred of miles away it would presumably be much, much cheaper.

As for your production, it still all costs energy, and getting energy also costs labor (and even wars, remember the wars about oil).

Abandoned factories simply have turned out to be not economically viable. If you think you can do better, why don't you pool your money with some friends, buy such a factory and start it up again?

You merely display the typical arrogance of socialist who always believe they could run everything better with a "planning economy". And when they finally get to try it out in the real world, they get a major painful reality check.

Take your factories: since they were not economically viable, it would be wasteful and a net loss for society and the economy to start them up again.

You are partially right about increased productivity, and it actually has improved the lives of many people. I personally am very glad that I don't have to spend my waking hours doing hard labor on a field just so that I can harvest some potatoes. Most people in the west have enough to eat, and clothes they can wear, many even have a nice smartphone on top.

Some resources are still limited, though, such as nice places to live in.

And the world population has also grown by a couple of billion people compared to 100 years ago. Your job that fed a family at the beginning of the 20th century still feeds a family today, only in China.

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#903

Post by criticaljudge »

dv_dt wrote: post #806
dahfizz wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By growing inequality and pushing people into poverty I am sick of hearing about poverty as a growing problem. It simply isn't. Median income, and the lowest income quintile, have grown steadily. The percent of Americans living in poverty has been declining. Median wealth is still lower than it was before the 2008 crisis, but it was growing strongly before and has grown strongly since the Great Recession. All trend…

In the US, even before the 2008 the percentage poverty rate was higher than the 1970's. It was about to come down lower than the 1970's just before the pandemic hit. After the pandemic I presume we will be back to worse than the 1970's rate. But the poverty rate measure has been flat or worse for 50 years. However, even though the overall rates were returning to flat before the pandemic - the percent of people below…

"Poverty rate" is usually defined of terms of earning less than the average income minus some %. It does not imply people actually being poor, in the way people imagine poverty (not being able to afford food, clothes, housing...).

Today even an "average poor" person can live better than a king 400 years ago.

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#904

Post by criticaljudge »

whimsicalism wrote: post #643
criticaljudge wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since people can multiply, infinite amounts is a possible scenario. Also scarcity - think of "a kingdom for a horse". If there are 1000 apples and 1001 people, and everybody who doesn't get an apple starves to death, the 1001th apple would be worth an infinite amount of money to the 1001th person at least, or to the person who wants to save them by all means.

> Since people can multiply, infinite amounts is a possible scenario Unless my physics course misled me, no, it isn't.

The value can be infinite. If you are about to die, you would give everything to prevent it - more than you have.

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#905

Post by billyruffian »

> Usually you can be over a month late before the water company actually goes to the trouble of sending someone out to turn off your water.

What? You can be disconnected from water because you're a month late? That's barbaric, what the hell are you supposed to do in that situation?

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#906

Post by criticaljudge »

danaris wrote: post #897
criticaljudge wrote: post #891

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you have read the description of the poor in the 19th century, so I'd say it still doesn't compare. Nobody starves in the west, unless they have a serious mental illness. But then the comparison would also be silly, as their problem would not primarily "being poor", but having a mental illness. Of course you can always find somebody who is worse off than somebody else. Those starving people begging in the street…

> Nobody starves in the west, unless they have a serious mental illness. I'm sorry, but that's just flat-out not true.

Who is starving, and why? I think if you can point to some starving children and make a public call, you would get lots of donations. If you are aware of such cases, please point them out, or contact the appropriate charities.

Googling brought up this, which seems to confirm my hunch. People do know hunger, though. https://www.quora.com/How-many-Americans-starve-to-death-eac...

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#908

Post by anemoiac »

endominus wrote: post #881
anemoiac wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why you can't tell the hypothetical young, poor student both 'A' and 'B.' In fact, not doing so seems a bit manipulative (regardless of your intentions). A potential consequence of perpetually leaving 'B' out of the discussion is that, while some of these young, poor students will escape poverty and others will not, neither group may realize that the status quo reflects decisions made by human bein…

I would assume the opposite; tell someone that if they work hard, they have a chance is less likely to induce despair in my opinion and experience than telling them that their efforts are meaningless because every part of society is arrayed against them, the odds are laughable, and their failure is all but guaranteed. How could that not make someone feel hopeless? Opportunities and success are not and never will be e…

> tell someone that if they work hard, they have a chance is less likely to induce despair in my opinion and experience than telling them that their efforts are meaningless because every part of society is arrayed against them, the odds are laughable, and their failure is all but guaranteed. How could that not make someone feel hopeless?

I must not have done a very good job communicating my thoughts, because this is explicitly not what I was advocating for. The post I responded to claimed that both "A) The cards are stacked against you, but your best chance is to work hard..." and "B) You are the victim of a broken system and this system needs to be fixed", then suggested leaving B out of the discussion - even while acknowledging that both 'A' and 'B' were true.

My suggestion was simply to not leave out true, relevant information for the sake of provoking some desired behavioral response from the target audience. That just seems manipulative and paternalistic to me.

This isn't a revelation, however. It's certainly not uncommon for members of marginalized groups to tell their children that they'll have to work twice as hard as other children to end up in the same place.

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#909

Post by ClumsyPilot »

criticaljudge wrote: post #902
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The empty houses in UK and especially London is a well-known and researched problem, they are prime real estate where the owner decided that renting them out is not worth the trouble, they are just land-banking and waiting for their 'investment' to grow. Many (of those) owners don't even live in UK. We had a 'homeless' guy build his house in a forest, but ofcourse the government showed up to remove him. Many people w…

The housing situation in London may be special, and I would bet you can find socialist laws behind it that make renting out properties nonviable (like rent controls and making it impossible to get rid of bad tenants). Here in Berlin there is a similar discussion, some people claim empty houses are the cause of the crisis, others say it is a myth. Since I had that debate recently I looked up the articles who found no…

Ah yes, the good old: 'this guy dares criticise the status quo, must be a socialist"!

You post is narrow minded and presumptious - I am not socialist, we don't have rent controls in London, and there are economic terms other than 'socialist' and 'capitalist'. Try 'Shumpeterian'

But if you want to go on believing that the only choices are socialism or economic collapse every 8 years, go on.

Re: On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't

#910

Post by Aeolun »

AWS_IAM_AMA wrote: post #901
Aeolun wrote: post #898

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment seems to fairly controversial for some reason. If someone reads this still and disagrees, can you let me know why?

Hi! I'll give it a try, though I didn't downvote you. My reading is that your comment is trying to argue with the one above it, even though you're both coming from the same direction. GP says that "SV techs" are unrelatable because they always want more $, and mentions that they're satisfied with what they make. They don't try to say that they're not in a privileged position, just that they don't see the need to alwa…

Thanks, I read it all a few times more and I think I can see what you mean, though it’s quite hard.

No matter how, I keep coming away with GP sounding like they’re humblebragging :) I don’t have issues with the literal content, just with the meaning I read into it.

Either way, thanks. This is the first time I’ve seen a comment on HN flip flop around so much on score.

Post reply on HN