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

Poor in Tech

megelison.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 817 posts

Re: Poor in Tech

#561

Post by watwut »

CountDrewku wrote: post #519
chris11 wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment wasn't that opposition to welfare programs was solely caused by racism, just that it was one motivation. It's easier to defend a racist policy if racism is never explicitly brought up, the policy just has a disparate impact along racial lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#%22Southern_strate...

>The comment wasn't that opposition to welfare programs was solely caused by racism, just that it was one motivation Ok so how would one oppose welfare programs and not be labeled racist? Do you believe there are no individuals taking advantage of the welfare system and that pointing out anyone who is would be racist?

I think that the above was comment abour welfare queen discussion that actually happened in USA around 1980 in presidential campaign.

Re: Poor in Tech

#562

Post by christkv »

zozbot234 wrote: post #414
username90 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the solution is to acknowledge that they are dumb and therefore focus resources with the assumption that they are dumb. USA assumes that poor people are smart, Europe assumes poor people are dumb. The European way is much better, and yes poor people in American are dumb, just like they are in Europe.

> Europe assumes poor people are dumb. This is one of the many drawbacks of socialism, even the "socialism with Scandinavian characteristics" that everyone seems to be obsessed with lately in the U.S. It assumes government paper-pushers are the smartest people around with the highest I.Q. ever, and everyone else is just a dumb lightweight. It's all about that soft bigotry of low expectations.

This trope has to die. The Scandinavian countries are market economies with a social benefits and health care system not socialist countries.

Re: Poor in Tech

#563

Post by kixiQu »

Mauricebranagh wrote: post #267
gonehome wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without the race element - there’s definitely a class thing. I noticed it when I moved to the Bay Area after growing up in western New York. The types of foods people ate or didn’t eat, the restaurants people would or would not go to. The shows people would or would not watch, even the way people talked. I think I hadn’t really seen the difference in class behavior before in America. Now it’s easy to see it. A l…

And also surprising the author did not experience it at Uni where even well off middle class people, suddenly are mixing with much wealthier people. I remeber my cousin who went to UMIST saying this and that side of the family was well off. Its even more noticeable if you went to oxbridge and bumped into some one like Borris Johnson and his Bullingdon mates.

Not all of us went to schools that have "much wealthier people" attending, of course.

Re: Poor in Tech

#564

Post by [deleted] »

gonehome wrote: post #544
istjohn wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you could argue that the opposite is true. Much classism in America is actually racism. For example, opposition to welfare programs have often been motivated by racist tropes like welfare queens. The truth is that racism and classism in America are deeply intertwined.

Welfare may be a bad example because I think there are more white people on welfare in general? Would potentially be evidence of class divide. I think there’s truth in what you’re saying though - single family zoning is an easy example. Also when they talk about welfare on the news and only show black people (even though more white people are on welfare iirc) - or how the sister reply to your comment gets indignant d…

[deleted]

Re: Poor in Tech

#565

Post by zozbot234 »

christkv wrote: post #562
zozbot234 wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Europe assumes poor people are dumb. This is one of the many drawbacks of socialism, even the "socialism with Scandinavian characteristics" that everyone seems to be obsessed with lately in the U.S. It assumes government paper-pushers are the smartest people around with the highest I.Q. ever, and everyone else is just a dumb lightweight. It's all about that soft bigotry of low expectations.

This trope has to die. The Scandinavian countries are market economies with a social benefits and health care system not socialist countries.

Tell that to the Bernie bros.

Re: Poor in Tech

#566

Post by bumby »

proxyon wrote: post #502
StavrosK wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not about smartness or dumbness, though. I don't think intelligence is correlated with poverty much, but poverty is additional difficulty, so they have to work harder for the same thing as someone who isn't poor.

> I don't think intelligence is correlated with poverty much There is a perfect correlation between the two

Can you point me to a reference that gives a “perfect correlation” I.e. corr(IQ, poverty) = -1.0?

Re: Poor in Tech

#567

Post by watwut »

dcx wrote: post #316
phone8675309 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can be poor and still act more “upper class” and you can be rich and still act “working class”. You are stunningly naive if you think that a poor person acting more "upper class" isn't reminded that they're "out of their lane" more than someone rich acting "working class".

No need to go for the throat there. And especially not when you're not totally correct. Paul Fussell's Class documents the exact phenomenon OP describes. Wealth is not class [1]; class is much more complex. For example, poor academics are higher class than rich blue-collar workers. Donald Trump is crazy rich but affects many of the working-class behaviours described in said book (technically "high prole"). Barack Oba…

Donald Trump is as high class as it gets. From upbringing to the way his career developed. To the people he socializes with.

> Being rich and well-connected for long periods ... which can persist even when the wealth doesn't, and continue to confer benefits. Preferring golf or tennis to say, bowling, doesn't necessarily come with a major difference in affordability. But being good at golf might help your career more than bowling

He was literally rich from the day he was born to old age. He was getting those benefits whole his life. He plays golf.

What he is not, is not being good person.

Re: Poor in Tech

#568

Post by 2cb »

swader999 wrote: post #426
bsanr2 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tl;dr Poor people (and racial and ethnic minorities, and women, and queer folk) are not dumb. They just have to turn their equal cognitive resources towards things other (and more fundamental to survival) than their magnum opus/business idea/etc. Those who overcome this are HIGHLY effective, but it's not fair that we ask it of them. That's not how an effective or efficient or just society runs, and we leave money on…

People don't give credit to luck enough imo.

Agreed here. I quite openly will say I’m lucky to have an intense interest in computers and to develop enough skill with them to get a job in the high paying tech industry. I didn’t choose what my passions, talents, or skills are after all.

I’m always surprised that people tend to take exception to this, saying it’s nothing to do with luck, I worked hard.

That’s also true. I did and still do work hard.

But that doesn’t invalidate the fact that I had zero control over the fact I happen to live in a society that relies upon, and therefore places a high value on, the area I happen to be skilled in. There’s people with great talent in other areas that are very hard to make a living from.

Much of where we end up in life is determined by luck and chance. That doesn’t mean we’re not also working for what we have. Just means there’s multiple variables, life is unpredictable and isn’t fully within our control, and if we happen to be highly talented at something society places great value on there’s an element of luck at play.

Re: Poor in Tech

#569

Post by throwawaybbq1 »

swader999 wrote: post #426
bsanr2 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tl;dr Poor people (and racial and ethnic minorities, and women, and queer folk) are not dumb. They just have to turn their equal cognitive resources towards things other (and more fundamental to survival) than their magnum opus/business idea/etc. Those who overcome this are HIGHLY effective, but it's not fair that we ask it of them. That's not how an effective or efficient or just society runs, and we leave money on…

People don't give credit to luck enough imo.

Yes .. but.

I had a great education/CV early in my career, and had the opportunity to interview at some of the top most companies prior to their IPO (some when they were tiny companies). Google, Facebook, Stripe and maybe 3 more that went on to be billion dollar exits. I screwed up every single time. Either I did not take the interview seriously, or took a more prestigious academic job compared to the start up opportunity. Talk about being in the right place, at the right time and still missing out. I have barely paid off a small fraction of my starter home (no longer in the Bay area). I really wonder if it is just luck or more complex than that. (Good) Luck got me the right opportunity,but it can't just be (Bad) luck that snatched away all those opportunities from materializing? Clear, I made extremely bad decisions, missed out on the greatest wealth creation event in history, and must live with this till my end.

Edit. There is a rich-dad, poor-dad point I'd like to make. My parents were extremely bad with investments and not very educated. This made me chase the higher prestige academic jobs as opposed to the lucrative startups. Also, when my white friends (with moderately-rich parents) were buying houses at 5% down, I said they were crazy and I was paying off 5% interest education loans, saving up for a bigger down-payment, buying my car for cash, etc. My parents went through the days of 20% interest and never understood the power of leverage. They passed on risk-aversion to me. Even now, I understand the power of leverage, but am still scared to use it.

Re: Poor in Tech

#570

Post by lhorie »

isomorph wrote: post #116

Many of the comments on this article are so cold. I can’t believe it. When I read the original article I was imagining all the constructive ways HN readers would interpret it and hold a mirror up to their own behaviour. Some commenters are doing this. But it surprises and depresses me how many people are commenting saying “no, this list isn’t what it says it is, it’s a list showing the author has a negative mindset /…

> Many of the comments on this article are so cold.

I mean, the tone of the article is pretty much "me vs them", so is really any surprise that some people would take offense?

The anecdotes range anywhere from caricatures (hot cheetos) to gaffes (cheering over a bonus cheque). What you're implying is that one ought to be empathetic about the OP's struggles w/ "rich person etiquette". But that in itself is a bit tone deaf: it comes across as "first world problems" to those who aren't in the "silicon valley bubble" and it comes across as elitism strawmen to those whose entire careers are in Bay Area tech.

It's kinda like listening to Justin Bieber sing about how lonely he is. It might strictly be true that he struggles w/ loneliness, and it might strictly be true that empathizing with him is "the right thing to do", but it's also strictly true that everyone has a right to not give a rats ass.

The "poor" mindset varies from person to person. Sure there are people that struggle w/ ghetto mindset, but I've had conversations with many people who self-identified as "cheap bastards" (in their own words) who would talk about slowly coming to terms with the fact that they now had decent incomes and disposable money.

Post reply on HN