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

661–670 of 817 posts

Re: Poor in Tech

#661

Post by bumby »

lazide wrote: post #650
bumby wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I read the parent comment. I originally typed out in my previous post that I felt you may have missed the point of the article, but I felt that was too harsh. I don't think the main takeaway from the article should be certain things commonplace in tech culture are "bad" but how it can be alienating. To that point, both yours and the parent post seem overly concerned with the "bad vs. good" distinction. I do have…

At some point, you have to decide to either; 1) talk about what you like, even if other people don’t connect well (be yourself at work?) 2) only like things other people connect with (seems limiting, but probably good for the social interactions) 3) pretend to like things others do and don’t talk about what you like (pretty much the definition of the conversationalist, but doing that all the time seems fake and proba…

>Learning how to connect with them was a skill it took a lot of time and effort to hone

This was my main issue with the article. The author seemed so hyper-focused on the differences she saw day-to-day that she seemed unable to overcome them to find common ground to connect.

>You can’t be authentic AND make everyone happy. Literally impossible. If someone is alienated by someone talking about who they are

This isn't really what I was getting at though. To me, the issue isn't whether or not we can talk about or be our authentic selves, but more about creating a monolithic culture that has in-groups and out-groups. You can have a culture that is homogenous but still accepts those from the outside as equals. In that context, I don't think your assertions hold; you don't have to have the same interests to connect with people. For example, you can connect by being legitimately curious about differing interests as long as it's a culture that is open to different interests without using them as a defining characteristic. From the author's perspective, it seems like she still felt like an outsider. How much of that was in her own head stemming from insecurities about being poor, I don't know.

Re: Poor in Tech

#662

Post by watwut »

bumby wrote: post #546
watwut wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read my comment and comment I was responding to before writing yours? The parent complains that article listed things "act like wankers". Which clearly means "bad". Second, I worked with people who had completely different hobbies and interests than I do. I am not always in dominant majority, with climbing in that team I was. As far as I know, people having hobbies I don't care about is completely normal.

Yes, I read the parent comment. I originally typed out in my previous post that I felt you may have missed the point of the article, but I felt that was too harsh. I don't think the main takeaway from the article should be certain things commonplace in tech culture are "bad" but how it can be alienating. To that point, both yours and the parent post seem overly concerned with the "bad vs. good" distinction. I do have…

> So regarding the article and your example, indoor climbing may be commonplace in your peer-group while still being non-normative in someone like the author's peer-group.

It was normative in that one team and is not normative in other groups I am member of. You seem to assume I am perfect social fit in all teams and groups I am member off.

That is just not the case. Climbing made me normative in that place. We talked about it a lot, note past tense. And in other places they talked about stuff that profoundly is not interesting or available ro me.

It is super odd to me that you assume that normal state is to be perfect fit for working group you are in.

Re: Poor in Tech

#663

Post by sokoloff »

buescher wrote: post #653
sokoloff wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took the average cost of a new car in 2020 or 2021. Make it a $28K new car instead of an $8K used car and you're still saving a ton of money even with a few repairs along the way. I know plenty of people who owe money other than a mortgage who are driving $50K+ cars/trucks and sometimes have more cars than drivers in the household (and both of those blow my mind for people with non-mortgage debt).

Why not compare it to a car you scrounged for free? I mean, I'm not just arguing with you to win points. I was you. By the way. there are other problems with your math: you're double-booking the cost of the payment and the depreciation of the car. Really, play around with a total cost of ownership calculator like Edmunds'. It will be enlightening. Let's look at the F-150, the most popular vehicle in America. For the…

One problem with that calculator is that it "rings up" the depreciation after 5 years, in effect assuming you'd sell the car at that point. Much of the savings here are driven by keeping the functional car for 10+ years, not having to carry collision insurance on a car that's too expensive to write off, paying less in transaction costs and taxes, etc.

It's not the calculator is "wrong" in answering the question it asks, but that it's asking the wrong thing. Very few people want to buy an 11 year old car, so buying a 6 year old car and selling it 5 years later and doing the same thing again is overly penalized vs buying a 6-year old and selling it 10-15 years later (for much less), but only doing that once instead of two or three times.

> Why not compare it to a car you scrounged for free?

Because I can't repeatably find a reliable car for free. I can repeatably find many reliable cars for $8K in any city in the US. We paid $7500 for our 2005 CR-V in 2011. It was in overall great condition with high miles (165K-ish). It now has 220K miles on it and rust will kill it long before miles do (New England road salt).

Edit to add: I agree that my method above was double-counting depreciation. I should have stuck to cash items rather than including a non-cash item.

Re: Poor in Tech

#664

Post by lenocinor »

twic wrote: post #655
dang wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replies are welcome, but I've collapsed this subthread to prevent the page from going too far off topic. Sorry—I know that my comment is just as off topic. But it has an educational function (at least under optimistic assumptions) and that requires people seeing it.

What if we shadowbanned all comments for half an hour, or an hour?

I think this could be useful. Or maybe something like suppress the first half hour of comments and then show them all at once but in reverse chronological order.

Re: Poor in Tech

#665

Post by bumby »

watwut wrote: post #662
bumby wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I read the parent comment. I originally typed out in my previous post that I felt you may have missed the point of the article, but I felt that was too harsh. I don't think the main takeaway from the article should be certain things commonplace in tech culture are "bad" but how it can be alienating. To that point, both yours and the parent post seem overly concerned with the "bad vs. good" distinction. I do have…

> So regarding the article and your example, indoor climbing may be commonplace in your peer-group while still being non-normative in someone like the author's peer-group. It was normative in that one team and is not normative in other groups I am member of. You seem to assume I am perfect social fit in all teams and groups I am member off. That is just not the case. Climbing made me normative in that place. We talke…

>You seem to assume I am perfect social fit in all teams and groups I am member off.

I made no such claims. I literally only used the sole example you used.

>It is super odd to me that you assume that normal state is to be perfect fit for working group you are in.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. All I am stating is that if you find yourself in a fairly homogenous group that you don't necessarily fit in, it can be an alienating experience. My only other claim is that point seemed to fly by you because you were more concerned with things you're interested in, like indoor rock climbing, being painted as "bad".

>It is super odd to me that you assume that normal state is to be perfect fit for working group you are in.

I’m not sure how you can have this takeaway. My point is literally the exact opposite idea about how homogeneous cultures can be alienating if we aren’t careful.

Re: Poor in Tech

#666

Post by Applejinx »

chucky_z wrote: post #382
Applejinx wrote: post #155

"Three paychecks is a month and a half of income (rent and two car payments by my fevered calculations, which never stop)" Pay attention to those last three words. This is very important. I've been on both sides too, and to me those words are like a slap in the face: stark reality. If you're poor enough (relative to the costs of your life) you are at a constant exhausting deficit because you CANNOT stop calculating a…

I’ve been extremely lucky moving to the Bay Area to be someone who has not failed. I grew up poor. Today, I have enough money for rent and bills, I still think and worry about them. The endless what if’s are a lifetime long curse, and there is no cure.

No, it's that you don't have enough margin (possibly because your lifestyle expanded to keep pace with your resources?)

My parents died. They'd been sitting on property and had never tried to 'featherbed' their kids' experience, so we all grew up THINKING total failure was an option. I survived until I was over 50, very much living constantly with less than $1000 in the bank and a roof over my head (one exception to the latter, but it didn't last long)

I went, at a stroke, from that, to more than $100k in the bank (quite a bit has now been turned into equipment for my work, but not all)

If you have enough money to go for a YEAR with everything else collapsed and gone to zero… as in, however lush or humble your lifestyle, you lose all means of income, but it'll taka a year for you to burn through all your money and have none left… and then you have not lost your normal income after all… that would probably shut off the 'what ifs'.

It's a margin thing. You can continue to keep track, you can continue to fill out your checkbook and all that, but if your margin is roughly a year before you're in serious danger then you will probably not burn extra cycles worrying about your finances. And if you do, the therapy to straighten that out won't be super hard.

I bet you 'enough money for rent and bills' means you can always pay them, not that you've got 12 times that amount socked away. I absolutely wouldn't have ever had that except that my parents literally died and left it to me. I don't design my life to squirrel away 12x more money than I will ever need. I think it's unhealthy, though obviously my folks did something of that nature to create the situation.

Re: Poor in Tech

#667

Post by jsnell »

colinmhayes wrote: post #318
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure it's a much better experience if you fly first class.

The part that's the worst isn't being on the plane. It's going to and being at the airport. First class doesn't fix the god awful experience that is flying.

There are plenty of ways to make the airport part more pleasant with more money. Priority check-in desks and security mean you don't need to get to the airport as early just in case, it will be consistently fast. Priority boarding removes the need to queue. Leaving first probably means shorter queues at immigration. Lounges are much more pleasant to wait at than the general access areas. Does first class baggage also get offloaded first?

Re: Poor in Tech

#668

Post by leetcrew »

wlesieutre wrote: post #385
nrmitchi wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can relate to this guy. Not about the billionaire part, but about the goldfish part. Good to know that we at least have something in common.

> What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coca Cola, Liz Taylor drinks Coca Cola, and just think, you can drink Coca Cola, too. A coke is a coke and no amount of money can get you a better coke than the one the bum on the corner is d…

I get the point of the quote, but it's not entirely true today. setting aside the existence of "premium colas", there is a higher tier of coca cola: the one that has actual cane sugar and is imported from mexico. if you order a coke at a nice restaurant, you will likely be served one of these. the imported version isn't prohibitively expensive, but it is uncommon to see poor people pay a premium for soda.

Re: Poor in Tech

#669

Post by sdenton4 »

TwiztidK wrote: post #534
sdenton4 wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Consider also: just not owning a car. Bikes and transit for the day to day and occasional outlays for wknds in the mountains is cheaper than owning any car.)

Worth considering in many places (especially due to the additional hassle of having a car in some cities) but not viable in others, at least without considerable hardship.

There are no universal solutions... Car ownership shouldn't be considered as the default option, either. I tend to think people overestimate the 'hardship' by not fully considering options to use money to overcome them. Also, daily cycling - even if not strenuous - has excellent health benefits.

For example, you can get a really nice cargo bike for a fraction of the yearly savings of not owning a car, which will last for decades and solves the 'hardship' of handling groceries. This won't work in every case (recall, no universal solutions), but it significantly shifts the decision boundaries.

My fleet consists of a 'fast' sporty bike, a folding bike (for day to day, connecting with transit, taking on train trips, etc), and an old xtra-cycle cargo bike. The bikes were built/bought 15, 5 and 12 years ago, respectively; basically free once amortized. And since I'm saving ~$5000/year by avoiding car ownership, I just try not to feel shy about using 'expensive' one off transit solutions when it's substantially more convenient.

Re: Poor in Tech

#670

Post by 908B64B197 »

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 /…

> you can't buy your way out of the mindset, or snap your fingers / empty the cache / cycle the power the way the average HN commenter seems to think you can.

Reading the list, most of them are pretty harmless if not annoying. But one struck me as something completely different:

> I knew I was the only poor person at my tech startup because I was afraid to seek mentorship from anyone above me, convinced that even asking would seem like bothersome begging. I watched the people around me network effortlessly, assured of favors and good words put in. I could only think in terms of what I could offer and how I could survive; they were thinking on the next level where they never had to wonder if they were good enough. They were to the business-class manner born, at least.

Seaweed Snack vs Cheetos is a class thing, and maybe cultural (I could see people of East-Asians origins reaching for the seaweed more than the Cheetos).

But not being able to get help or mentoring and to network is an enormous barrier to career progression.

Post reply on HN