Poor in Tech • Hacker News Board

Re: Poor in Tech

#751

Post by randompwd » Thu, May 20, 2021, 12:40 PM UTC

SkipperCat wrote: post #206

scandox wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant that wealthy people should not be too defensive about it.

But wealthy people should be defensive about it. Or at least acknowledge the fact that we have severe and increasing income disparity in America and a lot of people are suffering with anxiety and other ills because we let so many people expose themselves to massive risk by being poor. In Europe, you don't go bankrupt when you get sick. Health care is one of the top causes of bankruptcy in America. In more socialized…

You're about as informed on Europe as somebody who read a single headline and never dug deeper.

Re: Poor in Tech

#752

Post by bumby » Thu, May 20, 2021, 12:52 PM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #728

bumby wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s high status in some circles that equate celebrity with prestige

That’s kind of case-in-point - it’s high status in low class circles.

Is this confusing wealth and class?

Your statement, worded differently, seems to read "it's high class in low class circles". Are you implying class is only appropriately defined only by those in high-class? I guess I was looking at it as social prestige regardless of who in the social strata assigns it. In other words, if enough 'low-class' people think you're high-class, you're by definition high-class.

Re: Poor in Tech

#753

Post by cryptica » Thu, May 20, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

pnutjam wrote: post #583

xenadu02 wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only realized a bit later in my career: If you ask for more and they refuse then bail out. You can nearly always get a raise just by moving companies so find one that rewards your efforts. My current employer is the first place I have felt like my achievements were appreciated and the appreciation resulted in financial rewards. I barely had to ask, let alone beg or fight for it.

Yeah, nobody gives raises anymore. The only place ever got raises, they were tied to a union contract that just happened to benefit me (a non-member). Every other place would give bonuses or 1% "raises" that didn't cover the increased insurance costs. Pay scales were only used to hold down salary, "we can't bring you in at the top of the pay scale".

I changed companies 15 times in 15 years (changed countries 4 times) so I'm familiar with this phenomenon. It seems so artificial. Like a scheme. I would definitely have changed companies fewer times and wouldn't have left the country if I could just have been paid what I was worth.

Re: Poor in Tech

#754

Post by elzbardico » Thu, May 20, 2021, 1:49 PM UTC

bluecalm wrote: post #522

elzbardico wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The author of the comment seems not the understand simple concepts like averages and normal distributions. Additionally, he/her seems to assume a causal relationship where if you're poor it is because you're dumb, and not the other way around, or even a mix of those two things. Yeah, on average, poor people score a few points low than the average for rich people. true. But this is not an absolute as the post's a…

The society would benefit the most from policies that encourage smart and successful people to have more children.

How can you be so sure of that? Intelligence is not something as clear-cut as eyes color. While there are some evidence of an inheritable component, it is probably the result of the expression of several genes, with complex and different phenotypic expressions. It is far from clear how much we can expect that the offspring of smart people will be also smart, once you account for all the other variables associated with nurturing.

Meanwhile we DO KNOW that nurturing have a strong effect. This is a fact.

And then you have the problem of how to ensure that smart people have more kids. Are you going to force smart people to have kids? raise their taxes? prison? What about lower intelligence people? what do you propose? compulsory sterilization and abortion? As you can see, even if we knew for sure that smart people having relatively more offspring would actually work, The policy changes to enact that are a complete minefield of ethical and practical problems. So, at least in our society, this is clearly not a solution.

But, on the other side we do know that we can have interventions on nutrition, education and other such stuff that do have a demonstrable effect on increasing a series of variables that we collectively call intelligence.

You have, right now, for kids that already living, not some hypothetical future Einstein's offspring, tools to raise their intelligence and to make the most of their genetic potential, even if on average, their potential is a bit smaller (and always remember, intelligence is normally distributed, outliers abound, and the difference between the average of both groups is not that big to start, meaning there is a lot of overlap in relative terms, and considering we have for more poor people than rich people, is very likely that by virtude of the sheer numbers, you have more genius individuals, in absolute quantity, than on the upper classes, even if the average tends in favor of the upper classes.

And as intelligence is normally distributed, by giving poor kids a chance, you will even be able to identify among them some high potential individuals and give them the nurturing they need to reach what they are innately able to if given the chance.

So, what is your policy choice? Chase a pipe dream, while increasing inequality, something that historically always led to violence, or do something that is feasible, doable, ethical and fair?

Re: Poor in Tech

#755

Post by watwut » Thu, May 20, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #665

watwut wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, i…

> because you were more concerned with things you're interested in, like indoor rock climbing, being painted as "bad"

I was literally primary concerned opposing the original message I responded to - the one that claimed article says those hobbies are bad. It does not sound terribly difficult to understand to me. I opposed characterization of article itself.

You are trying to explain to me something about alienation when people in the room dont have the same hobbies, which has nothing to do with my point.

Re: Poor in Tech

#756

Post by buescher » Thu, May 20, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #739

buescher wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your math is off - for TCO you should be counting financing costs, not the payment itself. You don't really get away from financing costs by buying cash, incidentally: then they become the opportunity cost of not having the cash invested. I think people wildly overestimate how much you can save by driving a used car. Used cars are frequently overpriced due to demand for lower up-front costs and lower payments. Edmund…

> You don't really get away from financing costs by buying cash, incidentally: then they become the opportunity cost of not having the cash invested. I will never understand this logic. You do realize that this is investing on margin just with better conditions? At this point we are assuming that you already have an emergency buffer and no financial difficulty whatsoever. The reason why you should always finance your…

No, you are taking out a mortgage on a depreciating asset and investing cash at your level of risk tolerance. If your level of risk tolerance is a savings account at 0.5% so you can always have an emergency buffer, that's fine.

The argument is that to make an apples-to-apples comparison of total cost of ownership of one car and another, you should always include financing costs. They are basically your lowest cost of capital. Think of it this way: even if you're going to pay cash, leaving the finance cost in allows you some basis of comparision between the cost to you of putting say, $30K cash into a car versus putting $20K cash in. It's not exact but it's a useful simplification.

Re: Poor in Tech

#757

Post by bumby » Thu, May 20, 2021, 2:11 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #755

bumby wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, i…

> because you were more concerned with things you're interested in, like indoor rock climbing, being painted as "bad" I was literally primary concerned opposing the original message I responded to - the one that claimed article says those hobbies are bad. It does not sound terribly difficult to understand to me. I opposed characterization of article itself. You are trying to explain to me something about alienation w…

>I was literally primary concerned opposing the original message I responded to

I know, and what I'm trying to point out is that it misses what I consider the larger point. Your point above is tantamount to a "they started it" defense. Both you and the person you are responding to can be simultaneously missing the bigger picture. I was deliberately responding to the child comment because it would address both the child and the parent. My point is that your comment (and the one you responded towards) is wrongly focused, which has very much to do with your point. The fact that you seem unwilling or unable to see that perspective, even just to refute it, makes this dialogue tiresome. It would be like somebody writing an article about how a politician's rhetoric is divisive and somebody constantly defends it by saying it's eloquent...you can be "not-wrong" and still miss the point.

Re: Poor in Tech

#758

Post by bumby » Thu, May 20, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

strken wrote: post #702

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.

The word wanker in Australian English denotes a specific kind of negativity, attached to egotism and acting as though you're better than others. I shouldn't have used it on HN, as it's a poor choice of phrasing for an international audience. As per [0], "the socially leveling term wanker ridicules a person who is pretentious and arrogant, thereby suggesting that humility, solidarity and being down-to-earth are highly…

"douchey" is probably the closest I can immediately think of for American English

Re: Poor in Tech

#759

Post by buescher » Thu, May 20, 2021, 2:36 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #710

buescher wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that difference, as I pointed out, is one reason why sensible used cars are overpriced. (Another is the "market for lemons" effect) Now you're comparing a $40K new car to a $8K used car, which is not a reasonable comparison. Yes, used cars will save you some money, but they will generally cost you more money than driving a new Corolla or Civic. Poke around on Edmunds' TCO calculator. The problem with your argume…

> but they will generally cost you more money than driving a new Corolla or Civic OK. Sorry. Your comment annoyed me enough to look up my actual expenses which I've been logging since late 2007, as opposed to hypotheticals. Between then and now, I've spent $6247 on maintenance and repairs of my cars. Note this includes standard stuff like oil changes and tire replacements. That's about $480 a year. If I extrapolate a…

Please don't apologize and please don't be annoyed. Like I told "sokoloff", I was you. I get it. "In this house we buy used cars for cash and drive them until the wheels come off." So of course I enjoy this topic.

Let's look at your numbers. Say you bought two new Civics around 2003 for $28K total. Your maintenance & repairs should not be any higher for a new Civic than for any used car I can imagine. Let's assume gas is the same, and neglect transaction costs, finance costs, etc for now. So you have a difference over eighteen years for two cars of $16800 or $933/year. Per car, you saved $467/year or $39/month. Note we are also not considering that you could have kept the new cars on the road a few years longer. Also the insurance savings is minimal - figure you save $500/year for the first five years and then it's about the same when you go to liability only. That's another $139/year over 18 years or $12/month. Yeah, that's not nothing, but it's not the TONS OF MONEY that always gets mentioned in these discussions.

Your wife's repair and maintenance costs look more in line with average than yours. Does she put a lot more miles on her car than you put on yours? I do agree that if you put a lot fewer miles per year on a car than average, a used car starts looking like a much better deal (see below).

Re: Poor in Tech

#760

Post by ClumsyPilot » Thu, May 20, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #727

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Do you only exist to earn money, not to actually enjoy life and spend time with family? Surely that time is worth something , or you would commute 4 hours from a hut in the woods

That's an odd argument from the person who defined the value of someones time solely through their work income.

It is not 'solely', it is 'at least' worth that much.