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

Living in a Van

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 166 posts

Re: Living in a Van

#141

Post by doesnt_know »

sliverstorm wrote: post #119
tibbon wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. The one thing I can never figure out is why managers of some types of companies run them the way they do. Why couldn't a call center employee work with a headset from a van and wear whatever they please? There's all sorts of strange practices that some of these companies do. Never in a million years would I ask an employee to submit to a drug test before being employed for example- yet that's what t…

Why couldn't a call center employee ... wear whatever they please? Presumably the managerial types are trying to help cultivate a "professional" environment. Never in a million years would I ask an employee to submit to a drug test I understand the personal freedoms angle, but I can also sympathize with employers who are tired of discovering that guy they hired last week is actually a raging meth head.

What does it matter if their employees are meth heads, they shouldn't have to be tested.

If they are unproductive, look like shit, have poor time management, have mood swings etc then they are a liability to their employer because of those things, not because they "do drugs".

On the other hand if they are productive, are professional, [any other positive attribute] and contribute to their employer, does it matter if they are on drugs at the time?

Granted, I've never meet anyone that are actually functional members of society once they start abusing something like meth, but my point is that employees should be judged purely on their performance in the workplace or how they contribute.

Re: Living in a Van

#142

Post by ido »

wes-exp wrote: post #104
sadga wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, he could have rented an apartment and showered at home, and the cost would have been to delay retirement by maybe 10% of his tenure.

Are you factoring in the exorbitant cost of renting an apartment in the bay area when making this calculation?

Plus significantly increasing commute.

Re: Living in a Van

#143

Post by ido »

doesnt_know wrote: post #141
sliverstorm wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why couldn't a call center employee ... wear whatever they please? Presumably the managerial types are trying to help cultivate a "professional" environment. Never in a million years would I ask an employee to submit to a drug test I understand the personal freedoms angle, but I can also sympathize with employers who are tired of discovering that guy they hired last week is actually a raging meth head.

What does it matter if their employees are meth heads, they shouldn't have to be tested. If they are unproductive, look like shit, have poor time management, have mood swings etc then they are a liability to their employer because of those things, not because they "do drugs". On the other hand if they are productive, are professional, [any other positive attribute] and contribute to their employer, does it matter if…

I assume it's more about predicting these things before employment begins - someone might look ok at the interview but if you found out traces of drugs in his blood that could be an indicator that this is not their usual state.

Basically we're talking about low-skilled jobs that always have plenty of applicants, filtering a bit too many people isn't that big of a deal when there're still plenty of others remaining afterwards.

It's just a cheap initial filter, as long as it's better than completely arbitrary it's probably beneficial to have.

Re: Living in a Van

#144

Post by lostlogin »

larrys wrote: post #75
guelo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm impressed that you're able to do a sociological study of "the others" as you drive through their neighborhoods, probably with your windows up and doors locked. Non-snarkily, I think people are the same everywhere, mostly good and hard working with occasional cheating when they think they can get away with it. From my personal anecdata, I've seen both shady deplorable acts and admirable selfless acts from milliona…

"Non-snarkily, I think people are the same everywhere, mostly good and hard working" If that is the case then why do I keep my windows up when I drive through those neighborhoods. Are you saying I have nothing to fear driving my new expensive car through, say, many areas of Newark NJ or areas such as the "Badlands" in Phila PA? Or that I am safe to walk the streets in those areas? And if those areas are so great and…

As an outside observer, the effect of white collar crime would appear to have hit Americans far harder than the crime discussed here - and it's effects have been felt world wide too. Behaviors allowed and encouraged in big banking have been very destructive to lives. And I'll make a safe net that the perpetrators lived in so-called good areas. So while worrying about being car-jacked in the badlands, behavior in the good lands sees your company fail, job lost and car repossessed. Perhaps a touch overwrought, but another angle to consider.

Re: Living in a Van

#145

Post by yummyfajitas »

doesnt_know wrote: post #141
sliverstorm wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why couldn't a call center employee ... wear whatever they please? Presumably the managerial types are trying to help cultivate a "professional" environment. Never in a million years would I ask an employee to submit to a drug test I understand the personal freedoms angle, but I can also sympathize with employers who are tired of discovering that guy they hired last week is actually a raging meth head.

What does it matter if their employees are meth heads, they shouldn't have to be tested. If they are unproductive, look like shit, have poor time management, have mood swings etc then they are a liability to their employer because of those things, not because they "do drugs". On the other hand if they are productive, are professional, [any other positive attribute] and contribute to their employer, does it matter if…

Because employers believe that P(workplace violence/poor time management/etc | meth head) > P(workplace violence/poor time management/etc).

Do you disagree that this is the case?

Re: Living in a Van

#146

Post by yummyfajitas »

larrys wrote: post #51
tptacek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is interesting also to note that the ability to lead any kind of normal or predictable life in this fashion is itself a privilege. People in the software business can get away with wearing the same clothes, coming in wrinkled, missing the occasional shower, and, for that matter, getting in a little later after having to move the van in the middle of the night. Our field is extremely accommodating. Put yourself in…

"Glib is the word I would use, for romanticizing a scenario" I would use glib in the same way that people romanticize people living in poverty. Particularly single moms with good kids living in the ghetto. Single mom works so hard holding down 3 jobs cleaning offices and her kids all work hard if only they were given a chance and didn't live in the projects. (Watch http://www.pruitt-igoe.com/ on netflix to see a litt…

Most people living in poverty have 0 jobs (and are not looking for one), not 3.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf

The belief in the hardworking poor person who can't get ahead is also a romanticization of poverty.

Re: Living in a Van

#147

Post by jat1 »

I'm currently living in a van! Me and my long term girlfriend have taken some time from the 9-5 to travel around Europe for a while. Been on the road for almost three months now and it's done wonders for my mental state.y mind is clearer, I'm calmer and I feel better. I'm still trying to work on small projects and I have an osx utility I wrote entirely on the road using my MacBook Pro and the solar panels on the van to power it.

It's not cheap, we are able to live on basically half of what we were living on before, but that's not the point of this journey for us.

If your interested in our travels our blog is here http://www.wanderingeurope.co.uk

Re: Living in a Van

#148

Post by jat1 »

psychotik wrote: post #34
markerdmann wrote: post #11

This reminds of a good friend. He got a job making six figures at Google straight out of college, and then lived in his van--in the Google parking lot--while saving every penny he earned. He took showers on campus and only ate free Google food. After a few years, he went into a mini-retirement and devoted his time to traveling around the world and volunteering.

That's about the most justifiable reason I've heard for (temporarily) living in a van/car.

I lived in the van Monday-Thursday while working in London (my home is around 130miles to the east). Not a problem and not uncomfortable. I sometimes used the showers at the office but my van is fully equipped with shower,toilet heaters etc. I wasn't the only one doing it either, and after a while you spot other likely vans.

Re: Living in a Van

#149

Post by jat1 »

brc wrote: post #114

I spent 3 months travelling in a 1978 Dodge RV, which I bought in LA for about $3000, and spent maybe $500 on parts for. It looked much like the one pictured in the article. I tore out the broken toilet and put in a chemical one, repaired the plumbing for the shower and got it going, replaced the batteries and bought a new charger. They key to buying one of these is take your time, and try out all the stuff. While fi…

This is almost exactly what we are doing now but in Europe. We have done 8700miles over the last three months. We mostly free camps and have a very similar routine as you did. We have stayed in some amazing places. Currently in Lithuania. Poland Tomorow or Monday I think!

Http://www.wanderingeurope.co.uk is our blog

Re: Living in a Van

#150

Post by Natsu »

doesnt_know wrote: post #141
sliverstorm wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why couldn't a call center employee ... wear whatever they please? Presumably the managerial types are trying to help cultivate a "professional" environment. Never in a million years would I ask an employee to submit to a drug test I understand the personal freedoms angle, but I can also sympathize with employers who are tired of discovering that guy they hired last week is actually a raging meth head.

What does it matter if their employees are meth heads, they shouldn't have to be tested. If they are unproductive, look like shit, have poor time management, have mood swings etc then they are a liability to their employer because of those things, not because they "do drugs". On the other hand if they are productive, are professional, [any other positive attribute] and contribute to their employer, does it matter if…

You've never had to deal with someone who came to work while on drugs, have you?

Someone can go from comparatively normal to crazy enough to freak everyone out and maybe get someone hurt in no time flat. That's a bit of a problem, especially given that some people work at places where accidents like slitting one's wrist wide open, crushing one's hand and being killed by an item dropped by a forklift happen a little too regularly, even to people who are not thus impaired.

Post reply on HN