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

In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 194 posts

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#141

Post by apparent »

Schiendelman wrote: post #135
apparent wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be projecting racism without evidence. I specifically mentioned increased traffic from the construction of apartment complexes in a suburban neighborhood. Surely we can all agree that traffic is a reasonable concern? Other similar concerns would include overburdening schools (in at least the short run, before more can be built) and electrical grids (in areas with brownouts/blackouts). I don't know why you…

Racist outcomes do not require intent. That's why the Fair Housing Act was written to make discriminatory outcomes illegal, not just intent. And no, I don't think you're racist at all, but the outcomes of the policies you want to keep are racist. If you're open to some books about this, or study work, I'd be happy to cite. Are you open to changing your mind?

You seem to use the word racist in a different way than I do. What I have learned is that an action can only be racist if there was a race-based intent. It cannot be racist if there was not a race-based intent. For example, if a blind person was unaware that his colleague was Asian, and he hurt the colleague's feelings by referring to his hard work ethic, that is not (to my understanding) a racist remark.

Similarly, a policy is not a racist policy if it disproportionately affects people of one race or another. If that were the case, any policy that increased the share of taxes paid by the poor, or the rich, would be racist (against black people or Indian people). But I believe that any change in tax rates is not intrinsically racist, which is what an outcome/correlation-based definition would require.

You're free to share links, but TBH I think we're speaking different languages here. You've also not answered my point about regulatory capture, which you seem to define in a novel way.

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#142

Post by Schiendelman »

apparent wrote: post #141
Schiendelman wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racist outcomes do not require intent. That's why the Fair Housing Act was written to make discriminatory outcomes illegal, not just intent. And no, I don't think you're racist at all, but the outcomes of the policies you want to keep are racist. If you're open to some books about this, or study work, I'd be happy to cite. Are you open to changing your mind?

You seem to use the word racist in a different way than I do. What I have learned is that an action can only be racist if there was a race-based intent. It cannot be racist if there was not a race-based intent. For example, if a blind person was unaware that his colleague was Asian, and he hurt the colleague's feelings by referring to his hard work ethic, that is not (to my understanding) a racist remark. Similarly,…

Honestly, if you want to understand these issues, you'll have to learn the language I'm using. I would start here, since I think you are leaning on the word "racist": https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF1305...

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#144

Post by apparent »

Schiendelman wrote: post #142
apparent wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to use the word racist in a different way than I do. What I have learned is that an action can only be racist if there was a race-based intent. It cannot be racist if there was not a race-based intent. For example, if a blind person was unaware that his colleague was Asian, and he hurt the colleague's feelings by referring to his hard work ethic, that is not (to my understanding) a racist remark. Similarly,…

Honestly, if you want to understand these issues, you'll have to learn the language I'm using. I would start here, since I think you are leaning on the word "racist": https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF1305...

Hm, I don't think I "have to learn the language [you're] using". I am familiar with CRS folks who use terms that way, just as I am familiar with the majority of people who use the terms the way I use them.

If you have any relevant documents, feel free to share. The one you shared does not seem to back your definition of racist/racism, let alone provide reasoning for why your preferred definition is superior to the one I use.

For the record, I find mine to be more apt because I find it useful to distinguish between policies that have disparate impact by race/age/wealth/sex/etc., rather than lumping such policies in with those that seek to discriminate against people based on their race/age/wealth/sex/etc. If we call all of those policies "racist" or "sexist" or whatever-ist, then we have to come up a new term like "intentionally racist" to describe the subset of policies where intent is present.

I generally prefer not to have to make up new terms if we have words that already (for many people) have that meaning. But hey, some people just love doing the euphemism treadmill and its equivalents, as here.

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#145

Post by Schiendelman »

apparent wrote: post #144
Schiendelman wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, if you want to understand these issues, you'll have to learn the language I'm using. I would start here, since I think you are leaning on the word "racist": https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF1305...

Hm, I don't think I "have to learn the language [you're] using". I am familiar with CRS folks who use terms that way, just as I am familiar with the majority of people who use the terms the way I use them. If you have any relevant documents, feel free to share. The one you shared does not seem to back your definition of racist/racism, let alone provide reasoning for why your preferred definition is superior to the on…

I don't know how to help you. I think you have deep misunderstandings here, and I've seen you say you don't want information about it... so you're kind of stuck. Why did you even respond if you didn't want to learn anything?

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#146

Post by apparent »

Schiendelman wrote: post #145
apparent wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, I don't think I "have to learn the language [you're] using". I am familiar with CRS folks who use terms that way, just as I am familiar with the majority of people who use the terms the way I use them. If you have any relevant documents, feel free to share. The one you shared does not seem to back your definition of racist/racism, let alone provide reasoning for why your preferred definition is superior to the on…

I don't know how to help you. I think you have deep misunderstandings here, and I've seen you say you don't want information about it... so you're kind of stuck. Why did you even respond if you didn't want to learn anything?

Perhaps thinking that you need to help me is the main issue? If you wanted to be a courteous member of the community, you could try actually answering some of the questions I raised, or defending your position with logic or evidence. Just a thought!

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#147

Post by [deleted] »

apparent wrote: post #146
Schiendelman wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to help you. I think you have deep misunderstandings here, and I've seen you say you don't want information about it... so you're kind of stuck. Why did you even respond if you didn't want to learn anything?

Perhaps thinking that you need to help me is the main issue? If you wanted to be a courteous member of the community, you could try actually answering some of the questions I raised, or defending your position with logic or evidence. Just a thought!

[deleted]

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#148

Post by robocat »

Schiendelman wrote: post #98
apparent wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should people also be allowed to move into neighborhoods that are zoned as suburban (not so much in SF as in nearby areas), and have them remain that way? I get the libertarian impulse to let people do what they want with their property, but it seems like part of that freedom should be the right to move into areas where there are zoning restrictions.

Zoning should always have been unconstitutional, and the court case enabling it proved that. The Supreme Court upheld it a hundred years ago, in 1926, after batting down previous efforts by the same people to explicitly ban black people from neighborhoods. They realized that since black families couldn't afford houses by themselves (they needed to buy houses with two or three families together), they could get around…

We have zoning in New Zealand and it wasn't started by segregation.

Zoning has other reasons than racism.

Oversimplifying things down to single causes is an error of thinking.

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#149

Post by apparent »

Schiendelman wrote: post #145
apparent wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, I don't think I "have to learn the language [you're] using". I am familiar with CRS folks who use terms that way, just as I am familiar with the majority of people who use the terms the way I use them. If you have any relevant documents, feel free to share. The one you shared does not seem to back your definition of racist/racism, let alone provide reasoning for why your preferred definition is superior to the on…

I don't know how to help you. I think you have deep misunderstandings here, and I've seen you say you don't want information about it... so you're kind of stuck. Why did you even respond if you didn't want to learn anything?

Ghost editing the comment, nice. OK well again I think the issue is that you don't like answering questions or defending your position in straightforward ways. Instead you point me to a PDF that does not appear to support your prior reply, and you don't say what exactly your goal was. You also (arrogantly) portray your interlocutors as needing to be educated so they can reach your level of understanding.

I assure you, I am very well-versed on the legal issues regarding disparate impact, race, and sex. I went into this conversation looking to understand what your perspective and motivations are, but little has been provided. I know when to cut my losses though, so I wish you good day.

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#150

Post by robocat »

scoofy wrote: post #56
bombcar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If SF wants to be New York of the East, let them be so. Everyone else can move literally anywhere else in the country, which is big.

>Everyone else can move literally anywhere else in the country This sentiment makes me so angry. People -- very obviously -- need to live where the jobs are. The fact that we want to say "oh, well if you don't want to live in the rent-seeking machine just go live in the desert" is the left-wing version of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." The fact is this. A housing crisis is a slow motion cascade. The landowner…

> housing has been turned into a zero sum game

Not really. Land has always been zero-sum because there is a limited amount to compete for.

And location is status, even in high density developments (status is often seen as zero-sum).

Book review of Bird's The Land Trap that contains nice detail of unobvious monetary implications: https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/book-review-the-la...

Post reply on HN