Hyper local meritocratic neoliberalism
The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger
151–160 of 249 posts
Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger
#152Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right? I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment was at 5% through the great recession . However, I fin…
I feel like your experience easily leaving your hometown as a young man may not be easily generalizable to everyone, at every stage of life and in every family arrangement. And of course one wonders why, if it's so great, you're not there anymore.
Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger
#153Housing problem. There's not enough of it, and the people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here. It's a completely artificial construct that drives up the cost of living and robs the poor with rent seeking. All of California's inequality problems go back to that. High salaries for some people help make it stronger, but the greed of the NIMBY homeowners is a f…
people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here Well that cuts to the very heart of democracy doesn't it? Why would the government of territory X not answer to the taxpayer-voter of X, over people who merely want to live there? There are reasons why they might of course, enumerate those reasons and the real dynamic will come to light.
There is a fine line between democracy and mob rule.
The Nash equilibrium for any sufficiently stable democratic system is for 49.9% of the electorate to be treated as subhuman. Democracy inevitably becomes tyrannical if civil institutions fail to defend the interests of the minority against the interests of the majority.
Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What do you do with the people left behind? What do you do with the engineers once they've written all the software to automate our daily lives? But haven't you read what the very empathetic and kind poster before suggested as an answer?: These fucking losers should move to whatever hill cave's still vacant, because they are to blame for not having gotten rich fast enough. I really like your writing, very precise an…
Your "option of taxing and fair redistribution" is actually a monstrous dictatorship. Every time it has been tried, many have perished and the median wealth has declined.
What on earth are you talking about? You believe the entire first world is a monstrous dictatorship?
Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. What, the local taxidermist is hiring?
Yes, clearly Nebraska has nothing to offer, move along www.berkshirehathaway.com
Yes, clearly an extreme outlier if there ever was one (and not related to dev industry anyway), is a counter-argument for a vibrant job market...
Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? How do you move to Nebraska when you have $100/week for food? How do you find a job, when you have literally 0-day you can spend without working? Are there really than many jobs for people who flip burgers in Lincoln, Nebraska? And are people who flip burgers in Nebraska so much better?
> How? How do you move to Nebraska when you have $100/week for food? You scrounge and save up or work odd jobs and get enough to move. > How do you find a job, when you have literally 0-day you can spend without working? There are plenty of jobs. They're not very good jobs, or jobs that most people want to do, but life isn't always about doing what you want. If you cannot afford to live somewhere, you need to move. >…
So your proposal is that the single parent work a second job in order to move to Nebraska.
Who takes care of her child while she does this? Does the kid go to child care? How does the single parent pay for the child care? Does she need to get a third job to pay for the expense of her second job? What happens when the car she takes to work breaks down, and wipes out her savings? What about when she gets sick because she's working two or three jobs, and is exhausted?
I dunno, I think your plan of "everybody who's poor should just move to an area where minimum wage jobs are sufficient to live" is a little poorly thought out.
Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger
#157Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right? I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment was at 5% through the great recession . However, I fin…
How many of these people do you think can afford to move? You're proposing to create a ghetto out of the Midwest, but the plan is stupid even on its own terms.
Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger
#158Housing problem. There's not enough of it, and the people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here. It's a completely artificial construct that drives up the cost of living and robs the poor with rent seeking. All of California's inequality problems go back to that. High salaries for some people help make it stronger, but the greed of the NIMBY homeowners is a f…
people that moved here in the 1960s have fought tooth and nail from more people being able to move here Well that cuts to the very heart of democracy doesn't it? Why would the government of territory X not answer to the taxpayer-voter of X, over people who merely want to live there? There are reasons why they might of course, enumerate those reasons and the real dynamic will come to light.
A big part of the issue is what level the decisions are made— in Japan, zoning is largely set by the national government, and in Ontario, at provincial level. In Silicon Valley (and most of the US), the decisions are made at the level of small suburbs consisting mostly of single-family homes, even though such decisions have can have huge impacts on the national economy.
Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger
#159Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right? I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment was at 5% through the great recession . However, I fin…
> Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Because people who are food insecure don't have savings to relocate, or the ability to take the income they have with them, generally. > I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there Lincoln has a population of 250,000; there are, per the article, 720,000 food-insecure people in Silicon Valley (and with…
You realize he wasn't saying everyone should move to Lincoln, right? There are hundreds of other potential places these people could move.
Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger
#160Why pay $2000 a month when you have the whole country you could live in for much less? Why should I have to pay increased taxes for your ignorance/provincialism? Is living in San Francisco a fundamental right? I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. I'd suggest that these people move there, for the low cost of living combined with the vibrant-enough economy. Unemployment was at 5% through the great recession . However, I fin…
How many of these people do you think can afford to move? You're proposing to create a ghetto out of the Midwest, but the plan is stupid even on its own terms.
Can they afford not to move?