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

Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 430 posts

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#171

Post by eropple »

deboflo wrote: post #149
eropple wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Covered pretty poorly. I've let my AWS certs lapse because they're not worth the time to keep them up. The hard parts of my job have very little to do with "these AWS services exist", which is the extent of what I've gotten out of AWS certs. (Nobody cares about SWF.)

Yeah, a serverless certification would be great. These certs are more foundational in scope.

I don't see why it would be, to be frank. "Serverless" is a how. It's a tool, not a solution, and you should be expected to pick up new tools without waving around a piece of paper saying you know a tool.

Except for button-pusher roles I've always hired for whys, not hows, and certification programs seem to never care about the whys. College degrees don't assert that you know how to learn, that you know how to derive the whys--but, in my experience, they correlate better than cert-hunting does.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#172

Post by NeonVice »

wonderwonder wrote: post #161
NeonVice wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is just a tool to represent value. Value is not a zero-sum game. If a person creates something of value, she is creating something that did not exist before.

For that item to have quantifiable value to others though, they must be willing to exchange their money for the new item. The money that is to be exchanged already existed and is supposed to be limited in supply via fiscal policy. If the majority of that supply is owned by a small group of people the value that can be exchanged for the newly created item is limited as well unless those with the wealth want it.

Assuming that the monetary supply is fixed, then there is a deflationary effect. Even those with less money are able to purchase more value as more value is created. This is why incentives for creating value are important to an economy as opposed to just increasing the monetary supply.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#173

Post by Dumblydorr »

wasdfff wrote: post #169
alkibiades wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“not enough money to go around” Where do people get this strange idea that if someone else makes money it somehow precludes others from doing it? Bill Gates got rich with an invention that also generated probably a trillion dollars in economic growth for everyone. Including most people on this sites income.

So you can’t see how a CEO being compensated 1000x more than whoever cleans their office is a problem? Money flows like a river, and when every executive diverts egregious amounts of money that they’d never spend in their lifetime into their little pools, theres less money flowing downstream along the river. Do you really think that Bill Gates needed to become one of the richest men on earth to proselytize ms dos? Be…

Gates is not the best example as he does tremendous good with his fortune unlike the kochs who spread lies with their earnings

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#174

Post by fastball »

dragonwriter wrote: post #158
fastball wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repeat after me: Wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

That's, at best, extremely misleading; outside of the most extreme absolute deprivation, relative deprivation (or prosperity) appears to be much more of a contributor to experienced disutility (or utility) than absolute deprivation or prosperity, such that, in practice, and modulo alleviating the most crushing poverty (which isn't where marginal gains go in the developed world, even where such poverty still remains)…

I am impressed with the level of nonsense in this comment.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#175

Post by fastball »

wonderwonder wrote: post #166
fastball wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repeat after me: Wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Should I just chant this as I drive past the food banks at the people in line?

  Places where people get free food

  This is somehow a problem
Hmm.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#176

Post by threwawasy1228 »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #4

>an economist at the job-search company Indeed, finds that when salaries are adjusted for local costs of living, the average worker actually makes less in New York City or Los Angeles than in Toledo, Ohio or Birmingham, Alabama: Particularly impressive considering that the "average" for NYC, LA, SF includes a lot more very high salaries than Toledo and Birmingham (Google, FB, etc are not hiring hordes of SREs making…

I was just doing this calculation the other day, for a bit of background I am in an area of the Midwest, close to Toldeo and am graduating in May.

I interned in NYC last summer and sublet there. So I was trying to decide whether to move out that way or stay in a smaller Midwest city to start my career in.

When you factor in cost of living, rental costs, junior level developer salaries, taxes, and transportation costs. I found that I would need to make around 20k more than the average junior level developer salaries for NYC (according to the estimates I've been seeing listed on Glassdoor) to get as much take home pay after expenses as I will make staying in the Midwest for less pay.

I assume (and plan on calculating this) that you could easily generalize this to most cities in the Midwest with a minimum of 500k people.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#177

Post by Dumblydorr »

wonderwonder wrote: post #161
NeonVice wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is just a tool to represent value. Value is not a zero-sum game. If a person creates something of value, she is creating something that did not exist before.

For that item to have quantifiable value to others though, they must be willing to exchange their money for the new item. The money that is to be exchanged already existed and is supposed to be limited in supply via fiscal policy. If the majority of that supply is owned by a small group of people the value that can be exchanged for the newly created item is limited as well unless those with the wealth want it.

Non monetary value exists, look at entertainment or education, both gained free via YT

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#178

Post by fastball »

rhacker wrote: post #164
fastball wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repeat after me: Wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Who fucking cares? Is this the new calling card to prevent another Occupy? That kind of "end of discussion" is likely going to end up with another 500 bankers mysteriously suiciding again.

Presumably the people that constantly bring up "BUT THE 1% HAVE MORE THAN THE 90%" should care, because it invalidates their point.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#179

Post by gizmo686 »

Eridrus wrote: post #55
zanny wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So five years later you build more housing . We as a species are capable of building absurdly dense cities that are probably per-capita the cheapest place a person can live (since you cram so many into every skyscraper). We choose not to because "property values" and "my view from my window" and "I don't want those people living here".

I agree that you need to keep building housing, but I also think it's important to not concede the point that it will have no effect on housing prices. The GP is flat out wrong in their assessment that prices will just return to what they were. Even if you build more housing, and then stop, the prices will be lower than if you hadn't built anything at all.

This is only true if an increase in the housing supply does not lead to an increase in the population. At a national level, this is probably true enough to assume. But, at the level of individual cities, it is not nessaserrily true. I can easily imagine scenarios where an increase in housing causes an increase in the local population greater than the increase in housing capacity.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#180

Post by rhacker »

fastball wrote: post #178
rhacker wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who fucking cares? Is this the new calling card to prevent another Occupy? That kind of "end of discussion" is likely going to end up with another 500 bankers mysteriously suiciding again.

Presumably the people that constantly bring up "BUT THE 1% HAVE MORE THAN THE 90%" should care, because it invalidates their point.

I am impressed with the level of nonsense in this comment.
Post reply on HN