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

The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 249 posts

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#231

Post by Helmet »

closeparen wrote: post #226
Helmet wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the love of god.... I'm intimately acquainted with both being poor and poor people. I have never in my life sneered at them and I donate generously to help them when I am in a position to do so. I have been poor for the majority of my life (I am not anymore) and I have seen firsthand what works and what does not. Your government projects, ideas, and policies are a complete disaster that do nothing but exacerbate…

The typical proposal from the leftist NIMBY camp is to harden rent control, eliminate no-fault eviction, and require that any new housing production be allocated to existing needy residents by government lottery. Optionally add downzoning to reduce landlord incentives to let buildings die of neglect (no opportunity to build anything more profitable). This effectively makes it impossible for outsiders to displace anyo…

> harden rent control

So price controls...

> eliminate no-fault eviction

"no-fault eviction" is, quite literally, a made-up magical concept.

A landlord that chooses to not renew your lease is not "evicting" you. Both parties have fulfilled their contractual obligations.

>any new housing production be allocated to existing needy residents by government lottery

OK. Sure, and how long does this go on? Do you really think that this is a feasible long term solution? If the social science and economic literature points to "Yes" then I'm all ears, but I don't think that this is the case.

>Optionally add downzoning to reduce landlord incentives to let buildings die of neglect (no opportunity to build anything more profitable).

This one was just painful to read. I mean....this is the exact OPPOSITE of what you want to do. The entire issue boils down to supply and demand, and their solution is to further reduce density and the supply of housing!?

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#232

Post by taurath »

Its kind of ironic and interesting to juxtapose this article with the post where Chamath Palihapitiya the former Facebook exec says "I want the fucking money" to increase his influence.

The economic output in sheer profit terms of Silicon Valley companies is probably enough to feed the continent. There are probably scores of individuals living there that could create a food program with 1/4 of their net worth that could prevent all hunger.

This kind of makes the point to me that the skillset to get somebody a lot of money is the exact opposite skillset necessary to care for their neighbors.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#233

Post by BeetleB »

lucaspiller wrote: post #52
stinky wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a solution. At the moment successful EU countries such as Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark are struggling with aging population and not enough people to fill blue colar jobs. I think EU should make it easier for US citizens who get any job here to move over. Americans in general are super hard working. Europe needs hard working people, while we can provide them with free universal healthcare, free universit…

One of the complicated parts about this for US citizens is taxes. If you are a US citizen you have to file taxes with the IRS for your worldwide income, even if you are living and paying taxes in another country. I assume most EU countries have a tax-treaty with the US, so you wouldn't have to pay taxes twice, but it definitely makes it more complicated.

Only if your income exceeds something like $90K. If they could get that kind of a job anywhere in the world, they don't need to leave the US.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#234

Post by julesqs »

closeparen wrote: post #226
Helmet wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the love of god.... I'm intimately acquainted with both being poor and poor people. I have never in my life sneered at them and I donate generously to help them when I am in a position to do so. I have been poor for the majority of my life (I am not anymore) and I have seen firsthand what works and what does not. Your government projects, ideas, and policies are a complete disaster that do nothing but exacerbate…

The typical proposal from the leftist NIMBY camp is to harden rent control, eliminate no-fault eviction, and require that any new housing production be allocated to existing needy residents by government lottery. Optionally add downzoning to reduce landlord incentives to let buildings die of neglect (no opportunity to build anything more profitable). This effectively makes it impossible for outsiders to displace anyo…

I literally run a YIMBY blog but cool.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#235

Post by julesqs »

Helmet wrote: post #225
julesqs wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they need to figure out how to move no, they don't. You need to consider that telling people to leave the geographic area that is their family home is a shitty response. You need to consider whether, perhaps, there are government policies that can help these people. You need to consider whether sneering at poor people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps makes you a shitty person. Also how is a single working…

For the love of god.... I'm intimately acquainted with both being poor and poor people. I have never in my life sneered at them and I donate generously to help them when I am in a position to do so. I have been poor for the majority of my life (I am not anymore) and I have seen firsthand what works and what does not. Your government projects, ideas, and policies are a complete disaster that do nothing but exacerbate…

some new public housing, massive amounts of market rate construction that is currently prevented by NIMBY soning, increased minimum wage, better public schools, universal healthcare and better union protections should do the trick.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#236

Post by JoshMnem »

doktrin wrote: post #49
JoshMnem wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already possible if you have technical skills. Just find a company to sponsor you. I once emigrated to Austria. Permanent residency would have been offered after 5 years, but I came back to the US before that.

> It's already possible if you have technical skills. By and large, an American engineer moving to Europe is trading down in a big way - including but definitely not limited to financial compensation.

Cost of living is much lower. Health care is included. I think there were six weeks of paid vacation per year. Budapest was a 2 hour bus ride away (10 euros), and many other interesting destinations were very close. If difficult times strike, you won't be left to die on the street. Things like life experience and culture are often more important than money.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#237

Post by closeparen »

Helmet wrote: post #231
closeparen wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The typical proposal from the leftist NIMBY camp is to harden rent control, eliminate no-fault eviction, and require that any new housing production be allocated to existing needy residents by government lottery. Optionally add downzoning to reduce landlord incentives to let buildings die of neglect (no opportunity to build anything more profitable). This effectively makes it impossible for outsiders to displace anyo…

> harden rent control So price controls... > eliminate no-fault eviction "no-fault eviction" is, quite literally, a made-up magical concept. A landlord that chooses to not renew your lease is not "evicting" you. Both parties have fulfilled their contractual obligations. >any new housing production be allocated to existing needy residents by government lottery OK. Sure, and how long does this go on? Do you really thin…

Yes, leftist housing activism is also infuriatingly detached from reality, but the parent comment asked what the government backed alternatives were.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#238

Post by closeparen »

julesqs wrote: post #234
closeparen wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The typical proposal from the leftist NIMBY camp is to harden rent control, eliminate no-fault eviction, and require that any new housing production be allocated to existing needy residents by government lottery. Optionally add downzoning to reduce landlord incentives to let buildings die of neglect (no opportunity to build anything more profitable). This effectively makes it impossible for outsiders to displace anyo…

I literally run a YIMBY blog but cool.

I’m 100% with you, but it’s worth understanding the opponent.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#239

Post by beaconstudios »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #217
beaconstudios wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the first world doesn't generally engage in wealth redistribution of that kind. Taxation for public services, yes, but straight up taking the money of the rich and successful and giving it to Joe Bluecollar? Not really.

What else would you call foodstamps, housing assistance and TANF?

keeping people alive? It's certainly not wealth redistribution.

Re: The Silicon Valley paradox: one in four people are at risk of hunger

#240

Post by justifier »

mjfl wrote: post #3

Why 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…

But the most reasonable next step in the logic you yourself laid out is you should move back to lincoln to avoid having 'to pay increased taxes for [other's] ignorance/provincialism?'

You seem yet to have considered a thing like:'is living in San Francisco a fundamental right' for you?

Post reply on HN