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

Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

programmingisterrible.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 387 posts

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#251

Post by ownagefool »

roguecoder wrote: post #213
ownagefool wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about the states/fed? As that'd suprise me.

It's almost all the result of the extra administrative overhead from our fragmented insurance market, profits to the for-profit hospitals and insurance companies and the extremely expensive ineffective end-of-life care that is incentivized by that incredibly messed up system.

Yeah but that'd all seem to be from private individuals, which seems to fit with my idea of a US that is more than happy to collectivly suffer, as long as folks don't feel anyone is getting a free ride.

It's a stupidly short sighted game of russian roulette but nowhere near as hilarious as if the Government itself really does pay out more per capitita than anywhere else in the world.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#252

Post by angusangus »

tokenadult wrote: post #181
tobinfricke wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having moved from the U.S. to northern Germany, I have to say: the difference is shocking. Here, mentally unstable homeless people are not a daily sight on the city streets. In fact, I have seen only one San Francisco-style lunatic: and he was, indeed, raving in English. Saying that "United States social policy is [not] a model for anywhere" must be an understatement. I would ask: what social policy? Any aid from the…

Having moved from the U.S. to northern Germany I'd really love to learn about what is actually done in Europe. Where is a "mentally unstable" person to be found in Germany? If a "San Francisco-style lunatic" (like the one you saw in public in Germany) is encountered out in public in Germany, where is he put? P.S. I have adequate reading knowledge of German to be able to read German-language links about what is done f…

It seems to me that the difference is not so much 'where those people are put' but rather that there are support mechanisms that help the majority of at-risk people before they deteriorate to the level of homelessness or mental disability that you commonly see in US city streets.

EDIT: While there are obviously outlier cases where treatment is difficult, the majority of mental illness and homelessness is circumstantial and preventable.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#253

Post by ownagefool »

onemorepassword wrote: post #183
tokenadult wrote: post #162

Places with good weather have huge visible homeless populations. (I have traveled all over the United States, and have been to all fifty states. AFTER EDIT: I have been in, and have lived in, gritty "skid row" neighborhoods of large United States cities, and have lived in Los Angeles.) Places with lousy weather, like the place where I grew up and now live, certainly have people who are "homeless" in the sense of not…

There is no Europe. I can only speak for my country, the Netherlands, and there is no such thing as people not having the personal funds to buy or rent housing. That's why we have minimum wages, social security, rent subsidies and regulated rent. The homeless here are people mostly people with mental health issues that reject or don't respond to treatment. It's by far not a perfect utopian system, but to have people…

Sadly, there are always those who fall between the cracks who have neither mental health or drug addictions. All we can ever do is try though, because not everyone asks for help.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#254

Post by jarrett »

dominostars wrote: post #230

San Francisco homelessness is not a question about rich vs. poor. It's a question about what to do with people who are mentally handicapped and/or drug abusers. This is partially a money problem, but it's largely a social problem. A lot of other countries deal with this better because they have stronger family support structures. Programming can help, but this isn't a programming problem. And there's no money in it,…

Indeed. We (the folks on HN) are mostly the good guys in this fight. We'd like to help, and I'd like to think we support the right political causes in the ways that we can. But there comes a point where you're doing what you can given your role in society, and you still have to go past homeless people on your way to work. It doesn't make you any less compassionate than the people in any other country.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#255

Post by dyno12345 »

ownagefool wrote: post #251
roguecoder wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost all the result of the extra administrative overhead from our fragmented insurance market, profits to the for-profit hospitals and insurance companies and the extremely expensive ineffective end-of-life care that is incentivized by that incredibly messed up system.

Yeah but that'd all seem to be from private individuals, which seems to fit with my idea of a US that is more than happy to collectivly suffer, as long as folks don't feel anyone is getting a free ride. It's a stupidly short sighted game of russian roulette but nowhere near as hilarious as if the Government itself really does pay out more per capitita than anywhere else in the world.

It really is that bad.

http://flipchartfairytales.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/healt...

When limited only to public spending, Norway and Luxembourg spend more per capita, but that's it

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#256

Post by georgefox »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #222
misc_closet wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the poor have no money they can't pay entrepreneurs. When the super-rich have all the money, the super-rich drive up the cost of living. The middle class then must directly serve the interests of the rich in order to get enough profit to afford the higher cost of living. It quickly becomes uneconomical to sell anything to poor people. It's a poverty spiral. Uneducated families just get more uneducated without st…

> When the super-rich have all the money, the super-rich drive up the cost of living. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the super-rich spend the same or a similar proportion of their income on necessities as everyone else (meaning that they buy more food, more clothing, more housing, etc.). What does this do? It increases the demand for food, clothing, housing , etc. in the area. This is _not_ a bad thing.…

> For the sake of argument, let's assume that the super-rich spend the same or a similar proportion of their income on necessities as everyone else (meaning that they buy more food, more clothing, more housing, etc.). What does this do?

Like it or not, changes in wealth for the super-rich seem to have effects on the non-super-rich too. As the richest gain more wealth, the less rich feel even less rich. As they see bigger and nicer houses going up, more expensive cars driving around, etc., the relative quality of theirs is going down. In an attempt to keep up, they spend more, and so on down the socioeconomic ladder. This effect has been called "trickle-down consumption" in a recent study detailed here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/27/t....

The result is is exactly what you acknowledge later, which is a bit contradictory to your opening assumption: "[T]he super-rich don't actually spend their money in the same way poor people do. They invest a good chunk of their money and they don't spend in the same proportion of their income on necessities..."

People in lower income brackets are spending more money while saving less, and this is in part due to the rising displays of opulence from the upper income earners.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#257

Post by michaelochurch »

beatpanda wrote: post #29
beat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee The solution is simple. You simply give every adult citizen enough money every year to insure that they can afford food, shelter, and other basic needs. Give it to everyone, rich or poor, same amount. BAM! No more poverty, except in self-inflicted cases (drug addiction, for example), or things like severe and very expensive illness (which are covered by other means)…

Fun fact: Richard Nixon supported something like this idea in the early 70's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

It's always amusing to me to realize that, in 2013, Nixon would be too far left for the Democratic party.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#259

Post by run4yourlives »

VMG wrote: post #248
wutbrodo wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of economic blind spot is shockingly common, and presumably stems from the belief that economics is zero-sum. The idea behind subsidizing single mothers and keeping teens in school (which is the case that your parent comment was describing) is that the cost of this subsidy is theoretically lower than the expected cost of losing productive members of society or even worse, losing them to gang activity, which…

Don't forget the moral hazard. Women could choose to get a child instead of working. I personally don't think that it is a good idea to grow up in a family where no adult is gainfully employed. These are complex issues and should be evaluated by each individual. You have different criteria than I and should have every right to donate your income to causes you see as worthy. If I was interested in reducing US crime an…

>Women could choose to get a child instead of working.

This is a fallacy. A woman working is not going to "choose" this any more than you are going to go from being gainfully employed to sitting on your ass all day playing video games. Setting the right thresholds on both the income and the reductions removes any incentive to become a non-working drag on society. If however, you did make that choice, a basic income allows you to realize quickly how crap life is and then correct yourself, rather than slide further down the have not scale.

What's more, even if you did choose to sit around playing video games on $10K a year or whatever, you are fed and likely housed, and therefore not stealing from me, getting arrested and now costing me $75K a year in prison expenses.

> You have different criteria than I and should have every right to donate your income to causes you see as worthy

Taxation is not fucking charity. We do have every right to choose where our taxes go. They're called elections. However, considering (as I stated and you conveniently ignored) that your wealth was entirely derived from the society at large, the sustainable maintenance of said society is in your utmost interest, whether you think so or not. I have more interests than I can possibly afford to donate to. That's why I contribute to a collective fund and then hire managers to disperse said dollars with an eye to betterment of society as a whole.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#260

Post by pyoung »

dominostars wrote: post #202
onemorepassword wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no Europe. I can only speak for my country, the Netherlands, and there is no such thing as people not having the personal funds to buy or rent housing. That's why we have minimum wages, social security, rent subsidies and regulated rent. The homeless here are people mostly people with mental health issues that reject or don't respond to treatment. It's by far not a perfect utopian system, but to have people…

> The homeless here are people mostly people with mental health issues that reject or don't respond to treatment. I would speculate that this is true for San Francisco, especially in the downtown (tenderloin) area.

The lack of universal health care probably exacerbates the homelessness situation in the U.S.

With that said, what you see in San Francisco is largely a product of the combination of homeless friendly policies and tolerable weather. Many of the 'homeless' you see during the day don't actually sleep on the street (although a decent number do) and actually reside in SRO's, subsidized housing, and shelters (One complaint I have heard about SF, you can only afford to live here if you are really rich, or if you are really poor).

Fact is the homeless situation may be a bit ugly, but it exists everywhere, it just may not be as visible. At least in SF, it's harder to ignore.

Post reply on HN