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

Dating in Delhi when you're poor

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 295 posts

Re: Dating in Delhi when you're poor

#31

Post by sombremesa »

jimbob21 wrote: post #21
sombremesa wrote: post #7

My first thought when reading this was hoping that these types of articles will reduce the comments I see on the internet that try and compare Delhi/Mumbai squalor to LA. Then I read the first comment on this HN thread, which is directly comparing this to Toronto. So either Westerners don't realize that people in these places are making less money in a month than the middle class person can expect to spend in an aver…

Did you actually read that comment about Toronto? He immediately prefaces it by saying it isn't in the same realm, but can relate because he's poor in his area as well. I don't think that YOU realize that it is okay to relate to common feelings without being the most of that thing. The guy from Toronto doesn't have to be the most poor person in the most poor area in order to understand their feelings and talk about h…

> Did you actually read that comment about Toronto?

I did. Now that you have that information, perhaps you can actually read what I wrote.

Re: Dating in Delhi when you're poor

#32

Post by [deleted] »

thebean11 wrote: post #19
sombremesa wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about the American middle class in the comparison I make in the GP. I actually have no idea what you're talking about, because I didn't mention any amount of money at all.

> So either Westerners don't realize that people in these places are making less money in a month than the middle class person can expect to spend in an average afternoon You are making a comparison between two sums of money (the amount middle class people spend in an afternoon, and the amount poor people make in a month). Obviously I misinterpreted who the middle class people were, but I doubt I'm the only one. I th…

[deleted]

Re: Dating in Delhi when you're poor

#33

Post by chrisseaton »

em-bee wrote: post #25
0_____0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's $100 per half day, integrated over a month that comes out to monthly expenditures of $6000/mo, which is solidly middle class. Not working class, but certainly within reach of a low/mid level Facebook employee.

i expect spending here to mean cash you spend while enjoying your free time outside. from that 6000 you need to subtract rent/mortgage, and any other living expenses. if you then still have enough money that you can go out and spend $100 in an afternoon on average, then you are no longer middle class i would say. the "problem" here is the average. sure, a middle class income can afford to spend $100 in an afternoon o…

> then you are no longer middle class i would say

Well what are they then?

You can't seriously claim that having just $100 a day of disposable income makes you part of the upper class?

Re: Dating in Delhi when you're poor

#34

Post by chinchilla2020 »

sombremesa wrote: post #7

My first thought when reading this was hoping that these types of articles will reduce the comments I see on the internet that try and compare Delhi/Mumbai squalor to LA. Then I read the first comment on this HN thread, which is directly comparing this to Toronto. So either Westerners don't realize that people in these places are making less money in a month than the middle class person can expect to spend in an aver…

Those of us that grew up in the third world know how ridiculous Americans can be when it comes to these comparisons.

Anyone can get a minimum wage job and earn a relatively high living in the US. In the third world, you can work your ass off, be incredibly successful, and still live in squalor.

Re: Dating in Delhi when you're poor

#35

Post by paxys »

em-bee wrote: post #17
sombremesa wrote: post #7

My first thought when reading this was hoping that these types of articles will reduce the comments I see on the internet that try and compare Delhi/Mumbai squalor to LA. Then I read the first comment on this HN thread, which is directly comparing this to Toronto. So either Westerners don't realize that people in these places are making less money in a month than the middle class person can expect to spend in an aver…

i would not consider someone who can spend $100 on average in an afternoon to be middle class.

Middle class means different things in different cities, even within the US (and in some cases between cities in a single state). You simply cannot classify someone based on a number alone.

Re: Dating in Delhi when you're poor

#36

Post by asdff »

azernik wrote: post #20
ajmurmann wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's also other issues, such as people claiming there's more homeless in LA than in Delhi, not realizing that a lot of effectively homeless people in India aren't classified as such - it'd be like saying you're not homeless in LA if you have a tent or a sleeping bag Sorry, I really cannot avoid going on a tangent because of this. We seem to talk quite differently about informal housing if it's in the US or west…

Interestingly, my family, coming from a recently-developed country, does compare them to slums.

At least in a slum like a favela you have sturdy cinderblock walls, a door that locks, some sort of a latrine situation solved, running water, and electricity, rather than a nylon tent and some debris on the sidewalk with no plumbing.

Re: Dating in Delhi when you're poor

#37

Post by chinchilla2020 »

thebean11 wrote: post #9
sombremesa wrote: post #7

My first thought when reading this was hoping that these types of articles will reduce the comments I see on the internet that try and compare Delhi/Mumbai squalor to LA. Then I read the first comment on this HN thread, which is directly comparing this to Toronto. So either Westerners don't realize that people in these places are making less money in a month than the middle class person can expect to spend in an aver…

Not disagreeing with your overall point, but amount of money (based on currency exchange rates) is a bad way to compare poverty levels across different areas. It doesn't take into account cost of living which makes a huge difference.

Even with cost of living comparisons, an American making minimum wage can easily afford a mobile phone, particularly a cheap $25 phone.

In many parts of the world that mobile phone will require substantial budgeting over several months to afford.

Re: Dating in Delhi when you're poor

#38

Post by ummonk »

webmobdev wrote: post #13
factorialboy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately Indian media is full of "secular" authors pretending to be liberal but regularly dishing hate against native faiths. But to be fair, it's not just the news media that's afflicted by this disease, bollywood is no better.

I didn't understand your viewpoint. What exactly are you angry at in believing the author is "dishing hate" - that the author pointed out that marrying within gotras is frowned upon or that people are sometimes killed over it (honour killing)? Both are facts.

People are murdered by family over all sorts of things, but random incidents don't imply a general pattern.

Honor killing is a real occurrence but not over gotra-incest.

Re: Dating in Delhi when you're poor

#39

Post by em-bee »

chrisseaton wrote: post #33
em-bee wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i expect spending here to mean cash you spend while enjoying your free time outside. from that 6000 you need to subtract rent/mortgage, and any other living expenses. if you then still have enough money that you can go out and spend $100 in an afternoon on average, then you are no longer middle class i would say. the "problem" here is the average. sure, a middle class income can afford to spend $100 in an afternoon o…

> then you are no longer middle class i would say Well what are they then? You can't seriously claim that having just $100 a day of disposable income makes you part of the upper class?

if you have $100 a day of disposable income, you are not going to spend all of it every afternoon. if you do, your actual disposable income is much higher.

money for discretionary spending is not the same as disposable income.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/disposableincome.asp defines disposable income as net income, that means after taxes but before living expenses.

https://www.investopedia.com/insights/americas-slowly-disapp... defines middle class in the US as a disposable income from 35k to 106k a year.

if you spend all your discretionary money on going out with your friends and not on any other hobbies, traveling, gifts, etc, then maybe you can spend $100 every weekend afternoon.

Re: Dating in Delhi when you're poor

#40

Post by chrisseaton »

em-bee wrote: post #39
chrisseaton wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then you are no longer middle class i would say Well what are they then? You can't seriously claim that having just $100 a day of disposable income makes you part of the upper class?

if you have $100 a day of disposable income, you are not going to spend all of it every afternoon. if you do, your actual disposable income is much higher. money for discretionary spending is not the same as disposable income. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/disposableincome.asp defines disposable income as net income, that means after taxes but before living expenses. https://www.investopedia.com/insights/ameri…

Ok... but this still isn't even within orders of magnitude of 'upper class', is it?
Post reply on HN