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

51–60 of 387 posts

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

#51

Post by downandout »

ams6110 wrote: post #48
downandout wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the homeless in SF actually want to be on the streets. That is perhaps the most ignorant sentence I have ever read on HN. Most homeless people don't have a choice. If they do have a choice, the fact that they choose to live on the streets likely speaks to the horrific situation they would face at their home. I can assure you that no one wants to be homeless.

I don't know about "most" but somewhere between "most" and "no one" there ARE some people who choose to be "on the streets."

Please find one and post about it here. I would love to meet this mythical person and take a video of them rejecting the offer of a place to live.

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

#52

Post by beat »

ams6110 wrote: post #48
downandout wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the homeless in SF actually want to be on the streets. That is perhaps the most ignorant sentence I have ever read on HN. Most homeless people don't have a choice. If they do have a choice, the fact that they choose to live on the streets likely speaks to the horrific situation they would face at their home. I can assure you that no one wants to be homeless.

I don't know about "most" but somewhere between "most" and "no one" there ARE some people who choose to be "on the streets."

There are exceptions that prove the rule. But "most" is an excuse.

As Paul Graham said on a different thread yesterday, if you have a choice between two explanations and one justifies you being lazy, choose the other one.

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

#53

Post by troebr »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #4

The guy's Scottish, he thinks it's about San Fran specifically, it's really about AMERICA. Maybe San Fran puts it even more in your face. But compared to most any other country even half as rich as America, the lack of social safety net in the U.S. is kind of shocking. People in Europe don't really realize the extent of it.

I'm French living in Jersey. I have been to San Francisco, even though it's blatant when you walk here, everywhere in the US I have that feeling that the poor are really forgotten. And they live in third-world country conditions. In France, the average rich is not as rich, and it's probably a lot harder to become successful and wealthy than here; but the poor are not left behind as much. It feels more like a society where you take a significant chunk from the rich to make sure the poor can get by. Sure there are abuses, high taxes and whatnot, but the old and the poor can afford to go to the dentist, and retire when the time comes.

The way I see it, European countries have a kind of nation-wide health insurance, vs individual insurance here. We have a nation-wide student loan, versus individual student loans. That helps controlling the costs and profits, and helps making sure that everybody who needs care or education can get it.

But whether it is related or not, America is more daring, more exciting, and there are more opportunities when you have the right cards to do something. But if you had a bad hand to start with, then you're royally screwed.

Put simply, it's better to be born poor in Europe than in the US, and better to be born rich in the US than in Europe.

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

#54

Post by santu11 »

georgefox wrote: post #22
santu11 wrote: post #21

Are we creating the right kind of "WEALTH"? This should be a question people (who are doing startups) should ask themselves. IMHO, that is why socialist Governments providing education, healthcare, roads and security sound popular to some people. All these are part of wealth that are provided to citizens at low prices. But in a capitalistic economy, it is left to individuals (entrepreneurs) to provide this services a…

I get your point, but it may be a bit of a stretch to label governments providing things like roads socialist.

Yeah I agree, it is a bit of a stretch. A degree of centralized control in areas like town planning and security is needed.

I guess in most countries governments contract out road construction to private companies anyways.

But my primary point was we as entrepreneurs and visionaries need to work on the hard problems.

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

#55

Post by michaelkeenan »

jarjoura wrote: post #32

There is a disparity between rich and poor in this country, sure, but come on. Most of the homeless in SF actually want to be on the streets. So many of them are young and it used to make me sad but I have just learned to accept it. I always make a point to package up leftovers and hand them out. I'll even reach into my wallet and hand out a few dollars too. If there were more I could do though, I would be more than…

> Most of the homeless in SF actually want to be on the streets.

To those surprised by this sentence, jarjoura might be influenced by this recent Priceonomics blog post: http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/43085729257/the-street-kid...

"Most street kids we spoke to came from one of two backgrounds: either they had job prospects (whether good or dead-end) but preferred the freedom of homelessness, or were transient homeless who fell in love with the street kid community...Street kids defied our expectations of living on the street as a last resort; instead they seem to be drawn to the Haight."

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

#56

Post by regis »

beat wrote: post #49
regis wrote: post #44

One thing that I think is missing from these discussions about the homeless in SF is: many of these people do not want to be rent-paying members of society and even if there was housing for them, some might still prefer their current lifestyle. Many people still view that lifestyle choice as unacceptable because it challenges the typical goals of someone working hard for a 'better' life. I don't think the question sh…

I don't think anyone actually PREFERS to be homeless, except for a few exotics. Most of the homeless in America are that way due to either a: unfortunate economic circumstances, or b: mental illness that precludes normal social functioning.

I think many people choose being homeless over giving into the pressures of our society like having to sustain a job in order to pay rent and go out for dinner etc... and all that stuff that 'normal' people desire. I've met homeless people that split their time between SF and some hills near Santa Cruz and only come into the city to sell some hash or hang out ith friends for a couple of days... but yes there are also many people on the streets who don't want to be there too.

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

#57

Post by gonehome »

gdonelli wrote: post #40
jarjoura wrote: post #32

There is a disparity between rich and poor in this country, sure, but come on. Most of the homeless in SF actually want to be on the streets. So many of them are young and it used to make me sad but I have just learned to accept it. I always make a point to package up leftovers and hand them out. I'll even reach into my wallet and hand out a few dollars too. If there were more I could do though, I would be more than…

"Most of the homeless in SF actually want to be on the streets." I have heard this from many americans, for some reason my european mindset cannot get why someone would not want shelter or food.. a reliable manner. Most of these people have not had the opportunity to do any better. It is not their fault.

Mental illness and drug abuse complicate things and with no universal health care treatment options are limited.

The homeless people who remain homeless are usually in these categories and it can be hard to help them.

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

#58

Post by jiggy2011 »

beat wrote: post #23
glesica wrote: post #18

I think that when people say "hard problems" they mean "problems that almost certainly have solutions if you are willing to put in the effort". Poverty on the other hand is a much, much harder problem than that. In fact, no one quite knows how to solve it in a general way (there are things that seem to work in certain contexts but not in others, many special case half-solutions). And on top of that, there probably is…

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)…

But then wouldn't businesses who sell a lot of goods to people on the minimum income just put their prices up to force the gov to increase the minimum income at above inflation rates every year?

You also still have the problem of people like drug addicts who spend all of their minimum income on drugs/drink/gambling and are still left homeless.

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

#59

Post by jeffpersonified »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #4

The guy's Scottish, he thinks it's about San Fran specifically, it's really about AMERICA. Maybe San Fran puts it even more in your face. But compared to most any other country even half as rich as America, the lack of social safety net in the U.S. is kind of shocking. People in Europe don't really realize the extent of it.

I tend to think a lot of the social programs that do exist in this city (and there are many – healthy san francisco, housing subsidies, dozens of shelters, and even more food programs) don't really address the root problem that causes such a disparity. For instance, I've a number of friends who work in the tenderloin with some of those same social programs, and they're perspective is that the housing subsidies that bring people to the tenderloin only exacerbate the issues that plague it.

It's not just warm weather that draws people to SF, but a plethora of social programs that are often poorly executed, underfunded, and addressed at superficial issues and not their core causes (education, for example).

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

#60

Post by sageikosa »

madaxe wrote: post #38
hsitz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There's this odd commingling of the concepts of socialism and liberalism in the general populace's minds, for some reason. The two could not be more antithetical." The reasons for this are historical. What you call the "socialist" elements result from the idea that part of being truly "free" (i.e, liberty) requires that people be treated equally, thus liberals in this sense have a focus on social justice. (See this…

Indeed - perfectly familiar, have read my share of Tocqueville, Hayek, Hobbes and all the rest, but the fundamental point that divides socialism and liberalism is that of freedom of people, vs. freedom of the people - i.e. individualism vs. socialism. Liberalism has always been about social justice, and the idea that each and every human should be free to run or ruin their own lives (Positive vs. Negative freedom), w…

It is individualism vs collectivism.

Socialism is a set of collectivist policies desired or in force while a capitalist society is being consumed (i.e., distribution of goods and services by society's collective dictates).

Capitalism "solves the problem" of production by producing what returns profit (in a market of demands and supplies). Once profit is stamped out, production is unguided except by "society" commanding it (i.e., a command "economy"). Even if this guidance were democratic, it would still be subject to the tyranny of the majority (the bulk of the collective).

Post reply on HN