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

What I wish I knew before moving to San Francisco

jasonevanish.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 573 posts

Re: What I wish I knew before moving to San Francisco

#551

Post by tsotha »

djcapelis wrote: post #518
tsotha wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the state with the surplus. The weather in Texas isn't anything to write home about, but in every way that matters it's a more competently run state.

> Yeah, the state with the surplus. You mean California? http://www.businessinsider.com/the-california-budget-surplus...

There's a big difference between an actual surplus and a "surplus" based on accounting gimmicks. You can only pretend California is in surplus by pretending to believe the state retirement systems really will return 8% on average.

Nobody believes that.

Re: What I wish I knew before moving to San Francisco

#552

Post by georgeorwell »

dschiptsov wrote: post #546
georgeorwell wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you strip it down, my claim was that homeless people are badly abused and that negative language perpetuates this. Your question is an attempt to destroy my argument by character assassination.

Nope. I just have a strong association in my mind between empty rhetoric and hypocrisy.

Right, so the question was designed to expose me as a hypocrite, i.e. character assassination. In doing so, you make me look like a two-faced ass who cannot make sound arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Except, even if we assume that one must not be a hypocrite to advocate a given position - I am accepting your fallacy here as truth - you are also changing the position. I did not argue that one should help homeless people. Rather, I argued for not using degrading terms to describe them. I have not been a hypocrite in that respect, and I have admitted to using degrading terms to describe them in the past.

Now, "a strong association in your mind" is a manipulative way of saying, "if and only if". So, if and only if I am a hypocrite, then my rhetoric is empty. Since you have exposed me as a hypocrite, or attempted to, my rhetoric must also be empty.

If you claim, no, it's only in the other direction, then since my rhetoric is empty, I must be a hypocrite, so then you decided to expose that side of it to see if you were right.

So now it falls back to the question of whether or not my argument is empty. Without an explanation as to what you mean by "empty rhetoric" - because the term is sufficiently vague on its own as to only constitute more character assassination - you may as well say, "Your argument is bad."

Your argument is bad too. I believe I have explained why.

Re: What I wish I knew before moving to San Francisco

#553

Post by tsotha »

cynicalkane wrote: post #457
noname123 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is USD is losing its status as the reserve currency and declining exchange rate with BRIC countries are making consumer goods more expensive. Chinese RMB used to be 8:1 in the late 90's, now it's 6:1 and declining. Also due to several rounds of quantitative easing, the Fed injected a lot of money into the money supply. However, banks are not lending as much money to stimulate the economy which doesn't trick…

"real inflation to the money supply" Inflation is what happens to prices, by definition. "Inflation to the money supply" is nonsense, like if you said int x = "foo" or talked about installing new RAM to store your photo album. Also, the notion that banks can cause inflation by not spending reserves is baffling.

This is wrong. CPI is not "inflation" except by common mis-usage. Inflation is defined to be an expansion in the money supply. You can have inflation and falling prices at the same time.

Re: What I wish I knew before moving to San Francisco

#554

Post by tsotha »

rsheridan6 wrote: post #524
nostrademons wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think of it the opposite way: if you put money into paying down debt, you know exactly what the return on that capital will be. It's the interest rate on the debt (in pre-tax dollars for mortgages, after-tax for almost every other form of debt). Money is fungible; any money that's not locked up in debt-service is freed up for other purposes, like investing in other assets. I tend to advise people I know to…

6-7% would be pretty high for a mortgage these days. I was quoted a little over 3% a month ago, and my credit is not the greatest. For student loans, I agree with you, and I'm putting all my extra money into them while saving the bare minimum for a bit of security if something bad happens.

>I was quoted a little over 3% a month ago, and my credit is not the greatest.

You have to consider things like origination fees and points, though. Everybody thinks they're going to stay in their new house for decades, but the average is something like four years.

Re: What I wish I knew before moving to San Francisco

#555

Post by djcapelis »

tsotha wrote: post #551
djcapelis wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, the state with the surplus. You mean California? http://www.businessinsider.com/the-california-budget-surplus...

There's a big difference between an actual surplus and a "surplus" based on accounting gimmicks. You can only pretend California is in surplus by pretending to believe the state retirement systems really will return 8% on average. Nobody believes that.

Please explain which gimmicks you think are currently active. Your knowledge of California budgets seems to be a few years dated. We've reformed a lot about the budget process in the last few years. Up to and including how many votes are needed.

There's a lot wrong in California, but a lot of people are barking up the trees from years ago instead of the ones that are real problems today.

Re: What I wish I knew before moving to San Francisco

#556

Post by tsotha »

djcapelis wrote: post #555
tsotha wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between an actual surplus and a "surplus" based on accounting gimmicks. You can only pretend California is in surplus by pretending to believe the state retirement systems really will return 8% on average. Nobody believes that.

Please explain which gimmicks you think are currently active. Your knowledge of California budgets seems to be a few years dated. We've reformed a lot about the budget process in the last few years. Up to and including how many votes are needed. There's a lot wrong in California, but a lot of people are barking up the trees from years ago instead of the ones that are real problems today.

I put the biggest gimmick right there in my post. What does "how many votes are needed" have to do with returns on state retirement funds?

This is not barking up trees from years ago. They have done nothing to address the structural problems in the state budget.

Re: What I wish I knew before moving to San Francisco

#557

Post by jquery »

potatolicious wrote: post #529
jquery wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment does not belong on HN. It's angry, self-righteous, and unproductive. Comparing people who defecate, urinate, shoot-up, stink, and leave needles on your front porch to other minorities is really offensive. Especially when these people have all the resources in the world to get out of their situation. Often they have better apartments than the people they are begging money from.

I was annoyed by georgeorwell's self-righteous tone as well. Pejorative or not, the homelessness in San Francisco is a substantial social and economic problem that does require something different than what we have right now, and whitewashing the language certainly isn't going to help matters. That said, you're also completely out to lunch. > "Especially when these people have all the resources in the world to get ou…

> They can? Have you been homeless, or worked with the homeless? What do you think is a sufficient upside to convince someone to be hated by everyone around them, be addicted to all kinds of dangerous chemicals, shit on the streets, and sleep in their own filth?

Heroin. Crack. Severe mental illness. I didn't say even all the resources in the world could help them, just that they were available. Except for the one resource we refuse to offer--involuntary institutionalization. But we don't and we won't. Maybe because of old movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Maybe because we think they are exercising their civil rights by sleeping in their own filth and shouting at passerby.

> Citation needed on this.

I lived in a building downtown where many of these panhandlers lived. During the day they would hang out on the sidewalk and beg for money. In the evening they would go back to their $3000/mo market-rate apartment and do drugs and prostitution.

Re: What I wish I knew before moving to San Francisco

#558

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

potatolicious wrote: post #528
joonix wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What parts of Brooklyn? Isn't it hard to get to work in midtown if you live in Brooklyn? The "nice" parts of Brooklyn always seem just as expensive as Manhattan when I check.

The nice part about Midtown is that it's connected to everything - every subway line except the G and the L go through it, so if you live anywhere along a subway line (again, not the G or L), you can get to Midtown. What you say is true though, the "nice" parts of Brooklyn are as expensive as, if not more expensive than Manhattan. Manhattan's cost of living, relative to NYC in general, is plateauing, while Brooklyn i…

This always reminds me how much neighborhoods can change. I still remember my friends in Bushwick who wouldn't let me ride the subway home (I lived in Flatbush). This was after her dad's bodega had been held up for the third time in a month.

To think of that neighborhood as going upscale is almost unimaginable.

Re: What I wish I knew before moving to San Francisco

#559

Post by dr_ »

joonix wrote: post #493
dr_ wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC is a big place and its not all the same. One could, for example, live in Brooklyn, pay a more reasonable rent and be surrounded by interesting people all with access to great food and bars. I suppose you could stretch that a bit further to Queens as well. Manhattan itself is quickly changing into a business district. You go there to work, grab dinner or hit the theater, then leave.

What parts of Brooklyn? Isn't it hard to get to work in midtown if you live in Brooklyn? The "nice" parts of Brooklyn always seem just as expensive as Manhattan when I check.

The parts of Brooklyn that are closer to the waterfront have become quite expensive, I agree. They are not on par with Manhattan when you compare the actual size of the space, but they are getting closer. They should still be high on the list of living places, because Brooklyn has more of a community feel to it than Manhattan does. Rather than going further back into BK, I would suggest looking into Queens, esp Astoria. This will also offer you easy access to Midtown. Same with Long Island City.

To the list I should add Jersey City. It's rapidly changing and has multiple train (PATH) stops that quickly get you in to the city (well, not now with Sandy repairs, but normally). It remains far more affordable than Manhattan. The fact that the NYTimes in the past month has wandered in to JC twice to review restaurants is a sign of the changes taking place. And along it's waterfront it has some pretty stunning views.

Re: What I wish I knew before moving to San Francisco

#560

Post by georgeorwell »

jquery wrote: post #557
potatolicious wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was annoyed by georgeorwell's self-righteous tone as well. Pejorative or not, the homelessness in San Francisco is a substantial social and economic problem that does require something different than what we have right now, and whitewashing the language certainly isn't going to help matters. That said, you're also completely out to lunch. > "Especially when these people have all the resources in the world to get ou…

> They can? Have you been homeless, or worked with the homeless? What do you think is a sufficient upside to convince someone to be hated by everyone around them, be addicted to all kinds of dangerous chemicals, shit on the streets, and sleep in their own filth? Heroin. Crack. Severe mental illness. I didn't say even all the resources in the world could help them, just that they were available. Except for the one res…

> Except for the one resource we refuse to offer--involuntary institutionalization. But we don't and we won't.

There is a revolving door between mental institutions, prisons, and the street. Talk to some schizophrenic people if you doubt me.

Nevertheless, I do believe mandatory but free drug rehab and work placement programs could help people, since I believe drug addiction is a mental and physical illness. Then addicts might be able to work for a living instead of beg for a living.

> In the evening they would go back to their $3000/mo market-rate apartment and do drugs and prostitution.

I suspect a pimp might be involved in paying for a $3K apartment if the people in it are "doing drugs and prostitution".

Post reply on HN