4 ms·
That's partially true, but also assumes there's "something wrong" with being poor. Now of course, being poor is a worse lifestyle than being rich if all else we
by mehaveaccount 10y ago
That's partially true, but also assumes there's "something wrong" with being poor. Now of course, being poor is a worse lifestyle than being rich if all else were equal, but all else isn't equal. What if someone doesn't want to move to a major tech hub and instead makes just enough money doing something tolerable with people they like enough and they get to live and spend time with people they love. Am I really going to tell them they're missing out on life by not fleeing to a research university for 4 years and then Skyping their loved ones from their [big city] apartment while their roommates are playing loud music through the wall and they have no friends within 2 hours travel? All I'm saying is that there are tradeoffs that make working class people better off in many cases.
- Arizhel 10y agoYou don't have to live in a major tech hub to be a programmer. Programmers are employed all over the country. They'll generally get a lot more money in tech hubs, but you don't have to go there. Now, you probably won't get a job in some little 1000-person small town far from everything, but go to your nearest small city and there's probably some jobs there.
- IanDrake 10y agoExactly. It's not how much money you make anyway, it's how much you keep. It can be harder to keep more when you're living in one of the most expensive cities in the world and those expenses aren't tax deductible.