4 ms·

> The reality is those perspectives are from someone educated enough to understand economics, government programs and how the system works, and someone with a s

by Helmet 9y ago

> The reality is those perspectives are from someone educated enough to understand economics, government programs and how the system works, and someone with a supportive well functioning family. All of which someone working a food-service job is unlikely to have. Don't make assumptions. They can move. My reality is of a first-generation immigrant. My parents did not have degrees and worked minimum wage jobs. They moved multiple times when it became financially unfeasible to live somewhere. It wasn't fun, it sucked a lot actually, but we did what we had to do, not what we wanted to do.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Man you're all over this thread handwaving away real concerns because of your parents. It's totally reasonable to think that a family with kids who moves to Nebraska is still going to be food insecure. If I'm an unskilled worker and I can live in the bay area near my family, where I'm comfortable, where I have friends and I'm food insecure or I can go move out to the Midwest where I have none of that and I'm still food insecure because now I have the added costs of childcare, less public transportation options, etc. AND I have none of the support network I had around SV then there's no way I'm moving. Maybe the difference between all the people in the article mentioned and your parents is that what made sense for your parents actually doesn't make sense for these people.
- BeetleB 9y ago
  >Man you're all over this thread handwaving away real concerns because of your parents. He's not handwaving anything. He's not promising anything, either. If someone wants guarantees, they've got the wrong mindset. It's all about managing probabilities. >It's totally reasonable to think that a family with kids who moves to Nebraska is still going to be food insecure. And it's totally reasonable to think that low income people who stay in SV will remain food insecure. >If I'm an unskilled worker and I can live in the bay area near my family, where I'm comfortable, where I have friends and I'm food insecure or I can go move out to the Midwest where I have none of that and I'm still food insecure because now I have the added costs of childcare, less public transportation options, etc. AND I have none of the support network I had around SV then there's no way I'm moving. Thank you for phrasing it as a choice. Just please own the outcomes of your choices! Don't treat staying as a "default". Think of it as two choices (many, in reality, of course), and you are actively choosing one. So own the difficulties you will have while food insecure. Advice often given to me in life, that I'm sure you've heard: If you're in a bad state, things are not going to change unless you do something about it. Granted, that something may make your life worse, but not doing much about it is usually a guarantee that things won't improve. I'm not understanding some of this thread. Are people seriously looking for some kind of guaranteed solution? Most serious decisions - the major you pick, the school you go to, the city you live in, the job you decide to take - have attached to them a risk that your life may be worse if you follow through. When I was quitting my first job because of poor management and the work conditions, almost everyone tried to discourage me with your type of question: "Well what if you take that other job and it turns out even worse?" I just couldn't understand the question: So if your job sucks you will just sit and hope for better management?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Unlike a young tech worker who isn't materially tied down to any location and can view all locations as equal, many people have strong ties to the bay area which serve to keep them there. Moving to Nebraska is pointless if all it does is make you worse off and that's the main point of my post and one you haven't addressed. Most of these families are in some crappy circumstances where they're at but moving would only make those circumstances worse - so let's not pretend there's options here that there aren't.
    - b6 9y ago
      > many people have strong ties to the bay area which serve to keep them there It sounds like you're saying that something there is important to them, so they choose to stay. We all make choices and live with consequences. > but moving would only make those circumstances worse How can anyone be sure of that? But let's say it's true that moving anywhere else would make their situation worse. Then what are they upset about? They're already in the best place, aren't they?
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        >It sounds like you're saying that something there is important to them, so they choose to stay. We all make choices and live with consequences. Yes, I guess that's basically my point. Many in this thread are talking about "options" and "choices" but really what we're talking about is an option that's better for these families than the status quo. No one cares that there's a million things that could make these families worse off, we're here figuring out what could make their lives better. What I'm saying is that for most of these families the option: "moving to Nebraska" belongs in the million pointless worse off options bucket and not in the life-improving options bucket. Even when you speak of "consequences" you mean the negative effects of their decision not to move to Nebraska, but I'm saying that not moving to Nebraska doesn't have that many negative consequences because moving to Nebraska is a totally shit option for most people. >How can anyone be sure of that? But let's say it's true that moving anywhere else would make their situation worse. Then what are they upset about? They're already in the best place, aren't they? You don't understand why someone trapped in the cycle of poverty would be upset? Why someone who has to go to a food bank every week to get by would look at the incredibly wealthy citizens of the city they inhabit and be a bit peeved? Are you familiar with poverty? Are you human?
knightofmars 9y ago
>It wasn't fun, it sucked a lot actually, but we did what we had to do, not what >we wanted to do. I can see this is personal for you. I just want to put out a thank you for putting your own story on here. >They can move. This is an assumption. > My parents did not have degrees and worked minimum wage jobs. They moved > multiple times when it became financially unfeasible to live somewhere. You don't need a degree to be educated or educate yourself. A degree has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. Poverty has been repeatedly shown to have a negative effect on literacy and critical thinking skills. Just because some of the people raised in poverty aren't impacted due to circumstance doesn't mean that the overall trend isn't real. Here's a thought exercise, take 1,000 people from the poorest neighborhoods in SF. Then given their current wage versus a potential wage in another city and state ask them to calculate if moving would be the right choice. Tell them they can use whatever resources they'd like to determine costs. How many of those 1,000 people would be able to make the correct calculations? How many of those 1,000 would be able to calculate what the impact of taking out a loan to help fund the move would be? > My reality is of a first-generation immigrant. You're using a personal anecdote to explain why I'm wrong. It's a logical fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal >They moved multiple times when it became financially unfeasible to live >somewhere. Yes, people can move. I'm trying to highlight the point to the demographic that frequents "Hacker News"; the 80% educated tech professionals most of which are single. There are a myriad of reasons why for a large number of people it's not feasible or they simply don't have the ability to do the calculations to determine whether or not moving would be beneficial.

by Helmet 9y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Man you're all over this thread handwaving away real concerns because of your parents. It's totally reasonable to think that a family with kids who moves to Nebraska is still going to be food insecure. If I'm an unskilled worker and I can live in the bay area near my family, where I'm comfortable, where I have friends and I'm food insecure or I can go move out to the Midwest where I have none of that and I'm still food insecure because now I have the added costs of childcare, less public transportation options, etc. AND I have none of the support network I had around SV then there's no way I'm moving. Maybe the difference between all the people in the article mentioned and your parents is that what made sense for your parents actually doesn't make sense for these people.

BeetleB 9y ago
>Man you're all over this thread handwaving away real concerns because of your parents. He's not handwaving anything. He's not promising anything, either. If someone wants guarantees, they've got the wrong mindset. It's all about managing probabilities. >It's totally reasonable to think that a family with kids who moves to Nebraska is still going to be food insecure. And it's totally reasonable to think that low income people who stay in SV will remain food insecure. >If I'm an unskilled worker and I can live in the bay area near my family, where I'm comfortable, where I have friends and I'm food insecure or I can go move out to the Midwest where I have none of that and I'm still food insecure because now I have the added costs of childcare, less public transportation options, etc. AND I have none of the support network I had around SV then there's no way I'm moving. Thank you for phrasing it as a choice. Just please own the outcomes of your choices! Don't treat staying as a "default". Think of it as two choices (many, in reality, of course), and you are actively choosing one. So own the difficulties you will have while food insecure. Advice often given to me in life, that I'm sure you've heard: If you're in a bad state, things are not going to change unless you do something about it. Granted, that something may make your life worse, but not doing much about it is usually a guarantee that things won't improve. I'm not understanding some of this thread. Are people seriously looking for some kind of guaranteed solution? Most serious decisions - the major you pick, the school you go to, the city you live in, the job you decide to take - have attached to them a risk that your life may be worse if you follow through. When I was quitting my first job because of poor management and the work conditions, almost everyone tried to discourage me with your type of question: "Well what if you take that other job and it turns out even worse?" I just couldn't understand the question: So if your job sucks you will just sit and hope for better management?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Unlike a young tech worker who isn't materially tied down to any location and can view all locations as equal, many people have strong ties to the bay area which serve to keep them there. Moving to Nebraska is pointless if all it does is make you worse off and that's the main point of my post and one you haven't addressed. Most of these families are in some crappy circumstances where they're at but moving would only make those circumstances worse - so let's not pretend there's options here that there aren't.
  - b6 9y ago
    > many people have strong ties to the bay area which serve to keep them there It sounds like you're saying that something there is important to them, so they choose to stay. We all make choices and live with consequences. > but moving would only make those circumstances worse How can anyone be sure of that? But let's say it's true that moving anywhere else would make their situation worse. Then what are they upset about? They're already in the best place, aren't they?
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      >It sounds like you're saying that something there is important to them, so they choose to stay. We all make choices and live with consequences. Yes, I guess that's basically my point. Many in this thread are talking about "options" and "choices" but really what we're talking about is an option that's better for these families than the status quo. No one cares that there's a million things that could make these families worse off, we're here figuring out what could make their lives better. What I'm saying is that for most of these families the option: "moving to Nebraska" belongs in the million pointless worse off options bucket and not in the life-improving options bucket. Even when you speak of "consequences" you mean the negative effects of their decision not to move to Nebraska, but I'm saying that not moving to Nebraska doesn't have that many negative consequences because moving to Nebraska is a totally shit option for most people. >How can anyone be sure of that? But let's say it's true that moving anywhere else would make their situation worse. Then what are they upset about? They're already in the best place, aren't they? You don't understand why someone trapped in the cycle of poverty would be upset? Why someone who has to go to a food bank every week to get by would look at the incredibly wealthy citizens of the city they inhabit and be a bit peeved? Are you familiar with poverty? Are you human?

knightofmars 9y ago

>It wasn't fun, it sucked a lot actually, but we did what we had to do, not what >we wanted to do. I can see this is personal for you. I just want to put out a thank you for putting your own story on here. >They can move. This is an assumption. > My parents did not have degrees and worked minimum wage jobs. They moved > multiple times when it became financially unfeasible to live somewhere. You don't need a degree to be educated or educate yourself. A degree has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. Poverty has been repeatedly shown to have a negative effect on literacy and critical thinking skills. Just because some of the people raised in poverty aren't impacted due to circumstance doesn't mean that the overall trend isn't real. Here's a thought exercise, take 1,000 people from the poorest neighborhoods in SF. Then given their current wage versus a potential wage in another city and state ask them to calculate if moving would be the right choice. Tell them they can use whatever resources they'd like to determine costs. How many of those 1,000 people would be able to make the correct calculations? How many of those 1,000 would be able to calculate what the impact of taking out a loan to help fund the move would be? > My reality is of a first-generation immigrant. You're using a personal anecdote to explain why I'm wrong. It's a logical fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal >They moved multiple times when it became financially unfeasible to live >somewhere. Yes, people can move. I'm trying to highlight the point to the demographic that frequents "Hacker News"; the 80% educated tech professionals most of which are single. There are a myriad of reasons why for a large number of people it's not feasible or they simply don't have the ability to do the calculations to determine whether or not moving would be beneficial.