4 ms·

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 Neb

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?

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?