3 ms·

Every time there's an article on hn highlighting how a vulnerable/at risk/marginalized group of people is being put further at risk the typical response is exac

Every time there's an article on hn highlighting how a vulnerable/at risk/marginalized group of people is being put further at risk the typical response is exactly yours: selfish instead of charitable. They're not miserable people simply because you don't get to have another luxury. They're circumspect and compassionate for not simply being complacent and instead exploring all of the effects. You do realize the authors themselves benefit from remote work right? Guess what: if the world is going to improve for poor people then we rich people are going to have to forgo some luxuries; reagonomics/"rising tide raises all ships" doesn't work (how well are the poor people in SF doing?). Casting aspersions on people (authors here) for sounding the alarms on yet another impending structural shift that will further weaken the poor is a special kind of immoral.

smabie 6y ago
> Guess what: if the world is going to improve for poor people then we rich people are going to have to forgo some luxuries; reagonomics/"rising tide raises all ships" doesn't work (how well are the poor people in SF doing?). How does rich people forgoing luxuries help poor people? Moreover, the poor people in SF are doing a hell of a lot better than many parts of the world. I lived in Africa for two years and a minimum wage worker in the US would be considered almost unimaginably wealthy. Poor is relative, and the working class in America would be doing great if not for the massive inflation in college, housing, and healthcare prices. And what do all three have in common? You guessed it, the government! It should be no surprise to anyone that the natural result of pumping absurd amounts of money into these sectors (student loans, government subsidized mortgages, medicare/medicaid) is inflated prices.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  >How does rich people forgoing luxuries help poor people? easy: take all of the money you would spend on luxuries and donate it to a charity. was it really that hard to come up with that yourself? >I lived in Africa for two years and a minimum wage worker in the US would be considered almost unimaginably wealthy great so did i (i can prove it if you think i'm lying just to contradict you). the poor people in africa lived with their families and worked the fields and were able to eat and shelter with those families. would you like compare health care? like the kind that poor people don't have access to either? >Poor is relative what does this mean? poor people in america have shorter life spans than rich people, fewer teeth, are incarcerated more often etc etc. who are we relativizing their experiences to? > You guessed it, the government the government? you mean the same institution that in other countries is able to succor the poorly and sickly but somehow in this country can't manage to get out from under the thumb of lobbyists? > medicare/medicaid you're clueless. is single payer cheaper or more expensive? who is preventing single payer? is it "the government" or interest groups?
yowlingcat 6y ago
I think if the world is going to improve for poor people, then individuals who aren't poor are going to have to learn how to not oversimplify reality into simplistic narratives for their own mental comfort. If you admit that reagonomic "rising tide rise all ships" rhetoric is structurally flawed (which is certainly true), then I think you can probably make the next step towards understanding that unless you have four commas in your bank account, you do not have enough clout to change the structure of the current socioeconomic system. And from there, you can probably make the next step towards understanding that it's built that way for a reason, that the hierarchical aggregation of socioeconomic capital towards the top of the hierarchy was designed intentionally.

smabie 6y ago

> Guess what: if the world is going to improve for poor people then we rich people are going to have to forgo some luxuries; reagonomics/"rising tide raises all ships" doesn't work (how well are the poor people in SF doing?). How does rich people forgoing luxuries help poor people? Moreover, the poor people in SF are doing a hell of a lot better than many parts of the world. I lived in Africa for two years and a minimum wage worker in the US would be considered almost unimaginably wealthy. Poor is relative, and the working class in America would be doing great if not for the massive inflation in college, housing, and healthcare prices. And what do all three have in common? You guessed it, the government! It should be no surprise to anyone that the natural result of pumping absurd amounts of money into these sectors (student loans, government subsidized mortgages, medicare/medicaid) is inflated prices.

throwlaplace 6y ago
>How does rich people forgoing luxuries help poor people? easy: take all of the money you would spend on luxuries and donate it to a charity. was it really that hard to come up with that yourself? >I lived in Africa for two years and a minimum wage worker in the US would be considered almost unimaginably wealthy great so did i (i can prove it if you think i'm lying just to contradict you). the poor people in africa lived with their families and worked the fields and were able to eat and shelter with those families. would you like compare health care? like the kind that poor people don't have access to either? >Poor is relative what does this mean? poor people in america have shorter life spans than rich people, fewer teeth, are incarcerated more often etc etc. who are we relativizing their experiences to? > You guessed it, the government the government? you mean the same institution that in other countries is able to succor the poorly and sickly but somehow in this country can't manage to get out from under the thumb of lobbyists? > medicare/medicaid you're clueless. is single payer cheaper or more expensive? who is preventing single payer? is it "the government" or interest groups?

yowlingcat 6y ago

I think if the world is going to improve for poor people, then individuals who aren't poor are going to have to learn how to not oversimplify reality into simplistic narratives for their own mental comfort. If you admit that reagonomic "rising tide rise all ships" rhetoric is structurally flawed (which is certainly true), then I think you can probably make the next step towards understanding that unless you have four commas in your bank account, you do not have enough clout to change the structure of the current socioeconomic system. And from there, you can probably make the next step towards understanding that it's built that way for a reason, that the hierarchical aggregation of socioeconomic capital towards the top of the hierarchy was designed intentionally.