5 ms·

>* move to a country …* I understand and agree with your overall point, but the fact that this an option underpins a certain amount of privilege.

by bumby 4y ago

ip26 4y ago
How much privilege does it take to move to Guatemala or Pakistan?
- bumby 4y ago
  I dunno. What if they’re currently living in Bangladesh?
  - safety1st 4y ago
    It's ironic you should mention Bangladesh because there's a guy on my payroll who lives in Bangladesh and I'm flying him to an international conference soon. It does indeed take more paperwork than usual, it will be a unique opportunity for him and probably not his last with me, he's a great employee.
    - bumby 4y ago
      Working remotely != moving for geo-arbitrage. If anything, it's the opposite, where the employer is taking advantage of geo-arbitrage.
  - ip26 4y ago
    In this model, people living in Bangladesh skip the “moving” part. They already live in a low cost locale.
    - bumby 4y ago
      So they have open doors to be wildly successful entrepreneurs? My point is that the OPs “model” is a strategy for a limited population and not very generalizable. Within those caveats, I have no issue with their suggestion.
- kolbe 4y ago
  HN commenters are apparently privileged for having to move to Guatemala to get by, whereas Guatemalians are refugees when they move to the US.
  - bumby 4y ago
    This misses the point completely. One side is taking advantage of geo-arbitrage while the other is fleeing violence. It's a false equivalence.
    - kolbe 4y ago
      The US has 18 large cities with a higher homicide rate than Guatemala. 50 with more than half of Guatemala's. The difference between the two countries from a violence perspective hardly constitutes "fleeing." Edit: country level is 6.5 for the US vs 17.5 for Guatemala, which is also not a difference consistent with war vs peace. But since "refugees" end up mostly in cities, and hundreds of thousands end up in the very same cities that are more violent than Guatemala, the city data is perfectly sufficient to show they aren't all fleeing violence. Edit 2: I would continue this discussion, but somehow my original reply to you got flagged and my commenting privileges suspended, even though I had net three upvotes at the time. It's probably for the better, I shouldn't even be bothering with someone who complains that I "cherry pick" 50 city homicide data and then replies to me with El Paso. It certainly shows how strong your facts are (i.e. "the data is wrong") that you get me suspended instead of engaging them.
      - bumby 4y ago
        This is the definition of cherry picking data. If you are comparing rates between countries, use the country data. I have personal experience with refugees from Central America and Mexico. I can assure you, many are fleeing violence. Edit: Dismissing 2.7x rate does not make for a strong point. You are jumping through hoops to not be wrong. E.g., one of the cities that receives the most refugees from Guatemala is El Paso, TX, which is consistently one of the safest cities in the U.S. Your choice of metrics also does not paint a full picture. Many people are fleeing to avoid being conscripted by a cartel. That type of violence does not show up in homicide statistics. You're demonstrating a superficial understanding. Edit 2: El Paso is the opposite of cherry picking; as I already pointed out, they are relevant because they take in a disproportionate amount of refugees. So, of the U.S. cities that you point to with higher per-capita homicides, can you point out if any absorb more refugees than El Paso? Because that was central to your point that refugees are jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I did not get you "suspended". You got your own post removed because you weren't following HN guidelines. I tried to point that out to help, but you were too busy arguing to notice. Not everything is a personalized attack.
kolbe 4y ago
[flagged]
- bumby 4y ago
  Please review the HN Guidelines before commenting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - kolbe 4y ago
    Says the person who attacked a commenter for being "privileged." I'm just helping defend him against your irrelevant accusations of privilege (even though you know nothing about him) while he's attempting to discuss ways to become successful without being a trust funder. He has given us a very helpful and insightful perspective, and since you cannot add to his useful discussion, you instead interrupt by him being the privilege police, because you think it will get you internet points. He laid his heart and mind out for our benefit, and you rewarded it by attempting to bully him. Don't tell me I'm being uncivil.
    - bumby 4y ago
      Nobody was "attacked". Saying that having specific options that aren't afforded to everyone is an acknowledgement that neither negates their point or is an attack on a person. It is, as you say, adding to the perspective, based exclusively on what they said; I'm not jumping to conclusions as you allude. Contrast that to your snarky reply. The fact that you thought that comment was an attack demonstrates a lack of the HN guideline to read the strongest possible interpretation and avoid snark. Your approach is not conducive to discourse.
      - kolbe 4y ago
        No, you absolutely bullied him. And now instead of apologizing, you're doubling down. He never claimed to be a starving African child. He told us what he had to do to make up for his limitations, and instead of working with that conversation, you chose to denigrate his efforts. You're right that I'm not adding to his discourse. I'm just trying to hush the people who are attempting to bully him.
senko 4y ago
There is always someone more privileged than you and someone less privileged than you. What you do with the cards in hand is what matters. Other paths lead to insanity.
- bumby 4y ago
  No doubt, I’m just acknowledging the limitations of the OPs advice. It came across as a bit of a solipsistic perspective.

>* move to a country …* I understand and agree with your overall point, but the fact that this an option underpins a certain amount of privilege.

by bumby 4y ago

>* move to a country …* I understand and agree with your overall point, but the fact that this an option underpins a certain amount of privilege.

ip26 4y ago

How much privilege does it take to move to Guatemala or Pakistan?

bumby 4y ago
I dunno. What if they’re currently living in Bangladesh?
- safety1st 4y ago
  It's ironic you should mention Bangladesh because there's a guy on my payroll who lives in Bangladesh and I'm flying him to an international conference soon. It does indeed take more paperwork than usual, it will be a unique opportunity for him and probably not his last with me, he's a great employee.
  - bumby 4y ago
    Working remotely != moving for geo-arbitrage. If anything, it's the opposite, where the employer is taking advantage of geo-arbitrage.
- ip26 4y ago
  In this model, people living in Bangladesh skip the “moving” part. They already live in a low cost locale.
  - bumby 4y ago
    So they have open doors to be wildly successful entrepreneurs? My point is that the OPs “model” is a strategy for a limited population and not very generalizable. Within those caveats, I have no issue with their suggestion.
kolbe 4y ago
HN commenters are apparently privileged for having to move to Guatemala to get by, whereas Guatemalians are refugees when they move to the US.
- bumby 4y ago
  This misses the point completely. One side is taking advantage of geo-arbitrage while the other is fleeing violence. It's a false equivalence.
  - kolbe 4y ago
    The US has 18 large cities with a higher homicide rate than Guatemala. 50 with more than half of Guatemala's. The difference between the two countries from a violence perspective hardly constitutes "fleeing." Edit: country level is 6.5 for the US vs 17.5 for Guatemala, which is also not a difference consistent with war vs peace. But since "refugees" end up mostly in cities, and hundreds of thousands end up in the very same cities that are more violent than Guatemala, the city data is perfectly sufficient to show they aren't all fleeing violence. Edit 2: I would continue this discussion, but somehow my original reply to you got flagged and my commenting privileges suspended, even though I had net three upvotes at the time. It's probably for the better, I shouldn't even be bothering with someone who complains that I "cherry pick" 50 city homicide data and then replies to me with El Paso. It certainly shows how strong your facts are (i.e. "the data is wrong") that you get me suspended instead of engaging them.
    - bumby 4y ago
      This is the definition of cherry picking data. If you are comparing rates between countries, use the country data. I have personal experience with refugees from Central America and Mexico. I can assure you, many are fleeing violence. Edit: Dismissing 2.7x rate does not make for a strong point. You are jumping through hoops to not be wrong. E.g., one of the cities that receives the most refugees from Guatemala is El Paso, TX, which is consistently one of the safest cities in the U.S. Your choice of metrics also does not paint a full picture. Many people are fleeing to avoid being conscripted by a cartel. That type of violence does not show up in homicide statistics. You're demonstrating a superficial understanding. Edit 2: El Paso is the opposite of cherry picking; as I already pointed out, they are relevant because they take in a disproportionate amount of refugees. So, of the U.S. cities that you point to with higher per-capita homicides, can you point out if any absorb more refugees than El Paso? Because that was central to your point that refugees are jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I did not get you "suspended". You got your own post removed because you weren't following HN guidelines. I tried to point that out to help, but you were too busy arguing to notice. Not everything is a personalized attack.

kolbe 4y ago

[flagged]

bumby 4y ago
Please review the HN Guidelines before commenting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kolbe 4y ago
  Says the person who attacked a commenter for being "privileged." I'm just helping defend him against your irrelevant accusations of privilege (even though you know nothing about him) while he's attempting to discuss ways to become successful without being a trust funder. He has given us a very helpful and insightful perspective, and since you cannot add to his useful discussion, you instead interrupt by him being the privilege police, because you think it will get you internet points. He laid his heart and mind out for our benefit, and you rewarded it by attempting to bully him. Don't tell me I'm being uncivil.
  - bumby 4y ago
    Nobody was "attacked". Saying that having specific options that aren't afforded to everyone is an acknowledgement that neither negates their point or is an attack on a person. It is, as you say, adding to the perspective, based exclusively on what they said; I'm not jumping to conclusions as you allude. Contrast that to your snarky reply. The fact that you thought that comment was an attack demonstrates a lack of the HN guideline to read the strongest possible interpretation and avoid snark. Your approach is not conducive to discourse.
    - kolbe 4y ago
      No, you absolutely bullied him. And now instead of apologizing, you're doubling down. He never claimed to be a starving African child. He told us what he had to do to make up for his limitations, and instead of working with that conversation, you chose to denigrate his efforts. You're right that I'm not adding to his discourse. I'm just trying to hush the people who are attempting to bully him.

senko 4y ago

There is always someone more privileged than you and someone less privileged than you. What you do with the cards in hand is what matters. Other paths lead to insanity.

bumby 4y ago
No doubt, I’m just acknowledging the limitations of the OPs advice. It came across as a bit of a solipsistic perspective.