3 ms·

> I don't get it. Is your argument that because the homeless rate is 0.18% in the US, that if you had no income and drained your savings, that the probability o

by lapcat 3y ago

> I don't get it. Is your argument that because the homeless rate is 0.18% in the US, that if you had no income and drained your savings, that the probability of you ending up on the streets is minuscule? How do you think you'll acquire housing if you don't have any money? My argument is simple: 1) Few people in the US have a massive cash hoard built up. "57% of Americans can’t afford a $1,000 emergency expense" https://finance.yahoo.com/news/57-americans-t-afford-1-195843284.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/57-americans-t-afford-1-19584... 2) Lots of people lose their jobs every year, via firings, layoffs, quitting, companies going out of business, etc. 3) Nonetheless, the rate of homelessness is only 0.18% 4) Thus, homelessness is not a virtual certainty if you lose your job. People almost always find a way to avoid homelessness, typically by finding a new job. > Are we reading the same comment? Yes, your quotation is accurate.

gruez 3y ago
>4) Thus, homelessness is not a virtual certainty if you lose your job. >People almost always find a way to avoid homelessness, typically by finding a new job. So you're basically agreeing with the original commenter? I read his comment as basically saying the only reason he works at his job is to keep a roof over his head, and that if you don't work you'll eventually be homeless. He's not claiming that getting fired means you're going to be homeless.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > So you're basically agreeing with the original commenter? No. > I read his comment as basically saying the only reason he works at his job is to keep a roof over his head Yes, that's also my reading of the comment. > if you don't work you'll eventually be homeless. Likely, yes. But the question isn't work vs. no work. The question is working at the OP's so-called "difficult" job vs. working at less difficult jobs. That's why the issue of homelessness is mostly irrelevant. My strong suspicion is that the OP works at a "difficult" job, which presumably pays a lot more than "BS jobs", because the OP actually aspires to a more luxurious standard of living than the bare minimum. Given the OP's other comments, e.g., the OP's job "takes a lot of work to get the skills necessary to do it", and given the fact that this is Hacker News, I'm assuming that the OP is a relatively well-compensated member of the tech industry. When the OP says, "Who's going to take over my job? Probably nobody", as if a well-paying job in the tech industry is somehow the "price" of avoiding homelessness, I dispute that. It's kind of like when engineers defend working on unethical projects "because I have to feed my family", despite the fact that the vast majority of people feed their families without 6-figure incomes and stock options.

by lapcat 3y ago

gruez 3y ago

>4) Thus, homelessness is not a virtual certainty if you lose your job. >People almost always find a way to avoid homelessness, typically by finding a new job. So you're basically agreeing with the original commenter? I read his comment as basically saying the only reason he works at his job is to keep a roof over his head, and that if you don't work you'll eventually be homeless. He's not claiming that getting fired means you're going to be homeless.

lapcat 3y ago
> So you're basically agreeing with the original commenter? No. > I read his comment as basically saying the only reason he works at his job is to keep a roof over his head Yes, that's also my reading of the comment. > if you don't work you'll eventually be homeless. Likely, yes. But the question isn't work vs. no work. The question is working at the OP's so-called "difficult" job vs. working at less difficult jobs. That's why the issue of homelessness is mostly irrelevant. My strong suspicion is that the OP works at a "difficult" job, which presumably pays a lot more than "BS jobs", because the OP actually aspires to a more luxurious standard of living than the bare minimum. Given the OP's other comments, e.g., the OP's job "takes a lot of work to get the skills necessary to do it", and given the fact that this is Hacker News, I'm assuming that the OP is a relatively well-compensated member of the tech industry. When the OP says, "Who's going to take over my job? Probably nobody", as if a well-paying job in the tech industry is somehow the "price" of avoiding homelessness, I dispute that. It's kind of like when engineers defend working on unethical projects "because I have to feed my family", despite the fact that the vast majority of people feed their families without 6-figure incomes and stock options.