6 ms·

I don't want to downplay this because these conditions are terrible. But I once worked in India for 3 months, in Mumbai, and I can tell you that on a global sc

I don't want to downplay this because these conditions are terrible. But I once worked in India for 3 months, in Mumbai, and I can tell you that on a global scale, this is nothing. My commute in the morning consisted of driving, for 1 HOUR, through the largest slum in the world. 20 kilometers on a side big. So while its terrible that this exists in Silicon Valley, on a global scale we have much bigger problems. For me, that's the biggest reason I hope Bill Gates keeps on doing what he's doing.

rza 13y ago
Just because things are worse in India, that shouldn't mean we should ignore everything else until it's fixed there first. Because for one, it's much easier for US citizens to fix problems in the US, for both legal and practical reasons. Hopefully something like this right in America's fabled land of idea-makers and disruptors will compel some real action to resolve it.
- elsewhen 13y ago
  There are charities and NGOs that can do the "fixing," and a dollar spent alleviating the problem in India may be an order of magnitude more effective than in the states.
  - mhurron 13y ago
    And thanks to national boarders a dollar spent in India does nothing to help those anywhere else. There is no 'fixing homelessness.' You 'fix' it in India, or in the US or in Canada or in where ever. Sending money to 'fix' India or Africa is a decision to not spend it 'fixing' issues at home.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      That is not true ... charity and economics are not a zero sum game. If you elevate 1000000 Indian people to the working class they will begin consuming a lot of stuff, some of which will be made in the US or having major part of its IP from US. Some of these dollars will come back home. After all what one person spends is another ones income. There is nothing wrong of course with trying to help closer to home first.
      - asdfdsa1234 13y ago
        Charity tends not to elevate anyone to the working class. Most money ameliorates poverty temporarily, is spent on fundraising and bureaucracy, or is diverted (stolen).
rayiner 13y ago
These are our problems. Those are India's problems. We don't have to commute for an hour every morning through an Indian slum. We do have to commute every morning through the slums in our country.
- elsewhen 13y ago
  So, "out of sight, out of mind?"
  - rayiner 13y ago
    No, the natural and rational human desire to fix things closer at hand before fixing things farther away. India's people can worry about their fellow Indians. We should worry, first, about our fellow Americans.
  - elsewhen 13y ago
    I agree with you on "natural" but rational? It seems focusing on nearby problems in the modern world is only rational if you are acting out of selfishness. If you are acting from altruism (and also believe that all humans are of equal value), you would pursue the strategies that have the most leverage.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      Not at all. You should help where you could do the most. In US it is the US poor - because you have common language, you know the rules, you have the connections and resources etc etc ... India - there is different country, different culture, different customs. We cannot solve the problems of the people by not knowing them in depth and that is major investment. We cannot offer one size fits all "learn to code" solution that earned the tech industry the recent mocking.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      In the sense of a rational actor that maximizes their own utility.
randomdrake 13y ago
I don't understand comments and attitudes like this. "On a global scale, we have much bigger problems." People starving down the block are no less a problem than people starving on the other side of the world. It's atrocious that human beings have to live in squalor anywhere. There are people who need help everywhere and I do not get why people feel the need to measure one form of suffering against another. You say "I don't want to downplay this" but then follow with: "we have bigger problems." How much more could you downplay it? I hypothesize that folks (not necessarily OP) do this, consciously or unconsiously, so they can more easily justify inaction for themselves. "Well I could volunteer on Sunday at the Soup Kitchen but India has it so much worse. How could I/we be so selfish?"
- elsewhen 13y ago
  It's triage -- solving the biggest fixable problem first.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Poverty in a place like India, because of its scale and the country's broken social institutions, is a much more uphill battle than poverty in the U.S.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - igravious 13y ago
      You'd think that, wouldn't you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... There is a greater relative disparity in wealth between the rich and poor in the US of A than India. (relative poverty) Out of the developed countries the US is easily one of the least unequal (if not the most unequal -- I haven't checked) places. This is, of course, because universal health care is communism and social security is for spongers and the lazy. In absolute terms there is undoubtedly more extreme poverty in India than the US. Why that is so is not as simple as the country's broken social institutions, we're still talking about the world's largest democracy here. I would imagine the caste system plays a part. Colonialism too.
the_rosentotter 13y ago
Well, I'm from Denmark and we don't have homeless people. (Excluding those who choose to be because of mental issues.) There are many things I admire about the US and SV but please don't get complacent.
- sluukkonen 13y ago
  What? Copenhagen alone has thousands of homeless people. And what makes you think that people choose to be homeless?
  - venus 13y ago
    I'm no expert on Denmark but I bet that Copenhagen's homeless issues are a mix of lack of resources and a politically correct unwillingness to forcibly detain people who really should be placed into care (chronic alcoholism, mental disease, drugs). That is perhaps what the parent meant by "choosing" to be homeless: substance abuse/mental health cases who opt out of the system to pursue their addictions. No point arguing about the definition of "choose". America's situation is different; they have an idealogical opposition to social welfare and there is no system to opt out of. The homeless situation in SF is far worse than in any EU city I know of.
    - bluedino 13y ago
      >> The homeless situation in SF is far worse than in any EU city I know of. I don't know if I'd really call it a situation. Homeless people choose to go to SF because it's one of the best places for them. You won't freeze sleeping on the street, plenty of handouts...
      - venus 13y ago
        I'd imagine the main reason is that SF is walkable - not only for the homeless themselves, but also for the targets of their begging activity. The weather is liveable, I suppose, but LA's is better - if that's all it was, they'd be in LA, but LA's much more car-based. Anyway, whatever the reason, I think it is actually a "situation". Many cities have homeless problems, but SF's is amazingly in your face. Most SF people I know would simply not walk through Tenderloin at any time, even in broad daylight. It's in the middle of the freaking city! That is not normal.

rza 13y ago

Just because things are worse in India, that shouldn't mean we should ignore everything else until it's fixed there first. Because for one, it's much easier for US citizens to fix problems in the US, for both legal and practical reasons. Hopefully something like this right in America's fabled land of idea-makers and disruptors will compel some real action to resolve it.

elsewhen 13y ago
There are charities and NGOs that can do the "fixing," and a dollar spent alleviating the problem in India may be an order of magnitude more effective than in the states.
- mhurron 13y ago
  And thanks to national boarders a dollar spent in India does nothing to help those anywhere else. There is no 'fixing homelessness.' You 'fix' it in India, or in the US or in Canada or in where ever. Sending money to 'fix' India or Africa is a decision to not spend it 'fixing' issues at home.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    That is not true ... charity and economics are not a zero sum game. If you elevate 1000000 Indian people to the working class they will begin consuming a lot of stuff, some of which will be made in the US or having major part of its IP from US. Some of these dollars will come back home. After all what one person spends is another ones income. There is nothing wrong of course with trying to help closer to home first.
    - asdfdsa1234 13y ago
      Charity tends not to elevate anyone to the working class. Most money ameliorates poverty temporarily, is spent on fundraising and bureaucracy, or is diverted (stolen).

rayiner 13y ago

These are our problems. Those are India's problems. We don't have to commute for an hour every morning through an Indian slum. We do have to commute every morning through the slums in our country.

elsewhen 13y ago
So, "out of sight, out of mind?"
- rayiner 13y ago
  No, the natural and rational human desire to fix things closer at hand before fixing things farther away. India's people can worry about their fellow Indians. We should worry, first, about our fellow Americans.
- elsewhen 13y ago
  I agree with you on "natural" but rational? It seems focusing on nearby problems in the modern world is only rational if you are acting out of selfishness. If you are acting from altruism (and also believe that all humans are of equal value), you would pursue the strategies that have the most leverage.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Not at all. You should help where you could do the most. In US it is the US poor - because you have common language, you know the rules, you have the connections and resources etc etc ... India - there is different country, different culture, different customs. We cannot solve the problems of the people by not knowing them in depth and that is major investment. We cannot offer one size fits all "learn to code" solution that earned the tech industry the recent mocking.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    In the sense of a rational actor that maximizes their own utility.

randomdrake 13y ago

I don't understand comments and attitudes like this. "On a global scale, we have much bigger problems." People starving down the block are no less a problem than people starving on the other side of the world. It's atrocious that human beings have to live in squalor anywhere. There are people who need help everywhere and I do not get why people feel the need to measure one form of suffering against another. You say "I don't want to downplay this" but then follow with: "we have bigger problems." How much more could you downplay it? I hypothesize that folks (not necessarily OP) do this, consciously or unconsiously, so they can more easily justify inaction for themselves. "Well I could volunteer on Sunday at the Soup Kitchen but India has it so much worse. How could I/we be so selfish?"

elsewhen 13y ago
It's triage -- solving the biggest fixable problem first.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Poverty in a place like India, because of its scale and the country's broken social institutions, is a much more uphill battle than poverty in the U.S.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - igravious 13y ago
    You'd think that, wouldn't you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... There is a greater relative disparity in wealth between the rich and poor in the US of A than India. (relative poverty) Out of the developed countries the US is easily one of the least unequal (if not the most unequal -- I haven't checked) places. This is, of course, because universal health care is communism and social security is for spongers and the lazy. In absolute terms there is undoubtedly more extreme poverty in India than the US. Why that is so is not as simple as the country's broken social institutions, we're still talking about the world's largest democracy here. I would imagine the caste system plays a part. Colonialism too.

the_rosentotter 13y ago

Well, I'm from Denmark and we don't have homeless people. (Excluding those who choose to be because of mental issues.) There are many things I admire about the US and SV but please don't get complacent.

sluukkonen 13y ago
What? Copenhagen alone has thousands of homeless people. And what makes you think that people choose to be homeless?
- venus 13y ago
  I'm no expert on Denmark but I bet that Copenhagen's homeless issues are a mix of lack of resources and a politically correct unwillingness to forcibly detain people who really should be placed into care (chronic alcoholism, mental disease, drugs). That is perhaps what the parent meant by "choosing" to be homeless: substance abuse/mental health cases who opt out of the system to pursue their addictions. No point arguing about the definition of "choose". America's situation is different; they have an idealogical opposition to social welfare and there is no system to opt out of. The homeless situation in SF is far worse than in any EU city I know of.
  - bluedino 13y ago
    >> The homeless situation in SF is far worse than in any EU city I know of. I don't know if I'd really call it a situation. Homeless people choose to go to SF because it's one of the best places for them. You won't freeze sleeping on the street, plenty of handouts...
    - venus 13y ago
      I'd imagine the main reason is that SF is walkable - not only for the homeless themselves, but also for the targets of their begging activity. The weather is liveable, I suppose, but LA's is better - if that's all it was, they'd be in LA, but LA's much more car-based. Anyway, whatever the reason, I think it is actually a "situation". Many cities have homeless problems, but SF's is amazingly in your face. Most SF people I know would simply not walk through Tenderloin at any time, even in broad daylight. It's in the middle of the freaking city! That is not normal.