4 ms·

I wonder if anyone's asked those poor people what they want. I've seen a few commenters here suggesting using government money to ship 'em out, or retrain or j

by Frondo 12y ago

I wonder if anyone's asked those poor people what they want. I've seen a few commenters here suggesting using government money to ship 'em out, or retrain or job-place them, but I wonder: what do the poor in Silicon Valley want for their lives? Do they want to be shipped out? To be retrained? Better wages? Cheaper housing? These are people, after all, and are worthy of being involved in any discussion concerning their fate.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
I'm in no way limiting their choices. I am merely discussing the limits that should be put to best utilize limited government resources. If they do not like those limits, they do not have to accept the aid.
- Frondo 12y ago
  That doesn't address my basic point at all: what do they want for their lives?
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    Your base point is a question? I assume you meant that your base point is something we should do with the answer to that question. Could you please restate your base point so I do not have to guess what that something is?
    - Frondo 12y ago
      My point is, what these folks want for their lives matters in a discussion concerning their lives. You've said, ship 'em out! Retrain them! If they don't want to do those things, do nothing. What I'm going for is: ask them, too. It makes very little sense to try to have a conversation about solving a community's problem without listening to members of that community.
      - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
        >You've said, ship 'em out! Retrain them! If they don't want to do those things, do nothing. It seems you have misunderstood my point. I'm not saying to load them up and ship them out. I'm saying that if they want help, the best utilization of limited resources will be in helping them move somewhere more affordable. But they don't have to accept help; it isn't being forced on them. I'm saying offer options, not enforce demands.
        Frondo 12y ago
        And I keep saying, rather than propose a menu of options to the community without getting their input, get their input. Our conversation is now going something like this: You: If they want to move, move them, otherwise do nothing Me: Ask them what they want You: I'm not saying they have to move, just that that's what we can do Me: Ask them what they want You: You misunderstand, they don't have to move, but that's their option if they want help Me: Ask them what they want Are we going to keep going back and forth like this all day?
        Domenic_S 12y ago
        It's equivocation really, because what they want, at the most general level, is not to be homeless. But they're the worst people to ask input from, because if they knew how not to be homeless, they wouldn't be homeless. So sure, have a conversation and find out where they want to be in their life, but it's madness to think they'll give you insight into how to fix what got them there.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        They might very well have insight into how to deploy resources they did not have access to to fix their problems.
        Lawtonfogle 12y ago
        >Assuming government resources are needed to be spent to help resolve this Many of the other fixes talk about changing laws, and my suggestion was basically in the scenario that those don't work. (I do grant that a law change would cost the government some money to implement, new permits, ect.; I just consider such costs when broken down per person help to be effectively zero and to, in large part, already be paid for by all the already hired staff.) So I guess the question to you is... what about all the poor people in every other state. Have you asked them what they want to be done, so we can fairly allocate money? We could give those in need in SV ($TheirPoor * $BudgeToHelpThePoor)/$TotalPoor and let them spend it on what they want and if they run out, tell them tough luck. On a side note, what happens to the average individual who wins big in the lottery?
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  The limits you think should be put. A subsidised construction boom tied to population growth, for instance, would tend to help those on median to low incomes twice over. Once by keeping a lid on the cost of housing and secondly by providing a greater availability of reasonably well paid employment. It also helps those on higher incomes (as long as they are not those whose income is merely dependent on continually soaring house prices), both directly in lower rental costs and indirectly by reducing the cost of local services.
nsnick 12y ago
The problem is that the "poor" people are asking the wrong question. They are asking, "why can't I afford to live where I grew up?" The question they should be asking is, "should I live where I grew up?"
- RIMR 12y ago
  Exactly! A lot of people feel that they are entitled to live in the city they grew up in. They feel that the rising cost of living is unjust, and that they are the victims. What needs to be understood is that we cannot force the cost of living to drop, and we cannot force the median income to rise. Either search for a job that pays more, or search for a home that costs less. If that means moving away from where you grew up, then sorry, but that's literally your best option. Is it fair? No - but life isn't fair. If you find yourself living in a place that you cannot afford, then you are the problem, not the world around you. Fix your own life, because nobody is going to do it for you.
  - throwaway9324 12y ago
    "we cannot force the cost of living to drop" That's exactly what rent control does. I guess it's ok to not even try to make an argument on HN these days.
    - scott_karana 12y ago
      Rent control doesn't force the cost of living to drop: it just shifts it. The ROI on apartments drops substantially, so investors aren't incentivized to make new buildings, but instead maintain their current ones as cheaply as possible until they're unserviceable.
      - throwaway9324 12y ago
        It does for the people being discussed.
        12y ago

by Frondo 12y ago

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

I'm in no way limiting their choices. I am merely discussing the limits that should be put to best utilize limited government resources. If they do not like those limits, they do not have to accept the aid.

Frondo 12y ago
That doesn't address my basic point at all: what do they want for their lives?
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  Your base point is a question? I assume you meant that your base point is something we should do with the answer to that question. Could you please restate your base point so I do not have to guess what that something is?
  - Frondo 12y ago
    My point is, what these folks want for their lives matters in a discussion concerning their lives. You've said, ship 'em out! Retrain them! If they don't want to do those things, do nothing. What I'm going for is: ask them, too. It makes very little sense to try to have a conversation about solving a community's problem without listening to members of that community.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      >You've said, ship 'em out! Retrain them! If they don't want to do those things, do nothing. It seems you have misunderstood my point. I'm not saying to load them up and ship them out. I'm saying that if they want help, the best utilization of limited resources will be in helping them move somewhere more affordable. But they don't have to accept help; it isn't being forced on them. I'm saying offer options, not enforce demands.
      - Frondo 12y ago
        And I keep saying, rather than propose a menu of options to the community without getting their input, get their input. Our conversation is now going something like this: You: If they want to move, move them, otherwise do nothing Me: Ask them what they want You: I'm not saying they have to move, just that that's what we can do Me: Ask them what they want You: You misunderstand, they don't have to move, but that's their option if they want help Me: Ask them what they want Are we going to keep going back and forth like this all day?
        Domenic_S 12y ago
        It's equivocation really, because what they want, at the most general level, is not to be homeless. But they're the worst people to ask input from, because if they knew how not to be homeless, they wouldn't be homeless. So sure, have a conversation and find out where they want to be in their life, but it's madness to think they'll give you insight into how to fix what got them there.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        They might very well have insight into how to deploy resources they did not have access to to fix their problems.
        Lawtonfogle 12y ago
        >Assuming government resources are needed to be spent to help resolve this Many of the other fixes talk about changing laws, and my suggestion was basically in the scenario that those don't work. (I do grant that a law change would cost the government some money to implement, new permits, ect.; I just consider such costs when broken down per person help to be effectively zero and to, in large part, already be paid for by all the already hired staff.) So I guess the question to you is... what about all the poor people in every other state. Have you asked them what they want to be done, so we can fairly allocate money? We could give those in need in SV ($TheirPoor * $BudgeToHelpThePoor)/$TotalPoor and let them spend it on what they want and if they run out, tell them tough luck. On a side note, what happens to the average individual who wins big in the lottery?
lotsofmangos 12y ago
The limits you think should be put. A subsidised construction boom tied to population growth, for instance, would tend to help those on median to low incomes twice over. Once by keeping a lid on the cost of housing and secondly by providing a greater availability of reasonably well paid employment. It also helps those on higher incomes (as long as they are not those whose income is merely dependent on continually soaring house prices), both directly in lower rental costs and indirectly by reducing the cost of local services.

nsnick 12y ago

The problem is that the "poor" people are asking the wrong question. They are asking, "why can't I afford to live where I grew up?" The question they should be asking is, "should I live where I grew up?"

RIMR 12y ago
Exactly! A lot of people feel that they are entitled to live in the city they grew up in. They feel that the rising cost of living is unjust, and that they are the victims. What needs to be understood is that we cannot force the cost of living to drop, and we cannot force the median income to rise. Either search for a job that pays more, or search for a home that costs less. If that means moving away from where you grew up, then sorry, but that's literally your best option. Is it fair? No - but life isn't fair. If you find yourself living in a place that you cannot afford, then you are the problem, not the world around you. Fix your own life, because nobody is going to do it for you.
- throwaway9324 12y ago
  "we cannot force the cost of living to drop" That's exactly what rent control does. I guess it's ok to not even try to make an argument on HN these days.
  - scott_karana 12y ago
    Rent control doesn't force the cost of living to drop: it just shifts it. The ROI on apartments drops substantially, so investors aren't incentivized to make new buildings, but instead maintain their current ones as cheaply as possible until they're unserviceable.
    - throwaway9324 12y ago
      It does for the people being discussed.
      - 12y ago