10 ms·

On the surface this is a story about trailer parks and the rich profiting from captive renters, but I think the bigger story is this: "He quotes US government

On the surface this is a story about trailer parks and the rich profiting from captive renters, but I think the bigger story is this: "He quotes US government statistics showing that in 2013, 39% of Americans earned less than $20,000 – less than the government’s poverty threshold income of $20,090 for a three-person household." 39% means (Edit: 48,000,000 not 125,162,700, thanks @beachstartup) Americans are living below the poverty line! When you don't have options then you will be taken advantage of. Our system is failing us, our government is failing us, our fellow Americans are failing us and we the community of Hacker News are failing us. How do we disrupt poverty (in the USA and globally), disrupt failing governments and disrupt failing communities? It seems as if our biggest downfall as humans is we don't see how what we do as individuals impacts everyone else and we are all dying deaths of 1b stings. "my carbon doesn't matter", "my investments don't matter", "my food doesn't matter", "my lifestyle doesn't matter", "my impact is so finite", "I'm just one person", etc.

beachstartup 11y ago
i'll tell you why you're being downvoted, it's because your reading comprehension is subpar and you don't have a grip on reality with your hyperbolic claims. 20k for a 3-person household is a lot different than an individual earning under 20k which is where your numbers come from. in fact it's about 200% different. 39% or 125 million americans do not live in poverty. the real number is still shitty, but it's not nearly half, it's closer to 20%, or in statistical terms the bottom quintile, which is pretty much what you would expect given the nature of the US economy/politics. http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/16/news/economy/48-million-americans-poverty-census-bureau/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/16/news/economy/48-million-amer...
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  This is why people are supposed to pool together - whether as extended families living under the same roof, or a bunch of friends all pitching in on rent. Unfortunately, too many people refuse to live like that.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ufmace 11y ago
  This exactly. Not to say that poverty isn't a problem, but anyone who actually wants to accomplish something on these issues needs to recognize that a lot of people and organizations benefit from making the problem appear to be as big as possible. Just because what they're trying to do sounds like a good and selfless cause at first doesn't mean that they aren't out for their own self-interest even if it's at the expense of the rich and the poor alike.
- keithwarren 11y ago
  I almost created a new account to upvote you twice.
- dang 11y ago
  > your reading comprehension is subpar and you don't have a grip on reality Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. Please don't do this. The comment would be fine without the first sentence.
klipt 11y ago
"Disrupting poverty" is a mostly solved problem in e.g. the Nordic countries. The solution is a strong social welfare net - which means the poor never fall into absolute poverty - and high taxes to fund that net - which means the rich don't become as rich (doctors for example don't earn that much more than baristas, but medical school is free). Unfortunately most Americans wouldn't support the high taxes part. Remember when class mobility (i.e. not being poor just because you had poor parents) was the American dream? That dream is now far more alive in Denmark than in America.
- nisse72 11y ago
  Because many people responding seem to believe that there is no significant difference in salary between a barista and a doctor, here are some real numbers (monthly gross): Barista: http://en-sv.statsskuld.se/lonestatistik/for-Barista-523/ http://en-sv.statsskuld.se/lonestatistik/for-Barista-523/ GP: http://en-sv.statsskuld.se/lonestatistik/for-Husl%C3%A4kare-159078/ http://en-sv.statsskuld.se/lonestatistik/for-Husl%C3%A4kare-... The median barista is earning somewhat better than a living wage. The median GP earns 53% more than the barista, and can probably afford a small house in a nice area. Also note that the 90th percentile barista still earns less than the 10th percentile GP. Even Swedens high, progressive taxes do not fully compensate for this difference. (edit: english language links)
  - inflagranti 11y ago
    That sounds about right (right in the sense as that probably how it is and right in the sense that IMHO that's a fair difference). Now would be really interesting to see the same numbers for the US and also have not just the salary but the take home pay after taxes.
    - nisse72 11y ago
      Mini tax table, for someone living in Stockholm (basic tax rates vary by local council): Gross: Net per month, SEK 15000: 12408 20000: 16080 25000: 19753 30000: 23424 35000: 26931 40000: 29827 45000: 32334 50000: 34842 55000: 37220 60000: 39374
clumsysmurf 11y ago
I'm reading Philip Cafaro's book on US Immigration from University Of Chicago Press http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022619065X http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022619065X He's progressive but tackles a subject many liberals and libertarians avoid: that overpopulation (from immigration) makes many problems worse, drives down workers’ wages, drives up inequality, drives up unemployment, leads to political disempowerment, and creates sprawling suburbs which destroy habitats. These problems, he argues, fall disproportionally on the immigrants themselves and resident poor. He also talks about US policies which are causing problems outside the US, motivating people to move here in the first place. So far its a compassionate treatment of the subject. He doesn't favor border control, and does favor amnesty to those here already. It seems hard to talk about societies problems without talking about overpopulation.
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  > "overpopulation (from immigration) makes many problems worse, drives down workers’ wages, drives up inequality, drives up unemployment, leads to political disempowerment, and creates sprawling suburbs which destroy habitats." You should see the equality statistics when you add workers working in Mexico and the US in the same diagram - see what their wages and unemployment rates and political empowerment look like before they immigrate. As for habitats, forget the suburbs: the real habitat-mangler is agriculture.
  - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
    Exactly. This is the comparison it feels like he's making: a universe with just the US with immigrants from a lower socioeconomic status vs a universe with just the US without those immigrants and then sure, the net effect is that the 'without' universe is better because if you get immigrants with relatively (vs the current inhabitants) lower education, skills, literacy, networks, cultural cohesion etc, you inevitably reduce the average person's scores on those traits, that's just simple math. And those traits correlate with social and economic well being. But the actual comparison is that the US isn't alone in the universe, the immigrants already exist, and they're better off in the US than not. Now if you live in a world where you believe that because you're born in the US, something which is literally a blood right, which has nothing to do with merit, affords you the unique luxury of living in the US while others do not, then sure... the first comparison is your perspective. But if you consider yourself a human being who happened to live in the US, then the latter comparison is your perspective. I mean it's obvious. Let's create an extreeeemely exaggerated comparison. Imagine a universe of twenty people, you and 9 others lived, solely, on some ocean paradise where food, health, education etc was 100% abundant, provided by sustainable robots. And you're rich, well educated, crime free etc. And then the other 10, poor people with little education, raised in a shithole environment of scarcity making him prone to crime as a tool for survival, and one of them wants to migrate to your island. Of COURSE your island will be worse off when it comes to security, education, cooperation etc, in the short term. But it still makes the world a better place to have him on the island instead of some shithole. And if carefully managed (e.g. 1 coming over every few years, resources dedicated to integrate these people, give them educational subsidies, mix them into your neighbourhoods instead of seclude them, give them representation and give them preferential treatment for jobs for the first few years), the negative effects would be minimised and temporary, and a few generations later it'd all be fine. This is an extremely exaggerated and simplified story of course (to the point it's very paternalistic, even a bit racist) but I truly feel this is pretty much what a large part of the immigration debate boils down to. I don't think anyone questions that in the short term immigration from lower socioeconomic classes has slightly negative effects, but it's not really an anti-immigration argument for me.
qiqing 11y ago
It seems that the problem is that zoning laws in most places prevent turning more land into more trailer parks, but it's not clear to me that those laws prevent some kind of vertical stacking. I can imagine a few mechanical engineers taking on the task of building a frame of some kind that allows folks to vertically stack mobile homes up to 3 or 4 stories high with outdoor stairs. You have then effectively tripled or quadrupled the supply of rentable 'pads' which would keep it affordable for those on fixed income.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Google "cargo container dorms"
- jessaustin 11y ago
  It's a creative idea, but mobile homes really aren't designed for that. The biggest problem would be poorly-insulated floors suddenly exposed to the open air at elevation, although perhaps some skirting could be developed to interface with the frame or the house below. However it seems that the idiosyncratic plumbing, siding, roofing, heating, etc. components particular to this style of home would not be robust to lifting to or existing at the heights required. Also I doubt the fire codes would ever be amended to allow this scenario.
- Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
  A lot of places ban buildings above X height or stories tall, and I'd imagine stacked trailers count as far as this goes.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  You put the frame and stairs in a warehouse-style steel-framed building. That saves on some requirements for the housing units themselves. Many zoning laws also include peak height restrictions, which limit the practical height of such a building to 3 stories. But factory-built homes are usually half the cost of a site-built home for the same usable floor area.
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
Yeah I agree. At one point the guy says 'if we didn't raise the rents, the park wouldn't be here. It would be appropriated for something else' or something to that extent. And it's likely partially true. These guys are essentially following the market. Is it fucked up? Yes. But the solution is probably not in preventing rent changes longer-term, the solution is tackling poverty. This notion that someone makes $700 a month and is disabled is just insane to me as a western European. The state has a responsibility here to provide a minimum living when someone can't work, or provide a programme for disabled workers and supplement any income that's still missing. How can you put the poverty line at $21k and provide income to a disabled person capping at $8.5k? Obviously there are some things that ought to be done specifically about these trailer parks. For example laws that cap the rent increase per year are quite common. Increasing rent by 100% for existing contracts is totally illegal for example here in the Netherlands. Capping it at inflation + 2-3% is a common solution. But that's a bandaid. Poverty at its core has to be tackled.

beachstartup 11y ago

i'll tell you why you're being downvoted, it's because your reading comprehension is subpar and you don't have a grip on reality with your hyperbolic claims. 20k for a 3-person household is a lot different than an individual earning under 20k which is where your numbers come from. in fact it's about 200% different. 39% or 125 million americans do not live in poverty. the real number is still shitty, but it's not nearly half, it's closer to 20%, or in statistical terms the bottom quintile, which is pretty much what you would expect given the nature of the US economy/politics. http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/16/news/economy/48-million-americans-poverty-census-bureau/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/16/news/economy/48-million-amer...

brandonmenc 11y ago
This is why people are supposed to pool together - whether as extended families living under the same roof, or a bunch of friends all pitching in on rent. Unfortunately, too many people refuse to live like that.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ufmace 11y ago
This exactly. Not to say that poverty isn't a problem, but anyone who actually wants to accomplish something on these issues needs to recognize that a lot of people and organizations benefit from making the problem appear to be as big as possible. Just because what they're trying to do sounds like a good and selfless cause at first doesn't mean that they aren't out for their own self-interest even if it's at the expense of the rich and the poor alike.
keithwarren 11y ago
I almost created a new account to upvote you twice.
dang 11y ago
> your reading comprehension is subpar and you don't have a grip on reality Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. Please don't do this. The comment would be fine without the first sentence.

klipt 11y ago

"Disrupting poverty" is a mostly solved problem in e.g. the Nordic countries. The solution is a strong social welfare net - which means the poor never fall into absolute poverty - and high taxes to fund that net - which means the rich don't become as rich (doctors for example don't earn that much more than baristas, but medical school is free). Unfortunately most Americans wouldn't support the high taxes part. Remember when class mobility (i.e. not being poor just because you had poor parents) was the American dream? That dream is now far more alive in Denmark than in America.

nisse72 11y ago
Because many people responding seem to believe that there is no significant difference in salary between a barista and a doctor, here are some real numbers (monthly gross): Barista: http://en-sv.statsskuld.se/lonestatistik/for-Barista-523/ http://en-sv.statsskuld.se/lonestatistik/for-Barista-523/ GP: http://en-sv.statsskuld.se/lonestatistik/for-Husl%C3%A4kare-159078/ http://en-sv.statsskuld.se/lonestatistik/for-Husl%C3%A4kare-... The median barista is earning somewhat better than a living wage. The median GP earns 53% more than the barista, and can probably afford a small house in a nice area. Also note that the 90th percentile barista still earns less than the 10th percentile GP. Even Swedens high, progressive taxes do not fully compensate for this difference. (edit: english language links)
- inflagranti 11y ago
  That sounds about right (right in the sense as that probably how it is and right in the sense that IMHO that's a fair difference). Now would be really interesting to see the same numbers for the US and also have not just the salary but the take home pay after taxes.
  - nisse72 11y ago
    Mini tax table, for someone living in Stockholm (basic tax rates vary by local council): Gross: Net per month, SEK 15000: 12408 20000: 16080 25000: 19753 30000: 23424 35000: 26931 40000: 29827 45000: 32334 50000: 34842 55000: 37220 60000: 39374

clumsysmurf 11y ago

I'm reading Philip Cafaro's book on US Immigration from University Of Chicago Press http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022619065X http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022619065X He's progressive but tackles a subject many liberals and libertarians avoid: that overpopulation (from immigration) makes many problems worse, drives down workers’ wages, drives up inequality, drives up unemployment, leads to political disempowerment, and creates sprawling suburbs which destroy habitats. These problems, he argues, fall disproportionally on the immigrants themselves and resident poor. He also talks about US policies which are causing problems outside the US, motivating people to move here in the first place. So far its a compassionate treatment of the subject. He doesn't favor border control, and does favor amnesty to those here already. It seems hard to talk about societies problems without talking about overpopulation.

fennecfoxen 11y ago
> "overpopulation (from immigration) makes many problems worse, drives down workers’ wages, drives up inequality, drives up unemployment, leads to political disempowerment, and creates sprawling suburbs which destroy habitats." You should see the equality statistics when you add workers working in Mexico and the US in the same diagram - see what their wages and unemployment rates and political empowerment look like before they immigrate. As for habitats, forget the suburbs: the real habitat-mangler is agriculture.
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  Exactly. This is the comparison it feels like he's making: a universe with just the US with immigrants from a lower socioeconomic status vs a universe with just the US without those immigrants and then sure, the net effect is that the 'without' universe is better because if you get immigrants with relatively (vs the current inhabitants) lower education, skills, literacy, networks, cultural cohesion etc, you inevitably reduce the average person's scores on those traits, that's just simple math. And those traits correlate with social and economic well being. But the actual comparison is that the US isn't alone in the universe, the immigrants already exist, and they're better off in the US than not. Now if you live in a world where you believe that because you're born in the US, something which is literally a blood right, which has nothing to do with merit, affords you the unique luxury of living in the US while others do not, then sure... the first comparison is your perspective. But if you consider yourself a human being who happened to live in the US, then the latter comparison is your perspective. I mean it's obvious. Let's create an extreeeemely exaggerated comparison. Imagine a universe of twenty people, you and 9 others lived, solely, on some ocean paradise where food, health, education etc was 100% abundant, provided by sustainable robots. And you're rich, well educated, crime free etc. And then the other 10, poor people with little education, raised in a shithole environment of scarcity making him prone to crime as a tool for survival, and one of them wants to migrate to your island. Of COURSE your island will be worse off when it comes to security, education, cooperation etc, in the short term. But it still makes the world a better place to have him on the island instead of some shithole. And if carefully managed (e.g. 1 coming over every few years, resources dedicated to integrate these people, give them educational subsidies, mix them into your neighbourhoods instead of seclude them, give them representation and give them preferential treatment for jobs for the first few years), the negative effects would be minimised and temporary, and a few generations later it'd all be fine. This is an extremely exaggerated and simplified story of course (to the point it's very paternalistic, even a bit racist) but I truly feel this is pretty much what a large part of the immigration debate boils down to. I don't think anyone questions that in the short term immigration from lower socioeconomic classes has slightly negative effects, but it's not really an anti-immigration argument for me.

qiqing 11y ago

It seems that the problem is that zoning laws in most places prevent turning more land into more trailer parks, but it's not clear to me that those laws prevent some kind of vertical stacking. I can imagine a few mechanical engineers taking on the task of building a frame of some kind that allows folks to vertically stack mobile homes up to 3 or 4 stories high with outdoor stairs. You have then effectively tripled or quadrupled the supply of rentable 'pads' which would keep it affordable for those on fixed income.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Google "cargo container dorms"
jessaustin 11y ago
It's a creative idea, but mobile homes really aren't designed for that. The biggest problem would be poorly-insulated floors suddenly exposed to the open air at elevation, although perhaps some skirting could be developed to interface with the frame or the house below. However it seems that the idiosyncratic plumbing, siding, roofing, heating, etc. components particular to this style of home would not be robust to lifting to or existing at the heights required. Also I doubt the fire codes would ever be amended to allow this scenario.
Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
A lot of places ban buildings above X height or stories tall, and I'd imagine stacked trailers count as far as this goes.
logfromblammo 11y ago
You put the frame and stairs in a warehouse-style steel-framed building. That saves on some requirements for the housing units themselves. Many zoning laws also include peak height restrictions, which limit the practical height of such a building to 3 stories. But factory-built homes are usually half the cost of a site-built home for the same usable floor area.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago

Yeah I agree. At one point the guy says 'if we didn't raise the rents, the park wouldn't be here. It would be appropriated for something else' or something to that extent. And it's likely partially true. These guys are essentially following the market. Is it fucked up? Yes. But the solution is probably not in preventing rent changes longer-term, the solution is tackling poverty. This notion that someone makes $700 a month and is disabled is just insane to me as a western European. The state has a responsibility here to provide a minimum living when someone can't work, or provide a programme for disabled workers and supplement any income that's still missing. How can you put the poverty line at $21k and provide income to a disabled person capping at $8.5k? Obviously there are some things that ought to be done specifically about these trailer parks. For example laws that cap the rent increase per year are quite common. Increasing rent by 100% for existing contracts is totally illegal for example here in the Netherlands. Capping it at inflation + 2-3% is a common solution. But that's a bandaid. Poverty at its core has to be tackled.