Article chooses the slant that its a bad thing that there is disparity. One could claim that in a true dystopia the rich would just make it so insufferable that the poor leave as economic refugees.
While I would love for everyone to be "rich" today, it seems that eventual wealth is a good deal, if kind of harsh emotionally. Many of the "poor" (i know there are extreme cases) are richer than kings 1000 yrs ago. I would guess that in 1000 yrs the "poor" of then will be richer than our 1% today.
Thank you for your comment. I think your argument that inequality is the logical extension of humanity's ambition is very common in the tech-sector.
How would the mercy of not "making it so insufferable that the poor leave as economic refugees" actually work out? Don't millionaires need non-millionaires to clean their houses, cook their meals, and walk their dogs?
Not if the millionaires are just barely affording super-high-rent tiny apartments. And buying their food from billion-dollar-valuation food delivery services.
But those food delivery services would employ part time wage workers.
This problem is usually sidestepped by the argument that teachers, policemen, sanitation workers, etc, can't live in the communities they serve and that that's fine as a result of a wider services market, better transportation etc, etc, etc.
But at some point you do have to concede that most of the people driving their beat-up 1996 Hondas to bring you fresh sashimi aren't valued in the six figures - and you have to acknowledge and design for it.
Yup, and instead of having a cook per millionaire or so, you have a few people making and delivering food for a bunch of millionaires. So the number of lower-wage people needed is still relatively low.
The "poor" you know are richer than kings of 1000 years ago? Well sure if you're measuring in dollars they are. Otherwise, what on Earth are you talking about?
They can mostly not worry about starvation, and have internet access, and they have some access to flush toilets and showers.
What are you talking about? Incan kings slept on stone shelves and covered themselves with poorly tanned animal pelts, and were at the mercy of insects and crop fluctuations. They didn't have modern sewage systems or vaccinations.
Modern medicine, access to all the world's knowledge on a handheld device in your pocket, cheap clean/safe water and food from every corner of the world, entertainment (music/films/tv/youtube) cheap/safe transport over thousands of miles in a matter of hours.
There's not a chance in hell I'd want to swap places with a king of 1000 years ago.
You're just listing improvements to standards of living (that not all poor benefit from even today). Ancient kings still controlled land, armies, and food (they probably ate first in times of scarcity). They didn't have modern conveniences but they were still wealthier that today's poor. They also had power and most likely answered to no one.
>"The large rooms of which you are so proud are in fact your shame. They are big enough to hold crowds--and also big enough to shut out the voices of the poor....There is your sister or brother, naked, crying! And you stand confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering."
I understand the libertarian ideal of being free to choose how to give away your own money, but how do they reconcile that with the ignorance of the elite as to the social problems they never encounter? Even given the inefficiencies of government, it's hard for me to imagine that the same amount of social spending could do more good from the hands of individuals than collective agencies.
There are plenty of governments that miserably fail to distribute very large amounts of aid in a way that actually helps the target groups [0] is one in the US, and internationally, things can be really, really sketchy.
One advantage about doing it via charity is that if a charity is ineffective, or fraudulent, switching to a new one is easy. Fixing a government full of corruption or inefficiency is quite a bit harder.
Government does have an important role, but it is no panacea.
When a millionaire gives a million dollars to a school in a wealthy neighborhood, all tax payers are on the hook for 400,000 or so in tax deductions.
So, rich giving disproportionately channels where government opportunity costs are spent!
First, when it comes to stories like this, libertarianism is basically irrelevant in the real world. To a first approximation, even in Silicon Valley, there aren't any. The Valley is far better known for its progressivism than its libertarianism now.
Second, I am unaware of any tenant of libertarianism that says it is somehow bad for people to band together into charity organizations, potentially the very same ones mentioned in the article, and for other people to give money to those organizations. Nothing about libertarianism requires altruistically-minded individuals to literally go out into the streets and start handing out dollar bills to individuals or something. Libertarianism is about not being coerced to join organizations, not about organizations existing.
Libertarianism is also generally aligned against the Keynesian puppeteering that has created this gilded overinvestment bubble and regressive income-dissipating treadmill.
Furthermore, non-transmuted [0] libertarianism is fundamentally against the concentration of communication/power that has caused these parasitic nouveau-middlemen companies to even be a thing!
These principles are slow-acting general concepts, and so they do not address the immediate problem. Obviously if someone is hungry, you feed them first and then figure out how to avoid them getting into that situation in the future.
[0] Every political group starts off with valid critiques and seeking sanity, but the commercially useful parts are then overemphasized to support the status quo power structure. A true libertarian is inherently against large corporations (as there is no difference between a totalitarian government from an all-owning all-contracting corporation), even though they're easily tricked into condoning them.
> A true libertarian is inherently against large corporations
Wouldn't that limit the freedom of the owners/shareholders to grow their corporation to whatever size they want? And who gets to decide how large is large? The government?
Firstly, even without a concrete mechanism morals still exist. You're actually the one referencing the idea of an omnipotent government actor and needing to create an explicit constraint.
But an underlying philosophy of libertarianism is actually to find mechanisms that don't involve centralized ("state") actors. For one example, if more individuals sought out Free software, the Googles of the world would have a less "scalable" audience.
> (as there is no difference between a totalitarian government from an all-owning all-contracting corporation), even though they're easily tricked into condoning them.
Law works because everyone concent and choose to follow it. If you have such single non-violent corporation then there is nothing stops from people to just walk away.
If you reverse your sentences, you actually address your own point -
> If you have such single non-violent corporation then there is nothing stops from people to just walk away.
> Law works because everyone concent and choose to follow it
... with the implication that people could choose to walk away from specific laws, which they can but just require a sizable group to do so.
Coming at it from the other direction, a non-violent corporation can still be coercive if it say owns all of the land and you must rent for a place to exist, or even if you own your land it owns all the roads you must sign a contract to travel. Would you feel better by just viewing USG as a corporation with a contract that you continue to consent to by not having left?
The straightforward response is that a contract to use a road should be scope-constrained to the topic of road usage, and not say also preclude you from using drugs on your own property. But that's no longer as simple and universal as a belief in unlimited contracts.
> Would you feel better by just viewing USG as a corporation with a contract that you continue to consent to by not having left?
Yes I agree.
So lets assume we have someone who has monopoly on land (like USG) and who is non-violent (unlike USG). How do solve this: Trade Sanctions/Non Cooperation. Bitcoin is a similar development.
> The straightforward response is that a contract to use a road should be scope-constrained to the topic of road usage, and not say also preclude you from using drugs on your own property.
Agreed.
> But that's no longer as simple and universal as a belief in unlimited contracts.
Existence of unlimited contracts does not imply one have to agreed to one unreasonably. That is, think before agreeing to a contract (and arbitrator).
Also note the contract to remove unlimited contracts would (probably) be unlimited itself.
I assume you really mean non-aggressive (eg a libertarian would respect a masochist consenting to having violence done to them). Except we've moved the boundaries such that USG is actually non-aggressive (domestically, at least) - you've merely assented to a contract that says you will not use drugs, or USG may imprison you (this could be plausibly beneficial, say you wanted to avoid drugs and were worried about temptation).
> How do solve this: Trade Sanctions/Non Cooperation. Bitcoin is a similar development.
I fully agree, but this is besides the point I'm making. For example, you're actually implying these approaches are inapplicable because USG is not a corporation!
> That is, think before agreeing to a contract (and arbitrator).
Okay... So tomorrow, USG offers you an explicit contract by which remaining on its property (eg inside its borders), you agree to follow its detailed code incorporated by reference (currently called "laws"), as interpreted by its courts. You have a year to decide. At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave?
> Except we've moved the boundaries such that USG is non-aggressive (domestically, at least) - you've merely assented to a contract that says you will not use drugs, or USG will have the right to imprison you
No, In Libretarian Land no one has right to imprison anyone for any reason whatsoever. This is a simple objective contract and I expect unanimous consent.
But you can also have have two Lands one support giving up of this particular freedom as part of contract and one simply outlaws it. More choices the better (which also means few govts being true socialist states, is ok). Let the market decide.
> For example, you're actually implying these approaches are inapplicable because USG is not a corporation!
You would not need this with Libertarian Government (LG) because LG would be very minimal and limited. Even if LG does a bait-and-switch (possible) other LGs/Govts can trade war. I should point out I dont support there be one global LG but numerous smaller LGs. Depending on one single entity is risky irregardless of its intentions.
> At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave?
Lets say I sign it. After 5 years relocate to another country B. Then USG claims I owe them citing the signed USC. But for USC to be enforcable, B also have to consent to it. That is, I dont pay just because I signed the contract but because the consequences would be worse if I dont.
> no one has right to imprison anyone for any reason whatsoever
Sorry, I chose the wrong word and have since adjusted it. Not "right", but mere "option" - based wholly on the contract you signed specifically agreeing to such.
> because LG would be very minimal and limited
This has no bearing on what I'm saying, since in this example USG is a corporation. There can also be a perfect LG that simply enforces the contract you signed with USG, or you can just imagine dutifully holding yourself to the contract.
> Lets say I sign it... Then USG claims
Don't add another hypothetical twist. If you sign the contract and stay, how would your basic situation differ from what it currently is (assuming you are currently in the US) ?
> There can also be a perfect LG that simply enforces the contract you signed with USG,
Thats not possible. LG would only enforce its own very minimal, objective & limited constitution. As a corporation within LG, USG would have to make USC enforcable without help from LG.
> or you can just imagine dutifully holding yourself to the contract.
Only if its in my interest to do so.
> If you sign the contract and stay, how would your basic situation differ from what it currently is
Its not. I am probably missing something, mind writing the whole question in one form again ?
> LG would only enforce its own very minimal, objective & limited constitution. As a corporation within LG, USG would have to make USC enforcable without help from LG
In general libertarian thought, the government enforces contracts between private parties. What you're describing sounds more like anarcho-capitalism.
> Only if its in my interest to do so.
In Libertarian thought, following contracts is a moral requirement. I have no disagreement with what you're asserting here - actually I think it's a good check against overbearing contracts. But we have to share a context in order to have a discussion. The tenets you're describing aren't libertarianism, at least in the US sense of the word. My entire point here is to help US-thinking libertarians avoid falling into the trap where their philosophy is bastardized to justify replacing government with all-powerful corporations.
> In general libertarian thought, the government enforces contracts between private parties.
> Okay... So tomorrow, USG offers you an explicit contract by which remaining on its property (eg inside its borders), you agree to follow its detailed code incorporated by reference (currently called "laws"), as interpreted by its courts. You have a year to decide. At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave?
If USG is the government then this is not libertarianism. If USG is corporation (ie private party) who is the LG then ? The world ?
Lets say LG=World then is it USG the land owner ? I think not, so I dont have to leave if I own a land.
> In Libertarian thought, following contracts is a moral requirement.
Even in LG, you may have contacts of any scope but the contract with the LG would be very minimal. USC is not a libertarian constitution.
> My entire point here is to help US-thinking libertarians avoid falling into the trap where their philosophy is bastardized to justify replacing government with all-powerful corporations.
This does not follow from the fact that LG enforces private contracts. Its still upto you whether or not to sign away your freedoms.
Nonetheless, Libertarianism would be big improvement from current state, and only slightly less from AnCap.
> Even given the inefficiencies of government, it's hard for me to imagine that the same amount of social spending could do more good from the hands of individuals than collective agencies.
(1) Imagine harder.
Get personal experience or talk to someone with personal experience with WIC, food stamps, disability, medicare/medicaid, etc. and you'll find out how inefficient, wasteful, and abused these things are. And I don't just mean by a little bit. I mean by A LOT.
(2) I agree that collective agencies can be more effective than individuals.
But not the government kind that are (a) awfully inefficient and (b) exact their contributions by force. I donate a significant portion of my income voluntarily to organizations of my choice that do good in better ways than writing legally mandated entitlement checks.
All of the welfare budget together (of which some fraction might be waste or fraud) is only a small fraction of the governments budget.
Corporations the size of governments are equally inefficient.
Finally, one major way we could make government more effective is to institute a public, national id number and allow data sharing between between agencies. But we don't trust our own government enough to do that. (Many civilized countries do, and it works great for them)
You'll downvote me for saying this but...a lot of people can't manage money. You give someone $100 or pay off all their debts or whatever and they'll just be right back in a mess in no time. I'm not saying don't help them, I'm just saying it is a difficult problem. They need behavioral reconditioning, not an easy task.
do a little bit of more research on this, there have been handful of real studies on this, and they all showed people are more well off when they are get paid cash. no one better than you know your needs. and also you are not going to have the overhead and administration cost of providing services. one of the best government programs is tax credits, it gives cash to the poor and it is the only thing that left and right can agree on !!
"When asked by Oprah how much of the $100,000 he still had, Ted replied "none." Ted also mentioned that he is homeless again, and content with his current circumstances."
one thing that I remember, we are not talking about $100,000. I can see your point that giving that much money to a homeless people is a bad idea, but giving them $300 a month is better than food stamp. giving them $2000 a month is better than a shelter! and so on
> Reversal of Fortune is a 2005 Showtime documentary that asks the question "What would a homeless person do if they were given $100,000?"
That sounds like such a great film about this issue. Ted sounds like a really hard-working recycling bum. Since Ted is employing himself, Ted is an entrepreneur.
A good thought experiment to put this into perspective is: what happens to the average employed person when they are given $100,000? Except we do not have to do a thought experiment; this scenario occurs thousands of times a year all over the world for lottery winners. The largest study of lottery winners that I know of found that receiving (average) $100,000 doubles the chances of a person going bankrupt: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_00114
Some people who win the lottery and go bankrupt end up worse off than before winning the lottery (also worth looking at: http://brandongaille.com/22-lottery-winners-bankrupt-statist...). Ted, on the other hand, after spending a few months living the high life, went back to his old recycling business.
A lot of former tech entrepreneurs who gave up their dreams of running their own business (even some who went through Y Combinator!) can stand to learn a lesson from Ted's perseverance and positive attitude.
I'm not sure in aggregate everyone is able to save their way to prosperity. There must be places for the capital to be deployed. A lot of savings end up going in to speculation which basically could be classified as gambling or waste. Take a look at China right now, a country with an incredibly high savings rate but much of it going to speculation.
The better problem to look at is what the savings are being spent on: investments that raise the quality of living for everyone.
This is an empirically testable statement and people have tested it. A huge number of people use financial or other assistance for only a temporary amount of time.
"Some people will waste the charity" is a terrible reason to avoid charitable giving.
I believe there has been a fair bit of research into this, and poor people are more likely to be good at managing their money than those with significant disposable income.
Agreed. The large majority of people are in debt due to society telling them to spend more and people wanting to live beyond their means. As a society, if we were taunt how to be financially responsible, the large majority in general would be more financially stable. If you have excess finances, you are more likely to be generous. The main issue is that since everyone is in debt - even millionaires we feel we have more wants and needs that availability to give. 68% of Americans have non-mortgage related debt. That tells me that republicans, democrats, liberals...etc are so self wanting that we are willing to go into debt amd over spend and only willing to help others when our way of life is not directly affected. "(Scrolling down Facebook wall..) Oh those poor kids in Seria! ..I'm going to do my part by commenting and then go to bed"
I don't see any data about where people are from in that link. Just where they lived most recently. A good way to become homeless is to move into an unstable housing situation in a far away place with high rents.
"Seventy-one percent (71%) of respondents reported they were living in San Francisco at the time they most
recently became homeless, an increase from 61% in 2013."
It's true, it doesn't measure length of stay, but they came from SF and claiming it's still an external problem with no evidence seems particularly disingenuous.
The original statement "They vast majority of poor in SF grew up there or in nearby areas, they didn't migrate there like the economic elite have." is simply not supported by this evidence.
Given historical population growth of California, I think it's not a winning argument. Very few of California's residents have moral ground to live here at the exclusion of others. Pretty much everyone moved here. The only way forward is to allow enough homes to be built for everyone who wants to live here.
For trickle down to work the rich need to buy sufficient amount of services. Unfortunately there is an oversupply of low skilled labor and thus not enough of these jobs (how much can 76000 people consume) and no bargaining power.
The middle class as a broad wealth transmission belt has been shrinking and is under pressure from low interest on retirement accounts, high educational cost and home financing costs.
As the money is pumped into the economy from the banking/financial side the gap is increasing continuously.
My friend serves on a local educational non-profit.
He's encountered a lot of problems during his tenure there, that explain why they don't play nicely with many silicon valley folks.
First, the non-profit's goal is to continue to exist, and that means to appease donors, not to serve the needs of the community.
Second, a lot of the employees are volunteers, which means they don't act quite professionally sometimes and push their own agendas to the detriment to the non-profit's overall goals.
Finally, and sadly enough, many of the volunteers lack professionalism. They routinely disclose information they were asked not to reveal, and they forget to document possible conflicts of interest
Are those non-profits financed by local companies? Yes, it's usual that they will try to solve their own problems, that's why you select good people and give them a reason to thing about the bigger picture (that is, you pay them)
Maybe I'm spoiled with who I've been working with, but even when you do something for free, you still try to do a good job while you're at it.
For instance, if you're a landscaper, and you're doing a yard for a neighbor for a favor, you still break out the edger to to the extra mile on what you're doing.
I don't think "empathy gap" is a good way to describe the disconnect described. The gap isn't a lack of empathy. Nobody involved lacks empathy. It's a fundamental question of framing and measurements.
One group of people wants cares about how happy they make people and how moral their mission is. The other cares about the efficiency of how many people can be made that happy per unit of cash.
This is why CharityNavigator and similar have become popular.
Is this really a matter of donating? Shouldn't it be a matter of changing economies? Donating helps but it also keeps the status quo, where wealthy still have access to opportunities and the poorest still don't.
Why would they want to "fix local poverty"? What does that even mean, writing checks in perpetuity? Why would they want to give their resources to other people? How culturally compatible are these "millionaires" with the people they would supposedly be helping? What does a Chinese expat engineer have in common with a schizophrenic black hobo that he would want to write them a check, their presence in the same zip code? Why would he do so when he's already taxed, heavily, to provide things like "homeless services" in SF to the tune of $250 million / year (IE, approximately $20K / homeless person) with apparently no effect? How much of a cut do these "nonprofits" take along the way?
Been working on this problem for awhile. We're currently in Alpha. Not saying a word about how we're fixing the problem on a public board, because peoples envy and jealousy leads to violence (imitative competition) Girard would postulate.
All I'll say, is it's really good and Gamified and will emancipate human people from suffering.
It's no mystery. 76000 millionaires who care about their own interests and money instead of poverty aren't fixing local poverty. They could do a lot to address causes and symptoms to point of a great transformation. They just don't want to. End of story.
Now, knowing they don't want to or put in little effort, what's the next plan for people wanting to end poverty over there that factors this in as a base assumption?
I really don't think it's about money or lack of empathy, as you imply. SV is largely liberal -- witness climate change efforts. If there was a clear solution, I suspect they would back it with their money.
There's a difference between liberal and willing to put much of one's fortune into making others well off. They could be doing all kinds of investments, lobbying, etc that would reduce poverty as a side-effect.
Because it's an unsubtle polemic that misses its target. All government inefficient? Check. And wrong. Charity as the single solution to collective action problems? Check. And has substantial real-world limits due to the free-rider problem. Medicare inefficient? Check. And ludicrously wrong.
Dropping a standard-issue screed into a thread tends to attract downvotes because it isn't serious.
At a completely different scale to those mentioned by others, council housing maintenance by Darlington Borough Council in England. I used to work for them and looked at privatising it; it was too damned cheap to be undercut by any of the private companies.
Government is full of bits that work very well, as well as bits that work very badly. Governments are complicated; sweeping statements are usually wrong.
If you downvote somebody for mentioning downvotes in otherwise acceptable comment, you are a fool; please don't do this. Mentioning downvoting adds nothing to the conversation, but it also doesn't subtract anything.
(For the record, I think downvoting is a bad idea in general. Although GP kinda deserves it, because his comment is empirically untrue, as other comment stated.)
I disagree. It sets up the commenter as a martyr, and indicates they are commenting from an adversarial position. Thinking this, they're less likely to take the time to phrase their comment in a way that will invite further constructive discussion. It also encourages an "us versus them" mentality.
People respond reflexively to phrasing. It takes extra effort to reflect and respond well. Taking care to limit language that short-circuits reflection is important to constructive, positive discussion.
"I disagree. It sets up the commenter as a martyr, and indicates they are commenting from an adversarial position."
But why should I, as a responder or moderator, care?
Imagine a comment with 10 statements, 9 are great points but 10th is logical fallacy (in our case, appeal to emotion). Should such comment be downvoted? I think NO, because each comment should be evaluated based on its merits, not its flaws.
"Taking care to limit language that short-circuits reflection is important to constructive, positive discussion."
If you, in the above example, just downvote without commenting, how can the author figure out what he did wrong? It's like a punishment without an explanation - a stupid, medieval idea.
I think we may be talking past each other. I understand you believe
downvoting in general is a bad idea, in particular downvoting without
also providing an explanation. Further, I think it's likely that you'd
rather there be little or no downvoting at all, with all interaction
happening via comments. That's a viewpoint I've heard others espouse
as well, and that's a discussion that interests me, though not one
I'm interested in having right now.
In my initial comment, I've only described the voting behavior of some
HN members, not expressed any opinion on it, in the hopes that the author
can take that into account when commenting in the future. Separate from
voting behavior, the HN guidelines specifically call out mentioning
downvoting:
Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or proclaim that you expect to get downvoted.
My second comment is specifically in response to your assertion that
mentioning downvoting is not detrimental to the conversation. You've
continued to discuss downvoting mentioning downvoting, while apparently
missing that I've been doing exactly as you recommend: commenting
explicitly on what I believe the commenter has done wrong.
Thank you for sharing more of your thoughts on whether to downvote and
how you think comments should be evaluated. I'm purposely not addressing
them as that's too large a discussion which will go too far afield (even
more so than this has already gone), and as I mentioned above, not one
I'm willing to have right now.
Ah OK, I understand. I actually agree that mentioning downvoting matters for the reader (it's an irrelevant thing that takes away his time), but I don't think it should matter for people who choose to participate, either by replying or moderation.
I also agree with the HN guidelines that you quoted, although of course without downvoting those wouldn't be neccessary.
> I've been doing exactly as you recommend
I appreciate that.
> I'm purposely not addressing them as that's too large a discussion which will go too far afield
That's fine, I agree it's offtopic. Unfortunately, HN doesn't seem to provide good forum for these matters. Even in general I think this is a hard to solve problem, how to avoid discussions to turn into irrelevancy, which can be given by fleeting nature of these discussions.
I am thinking, maybe someone in the future will apply some NLP learning to automatically mark threads that become offtopic (and collapses them or moves them elsewhere); that could perhaps solve the problem for reader that downvoting intends to solve.
Untrue based on what? You may not agree with him, but isn't that the point of the comment section - to comment on the subject. If everyone had the same thoughts, there would be no need for comments ;)
His statement was "financial education rather than handouts". Considering more than 60% of american's are in non-mortgage debt, this is a fair statement for both sides. The rich are in debt as well as the poor. If the "wealthier" had less debt and more available "liquid" income, it's possible to easily promote a percentage of your available wealth to those that have less. Along with poorer-side, it's quite easy to spend thing's on stuff that will not help you out of your slump 5 years from now.
There are a lot of people just don't have enough...but the majority of people are in debt, which causes them not to have enough. Either way, financial responsibility would dramatically increase the U.S. economy more than any job's package from the government (taxes increase, travel expenses increase, home buying increases...etc). Imagine if everyone in the U.S. drove a "beater" car and saved up to pay cash for their next car...imagine if you had no credit cards and everyone had to pay cash....a lot less debt, a lot more savings, a much greater economy, and the 1% would swindle down to 0.01%
"You may not agree with him, but isn't that the point of the comment section - to comment on the subject."
I said I agree with other comments that disagree with him - I don't see why I should comment when there is nothing more to add. However, your comment is a fair argument, so let me comment on it.
"His statement was "financial education rather than handouts". Considering more than 60% of american's are in non-mortgage debt, this is a fair statement for both sides."
This misses the fact that many people do borrow because they are poor. In the U.S., IIRC, biggest cause of bankruptcy is medical care. And as was already pointed out, these problems are solvable with a good social safety network (as we empirically know from other countries).
On the other hand, there is also financial responsibility of the lenders, or rather, lack of it. Perhaps we should start educating them?
However, that misses the big point. Debt slavery is a very real thing - for many lenders, it is convenient that people are in debt. If you think many people go in debt because they are financially illiterate, you are the one who is ignorant about the world. Of course they often know it - they just don't have a better choice. It's just like people who go to fight in wars - of course they know they can die.
And regarding the economy, if you successfully teach people in debt how to save, you are going to have a recession due to debt deleveraging, but that's for another discussion. But in long term, I agree (if that's your point) that more equal society is better for economy.
That comment started the off-topicness by indeed breaking the HN guidelines, but the rest of the subthread went back on topic, or at least avoided downvote derangement syndrome, so I've left it intact.
Somewhere in my brain is floating the figure of 40,000 for the entire homeless population of the entire greater Bay Area. There are twice as many millionaires in Silicon Valley as there are homeless in a greatly expanded "local area." There are about an order of magnitude more millionaires as there are homeless in Silicon Valley proper.
The "76000 millionaires" number might be a little misleading. I've lived in Silicon Valley since I was 3. I bet that a lot of those millionaires are home owners on the Peninsula who have nothing to do with "Silicon Valley" as we commonly refer to it (the tech industry). My Grandpa, for example, was a high school teacher all his life. He bought a home up in the Burlingame hills back in the 60s or 70s, and that thing is probably worth multi-millions now.
I honestly don't know, so I'm asking a genuine question: if someone has no money in their bank account but owns a house worth millions of dollars, are they considered a millionaire? Even though they've never realized that money and could never spend that money?
Sorry, your comment just raised an interesting question in my mind.
I would wager that most billionaires do not have a billion dollars in liquid assets, yet they're still called that. It seems that the same would apply for 'millionaire'.
> I honestly don't know, so I'm asking a genuine question: if someone has no money in their bank account but owns a house worth millions of dollars, are they considered a millionaire?
Depends on other assets and liabilities. "Millionaire" is $1 million+ net worth; it's quite possible to have, say, a $3 million house, a $2.4 million mortgage, and $0 net between other assets and liabilities, and not be a millionaire.
He is still a millionaire. He could sell it and live like a king in many places in the US. A million still goes far even in many places in CA like Lake County, Humboldt, or the East side of the Sierras.
The parent was postulating that his father wasn't a true millionaire because only his house was worth a million dollars. I was suggesting that his father was a true millionaire because he has the choice to liquidate his holdings if we so wishes. Do you disagree?
I think that "millionaire" used to designate an incredible wealth.
If you're 60 and you have to pick between having 1 million in cash or having a roof [in a moderate sized flat] over your head, you're not doing that well.
Let's look at it...
a family making $250k a year, don't go into debt, max out your RIA, and your easily a millionaire before retirement. Then over the past 20 years...increased home sales, salaries, company buyouts...etc. The average salary in silicon valley is $94k with 3 million people. If this is the average, only 2.5% of the population need's to make $500k or more and save for a few years.
Silicon Valley and San Francisco need to learn from NYC about how to address homelessness and and poverty. The state of the Tenderloin is comparable to Times Square in the 1970s.
It boggles my mind why we cannot divert that valuable land towards productive use and use the tax revenue generated towards providing homeless services closer to the outer edges of the city and away from civil society.
SF already spends ~$250M a year on homelessness. I don't think more money is what is needed to solve the problem. I think a change in tactics is needed. I am not sure what the right answer is, but they already have ~$25k to spend per homeless person.
That ~$250M/year is spending on both homeless and homelessness prevention, only about $100 million of that is actual services for the homeless, of whom there are ~7000, so about $14,000/homeless person.
I think there's a strong argument for changing tactics, but if one of my friends anywhere in the bay area told me they were living on $14,000/yr I would ask if they have enough food, so it doesn't surprise me that this isn't really working.
I understand SF more expensive than NYC these days, but $14,000/year sounds like a reasonable amount of money to me. It's obviously not enough for each person to get their own apartment, but if spent wisely, it seems like it should afford them some safe modest shelter and a reliable 3 meals per day.
I assume some of the money goes towards rehabilitation, which cuts into these funds a bit. Maybe it does need to be bumped up. At first glance, $14k just seems like it should do a better job than it's doing.
Worse, I think some nonprofits are inadvertently contributing to make the problem worse, e.g. Faith in Action putting rent control on the ballot in San Mateo, and Asian Pacific Environmental Network expanding rent control in Oakland. That's why this year I donate and got company matching donations to California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund.
It seems like some of the charities need to spend money on marketing to get their message out and attract/convince new donors. It's hard to raise money and get donations if people do not know what you do. Unfortunately, many people get angry when charities spend money on marketing because they say it's wasteful and doesn't go directly to helping people. But, sometimes you have to spend some money in order to make more money in order to help more people...
My sister has spent the last ~15 years in nonprofit management, she consistently says that marketing and outreach are 30-40% of the budget at the nonprofits she works with, many of which have annual donations in the 8 figures.
Socially it's really unacceptable to say "we spent $3 million on marketing this year" because people think you should have spent it helping people, but if you don't spend it this year your doors close next year.
>many people get angry when charities spend money on marketing because they say it's wasteful and doesn't go directly to helping people
I'm one of those people. Not that I think they shouldn't be marketing, but they could do a better job at it.
For example, I sponsored someone who was running a race to benefit St. Jude's a few years ago. Not a big donation, but I figured I'd contribute. They have since spent much, much more than my donation amount on marketing targeted at me -- in postage alone. Once per month I get something in the mail with glossy prints and promises of gifts and so on.
I'm sure this strategy works to pull in donations (or they wouldn't do it). But I can't help but think if they tapered down the frequency of mailings based on my history of non-response they could save a lot of money. If I don't respond monthly, switch me to quarterly. If not quarterly then semi-annually, and so on. Even if they continued sending them once per year, that's a 92% savings over the current model.
It is easy to blame individuals, but let's face facts, everyone is busy dealing with their own issues no matter how poor or rich. Further, wealthy people aren't going to start shopping at second hand stores any sooner than the impoverished are going to start shopping Louis Vuitton to learn how other people live. Don't know, don't care.
Besides government, we have these silly associations called corporations that are both tiny and enormous. There are tax incentives and brand awareness that all motivate them to get involved with these issues. Further, they have armies of people and other resources.
To owners, board members and shareholders: Is your company engaged with local community issues? Are employees and management encouraged and supported to do so? Awareness campaigns?
For employees and contractors: Have you bothered to see what your company is doing to assist with these programs? Have you signed up to learn more? Volunteer or donate money?
My 2c: It sounds like a much better approach to work with than trying to chase after 76000 individuals. More likely to herd cats.
Every year our local office adopts a family and donates household goods, food, gifts, and computers. Last year we worked at the local food bank, the community kitchen and last year repainted a community centre. It is a great opportunity for team building that doesn't involve stupid posters with lions and whales.
Many in SV are busy, but are also aware and empathetic.
I suspect many of us would pay slightly higher taxes to solve this problem, if that were possible. But we are less likely to invest time, or push corporations to tackle the issue.
Could anyone else find where the stat came from on number of millionaires? I opened the linked PDF report the link ultimately led to, read the whole thing and couldn't find it.
I'm curious because the devil may be in the details and the headline may not be what it sounds.
Specifically...
- What form does this wealth take? Are they only paper rich? If so, they probably can't access much of those funds. Same if they are tied up in retirement accounts.
- What is the distribution of money in this sample? If it is closer to $1M for the majority vs much higher amounts, that isn't as much money as most people think it is out here when a crappy small house in a decent neighborhood costs more than that. Certainly not "divert your funds to solve poverty" levels of cash. If you have $1M and have a decently large mortgage out here, that money is likely not even enough to cover your retirement if you keep living here.
This sort of headline and math drives impressions and revenue for Business Insider but this is likely a non story.
Don't get me wrong... This is a big problem that we should absolutely be trying to solve. But this seems to point the finger at a group of people who may not really be worth pointing the finger at because they actually aren't that wealthy in reality if you factor in the form of that wealth, cost of living, mortgage, and saving for retirement. They may in fact look more similar to the upper middle class of 20 years ago, albeit with smaller, crappier homes.
Are you able to point me to a more specific location for that citation? I click the article link, then click the link to the PDF study from there. I read through the whole thing (actually way more interesting than the article), and unless I missed it somewhere, I didn't see anything referencing that statistic.
> They may in fact look more similar to the upper middle class of 20 years ago, albeit with smaller, crappier homes.
If the conjecture is true, it would be a really powerful example of how great wealth inequality has gotten, and how absolutely ineffective trickle-down economics is.
Every time I read something like this I think about all my rich friends in Silicon Valley who engage in armchair socialism. Gives me a good chuckle. ^.^
What is funny about this? It seems entirely consistent.
Socialists think the government should provide social services.
Rich people not donating money for social services seems completely philosophically compatible with being socialists.
The vast, vast majority of my rich friends believe we should raise taxes on all rich people, not donate to non-profits who then have to spend the money on marketing.
As another responder pointed out, there's nothing inconsistent about it. Just because someone believes all of the rich should pay more doesn't mean they're willing to be the only ones doing so while their more callous peers coast by.
You know what's inconsistent? Claiming to care about an issue, but opposing any means of addressing it. If you're going to preclude the government addressing poverty, you can't also go around undermining everyone else who tries. For example, in other comments on this story I see people complaining about volunteers' lack of professionalism, and about spending money on marketing. Clue time: money for marketing is a necessity for any long-term enterprise. If the government got out of charity altogether, each charity would have to try even harder to draw attention to their cause among all the others. The marketing industry would love it, but from the standpoint of helping the poor it's a form of inefficiency. Those who rail against government inefficiency should admit and consider the inefficiency in their own chosen model, lest they seem dishonest.
I would like a full time job to be enough to by a minimum of rent, food, health care, transportation, communication, clothing, education, and savings for a small family.
In America today, that is not true for millions of working class people.
Then add corporations who prefer four part time workers to two full time workers, and it's clear that America penalizes those on the bottom half of the bell curve harshly.
Is that a society you are proud of? Where children starve? Where treatable diseases like TB are a public health risk (even to you)?
When people talk about 'gibs', they aren't talking about the government assistance provided to people like them. They're talking about the (functionally identical) government assistance provided to black people.
See: 'illegal immigrant'. The phrase could, and in a literal reading does, mean anyone entering the US illegally. When politicians talking about deporting 'illegal immigrants', it's understood that they mean illegal Mexican immigrants.
In the same way, 'gibs' could, in theory, mean any government handout. However, if you examine its specific usage you'll see a clear pattern.
158 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadWhile I would love for everyone to be "rich" today, it seems that eventual wealth is a good deal, if kind of harsh emotionally. Many of the "poor" (i know there are extreme cases) are richer than kings 1000 yrs ago. I would guess that in 1000 yrs the "poor" of then will be richer than our 1% today.
How would the mercy of not "making it so insufferable that the poor leave as economic refugees" actually work out? Don't millionaires need non-millionaires to clean their houses, cook their meals, and walk their dogs?
This problem is usually sidestepped by the argument that teachers, policemen, sanitation workers, etc, can't live in the communities they serve and that that's fine as a result of a wider services market, better transportation etc, etc, etc.
But at some point you do have to concede that most of the people driving their beat-up 1996 Hondas to bring you fresh sashimi aren't valued in the six figures - and you have to acknowledge and design for it.
What are you talking about? Incan kings slept on stone shelves and covered themselves with poorly tanned animal pelts, and were at the mercy of insects and crop fluctuations. They didn't have modern sewage systems or vaccinations.
A king 1000 years ago would have no conception of what a shower is. They would take baths, but even then, that'd be a seasonal/yearly thing.
There's not a chance in hell I'd want to swap places with a king of 1000 years ago.
that is literally happening right now.
Ambrose 4th Century
One advantage about doing it via charity is that if a charity is ineffective, or fraudulent, switching to a new one is easy. Fixing a government full of corruption or inefficiency is quite a bit harder.
Government does have an important role, but it is no panacea.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-newark-schools-p...
You wrote "practically impossible" wrong.
Second, I am unaware of any tenant of libertarianism that says it is somehow bad for people to band together into charity organizations, potentially the very same ones mentioned in the article, and for other people to give money to those organizations. Nothing about libertarianism requires altruistically-minded individuals to literally go out into the streets and start handing out dollar bills to individuals or something. Libertarianism is about not being coerced to join organizations, not about organizations existing.
Furthermore, non-transmuted [0] libertarianism is fundamentally against the concentration of communication/power that has caused these parasitic nouveau-middlemen companies to even be a thing!
These principles are slow-acting general concepts, and so they do not address the immediate problem. Obviously if someone is hungry, you feed them first and then figure out how to avoid them getting into that situation in the future.
[0] Every political group starts off with valid critiques and seeking sanity, but the commercially useful parts are then overemphasized to support the status quo power structure. A true libertarian is inherently against large corporations (as there is no difference between a totalitarian government from an all-owning all-contracting corporation), even though they're easily tricked into condoning them.
Wouldn't that limit the freedom of the owners/shareholders to grow their corporation to whatever size they want? And who gets to decide how large is large? The government?
But an underlying philosophy of libertarianism is actually to find mechanisms that don't involve centralized ("state") actors. For one example, if more individuals sought out Free software, the Googles of the world would have a less "scalable" audience.
Law works because everyone concent and choose to follow it. If you have such single non-violent corporation then there is nothing stops from people to just walk away.
> If you have such single non-violent corporation then there is nothing stops from people to just walk away.
> Law works because everyone concent and choose to follow it
... with the implication that people could choose to walk away from specific laws, which they can but just require a sizable group to do so.
Coming at it from the other direction, a non-violent corporation can still be coercive if it say owns all of the land and you must rent for a place to exist, or even if you own your land it owns all the roads you must sign a contract to travel. Would you feel better by just viewing USG as a corporation with a contract that you continue to consent to by not having left?
The straightforward response is that a contract to use a road should be scope-constrained to the topic of road usage, and not say also preclude you from using drugs on your own property. But that's no longer as simple and universal as a belief in unlimited contracts.
Yes I agree.
So lets assume we have someone who has monopoly on land (like USG) and who is non-violent (unlike USG). How do solve this: Trade Sanctions/Non Cooperation. Bitcoin is a similar development.
> The straightforward response is that a contract to use a road should be scope-constrained to the topic of road usage, and not say also preclude you from using drugs on your own property.
Agreed.
> But that's no longer as simple and universal as a belief in unlimited contracts.
Existence of unlimited contracts does not imply one have to agreed to one unreasonably. That is, think before agreeing to a contract (and arbitrator).
Also note the contract to remove unlimited contracts would (probably) be unlimited itself.
I assume you really mean non-aggressive (eg a libertarian would respect a masochist consenting to having violence done to them). Except we've moved the boundaries such that USG is actually non-aggressive (domestically, at least) - you've merely assented to a contract that says you will not use drugs, or USG may imprison you (this could be plausibly beneficial, say you wanted to avoid drugs and were worried about temptation).
> How do solve this: Trade Sanctions/Non Cooperation. Bitcoin is a similar development.
I fully agree, but this is besides the point I'm making. For example, you're actually implying these approaches are inapplicable because USG is not a corporation!
> That is, think before agreeing to a contract (and arbitrator).
Okay... So tomorrow, USG offers you an explicit contract by which remaining on its property (eg inside its borders), you agree to follow its detailed code incorporated by reference (currently called "laws"), as interpreted by its courts. You have a year to decide. At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave?
Yes.
> Except we've moved the boundaries such that USG is non-aggressive (domestically, at least) - you've merely assented to a contract that says you will not use drugs, or USG will have the right to imprison you
No, In Libretarian Land no one has right to imprison anyone for any reason whatsoever. This is a simple objective contract and I expect unanimous consent.
But you can also have have two Lands one support giving up of this particular freedom as part of contract and one simply outlaws it. More choices the better (which also means few govts being true socialist states, is ok). Let the market decide.
> For example, you're actually implying these approaches are inapplicable because USG is not a corporation!
You would not need this with Libertarian Government (LG) because LG would be very minimal and limited. Even if LG does a bait-and-switch (possible) other LGs/Govts can trade war. I should point out I dont support there be one global LG but numerous smaller LGs. Depending on one single entity is risky irregardless of its intentions.
> At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave?
Lets say I sign it. After 5 years relocate to another country B. Then USG claims I owe them citing the signed USC. But for USC to be enforcable, B also have to consent to it. That is, I dont pay just because I signed the contract but because the consequences would be worse if I dont.
Sorry, I chose the wrong word and have since adjusted it. Not "right", but mere "option" - based wholly on the contract you signed specifically agreeing to such.
> because LG would be very minimal and limited
This has no bearing on what I'm saying, since in this example USG is a corporation. There can also be a perfect LG that simply enforces the contract you signed with USG, or you can just imagine dutifully holding yourself to the contract.
> Lets say I sign it... Then USG claims
Don't add another hypothetical twist. If you sign the contract and stay, how would your basic situation differ from what it currently is (assuming you are currently in the US) ?
Thats not possible. LG would only enforce its own very minimal, objective & limited constitution. As a corporation within LG, USG would have to make USC enforcable without help from LG.
> or you can just imagine dutifully holding yourself to the contract.
Only if its in my interest to do so.
> If you sign the contract and stay, how would your basic situation differ from what it currently is
Its not. I am probably missing something, mind writing the whole question in one form again ?
In general libertarian thought, the government enforces contracts between private parties. What you're describing sounds more like anarcho-capitalism.
> Only if its in my interest to do so.
In Libertarian thought, following contracts is a moral requirement. I have no disagreement with what you're asserting here - actually I think it's a good check against overbearing contracts. But we have to share a context in order to have a discussion. The tenets you're describing aren't libertarianism, at least in the US sense of the word. My entire point here is to help US-thinking libertarians avoid falling into the trap where their philosophy is bastardized to justify replacing government with all-powerful corporations.
> Okay... So tomorrow, USG offers you an explicit contract by which remaining on its property (eg inside its borders), you agree to follow its detailed code incorporated by reference (currently called "laws"), as interpreted by its courts. You have a year to decide. At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave?
If USG is the government then this is not libertarianism. If USG is corporation (ie private party) who is the LG then ? The world ?
Lets say LG=World then is it USG the land owner ? I think not, so I dont have to leave if I own a land.
> In Libertarian thought, following contracts is a moral requirement.
Even in LG, you may have contacts of any scope but the contract with the LG would be very minimal. USC is not a libertarian constitution.
> My entire point here is to help US-thinking libertarians avoid falling into the trap where their philosophy is bastardized to justify replacing government with all-powerful corporations.
This does not follow from the fact that LG enforces private contracts. Its still upto you whether or not to sign away your freedoms.
Nonetheless, Libertarianism would be big improvement from current state, and only slightly less from AnCap.
(1) Imagine harder.
Get personal experience or talk to someone with personal experience with WIC, food stamps, disability, medicare/medicaid, etc. and you'll find out how inefficient, wasteful, and abused these things are. And I don't just mean by a little bit. I mean by A LOT.
(2) I agree that collective agencies can be more effective than individuals.
But not the government kind that are (a) awfully inefficient and (b) exact their contributions by force. I donate a significant portion of my income voluntarily to organizations of my choice that do good in better ways than writing legally mandated entitlement checks.
Corporations the size of governments are equally inefficient.
Finally, one major way we could make government more effective is to institute a public, national id number and allow data sharing between between agencies. But we don't trust our own government enough to do that. (Many civilized countries do, and it works great for them)
Every other days some article rises to the top of HN about government surveillance.
Should You Give Money to Homeless People?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/03/should-y...
"The short answer is no. The long answer is yes, but only if you work for an organization that can ensure the money is spent wisely."
Reversal of Fortune is a 2005 Showtime documentary that asks the question "What would a homeless person do if they were given $100,000?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_of_Fortune_(2005_film...
"When asked by Oprah how much of the $100,000 he still had, Ted replied "none." Ted also mentioned that he is homeless again, and content with his current circumstances."
one thing that I remember, we are not talking about $100,000. I can see your point that giving that much money to a homeless people is a bad idea, but giving them $300 a month is better than food stamp. giving them $2000 a month is better than a shelter! and so on
That sounds like such a great film about this issue. Ted sounds like a really hard-working recycling bum. Since Ted is employing himself, Ted is an entrepreneur.
A good thought experiment to put this into perspective is: what happens to the average employed person when they are given $100,000? Except we do not have to do a thought experiment; this scenario occurs thousands of times a year all over the world for lottery winners. The largest study of lottery winners that I know of found that receiving (average) $100,000 doubles the chances of a person going bankrupt: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_00114
Some people who win the lottery and go bankrupt end up worse off than before winning the lottery (also worth looking at: http://brandongaille.com/22-lottery-winners-bankrupt-statist...). Ted, on the other hand, after spending a few months living the high life, went back to his old recycling business.
A lot of former tech entrepreneurs who gave up their dreams of running their own business (even some who went through Y Combinator!) can stand to learn a lesson from Ted's perseverance and positive attitude.
The better problem to look at is what the savings are being spent on: investments that raise the quality of living for everyone.
"Some people will waste the charity" is a terrible reason to avoid charitable giving.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/29/eight-in-10-americans-are-in-...
Page 33, under the subtitle "Place of Residence"
It's true, it doesn't measure length of stay, but they came from SF and claiming it's still an external problem with no evidence seems particularly disingenuous.
Given historical population growth of California, I think it's not a winning argument. Very few of California's residents have moral ground to live here at the exclusion of others. Pretty much everyone moved here. The only way forward is to allow enough homes to be built for everyone who wants to live here.
The middle class as a broad wealth transmission belt has been shrinking and is under pressure from low interest on retirement accounts, high educational cost and home financing costs.
As the money is pumped into the economy from the banking/financial side the gap is increasing continuously.
He's encountered a lot of problems during his tenure there, that explain why they don't play nicely with many silicon valley folks.
First, the non-profit's goal is to continue to exist, and that means to appease donors, not to serve the needs of the community.
Second, a lot of the employees are volunteers, which means they don't act quite professionally sometimes and push their own agendas to the detriment to the non-profit's overall goals.
Finally, and sadly enough, many of the volunteers lack professionalism. They routinely disclose information they were asked not to reveal, and they forget to document possible conflicts of interest
> professionalism
Pick one
Are those non-profits financed by local companies? Yes, it's usual that they will try to solve their own problems, that's why you select good people and give them a reason to thing about the bigger picture (that is, you pay them)
Maybe I'm spoiled with who I've been working with, but even when you do something for free, you still try to do a good job while you're at it.
For instance, if you're a landscaper, and you're doing a yard for a neighbor for a favor, you still break out the edger to to the extra mile on what you're doing.
One group of people wants cares about how happy they make people and how moral their mission is. The other cares about the efficiency of how many people can be made that happy per unit of cash.
This is why CharityNavigator and similar have become popular.
Lots of unasked questions here.
All I'll say, is it's really good and Gamified and will emancipate human people from suffering.
Now, knowing they don't want to or put in little effort, what's the next plan for people wanting to end poverty over there that factors this in as a base assumption?
Dropping a standard-issue screed into a thread tends to attract downvotes because it isn't serious.
Can you name an efficient government program?
Government is full of bits that work very well, as well as bits that work very badly. Governments are complicated; sweeping statements are usually wrong.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(For the record, I think downvoting is a bad idea in general. Although GP kinda deserves it, because his comment is empirically untrue, as other comment stated.)
I disagree. It sets up the commenter as a martyr, and indicates they are commenting from an adversarial position. Thinking this, they're less likely to take the time to phrase their comment in a way that will invite further constructive discussion. It also encourages an "us versus them" mentality.
People respond reflexively to phrasing. It takes extra effort to reflect and respond well. Taking care to limit language that short-circuits reflection is important to constructive, positive discussion.
But why should I, as a responder or moderator, care?
Imagine a comment with 10 statements, 9 are great points but 10th is logical fallacy (in our case, appeal to emotion). Should such comment be downvoted? I think NO, because each comment should be evaluated based on its merits, not its flaws.
"Taking care to limit language that short-circuits reflection is important to constructive, positive discussion."
If you, in the above example, just downvote without commenting, how can the author figure out what he did wrong? It's like a punishment without an explanation - a stupid, medieval idea.
In my initial comment, I've only described the voting behavior of some HN members, not expressed any opinion on it, in the hopes that the author can take that into account when commenting in the future. Separate from voting behavior, the HN guidelines specifically call out mentioning downvoting:
Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or proclaim that you expect to get downvoted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
My second comment is specifically in response to your assertion that mentioning downvoting is not detrimental to the conversation. You've continued to discuss downvoting mentioning downvoting, while apparently missing that I've been doing exactly as you recommend: commenting explicitly on what I believe the commenter has done wrong.
Thank you for sharing more of your thoughts on whether to downvote and how you think comments should be evaluated. I'm purposely not addressing them as that's too large a discussion which will go too far afield (even more so than this has already gone), and as I mentioned above, not one I'm willing to have right now.
Ah OK, I understand. I actually agree that mentioning downvoting matters for the reader (it's an irrelevant thing that takes away his time), but I don't think it should matter for people who choose to participate, either by replying or moderation.
I also agree with the HN guidelines that you quoted, although of course without downvoting those wouldn't be neccessary.
> I've been doing exactly as you recommend
I appreciate that.
> I'm purposely not addressing them as that's too large a discussion which will go too far afield
That's fine, I agree it's offtopic. Unfortunately, HN doesn't seem to provide good forum for these matters. Even in general I think this is a hard to solve problem, how to avoid discussions to turn into irrelevancy, which can be given by fleeting nature of these discussions.
I am thinking, maybe someone in the future will apply some NLP learning to automatically mark threads that become offtopic (and collapses them or moves them elsewhere); that could perhaps solve the problem for reader that downvoting intends to solve.
His statement was "financial education rather than handouts". Considering more than 60% of american's are in non-mortgage debt, this is a fair statement for both sides. The rich are in debt as well as the poor. If the "wealthier" had less debt and more available "liquid" income, it's possible to easily promote a percentage of your available wealth to those that have less. Along with poorer-side, it's quite easy to spend thing's on stuff that will not help you out of your slump 5 years from now.
There are a lot of people just don't have enough...but the majority of people are in debt, which causes them not to have enough. Either way, financial responsibility would dramatically increase the U.S. economy more than any job's package from the government (taxes increase, travel expenses increase, home buying increases...etc). Imagine if everyone in the U.S. drove a "beater" car and saved up to pay cash for their next car...imagine if you had no credit cards and everyone had to pay cash....a lot less debt, a lot more savings, a much greater economy, and the 1% would swindle down to 0.01%
I said I agree with other comments that disagree with him - I don't see why I should comment when there is nothing more to add. However, your comment is a fair argument, so let me comment on it.
"His statement was "financial education rather than handouts". Considering more than 60% of american's are in non-mortgage debt, this is a fair statement for both sides."
This misses the fact that many people do borrow because they are poor. In the U.S., IIRC, biggest cause of bankruptcy is medical care. And as was already pointed out, these problems are solvable with a good social safety network (as we empirically know from other countries).
On the other hand, there is also financial responsibility of the lenders, or rather, lack of it. Perhaps we should start educating them?
However, that misses the big point. Debt slavery is a very real thing - for many lenders, it is convenient that people are in debt. If you think many people go in debt because they are financially illiterate, you are the one who is ignorant about the world. Of course they often know it - they just don't have a better choice. It's just like people who go to fight in wars - of course they know they can die.
And regarding the economy, if you successfully teach people in debt how to save, you are going to have a recession due to debt deleveraging, but that's for another discussion. But in long term, I agree (if that's your point) that more equal society is better for economy.
That comment started the off-topicness by indeed breaking the HN guidelines, but the rest of the subthread went back on topic, or at least avoided downvote derangement syndrome, so I've left it intact.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/06/22/silicon-valley-homeles...
Sorry, your comment just raised an interesting question in my mind.
Depends on other assets and liabilities. "Millionaire" is $1 million+ net worth; it's quite possible to have, say, a $3 million house, a $2.4 million mortgage, and $0 net between other assets and liabilities, and not be a millionaire.
While I understand the reasoning, I'm don't understand what's your point.
If you're 60 and you have to pick between having 1 million in cash or having a roof [in a moderate sized flat] over your head, you're not doing that well.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/09/24/silicon-v...
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/05/05/silicon-valley-p...
It boggles my mind why we cannot divert that valuable land towards productive use and use the tax revenue generated towards providing homeless services closer to the outer edges of the city and away from civil society.
I urge people to read this article: http://www.city-journal.org/html/how-new-york-became-safe-fu...
http://sfist.com/2016/04/12/no_san_francisco_does_not_spend_...
I think there's a strong argument for changing tactics, but if one of my friends anywhere in the bay area told me they were living on $14,000/yr I would ask if they have enough food, so it doesn't surprise me that this isn't really working.
I assume some of the money goes towards rehabilitation, which cuts into these funds a bit. Maybe it does need to be bumped up. At first glance, $14k just seems like it should do a better job than it's doing.
http://carlaef.org
Socially it's really unacceptable to say "we spent $3 million on marketing this year" because people think you should have spent it helping people, but if you don't spend it this year your doors close next year.
I'm one of those people. Not that I think they shouldn't be marketing, but they could do a better job at it.
For example, I sponsored someone who was running a race to benefit St. Jude's a few years ago. Not a big donation, but I figured I'd contribute. They have since spent much, much more than my donation amount on marketing targeted at me -- in postage alone. Once per month I get something in the mail with glossy prints and promises of gifts and so on.
I'm sure this strategy works to pull in donations (or they wouldn't do it). But I can't help but think if they tapered down the frequency of mailings based on my history of non-response they could save a lot of money. If I don't respond monthly, switch me to quarterly. If not quarterly then semi-annually, and so on. Even if they continued sending them once per year, that's a 92% savings over the current model.
To owners, board members and shareholders: Is your company engaged with local community issues? Are employees and management encouraged and supported to do so? Awareness campaigns?
For employees and contractors: Have you bothered to see what your company is doing to assist with these programs? Have you signed up to learn more? Volunteer or donate money?
My 2c: It sounds like a much better approach to work with than trying to chase after 76000 individuals. More likely to herd cats.
Every year our local office adopts a family and donates household goods, food, gifts, and computers. Last year we worked at the local food bank, the community kitchen and last year repainted a community centre. It is a great opportunity for team building that doesn't involve stupid posters with lions and whales.
I suspect many of us would pay slightly higher taxes to solve this problem, if that were possible. But we are less likely to invest time, or push corporations to tackle the issue.
I'm curious because the devil may be in the details and the headline may not be what it sounds.
Specifically...
- What form does this wealth take? Are they only paper rich? If so, they probably can't access much of those funds. Same if they are tied up in retirement accounts.
- What is the distribution of money in this sample? If it is closer to $1M for the majority vs much higher amounts, that isn't as much money as most people think it is out here when a crappy small house in a decent neighborhood costs more than that. Certainly not "divert your funds to solve poverty" levels of cash. If you have $1M and have a decently large mortgage out here, that money is likely not even enough to cover your retirement if you keep living here.
This sort of headline and math drives impressions and revenue for Business Insider but this is likely a non story.
Don't get me wrong... This is a big problem that we should absolutely be trying to solve. But this seems to point the finger at a group of people who may not really be worth pointing the finger at because they actually aren't that wealthy in reality if you factor in the form of that wealth, cost of living, mortgage, and saving for retirement. They may in fact look more similar to the upper middle class of 20 years ago, albeit with smaller, crappier homes.
If the conjecture is true, it would be a really powerful example of how great wealth inequality has gotten, and how absolutely ineffective trickle-down economics is.
Socialists think the government should provide social services.
Rich people not donating money for social services seems completely philosophically compatible with being socialists.
The vast, vast majority of my rich friends believe we should raise taxes on all rich people, not donate to non-profits who then have to spend the money on marketing.
You know what's inconsistent? Claiming to care about an issue, but opposing any means of addressing it. If you're going to preclude the government addressing poverty, you can't also go around undermining everyone else who tries. For example, in other comments on this story I see people complaining about volunteers' lack of professionalism, and about spending money on marketing. Clue time: money for marketing is a necessity for any long-term enterprise. If the government got out of charity altogether, each charity would have to try even harder to draw attention to their cause among all the others. The marketing industry would love it, but from the standpoint of helping the poor it's a form of inefficiency. Those who rail against government inefficiency should admit and consider the inefficiency in their own chosen model, lest they seem dishonest.
Could also possibly be German slang, a shortening of "gibt" (a form of the word "geben", meaning "to give").
In America today, that is not true for millions of working class people. Then add corporations who prefer four part time workers to two full time workers, and it's clear that America penalizes those on the bottom half of the bell curve harshly.
Is that a society you are proud of? Where children starve? Where treatable diseases like TB are a public health risk (even to you)?
See: 'illegal immigrant'. The phrase could, and in a literal reading does, mean anyone entering the US illegally. When politicians talking about deporting 'illegal immigrants', it's understood that they mean illegal Mexican immigrants.
In the same way, 'gibs' could, in theory, mean any government handout. However, if you examine its specific usage you'll see a clear pattern.