Hacker News Reader

Comment by saiya-jin | Hacker News Reader

this is a complex topic. adequate housing is a relative term, and it's unreasonable to expect that everybody's wish to live as they want will ever be fulfilled, nor should be. that wallmart employee working in central new york should have a right to big condo near central park because... why? he has 3 kids?

if somebody is a wallmart worker, I dare to say they are not trying hard enough. almost everybody can do better, definitely in western society. if they don't, it's more a matter of personal choices (what to study and do with your free time, willingness to relocate for better work, etc.) rather than anything else. it doesn't cover 100% of the cases, but most of them (also from personal experience).

View on HN

A crucial distinction: almost anybody can do better, not almost everybody.

The "go to school at night, hustle more, get a better job!" rallying cry basically just pits the poor against each other. That can work for an individual, but in an economy structured on X% low-wage work it can't work for everyone. All it does is raise the minimum standard to get the same mediocre work (see: high school and college degrees).

Yeah, any one unemployed person could probably find a job, but that doesn't mean 25% unemployment in Spain is a laziness issue. Similarly, an economy with 10% of workers earning poverty wages can't be changed by telling those people to all get better jobs.

The problem with this line of thinking is that of course at the individual level anybody can do better*, but at the group level it means nothing. Somebody has to work at Walmart, and one person finding a better job doesn't eliminate the need for the worse jobs to be filled. We can't all be entrepreneurs and doctors. It doesn't make a lot of sense to depend on minimum-wage workers to keep society running and at the same time throw them under the bus for doing so.

Right, because either that Walmart employee is living in a crate by the docks OR a condo next to central park, there are NO OTHER OPTIONS like maybe a modestly sized apartment in an affordable complex designed for people with children and responsibilities.

I'm a capitalist sir, but I believe if you put in your effort you ought to get at least a living out of it. A lot of Walmart employees do not, and as far as I know we're going to need Walmart employees in the future so we need to do better than "try harder" for them.

well if you are a capitalist, sir, you believe in market forces, no? if somebody's conditions are bad in one location due to unreasonable rent, but better in other why shouldn't they move to this better location but rather expect that market bends itself to support them? I do believe that all people should earn enough to afford adequately good place for their life, but this cannot be simply any location anywhere, because whatever. that's not how free market works.

btw this market bending is happening all the time, it's called social programs, progressive taxes etc.

If people don't have money for FOOD and RENT, how on God's green Earth do you think they have money to move to a new city?

And even if you could, anyone who's rented before knows you typically need one month's rent as a security deposit, sometimes more if you have children. Then you need to find a way to get all your stuff to said new city, and of course feed yourself while you're looking for that miracle job.

This may come as a shock to you but not having liquid assets excruciatingly limiting, including when it comes to finding better work or a cheaper place to live.

There's a bizarre assumption here.

It's that the very poor can afford to move. That generally costs a few thousand dollars if you're going any significant distance (UHaul, rental down payment, travel time spent unemployed, etc). If they're hiring in Raleigh, do you really think the people in Detroit can put together the capital to go there? We don't subsidize moving (we should), only ongoing poverty in one location.

Similarly: night classes, seeking better jobs without a car, working longer hours. These things all have overhead costs (like tuition, travel, or daycare prices), and the assumption that they're accessible to people with no assets is deeply weird.

47% of Americans cannot come up with $400 for an emergency room visit, much less moving to a different city.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/47-percent-americans-...

"They're weak, so they deserve to be victims!"

That's the same victim-blaming logic that ancient empires used to justify enslaving their weaker neighbors. Unless you're extremely rich/powerful, I'd avoid using such logic if I were you, as Fate may put you in a similar weak economic position someday.

no. what this means is try harder if you want improvement over current state. be prepared for a change.

please stop putting words in my mouth I didn't say nor implied and let's keep this discussion civil

I don't really see a way to try harder than working at the culture at Wal-Mart as a minimum wage employee. Especially in new york city? That person is probably trying hard very hard to avoid homelessness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com