Hacker News Reader

Comment by malvosenior | Hacker News Reader

So what? Why is the New York Times even writing about this? They are free to do what they want with their money. They were early employees at companies that built products people liked and they were appropriately rewarded. This whole article reads like bait to get people jealous and upset at "those damn techies!". Sure enough if you look at the comments it seems to have worked.

How transparent does the NYT have to be in their desire to destroy the competition (the internet) before people stop reading it?

View on HN

That's pretty harsh. The reason the NYT writes about anything is because its editors thinks it will attract readers. Usually people read things because the topic is interesting.

I found the topic interesting. Particularly the net worth at which the folks are leaving SF to go to Austin. One guy with a several hundred thousand; someone else with a couple million.

It would be interesting to know the mean and median of these sorts of numbers.

SF is a tough place to live financially these days, and learning about the alternatives is interesting.

The NYT writes not only to attract readers, but also to defend its business model and push the politics of its employees. Attacking Silicon Valley startups accomplishes both of those goals.

I didn't find the article interesting at all. In addition to being naked propaganda the content itself was insight free as it's just a couple of anecdotes about moderately successful people moving to a new city.

>The NYT writes not only to attract readers, but also to defend its business model and push the politics of its employees. Attacking Silicon Valley startups accomplishes both of those goals.

I definitely missed the 'attacking' portion of the article.

That's because there is none. This person you're responding to is taking a story about someone doing a pretty prudent move as an attack on him or herself.

> push the politics of its employees

Defense of the status quo is ideology too.

To see the information portrayed in the article as normal and good is a political position, just like seeing it as bad is a political position.

But even if pro-business pragmatism weren't an ideological alignment, politics isn't some dirty thing that innately sullies everything and should be avoided.

By your logic, it's literally impossible to be non-political. Do you believe that to be the case?

> politics isn't some dirty thing that innately sullies everything and should be avoided.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

My reply should be longer and more helpful, but I'm unable to write clearly right now, so I'll be short but regrettably not nuanced: if it involves other people and shared resources, I don't think you can make it non-political.

If you see politics — not being a politician or partisanship, which have different implications — as inherently bad, you are not seeing politics for what it is; you are seeing politics as some evil process, run by a cabal or by a mob, and your position as inherently logical and reasoned.

This is a bad idea even if you have a good reason to believe you're right. Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns" are part of why this is a problem.

Let me add a weird metaphor: you are saying smell is something that only comes from perfume, rotten organic matter and certain chemical products. You may not perceive the toned-down smell of things you are surrounded by, like wood, plastics or the air in your office.

This is a good response and I see your point. I don't fully agree though. If someone is making decisions based on their finances, I think it's unhelpful to frame it as "politics" just because there may be some tax implications (the shared resources in your example). If people are moving to a lower tax state to save money, that's not a political decision in my opinion. It's a totally logical financial decision an individual is making.

Now, why I say that this article is political (and unjust imo) is because that very personal and logical decision is being placed by someone else into the realm of politics.

If you have a couple million and want a home in SF you're not going to be able to retire. I'd personally stay in my rent controlled apartment and not buy a home until I was ready. Something else to worry about and take care of.

I see this as the opposite: nyt colluding with silicon valley VCs to show that killing yourself at any and all silicon valley start up is guaranteed to make you a billionaire.

just like when wired published that fake profile for Steve Jobs with the fake cover image that he lived in a SF condo without furniture because he lived for work, and so should you!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com